Would like to highlight that MIN() means the number capped at that value, so MIN(TIER, 5) means avg tier capped at 5, (so player avg tier is used if it is lower than 5, otherwise 5 is used) and MIN(DEF,2.2) means defense is capped at 2.2.
WN7 SUMMARY
written by Neverwish, Crabeatoff and Praetor77
Work on WN7 is a community effort. I consider everyone who has posted in this forum to have contributed their two cents into making WN what it is today. However, I would like to highlight the contribution of the people who have dedicated the most time and effort into making WN:
Key contributors: Tpapp157, Neatoman, Syndicate, Maokai, Makaze2048, Guerdon, DracoArgentum, Crabeatoff, TheKilltech, etc. etc.
The WN rating was created using statistical analysis tools like correlation studies and evolutionary algorythms to create an accurate formula, using Win Rate as a proxy to accurately determine the weight each stat would have in the formula. The idea was to create a formula which actually tried to measure player skill in the most accurate way possible, using global account stats.
The Efficiency formula was the basis for an analysis to figure out what was wrong with it and create an improved formula with those problems fixed.
WN is short for Weighed and Normalized, and implements various ways to deal with statpadding, and in the end tried to develop a metric that could only be padded by actually being good at the game.
Key points of the WN Rating are:
Damage is scaled according to your average tier and is the most important stat in the formula. The points you get for damage are carefully tied to the avg tier played, so that players with avg tier played 6 or 9 could be accurately compared, despite having very different average damage. To do this, average damage for tiers were collected from vbaddict.net and the data was carefully fitted to a non-linear curve.
Players with a considerable number of battles who have an average tier lower than 4 are heavily penalized for sealclubbing. New players with few battles under their belts are not penalized until they achieve a big number of battles but remain with a low average tier played.
Cap points are not counted towards your rating, since despite HUGE efforts and statistical analysis mainly performed by Syndicate, there was no statistically sound way to include cap points into the formula. The data suggests that for the average player cap points which are actually useful in winning a game for your team are drowned out by the huge amount of useless cap points gathered at the end of already won games.
Winrate is used as a proxy to measure intangible stats which are not available on the player profile like spotted damage, cap used to lure the enemy out, stopping scouts from killing your arty, tracking enemies at crucial moments, keeping your teammates alive, map awareness and other crucial decisions not recorded in the stats. This term of the forumla counts for 0-10% of final WN rating.
Average Defense points is capped at 2.2 to prevent padding. Defense also proved to be highly correlated to winrate, suggesting players who have map awareness and return to base when needed to stop enemy capping win more often.
One of the most important characteristics of the WN Rating is the open development format, meaning any player can post in this thread and suggest modifications, which will be tested and, if successful, implemented. By having this open development model, it effectively eliminates biases which closed formulas such as Efficiency have.
After the rating was released, WoTLabs was the first website to implement it, keeping it up to date every time a new version is launched. Although many people dislike the fast evolution of the rating (having gone through several changes and versions in only 4 months), this means that the formula rapidly grows more accurate. It has spread to the point where the WN Rating is now the standard rating used on the XVM mod, although transformed into a 0-99 scale rating.
Common Misconceptions
Despite having been based on advanced algorithms, the WN Rating did not pass without heavy criticism, although most, if not all, of this criticism turned out to be misconceptions.
One common complaint was that, if it was made to correlate with win rate, then we could just use win rate. Unfortunately win rate can be easily padded by platooning with good players. The WN Rating separates those padded players by using their actual stats. A veteran player with a low WN Rating but a high win rate has been probably been heavily padded.
Another common criticism is that we should stop caring about statistics and just play the game, since statistics eventually lead to mockery. Unfortunately World of Tanks is a competitive game, and as in all competitive games, there must be a measuring stick in order to know if you are improving and how much you are improving, otherwise we might as well go play Farmville. Shooting tanks for the heck of it gets boring after a while. The idea behind WN is to use it as a tool to make sure you keep improving, and also as a wealth of information when used in XVM to help you make critical decisions based on the skill of your teammates and enemies.
Other players criticize the formula for not taking things like spotting damage into account. This can hardly be pinned on the WN Rating, since Wargaming has not released this information publicly. The WN Rating can only work with what it has available. To account for those invisible stats that help win games, Win Rate has been added to the formula.
Lastly, many players criticized using winrate in the formula, since the very same winrate was used as a proxy to weigh the other stats in the evolutionary formula. However, as posted above, the idea was not to reward winrate, but to use it as a proxy for intangible stats. Also, the reward for these "intangibles" are carefully tailored by Neatoman into an S-curve with diminishing returns for winrates above 60%, where correlation to stats drop significantly, suggesting winrates above this value are purely due to platooning and companies. Also supporting this data is the fact that Zakaladas (quite possibly NA server´s best player) almost always plays solo and averages 64% wins.
Limitations and problems
Formulas can only be created from stats that are made available via the official WoT website. Efficiency depends on those same stats. Everything WoT-news computes is off those same stats. More information on YOUR history is available from the cached dossier file, but unless everyone starts mass uploading those (which will never happen), then the official website stats are THE source for data. What isn't in WoT website stats?
Normalized Experience (XP) - theoretically WG could keep track of experience based on whether a user had a premium account or not, and then either remove the premium bonus OR give all standard account users the bonus (for stats purposes) to normalize XP across users.
Damage Upon Detection - Damage done to targets you are spotting yourself, by tanks who are not spotting them themselves. The latter is the bread and butter of light tanks (LTs) and of front line fighters. The other bonuses are relatively small compared to the latter. But it is the most noticeably missing in all rating calculations, and it particularly screws over LTs.
Per tank anything - the website cannot tell you damage per tank, spots per tank, etc. This information lives in your dossier and somewhere on the WG servers. If you use a dossier parsing tool (there are several web based and one local), you can obtain this information on your per tank performances. There is something called an API which gives you this kind of information, but currently the NA server API does not work correctly, like for example it says I have 15.4 spots per game on my IS-4.
Implications of these limitations
Light tanks
Due to the lack of DUD (damage upon spotting) on the WG website, light tanks are unfairly measured by WN7. They normally get lower WN7 scores than heavy, med or TDs of the same tier. That being said, WN7 is actually the metric that gives one of NA server´s best scouts (Redparadize) the highest rating... PR: 1842
Eff2.0: 1742
WN7: 1943
SPGs
SPGs also cause issues, as their tiers are not lined up with the rest of tanks! They do much more damage than their tier value would indicate for a HT, MT or TD. This is a known limitation of the formulas. Extensive programming (parsing the website stats for SPG counts and adjusting their tier) COULD fix this, but the problem will go away when the SPGs tiers are stretched to match (per the latest ASAP with SerB). For now...we deal with it. Who care about SPG players stats anyways, amirite?!?!?
Some statistical limitations
When measuring a population, its not going to be possible to put every single person on the scale and have the scale make sense. Again, returning to a notable outlier, Tazilon and his 20k+ VK2801 games. This massive number of games means his average tier played is 5.35, which is lower than is "generally expected" for someone with 28k total games. It takes longer to move through higher tier tanks, and so you end up with more weight at 6+. Because WN7 is designed to measure the population relative to each other, some assumptions have to be made about the habits of the general population. Most players don't play 20k games in any single class or tier below 8, let alone 20k in a single tier 5. If someone plays 10k games in the MS-1....outlier! Takeaway: population ratings cannot account for every outlier.
Back to the formula
A detailed explanation of each portion of the WN7 formula by Crabeatoff and Praetor77.
Includes the answer to questions like "Why is cap not included in the formula?", "How much does winrate contribute to the equation" and "How does the low tier penalty work?":
Spoiler
Frags
(1240-1040/(MIN(TIER,6))^0.164)*FRAGS
Here is your frags factor. Note that tier is accounted for, by taking the min of either tier played or 6. Praetor et al found that frags were a very important factor in predicting player skill. However "although frags is a much more sound statistic, we decided to give them equal weight to avoid kill farming" A Note on Scales:
For those not accustomed to reading these types of formulas...these random numbers 1240, 1040, 0.164 may seem arbitrary. And the fact is...they ARE arbitrary. The scale of WN6 is itself arbitrary, as are many other familiar scales, Efficiency, SAT scores, and IQ. Without going into a long discussion of scaling (which I would love to do, because I am pedant), lets just say that statisticians create these scales so that persons can be compared to each other, and that the scale is simply accepted as convention. The scale could be from 0-100, but isn't because then it would look like percentages. It could be from 0-1600 like the old SAT or 0-2400 like the new one. The scale is bounded only by the amount of damage available in a game. It can run from the negatives into over 3000 points. However, in practice it has the following values based on the population percentages: So the coefficients or random numbers simply help normalizescores into a familiar bell curve, and stick generally to the convention of ranges which the Efficiency guys chose, and has become familiar to the WoT community.
Damage
+DAMAGE*530/(184*e^(0.24*TIER)+130)
After frags, we add in damage, which is again normalized using the mathematical constant e. In laymans terms, e helps us turn the distribution of the scores into a bell curve. As with frags, tier is taken into account, and constants are added, multiplied and divided to weight and normalize damage relative to the other components of the score, and to put the population in right order. Spots
+SPOT*125
Finally! something simple. Every game (except those MM bugged out 7 player games) there are 15 opponents, at every tier. So a spot is ostensibly worth the same at tier 1 as tier 10. There is no tier factor in this portion of the formula. Defense
+MIN(DEF,2.2)*100
Defense points, capped at 2.2 per game times 100. As with spots, there are the same number of cap and defense points needed at tier 1 and tier 10, so no tier factor. A Note on Cap and Defense Points
Investigations by the WNX team, specially by Syndicate, found that they could not find a correlation between cap points and player skill.Here you can see a graph of a linear regression which relates win% and cap points, and though there is a clear trend, the actual data is VERY dispersed and in many points is very far from the predicted winrate. So the correlation between cap points and win% is very very low. This is probably due to a huge percentage of cap points being obtained in situations where they made no difference to the outcome of the game.
Also, when Syndicate performed a stepwise multiple regression, he came upon the fact that cap was simply not contributing to improve the fit of the data, frags was determined to be the best predictor of player skill, with damage very close behind (transformed to adjust to avg tier as per the WN7 formula), and then spots, and then defense.
This data suggests that damage and frags are not wholly independent variables, and that frags/game is the best predictor of player skill, however, the WNx team as a whole felt simply using kills might lead to kill farming, so kills and damage were given equal weights in the formula, in order to prevent farming, as presently, if you farm kills by holding your shots until enemies are at low health, your damage/game will suffer a drop. The least squares method coupled with evolutionary algorithms also suggested assigning such a low value to cap points that we decided to remove it from the formula. Both evolutionary algorithms and stepwise multiple regression suggested adding cap points into the formula did not improve the accuracy, or rather decreased the accuracy of the WN formula.
Also, this analysis suggests similar results as the previously performed least sum of squares coupled with evolutionary algorithms, suggesting that 75-80% of total score should be assigned to frags+damage, 10-15% to spots and 5-10% to defense points.
Cap points can vary as much as 1.5 to 4.5 per game! However defense points tend to rise with player skills. Very poor players will have below 0.5 per game, while better players will see 1.5 or more (up to and over 2). This bears out, in that suicide rushers never see the end of the game, and aware players will return to base to reset, or to destroy enemies trying to defend cap on Encounter modes.
Capping IS a winning condition however. But because it became so well known that Efficiency was most easily manipulated by capping, the data has become biased towards capping. Capping also takes less skill than eliminating the enemy team. This isn't to say that you shouldn't cap to win, if capping is your best chance. WIN ALWAYS. But making it work across the population wasn't working. Again, this can effect LTs, as often times the best thing they can do is drive real fast and cap out, but....limitations.
Conclusions on cap points are evidence based, so if you want to pick this fight, bring large volumes of data! We would be more than happy if someone comes up with a viable and statistically solid way of adding cap into the equation which actually improves the formula´s capacity to predict average player skill.
Having 48% wins leads this term to have a value of 0. This term is an S-curve, which rewards winrates above 48%, but using winrate as a proxy to reward intangible skills like map awareness, knowing when to track tanks which leads to team kills, protecting arty from scouts, etc. All these lead to team wins but dont show anywhere else. Nevertheless, this term accounts for 0-10% of total WN7 score.
To view an S-curve: http://en.wikipedia....igmoid_function
So as your win-rate goes above 48% (the population average), you get bonuses to your WN7, up to a point, at which point the contribution levels off. Similarly, players lose WN7 points for being below the population average, but again only to a point. This is a graph of WN7 score increase as winrate increases:
Low tier penalty
-[(5 - MIN(TIER,5))*125] / [1 + e^( ( TIER - (GAMESPLAYED/220)^(3/TIER) )*1.5 )]
This one is for you UMB! If your minimum tier is 5 or greater, this value is 0. For average tier lower than 5 the penalty increases up to 500 points. However, The penalty also takes into account the number of games played. If you have few games, this penalty also tends to 0. The idea behind this portion of the formula is to lower the score Pedotankers (aka sealclubbers), by the stats, show more skill relative to their peers, because their peers are worse than the general population. Again this is a limitation of trying to compare portions of the population to each other. The pedotankers do something aberrant and thus we get aberrant results. This knocks them down a few points. Your average player should be showing above tier 5 by around 2k games played though.
WN7 Scale
This is the current scale for the WN7 Rating:
WN7 Rating Key
Under 500 Very Bad
500 to 699 Bad
700 to 899 Below Average
900 to 1099 Average
1100 to 1349 Good
1350 to 1499 Very Good
1500 to 1699 Great
1700 to 1999 Unicum
2000 and Above Super Unicum
This scale is different from the one used in XVM, since their analysis of russian player database gave different results. The scale is currently on schedule to be readjusted to an analysis of the wotlabs player database being performed by Neverwish.
And this is what goes on inside the WN Rating. I hope I could clear some doubts regarding this formula! Feel free to post on this thread if you have any suggestions or questions.
EXTRAS
Boom_Box's script which modifies Player profile page and shows a lot of extra information, including WN7.
Excel sheet by Folterknecht for offline WN7 calculations
Wotlabs website for awesome signatures and other stats
Mywotstats website for signatures, player stats, and some neat features like customized server rankings for 30 or 60 day stats
Noobmeter website for noobmeter metric, WN7 stats, a neat history of your wN7, NM and WR stats, etc.
Old information for previous versions of WN:
Spoiler
Hi guys. I have always been a number cruncher, I like statistics, and I like to analyze stats. We all know efficiency is pretty flawed, but many people do not know HOW or WHY it is flawed, and I don´t think people have tried to analyze the numbers in detail and see if we can improve the efficiency calculation formula.
To make a long story short for those of you who do not want to read all the number crunching I went through, I have basically modified the efficiency formula, maintaining a simple calculation based on average frags, damage, def, spot, winrate and average tier played, and achieved a MUCH more statistically sound tool for measuring how useful a player is to his team on average. I call it wnEfficiency (or WN for shot, for weighted and normalized). It is MUCH better than efficiency, has mechanisms in place to prevent excessive rating of players who do nothing but cap, or defend, as well as excessive winrate due to tank companies and platoons.
OLD STUF FOR WN1 formula calculation:
Spoiler
Recently, a lot of dirt has been kicked up due to a new rating called PERFORMANCE RATING put forth as a new tool by NOOBMETER (http://forum.worldof...omparison-tool/). The tool is MUCH better than efficiency, but the way PR is calculated is kept secret by the author, so no feedback and improval can be done, and I personally have many doubts when a black box like that comes up. Secondly, the site which hosts the PR for each player has ads in it, another thing I dissaprove of. Lastly, I tested efficiency, PR, and wnEfficiency for correlation to winrate for ACA and ACA-T, and these are the results:
wnEfficiency correlates to winrate better then PR does, and MUCH better when measuring correlation for the top 50 players in ACA+ACA-T. PR seems to be off when comparing players around 1550-1800PR.
The current efficiency formula is:
frags*(350.0-level*20.0)+damage*(0.2 + 1.5/level)+200.0*spotted+150.0*defense+150.0*capture
The wnEfficiency formula is:
frags*(250.0-level*9.0) + damage*540/(31.7*tier^1.83) + 115.0*spotted+130.0*defense(capped at 2.2/battle)+55.0*capture(capped at 3.2/battle)+ (Winrate(capped at 60%)-48.5)*42
I wish I had access to a webserver to host a calculator, but I though I would through the formula out there and see if anyone with some means picks it up and does something useful with it (guys responsible for XVM, someone with the ability to create a forum signature DB, etc.)
Now the long story for those of you who want to see the gears behind the machine...
I started off by calculating each of these pieces of the efficiency formula to see what percentage each stat was contributing to the final efficiency, this is the outcome for ACA+ACA-T clans, I suppose it will be very similar for any other clan...
Frags:17%
Damage:31%
Spot:16%
Capture:24%
Defense:12%
Right off the bat this is weird, base capture is the second contributor to efficiency after damage? It contributes to efficiency twice as much as defense for an average player? Hmmm...
Next, to determine which stats are actually important in measuring how much a player contributes to win matches, on average, I repeated an experiment Garbad once did to measure which of these stats correlate better with winrate. If a stat correlates better with winrate it will have an R2 of nearly 1 (perfect correlation). An R2 value of 0 means no correlation, 0.5 means some correlation.
Here you will see spots and cap practically do not correlate to winrate, while damage and defense corrrelate a bit, and frags correlate the most (left side of the image). On the right side of the image you can see the correlation of the parts of the wnEfficiency formula and see how they correlate with winrate. Once corrected for tier with a regression of the form y=ax^b (linear regression did not work well), damage correlates VERY well with winrate, while a linear regression was good enough for correcting frags to average tier played...
Finally, I compared this new method to PR and normal efficiency, and wn Efficiency has the best correlation to winrate BY FAR. Specially when only analyzing small populations (I used the top 25% of the clan), efficiency and PR are very far from having a good correlation with winrate, while wnEfficiency does a much better job (see above). This very simple modification of the efficiency formula has much better results than I could have expected. Another plus I see in this system when compared to PR, is that PR seems to be less sensitive in measuring players in the 1500-1800 PR range. This was also one of the things that lead me to perform my own stat analysis in the first place. Three players I normally platoon with had similar PR scores, but IMHO quite different playing abilities. Efficiency had them at 240 difference in points. WnEfficiency has them at 450 points difference! I personally feel this formula works like a charm without going into complicated mechanisms like gathering per-tank stats.
here is the link to the excel file I did all the calculations and regressions on: http://www.mediafire...7wz2wqfq6vv2zli
OLD WN3 stuff:
Spoiler
Obviously wnEfficiency has major shortcomings, like the fact that it is not a good measure for players who lean to extremes (for example, players who have played more than 30% of their matches with SPGs, or players who have played more than 30% of their matches with light tanks). Scouts will never be properly awarded until we have scouted damage stats in our profiles. Regarding arty, the imbalance will improve a lot once arties that are now tier 8 are considered tier 10.
To sum things up, WN3 was calculated in the following manner:
Damage was correlated to tier played through a carefully optimized non-linear equation using evolutionary algorithms (DEPS).
Frags/game, damage/game(normalized by tier through non-linear equation), spot/game, defense/game, capture/game, and survival/game were all placed into a formula, in the following manner:
a*frag + (damage-b/tier+2)*b/29*tier^2)) + c*def + d*spot + e*cap +f*survival
Each of these parameters were again optimized using evolutionary algorithms with the least squares method, to opzimize correlation of this formula with winrate, in a manner that should determine which of the parameters is more important in determining wins rather than losses. "e" and "f" tended to 0 so survival and cap was removed from the formula.
Lastly, a winrate portion was introduced, to indirectly measure some abilities and skills that are not included in any of the other stats, but that lead to wins. Map awareness, knowing when where and how to track enemies, ability to stop scouts before they spot your artillery, spotting enemies without being spotted yourself... etc etc.
This part of the formula was also non-linearly fitted to data, and was adjusted to represent on average 10-15% of the final WN3 score.
WN3 formula is:
WN3 formula: 550*FRAG + DMG*315/(184*e^(.25*TIER)) + SPOT*100 + DEF(capped to 2.2 max/game)*85 + (682-0.93263^(WINRATE-141))
We are now looking into further fitting the winrate part of the equation to an S-curve for WN4, and some other possible improvements.
WN3 has a very nice tier correction, much better than efficiency, and the following table shows some problems with the old WN2 formula and efficiency with tier balance, while WN3 is nicely balanced across tiers...
Spoiler
Current skill categories for WN3:
Less than 400.00: Terribad
400-700: Bad (Better than 5% of the server)
700-900 : Below average (Better than 30% of the server)
900-1100: Above average (Better than 50% of the server)
1100-1350: Good (Better than 75% of the server)
1350-1500: Very Good (Better than 90% of the server)
1500-1800: Excellent (Better than 95% of the server)
1800-2000: Unicum (Better than 99% of the server)
2000+ : Super Unicum (Better than 99.75% of the server)
PS: I am currently testing wnEfficiency on clans with HUGE win% numbers, like G and Havok, and I am obviously seeing a reduced correlation to winrate for wnEfficiency, but still pretty good...(0.793), while efficiency correlation with winrate goes into the dumps (0.244).
PS2: After a lot of testing, improvements, feedback, (and a lot of help and contribution from tpapp and Arashikumo):
Modified WN2 formula (no more limit on winrate, instead normalized with nonlinear equation):
550*frag + (damage-417/tier+2)*417/29*tier^2)) + 85*def + 100*spot + (450-0.9182^(winrate-120))*1.5
Current spreadsheet (all credits go to tpapp): http://dl.dropbox.co...72/WoT_gen.xlsm
PS3: Current formula has better normalization across tiers than WN2 (which did weird things for tier 1,2 and 10).
WN3 formula: 550*FRAG + DMG*315/(184*e^(.25*TIER)) + SPOT*100 + DEF(capped to 2.2 max/game)*85 + (682-0.93263^(WINRATE-141))
e stands for 2.71828 (http://en.wikipedia....atical_constant))
PS4: Link to a script which will calculate efficiency and WN3 for player profiles in any browser: http://userscript...pts/show/154375
PS5: WN4 formula is just about ready for prime time. Damage and kills have been balanced, and S-curve applied to winrate so players with less than 40% winrate dont get huge negative WN4 scores as they did in WN3.
WN4 formula (winrate is in 48% format, not 0.48):
465*FRAGS+DAMAGE*460/(184*e^(0.24*TIER))+SPOT*125+DEFENSE*100(CAPPED AT 2.2)+((185/(0.17+e^((WINRATE-35)*-0.134)))-500)*0.5
WN6 formula:
(1240-1040/(MIN(TIER,6))^0.164)*FRAGS
+DAMAGE*530/(184*e^(0.24*TIER)+130)
+SPOT*125
+MIN(DEF,2.2)*100
+((185/(0.17+e^((WINRATE-35)*-0.134)))-500)*0.45
+(6-MIN(TIER,6))*-60
Small changes to make it so sealclubber penalty does not apply to new players, or to tier 5 (only goes up to tier 4 now).
One major concern. You are using W/L as your benchmark. While I agree W/L is a good indicator, isn't finding a metric that best mimics it kind of pointless? Wouldn't it be better to say, get players to keep track of their non-platooned public matches only and see how the various metrics relate to winrate in those games, then base your metric off of those ratios?
Edit: To be clear, my concern is that we already use W/L as a metric, and we use Efficiency to guesstimate how much of that win ratio is padded. Trying to make your rating correlate perfectly with win ratio seems to make it meaningless.
What a total waste of time and effort. Why do people get on here and try to make this a life and death situation. I can't do this as I don't have the stats to or I can do this as my stats are
good enough to.
Can't you just let this be a game, as it was really intended,fro the start?
What a total waste of time and effort. Why do people get on here and try to make this a life and death situation. I can't do this as I don't have the stats to or I can do this as my stats are
good enough to.
Can't you just let this be a game, as it was really intended,fro the start?
Nice effort but extremely useless.
no one's making it a life or death effort, there are simply people out there who *enjoy* crunching numbers. I am an example of one of those people.
We just like doing this kind of stuff because it is a puzzle, we like solving puzzles and we like to solve them with math and numbers and computer programs and stuff like that.
it's just an extension of the game, honestly, because crunching the numbers and doing this stuff is just as much fun as shooting tanks
If you check that website you will see the top 5-10 efficiency players for each tank always has very low damage, but around 12-20 capture/battle. Using wnEfficiency would surely improve actually comparing players ina a fair way...since capping tops at 3.2, defense at 2.2, and damage for a vehicle of a given tier is properly normalized, unlike normal Efficiency.
Lastly, let me give you a screenshot of the top 40 players of Havok and G according to efficiency. On the left hand, you have ranking in Havok+G according to efficiency, ranking according to WNEfficiency, player name, Games Played, Victories %, Battles Survived %, Destroyed, Spotted, Damage, Capture Points, Defense Points, Average tier, WN2-Efficiency score, and finally Efficiency score. Colored by red (below Havok+G average), yellow (between average and +1 standard deviation), green (between 1 and 2 standard deviations), and violet (above 2 standard deviations).
The better normalization of damage according to average tier played of WN when compared to efficiency, together with cap limit, is what drops TheYankeeClipper from 1st place of efficiency ranking to 24th place. Wiking rises in the WN ranking and stands out from the rest, since despite his "low" 1449 average damage, he has managed that, playing an average tier of 6.12.
Similarly _Endo_ drops from 4th to 37th place. This is due to his excessive capping (4.26) and the fact that his whopping 1851 average damage was achieved while playing an average tier of 8.2.
I believe WN is fairer and more statistically sound than PR and efficiency.
I am open to all kinds of criticisms, comments, questions, etc.
Where does one get winEff? I haven't seen this yet, but it looks to be impressively predictive.
The wnEfficiency formula is:
frags*(250.0-level*9.0) + damage*540/(31.7*tier^1.83) + 115.0*spotted+130.0*defense(capped at 2.2/battle)+55.0*capture(capped at 3.2/battle)+ (Winrate(capped at 60%)-48.5)*42
My only concern about this is the lack of some way to measure the value of exp/game, ie, spotting and such.
Win rate and any efficiency measurement will never correlate to a high degree. Efficiency is an individual measure, while win rate also includes the influence of platoon mates, and to a lesser extent company and CW battles. In the top clans, or with top players that platoon together, the relationship will be skewed toward higher win rates for any given efficiency.
Just look at what CarbonWard is doing with a platoon of three unicums. Their efficiency is probably not skyrocketting to the extent that their win rates are.
What a total waste of time and effort. Why do people get on here and try to make this a life and death situation. I can't do this as I don't have the stats to or I can do this as my stats are
good enough to.
Can't you just let this be a game, as it was really intended,fro the start?
Nice effort but extremely useless.
. Isn't this your third or fourth tirade on this subject in the last week?
I would be awesome to be able to upscale this, but it is out of my reach, just putting the formula out to you guys to see what you think... :D
Garbad, sadly that is the one weak link here, if we had average damage spotted/game, that would make my day! :D I calculated wnEff using Excel, and getting stats for each player from each clan from wot-news.
Oh, aslo forgot to mention, in average, how much each stat contributes to total WNEfficiency total:
15%: (frag part of equation)
45%: (damage part of equation)
10%: (Spot part of equation)
09%: (Cap part of equation)
11%: (Defense part of equation)
10%: (Winrate part of equation)
One major concern. You are using W/L as your benchmark. While I agree W/L is a good indicator, isn't finding a metric that best mimics it kind of pointless? Wouldn't it be better to say, get players to keep track of their non-platooned public matches only and see how the various metrics relate to winrate in those games, then base your metric off of those ratios?
Edit: To be clear, my concern is that we already use W/L as a metric, and we use Efficiency to guesstimate how much of that win ratio is padded. Trying to make your rating correlate perfectly with win ratio seems to make it meaningless.
You bring up a good point, I invite you to download the xls, look at the stats for players, or even better, paste your clan stats into page 2 of the xls, and look at those stats and try to compare the numbers efficiency, WNEfficiency for each player in your clan and see which is more fair and exact when compared to your in-game knowledge of those player´s true tanking abilities.
I had no way to batch-retrieve PRs, I did them by hand, each one of the 200... :(
WR is actually included in the calculation of WNEff, as it also is in PR. When checking correlation with WR, you can see weird things for PR, like having it drop off in an almost 90 degree angle for people with PRs higher than 1600... doesn´t happen with WNEff, and also WNEf is the only one stable throughout it´s entire range.
It is nice to see the stats weighted to their ability to create a win. This is could be the best formula that we have at this time.
But I have reservations.
You have plots of kills, damage, cap, defense, and spots versus WR. But there is another stat in your forumla that you didn't make a plot for: WR. Why didn't you correlate WR to WR? Because that makes no sense! If the end all be all in WR, why would we EVER look at efficiency? We could just look at WR and be done with it. Efficiency is attempting to tell us something more. Something different. WR should not be in the calc. The very fact that the BASIS of the calc is to correlate everything to WR seems wrong to me.
Have you given any thought to the platooning problem?
I do like a calculator / predictor that more closely correlates to win rates - but have a concern that anything that too closely ties itself to win rate as shown by top clan members at the upper end may not reflect an individual's actual performance; but rather his win rate as a party of good players forming a team within a team.
My concern is that corrections you make using top tier Clan aligned players will skew the results for players who do not platoon.
Have you given any thought to the platooning problem?
I do like a calculator / predictor that more closely correlates to win rates - but have a concern that anything that too closely ties itself to win rate as shown by top clan members at the upper end may not reflect an individual's actual performance; but rather his win rate as a party of good players forming a team within a team.
My concern is that corrections you make using top tier Clan aligned players will skew the results for players who do not platoon.
I made no corrections using G and Havok data, I just analyzed it to see what would happen. The formula is supposed to be best at calculating an AVERAGE player´s stats and his contributions to his team. I think the ACA + ACA-T comparison is good at showing that. I wanted to see how "fair" wnEff was at measuring top player performance, and I honestly think it does a pretty good job.
Nevertheless, there is a mechanism in place to "correct" for excessive platoon and TC play, and although crude, it works. Winrate is capped at 60% which is a personal estimate of the maximum you could reach playing solo (well, not you or me, maybe Garbad or Carbonward :D).
weesh, on Nov 29 2012 - 01:29, said:
Edit: I was ninja'd. Nothing to see here.
It is nice to see the stats weighted to their ability to create a win. This is could be the best formula that we have at this time.
But I have reservations.
You have plots of kills, damage, cap, defense, and spots versus WR. But there is another stat in your forumla that you didn't make a plot for: WR. Why didn't you correlate WR to WR? Because that makes no sense! If the end all be all in WR, why would we EVER look at efficiency? We could just look at WR and be done with it. Efficiency is attempting to tell us something more. Something different. WR should not be in the calc. The very fact that the BASIS of the calc is to correlate everything to WR seems wrong to me.
I added WR due to my clanmates input, had not incorporated it into the formula at first, but they convinced me, and here is why:
There are small things every good player does which do not appear in any of the other stats. Choose targets, make sure your arty stays safe, track an enemy on the top of the railroad crossing so your teammates can take him out before he comes over, ram and/or track the scout which is racing for your team´s arty, keep your teammate alive by shooting the tank about to kill him instead of another target, etc. etc. etc.
This is why I decided to include it, though at a relatively low percentage of the final score (around 10% in avergae as I said above). The actual calculation is 42 wnEff points for each percentage your winrate is above 48.5%.
You could download the xls, and just chance the wnEF formula to not add the WR cells, and presto! :D
Then you could compare those stats to whatever you wish. PR, wnEF+WR, efficiency, WR, etc.
You are most welcome to play around with the xls.
Have you given any thought to the platooning problem?
I do like a calculator / predictor that more closely correlates to win rates - but have a concern that anything that too closely ties itself to win rate as shown by top clan members at the upper end may not reflect an individual's actual performance; but rather his win rate as a party of good players forming a team within a team.
My concern is that corrections you make using top tier Clan aligned players will skew the results for players who do not platoon.
Some of the data gathered for the calculations belong to several players who like to play mostly alone. I'm one of those.
Nevertheless, there is a mechanism in place to "correct" for excessive platoon and TC play, and although crude, it works. Winrate is capped at 60% which is a personal estimate of the maximum you could reach playing solo (well, not you or me, maybe Garbad or Carbonward :D).
I would agree with this, but given I have soloed my KV-5 to 65%/68% depending on how you count it, the cap is clearly above 60%. Perhaps 65% would be appropriate.
It also still "feels" a little off. Perhaps a tad more on KPG and exp/game somehow.
31
