Jump to content


[WN7] What is it and how does it work?

statistics stats noobmeter performance efficiency metric compare quality rating Garbad

  • Please log in to reply
2483 replies to this topic

Neverwish #1081 Posted Jan 21 2013 - 16:56

    Captain

  • Players
  • 8166 battles
  • 1,963
  • [LABS] LABS
  • Member since:
    06-10-2012
Alright, it has been implemented!

Kuroialty #1082 Posted Jan 21 2013 - 18:02

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 16867 battles
  • 560
  • Member since:
    02-20-2011

View PostNeatoMan, on Jan 21 2013 - 16:49, said:

Using WN4 data, I fabricated a 2000 pt WN4 player, and then checked how his efficiency would drop with average tier and games played.
http://home.comcast....es/WN4fixXP.jpg

So what you're showing here is that the more games I play at the lower tier, regardless of performance, my WN5 will continue to decrease towards some lower bound?

NeatoMan #1083 Posted Jan 21 2013 - 18:51

    Major

  • Players
  • 24304 battles
  • 15,403
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View PostKuroialty, on Jan 21 2013 - 18:02, said:

So what you're showing here is that the more games I play at the lower tier, regardless of performance, my WN5 will continue to decrease towards some lower bound?
That is mostly correct.  It represents the increased amount of seal clubbing going on as your tanks/crews/etc further and further outstrip the typical low tier opponent.  You are going to have to club an ever increasing number of opponents in order to make up for what you lose with the drop in the WR portion of WN4.  

In that graph I assumed your kills/game and damage would remain constant, so if you continuously improve your kpg, etc when clubbing seals the overall drop will be less drastic than shown (but there will always be some drop).

Edited by NeatoMan, Jan 21 2013 - 19:29.


Praetor77 #1084 Posted Jan 21 2013 - 19:28

    Captain

  • Players
  • 29723 battles
  • 1,675
  • Member since:
    05-01-2011
I have had a revelation! Well maybe not, but a good idea nonetheless, lol.

I simplified the WN5 formula a bit, and simply limited the effect of kills on tier by using a tier cap (6) so everyone with avg tier 6+ gets same score for kills without having massively complex formulas. I also used Neatomans and Guerdons ideas and simply came up with a linear penalty for low avg tier players (which drops to 0 at avg tier played 6) which I think completes a very well rounded WN6 formula.

Sorry to come up with WN6 so shortly after WN5, but I have had little time to work on this lately. Been wondering whether to call the new formula WN5 or WN6, but since Neverwish added WN5 to sigs, I decided on WN6.

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

WN4, 5 and 6 comparison (note I added the biggest and baddest seal clubber I have ever seen CTO_TOHH_KPACHbIX_TbIKB, check his efficiency and WN4 scores, they are off the charts. Also check how noobmeter gives him practically the same PR as lironman which is IMHO pretty weird as CTO has EXTREMELY better performance, and he also gets less PR than Autismspeaks or rukasu...):

Posted Image

Would like to highlight that MIN() means the number capped at that value, so MIN(TIER, 6) means avg tier capped at 6.

Edited by Praetor77, Jan 21 2013 - 19:50.


Faltalis #1085 Posted Jan 21 2013 - 21:56

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 22353 battles
  • 635
  • [REL-V] REL-V
  • Member since:
    08-07-2011
Just out of curiosity why did you pick tier 6? Tier 5 scouts (VK2801, T-50-2, Chaffee) are technically tier 6 tanks so people that play these a lot get penalized.

Boom_Box #1086 Posted Jan 21 2013 - 22:21

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 11751 battles
  • 905
  • [REL-V] REL-V
  • Member since:
    11-17-2010
Added WN6 to the script, please check against your formula and a few population samples. Something seems a bit off.

As for Google Chrome, no idea why it would be a problem though I haven't been attempting to achieve cross-browser compatibility in any way.

Praetor77 #1087 Posted Jan 21 2013 - 23:35

    Captain

  • Players
  • 29723 battles
  • 1,675
  • Member since:
    05-01-2011
Most seal clubbers have less than 5 avg tier... many have around 4.5. Anyways, tier 5 is barely affected, tier 4 and lower are the ones who are seriously affected.

Boombox WN6 is only in developer part of script, but looks perfect calculation to me. Still not working in Chrome as previous versions did, works perfectly in Firefox though.

Edited by Praetor77, Jan 21 2013 - 23:46.


NavySnipers #1088 Posted Jan 21 2013 - 23:42

    Major

  • Players
  • 20399 battles
  • 11,910
  • Member since:
    10-18-2011
There was a difference of 200 between my eff and WN4 ratings.

There's a difference of 40 between my eff and WN5 rating.


Which was more accurate?

Boom_Box #1089 Posted Jan 21 2013 - 23:54

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 11751 battles
  • 905
  • [REL-V] REL-V
  • Member since:
    11-17-2010

View PostPraetor77, on Jan 21 2013 - 23:35, said:

Boombox WN6 is only in developer part of script, but looks perfect calculation to me. Still not working in Chrome as previous versions did, works perfectly in Firefox though.

Yes, will move WN6 to perf column when consensus is approached here. I asked about the calculation because I was getting different values than your spreadsheet posted above.

Will look at Chrome and no doubt stick a fork in my eye trying to figure out that issue.

Neverwish #1090 Posted Jan 22 2013 - 00:47

    Captain

  • Players
  • 8166 battles
  • 1,963
  • [LABS] LABS
  • Member since:
    06-10-2012

View PostBoom_Box, on Jan 21 2013 - 23:54, said:

Yes, will move WN6 to perf column when consensus is approached here. I asked about the calculation because I was getting different values than your spreadsheet posted above.

Will look at Chrome and no doubt stick a fork in my eye trying to figure out that issue.

The script works fine in Chrome in worldoftanks.eu, just on the NA website it doesn't show the stats :/

Boom_Box #1091 Posted Jan 22 2013 - 01:36

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 11751 battles
  • 905
  • [REL-V] REL-V
  • Member since:
    11-17-2010
After much empirical research I have arrived at the conclusion that Google Chrome is fooking retarded.

stagnate #1092 Posted Jan 22 2013 - 04:10

    Staff sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 32517 battles
  • 478
  • [-G-] -G-
  • Member since:
    07-17-2010
I didn't see any notes about the damage multiplier changing from 500 to 530, was that intentional?  I'm interested in how well the accuracy applies to spot (24 hour) totals as well as global, since a lot of the focus is on the global numbers.

I'm also very against the idea of using battle counts, simply because it's a very easily gamed stat and would also make it hard or impossible to see how quickly different players improve.

Neverwish #1093 Posted Jan 22 2013 - 12:06

    Captain

  • Players
  • 8166 battles
  • 1,963
  • [LABS] LABS
  • Member since:
    06-10-2012

View PostBoom_Box, on Jan 22 2013 - 01:36, said:

After much empirical research I have arrived at the conclusion that Google Chrome is fooking retarded.

Dunno if you fixed it already, but I took a look and it's the part that parses the current logged in user for the developer mode that's causing the problem.

Boom_Box #1094 Posted Jan 22 2013 - 12:34

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 11751 battles
  • 905
  • [REL-V] REL-V
  • Member since:
    11-17-2010
Yep, uploaded a new version, utf-8 encoded and all just for chrome.

Still a few issues. Chrome users won't see the medals nor will they fetch API data, since an on-site request will clear your login cookie. Chrome and Firefox have some subtle differences (ok, some not so subtle) with fonts and their properties. Tried to make things look similar for both browsers. Lastly, Noobmeter wasn't coming through for Chrome, not sure if that is because the site is so slow or I'm just missing the data. Haven't dug into that yet, will check it out.

Removed Clan history and Aliases. Wot-news no longer carries clan history and duckandcover.ru is a very unreliable site.

Praetor77 #1095 Posted Jan 22 2013 - 13:06

    Captain

  • Players
  • 29723 battles
  • 1,675
  • Member since:
    05-01-2011
Game count is not included in WN6, it was a proposal by Neatoman (awesome work though). Damage multiplier was increased to give WN6 scores more similar to WN4 (WN5 had a score drop for everyone).

I loved the clan history feature... :(

Edited by Praetor77, Jan 22 2013 - 13:06.


Boom_Box #1096 Posted Jan 22 2013 - 13:27

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 11751 battles
  • 905
  • [REL-V] REL-V
  • Member since:
    11-17-2010
The code is still there, just commented out in case I can resurrect it.

Redrocco #1097 Posted Jan 22 2013 - 22:29

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 35353 battles
  • 794
  • Member since:
    08-05-2012
you assume that having a tier 10 is everyone's goal. WN5 fails because of that as it is basically a measure of your progression towards tier 10. if you do not progress as fast as the author of this formula thinks you should, you are penalized

Edited by Redrocco, Jan 22 2013 - 22:40.


Neverwish #1098 Posted Jan 23 2013 - 00:24

    Captain

  • Players
  • 8166 battles
  • 1,963
  • [LABS] LABS
  • Member since:
    06-10-2012

View PostRedrocco, on Jan 22 2013 - 22:29, said:

you assume that having a tier 10 is everyone's goal. WN5 fails because of that as it is basically a measure of your progression towards tier 10. if you do not progress as fast as the author of this formula thinks you should, you are penalized

Average Tier does not play that role in the formula. Let's use me as an example:
As of now, my WN5 score is 1268. My average tier is 5.04, but if my average tier were to suddenly become 10, my WN5 rating would be 1019.

That's because as you go up in tiers, your other stats must follow this increase otherwise your rating will start to drop. I have the stats of someone who is above average on tier 5, but below average on tier 10.

As you see, all your stats must follow your average tier if you want a high rating.

NeatoMan #1099 Posted Jan 23 2013 - 01:02

    Major

  • Players
  • 24304 battles
  • 15,403
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View PostRedrocco, on Jan 22 2013 - 22:29, said:

you assume that having a tier 10 is everyone's goal. WN5 fails because of that as it is basically a measure of your progression towards tier 10. if you do not progress as fast as the author of this formula thinks you should, you are penalized
perhaps you are referring to my side track formula that was based of off tier progression and games played.  it is not part of the WN5 or 6.

What will get penalized is sitting in the lower tiers far too long with obviously overpowered tanks, crews, and equipment, beating up on newbs.  You have two choices if you want to improve your score; either move up the tiers, or become extremely good at beating up the newbs.

Praetor77 #1100 Posted Jan 23 2013 - 01:33

    Captain

  • Players
  • 29723 battles
  • 1,675
  • Member since:
    05-01-2011
Extremely good at beating up noobs is what CTO is. He ranks in at about 2100 WN6, while "normal" seal clubbers like lironman have fallen to scores of around 1600-1700. What do you guys think?





Also tagged with statistics, stats, noobmeter, performance, efficiency, metric, compare, quality, rating, Garbad

3 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users