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

Praetor77 #21 Posted Nov 29 2012 - 03:26

    Captain

  • Players
  • 29723 battles
  • 1,675
  • Member since:
    05-01-2011
Hmm... I never liked XP/game, since we have no normalized XP to separate premium from non-premium accounts. If we could have normalized XP liek the one on the battle ending screen, that would be awesome to include...

I think 60% is a better cutoff for 99% of players. Like I said Carbon and you and a few other badass players can solo more than that, but I think 60% is a good cutoff for the great majority of players.

Edited by Praetor77, Nov 29 2012 - 03:29.


PanzerXO #22 Posted Nov 29 2012 - 03:50

    Captain

  • Players
  • 13218 battles
  • 1,902
  • Member since:
    05-23-2012
Doesn't WOT also arbitrarily differentiate XP per tank within tiers and give greater XP rewards (again, inevenly distributed in tier) between Premium tanks?  I think it would be very difficult to look at an average XP per tier for a purely FTP player compared to one who ran a mix of grind tanks and gold tanks.  Extrapolate that to trying to equalize performance between players (global stats) some of whom never play a gold tank, while others are addicted to their Types and SPs (etc.).

I think parsing the data that feeds XP (damage done, kills, caps, etc.) probably is the way to go - rather than adding in another data point that is itself already an amalgamated number derived from the other data points.

- another question; is your data pulling damage dealt directly along with damage dealt on spots (i.e. the main XP generating benefit of scouts) or just damage dealt directly?

Edited by PanzerXO, Nov 29 2012 - 03:53.


Wraith27 #23 Posted Nov 29 2012 - 03:59

    Captain

  • Players
  • 15655 battles
  • 1,279
  • [RMNT] RMNT
  • Member since:
    05-09-2012

View PostHOTA_CHATON, on Nov 29 2012 - 00:55, said:

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.

Hota, ever hear of baseball?  Simple game, right?  There are whole books, websites, radio shows, TV shows etc all devoted to the stats involved in that game.  Useless?  Some would say playing baseball or pixel tanks is useless.  Some would argue that posting in the forums is useless.  But for some, it is fun.  This interests me, so I am in here posting.  If this isn't interesting to you, go be bad somewhere else.

hammer91 #24 Posted Nov 29 2012 - 05:23

    Staff sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 51002 battles
  • 300
  • [Y0L0] Y0L0
  • Member since:
    10-18-2010

View PostPraetor77, on Nov 29 2012 - 03:26, said:

Hmm... I never liked XP/game, since we have no normalized XP to separate premium from non-premium accounts. If we could have normalized XP liek the one on the battle ending screen, that would be awesome to include...

I think 60% is a better cutoff for 99% of players. Like I said Carbon and you and a few other badass players can solo more than that, but I think 60% is a good cutoff for the great majority of players.


I agree with the 60% cut off.

I do think xp/game is a good measure of performance, in my opinion MORE important than WR which I consider more a team stat.  I agree with Garbad on weighting XP/game more.

Platooning is the biggest stat padding problem in the game.  I would keep in mind that even though you put the 60% cutoff in, those that platoon still get the additional 50% xp bonus on the extra wins which gets blended in to their total XP.  But at least your cutoff mitigates some of the platooning exploit.

Your work is very interesting.  I appreciate that you are willing to lay out your methodology so that it can be judged on it's merit unlike the "secret formula" nonsense that noobmeter came up with.  Is there a way we can check our rating with it??  I play virtually all my battles solo and am curious what my numbers would be.

Your analysis of the G and Havok players was quite interesting.

I have a high Global Ranking (which Garbad points out is completely without value since it only reflects volume) and I'm curious to see how your new system compares to the developers Global Ranking sytem.

Thanks

Edited by hammer91, Nov 29 2012 - 09:15.


Garbad #25 Posted Nov 29 2012 - 05:36

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 29318 battles
  • 14,206
  • [-G-] -G-
  • Member since:
    10-02-2010

View PostPraetor77, on Nov 29 2012 - 03:26, said:

Hmm... I never liked XP/game, since we have no normalized XP to separate premium from non-premium accounts. If we could have normalized XP liek the one on the battle ending screen, that would be awesome to include...

I think 60% is a better cutoff for 99% of players. Like I said Carbon and you and a few other badass players can solo more than that, but I think 60% is a good cutoff for the great majority of players.
Its a safe assumption that the vast majority of stat whores run prem all the time. I'd suggest including an exp/game metric (weighted slightly more than DPG) and see which has better correlation. I bet the exp/game improves it.

Banana_Hammock #26 Posted Nov 29 2012 - 05:51

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 13317 battles
  • 29
  • [ELVIS] ELVIS
  • Member since:
    05-17-2011
Really, at the end of the day, isn't exp per game by itself an efficiency rating?  It takes into account everything we've been trying so hard to recreate with these efficiency calculators.  Damage, kills, spots, damage from spots, cap/defense points, etc.  It even takes into account win rate (because of the win bonus), and things impossible to track with efficiency like the bonus from damaging a higher tier target.  The only downfall is the inability to differentiate premium from non-premium (or like many players, myself included, a mix of the two), as well as being unable to ask the developers of this efficiency calculator the exact formula.

Maybe a little mysterious, but really it's already given to us.

StumpBeefbroth #27 Posted Nov 29 2012 - 06:05

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 27076 battles
  • 1,255
  • Member since:
    10-29-2010

View PostBanana_Hammock, on Nov 29 2012 - 05:51, said:

Really, at the end of the day, isn't exp per game by itself an efficiency rating?  It takes into account everything we've been trying so hard to recreate with these efficiency calculators.  Damage, kills, spots, damage from spots, cap/defense points, etc.  It even takes into account win rate (because of the win bonus), and things impossible to track with efficiency like the bonus from damaging a higher tier target.  The only downfall is the inability to differentiate premium from non-premium (or like many players, myself included, a mix of the two), as well as being unable to ask the developers of this efficiency calculator the exact formula.

Maybe a little mysterious, but really it's already given to us.

I agree but that gives more reward to guys that play exclusively or mostly high tiers.

TxSteppeWolf #28 Posted Nov 29 2012 - 06:57

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 11067 battles
  • 462
  • Member since:
    10-06-2011
I did this analyze way back in spring, here is my feedback to you


1- Please do us a favor, next time you put x-y; x shows independent variable and y shows dependent variable as a custom; you run your model based on winrates as independent factor; is that really what you did ?

2- You want to measure each variable's contribution, you will see quickly many of that very highly coorelated. Damage vs Frags etc. If you want to measure individual contributions, you need reduce the coorelation between, transform them, redefine them combine them in a meaningful way

3- You need to normalize the damage, a tier 2 and tier X damage isnt same; simplest is damage done over damage taken

4- Garbad's data is limited to certain tanks, you cannot generalize to all tanks. You need to add a dummy variable or a fraction variable that show how much each player plays spg etc, otherwise it is apples oranges

5- You collect clan data, these are skewed towards better players, it is not random. They tend to platoon a lot, so their win rate would be higher than what it should really be.

6- In your analysis you use Rsquare, better also use t-stats. You propose a regression model, a causation not correlation. R is for coorelation

But keep up the work,

9mmCapsule #29 Posted Nov 29 2012 - 06:58

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 8393 battles
  • 886
  • Member since:
    01-14-2012
Good work and I think it's definitely useful to reference a player's skill. Although there's a small problem.
Here is my critique: you managed to create a rating system that is not win rate but best aligns with win rate.
WHY NOT just use win rate?
The reason we have different rating system is because each one has their flaws, in that sense, it's better to keep each rating system very different from each other so their flaws won't overlap.
Don't dream of creating only one system and hope it will be perfect representing player skill.
{win rate + efficiency + game played} is still the best way in my book. Coincidentally they are also used in XVM

DracoArgentum #30 Posted Nov 29 2012 - 11:21

    Major

  • Players
  • 14536 battles
  • 3,032
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    09-25-2011
Why not just use win rate?

Because it is worthless for less than a couple hundred battles. I'm not running the numbers again but IIRC at 100 battles the 85% confidence interval for win rate is +-7% Thats the difference between a horribad and a great player. Since we often want to compare two players tank to tank we need a stat that correlates to win rate but needs no more than 100 games to become genuinly predictive.

I like what you've done OP. What wold be nice is to see 100 game samples and how they correlate to someone's overall score. If the deviation is low enough we might finally have something that works tank to tank. I suspect you'll need to use tank specific damage per game vales though.

NeatoMan #31 Posted Nov 29 2012 - 13:40

    Major

  • Players
  • 23956 battles
  • 14,807
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View PostGarbad, on Nov 29 2012 - 05:36, said:

I'd suggest including an exp/game metric (weighted slightly more than DPG) and see which has better correlation. I bet the exp/game improves it.
You get a 50% more xp/game with every win.  Of course, it will correlate better.  You don't need any fancy math to figure that one out.

Praetor77 #32 Posted Nov 29 2012 - 13:58

    Captain

  • Players
  • 29723 battles
  • 1,675
  • Member since:
    05-01-2011

View PostPanzerXO, on Nov 29 2012 - 03:50, said:

Doesn't WOT also arbitrarily differentiate XP per tank within tiers and give greater XP rewards (again, inevenly distributed in tier) between Premium tanks?  I think it would be very difficult to look at an average XP per tier for a purely FTP player compared to one who ran a mix of grind tanks and gold tanks.  Extrapolate that to trying to equalize performance between players (global stats) some of whom never play a gold tank, while others are addicted to their Types and SPs (etc.).

I think parsing the data that feeds XP (damage done, kills, caps, etc.) probably is the way to go - rather than adding in another data point that is itself already an amalgamated number derived from the other data points.

- another question; is your data pulling damage dealt directly along with damage dealt on spots (i.e. the main XP generating benefit of scouts) or just damage dealt directly?

Damage is just damage. :D Nowhere to get spotting damage... sadly.


View Posthammer91, on Nov 29 2012 - 05:23, said:

I agree with the 60% cut off.

I do think xp/game is a good measure of performance, in my opinion MORE important than WR which I consider more a team stat.  I agree with Garbad on weighting XP/game more.

Platooning is the biggest stat padding problem in the game.  I would keep in mind that even though you put the 60% cutoff in, those that platoon still get the additional 50% xp bonus on the extra wins which gets blended in to their total XP.  But at least your cutoff mitigates some of the platooning exploit.

Your work is very interesting.  I appreciate that you are willing to lay out your methodology so that it can be judged on it's merit unlike the "secret formula" nonsense that noobmeter came up with.  Is there a way we can check our rating with it??  I play virtually all my battles solo and am curious what my numbers would be.

Your analysis of the G and Havok players was quite interesting.

I have a high Global Ranking (which Garbad points out is completely without value since it only reflects volume) and I'm curious to see how your new system compares to the developers Global Ranking sytem.

Thanks

Hammer, you can simply load your data using the efficiency calculator and use a calculator or excel to put the numbers into the equation I gave above... another way, like I said would be to download the xls, paste your clans data into page 2, and all the data for page 1 will be auto-calculated, including WNEfficiency.


View PostGarbad, on Nov 29 2012 - 05:36, said:

Its a safe assumption that the vast majority of stat whores run prem all the time. I'd suggest including an exp/game metric (weighted slightly more than DPG) and see which has better correlation. I bet the exp/game improves it.

Will try it and see what happens. Don´t liek XP since low tiers get very little, plus the prem account problems, plus the nasty bonus XP some tanks (like 13 90) get. Will try it to see what happens though.


View PostBanana_Hammock, on Nov 29 2012 - 05:51, said:

Really, at the end of the day, isn't exp per game by itself an efficiency rating?  It takes into account everything we've been trying so hard to recreate with these efficiency calculators.  Damage, kills, spots, damage from spots, cap/defense points, etc.  It even takes into account win rate (because of the win bonus), and things impossible to track with efficiency like the bonus from damaging a higher tier target.  The only downfall is the inability to differentiate premium from non-premium (or like many players, myself included, a mix of the two), as well as being unable to ask the developers of this efficiency calculator the exact formula.

Maybe a little mysterious, but really it's already given to us.

Yes, but like I said it has a million problems, becuase the XP on the profile page is AVERAGE TOTAL XP. This is modified like I said above by prem accounts, tier played, and each tank has a different multiplier which is also unfair. If we had NORMALIZED, PRE-TANK BONUS, PRE-PREM ACCOUNT BONUS, XP, then I wouldn´t be doing this. :D


View PostTxSteppeWolf, on Nov 29 2012 - 06:57, said:

I did this analyze way back in spring, here is my feedback to you


1- Please do us a favor, next time you put x-y; x shows independent variable and y shows dependent variable as a custom; you run your model based on winrates as independent factor; is that really what you did ?

2- You want to measure each variable's contribution, you will see quickly many of that very highly coorelated. Damage vs Frags etc. If you want to measure individual contributions, you need reduce the coorelation between, transform them, redefine them combine them in a meaningful way

3- You need to normalize the damage, a tier 2 and tier X damage isnt same; simplest is damage done over damage taken

4- Garbad's data is limited to certain tanks, you cannot generalize to all tanks. You need to add a dummy variable or a fraction variable that show how much each player plays spg etc, otherwise it is apples oranges

5- You collect clan data, these are skewed towards better players, it is not random. They tend to platoon a lot, so their win rate would be higher than what it should really be.

6- In your analysis you use Rsquare, better also use t-stats. You propose a regression model, a causation not correlation. R is for coorelation

But keep up the work,

1-There is no truly independent variable.
2-That is what I did, notice WNEfficiency has a better correlation to winrate than any of the individual factors that compose it.
3-I´ve said it several times, both damage and frags ARE normalized for average tier played. Frags are normalized in a  linear y=ax+b fashion, while damage is normalized y=ax^b fashion.
4-I didn´t want to complicate things, and try a simple formula similar to efficiency and see how well it did. Obviously adding data like percentage of games played in each kind of tank would improve the efficiency, but I would need a profile parser, and I don´t have the time to do that. You are most welcome to do it yourself! :D
For each tank type, each stat could be weighed differently, and everything would become more precise, I agree.
5-I don´t mean to be rude, but we have some pretty sub-average players in our clan :D I think the formula measures them quite fairly.
6-You are welcome to use the data and perform whatever tests you like! Download the xls and play around with it all you like!


View PostDracoArgentum, on Nov 29 2012 - 11:21, said:

Why not just use win rate?

Because it is worthless for less than a couple hundred battles. I'm not running the numbers again but IIRC at 100 battles the 85% confidence interval for win rate is +-7% Thats the difference between a horribad and a great player. Since we often want to compare two players tank to tank we need a stat that correlates to win rate but needs no more than 100 games to become genuinly predictive.

I like what you've done OP. What wold be nice is to see 100 game samples and how they correlate to someone's overall score. If the deviation is low enough we might finally have something that works tank to tank. I suspect you'll need to use tank specific damage per game vales though.

Well that is kind of tough, could be easily done with WOT Statistics, collect stats for 100 games, calculate WNEff. Nevertheless, comparing that to overall account is a tad tricky. I for myself was a complete BAD@TANKS for my first 5000 games, so my stats have been rising steadily from then, and I am always above my average. I guess it is the same way for others.

XMdead #33 Posted Nov 29 2012 - 15:56

    Major

  • Players
  • 34622 battles
  • 3,429
  • Member since:
    07-14-2012
I hope the WOTStatistics guys add this formula to their tool.

One more number to look at would be great.

Edited by XMdead, Nov 29 2012 - 15:57.


Garbad #34 Posted Nov 29 2012 - 15:58

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 29318 battles
  • 14,206
  • [-G-] -G-
  • Member since:
    10-02-2010

View Post9mmCapsule, on Nov 29 2012 - 06:58, said:

WHY NOT just use win rate?
I just want to say you have the best sig on the forums. I envy you.

View PostPraetor77, on Nov 29 2012 - 13:58, said:

Yes, but like I said it has a million problems, becuase the XP on the profile page is AVERAGE TOTAL XP. This is modified like I said above by prem accounts, tier played, and each tank has a different multiplier which is also unfair. If we had NORMALIZED, PRE-TANK BONUS, PRE-PREM ACCOUNT BONUS, XP, then I wouldn´t be doing this. :D
I agree but I think it has to be considered, at a minimum. If its not, then two key factors are missed -- scouting/lighting damage and fighting from the front/not camping.  You will recall when I did my correlations with win rate, normalized exp/game was the best predictor. I think you have to use that, or at least try it and see.

fllaw1 #35 Posted Nov 29 2012 - 16:03

    Major

  • Players
  • 28843 battles
  • 2,021
  • [11A_D] 11A_D
  • Member since:
    01-28-2011

View PostHOTA_CHATON, on Nov 29 2012 - 00:55, said:

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.

Its just very interesting, it's a discussion. It's not gonna change the game.


It's the same with all stats, the real problem is to value the achieved points. Whatever you count did it contribute to a win! Stats in this game are secondary in this game, since a statless feature called battle awareness is the most important.

My biggest wish is that WG is separating the win ratios. CW , TC , Plt and solo.

EchelonIII #36 Posted Nov 29 2012 - 16:29

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 15977 battles
  • 4,783
  • [BULLS] BULLS
  • Member since:
    09-11-2010
The new formula needs to account for standard deviation, I'd recommend having parts like the win rate account for the dispersion from the mean

Simply put, my idea is based on the fact that the later percentage points are much, much more valuable than the ones earlier, getting from 48% to 50% is relatively easy, getting to the 53% mark is harder, getting to the 55% (top 2%) mark is even harder than that, then to the 60%ers (top 1%) and so on all the way up to the 65%ers (top 0.2%)

Flatulencia #37 Posted Nov 29 2012 - 16:41

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 18404 battles
  • 785
  • Member since:
    05-08-2011

View Posthammer91, on Nov 29 2012 - 05:23, said:

Platooning is the biggest stat padding problem in the game.

i don't think so.

If you want to win in a team based game, then you should play with your team.

Even if you are god at tanks, you don't play solo because you have another 14 players with you.

Why playing with one or two friends that knows teamwork@tanks is a bad thing?

View PostHanZulu, on Nov 29 2012 - 16:03, said:

My biggest wish is that WG is separating the win ratios. CW , TC , Plt and solo.

ELO system, something that RIOT use since day 1. Really nice tool for a competitive game.

Edited by Flatulencia, Nov 29 2012 - 16:44.


NeatoMan #38 Posted Nov 29 2012 - 16:46

    Major

  • Players
  • 23956 battles
  • 14,807
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View PostFlatulencia, on Nov 29 2012 - 16:41, said:

i don't think so.

If you want to win in a team based game, then you should play with your team.

Even if you are god at tanks, you don't play solo because you have another 14 players with you.

Why playing with one or two friends that knows teamwork@tanks is a bad thing?
It's not a bad thing, but it doesn't necessarily equate with individual skill, which is what all these efficiency calculators are trying to do.  Do you win more because of what you do, or what your platoon mates do?

garbad once posted how he managed a 70% win rate when he platooned with a friend who was a complete newb.  What do you think that newb's win rate was at the end of that team-up? 70% as well.  Do you think that newb's 70% win rate glommed off of garbad was indicative of their skill?

fllaw1 #39 Posted Nov 29 2012 - 16:59

    Major

  • Players
  • 28843 battles
  • 2,021
  • [11A_D] 11A_D
  • Member since:
    01-28-2011
I would be all for an ELO system. I rather get a lower win ratio because of that, but pubs would be less 98% facepalm.

Flatulencia #40 Posted Nov 29 2012 - 18:15

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 18404 battles
  • 785
  • Member since:
    05-08-2011

View PostNeatoMan, on Nov 29 2012 - 16:46, said:

It's not a bad thing, but it doesn't necessarily equate with individual skill, which is what all these efficiency calculators are trying to do.  Do you win more because of what you do, or what your platoon mates do?

garbad once posted how he managed a 70% win rate when he platooned with a friend who was a complete newb.  What do you think that newb's win rate was at the end of that team-up? 70% as well.  Do you think that newb's 70% win rate glommed off of garbad was indicative of their skill?

This game is not for individual play.

I'm sure garbad teach how to play to his friend. Like we do with some new players, That's why they get into good/great eff in less than 2k battles. Once they face another player with 2k battles is pretty clear the one who got teacher will winn the fight.





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

22 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 22 guests, 0 anonymous users