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

Garbad #41 Posted Nov 29 2012 - 18:17

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 29232 battles
  • 14,206
  • [-G-] -G-
  • Member since:
    10-02-2010

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

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?
She was also at 52% at about 1k games solopubbing. That's not bad at all.

Praetor77 #42 Posted Nov 29 2012 - 18:37

    Captain

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

View PostEchelonIII, on Nov 29 2012 - 16:29, said:

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%)
So how do you exactly propose to incorporate it? I don´t see an easy way to do that at the moment...

View PostGarbad, on Nov 29 2012 - 18:17, said:

She was also at 52% at about 1k games solopubbing. That's not bad at all.

Still, there are players in Guerrillas with around 1000 efficiency and 62% winrate... you can check it yourself in the G+Havok spreadsheet. So... careful with using just WR. I was pretty careful about calculating how much or how little it should weigh into WNEfficiency, but you guys could play around with that and see if you can get better results...

I will definitely try to include XP, take out WR, or use both at the same time and see what happens (WN-WR, WN-WR+XP, WN+XP). DOn´t have much time to do so today or tommorrow, maybe Saturday.

KilgorSoS #43 Posted Nov 29 2012 - 18:47

    Major

  • Players
  • 26602 battles
  • 11,792
  • Member since:
    07-23-2011
OP, I like this a lot...can you get an online calc up?

Or just calculate mine!!!

And, what would the scale be?

AnUnderdog #44 Posted Nov 29 2012 - 18:52

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 31493 battles
  • 257
  • [LEAP] LEAP
  • Member since:
    10-24-2011
I appreciate all these posts, calculators, and statistics tools attempting to measure efficiency or how "good" players are. I find it interesting. But none will be truly accurate until somebody figures out how to filter out all the battles played in Clan Wars, tank companies, and platoons because those situations give the player an edge.

Brock7142 #45 Posted Nov 29 2012 - 18:53

    Major

  • Players
  • 6402 battles
  • 5,964
  • Member since:
    03-05-2011
Another math formula that can be tweaked to make them stats soar!

I find it humorous.

Brock7142 #46 Posted Nov 29 2012 - 18:54

    Major

  • Players
  • 6402 battles
  • 5,964
  • Member since:
    03-05-2011

View PostKilgorSoS, on Nov 29 2012 - 18:47, said:

OP, I like this a lot...can you get an online calc up?

Or just calculate mine!!!

And, what would the scale be?

The formula is posted, just take the fwe mins and do it yourself.

Brock7142 #47 Posted Nov 29 2012 - 19:09

    Major

  • Players
  • 6402 battles
  • 5,964
  • Member since:
    03-05-2011

View PostGarbad, on Nov 29 2012 - 02:09, said:

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.

frags*(300.0-level*12.0) + damage*540/(31.7*tier^1.83) + 130.0*spotted+130.0*defense(capped at 2.2/battle)+55.0*capture(capped at 3.2/battle)+ (Winrate(capped at 60%)-48.5)*42

Better? Or how about this:
frags*(250.0-level*33.0) + 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

Or this

frags*(250.0-level*20.0) + damage*540/(31.7*tier^1.83) + 115.0*spotted+170.0*defense(capped at 2.2/battle)+85.0*capture(capped at 3.2/battle)+ (Winrate(capped at 75%)-48.5)*42

Or, if you want "God Status" this:
frags*(250.0-level*500.0) + damage*540/(31.7*tier^1.83) + 500.0*spotted+500.0*defense(capped at 2.2/battle)+555.0*capture(capped at 12.2/battle)+ (Winrate(capped at 55%)-48.5)*50

Or if you want SUPER God Status, we can do this one:
frags*(250.0-level*500.0) + 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)*999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999

Edited by Brock7142, Nov 29 2012 - 19:19.


IndygoEEI #48 Posted Nov 29 2012 - 19:34

    Major

  • Players
  • 45440 battles
  • 4,626
  • [GUNS3] GUNS3
  • Member since:
    01-06-2012
On a good browse through OP's post, I think we finally
have the perfect - or closest to - formula for efficiency.

However this will not replace what I consider to be the
next step on clans aimed at team building:  Evaluating
players who have a highly trained specialty and putting
them into situations to use them for full effect.

Garbad #49 Posted Nov 29 2012 - 19:51

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 29232 battles
  • 14,206
  • [-G-] -G-
  • Member since:
    10-02-2010
Part of the reason many Gs have inferior efficiency is because G stresses never capping. For many, this attitude carries over into pubs (most Gs will chase a last kill rather than get on cap, which is the single biggest way to pad eff). For Gs who play a lot of TC, they will NEVER get cap points, meaning terrible efficiency in a large % of their games. Also, arty.

Sure, there are Gs who are padded but less than people think.

bhawk1 #50 Posted Nov 29 2012 - 19:51

    Captain

  • Players
  • 12539 battles
  • 1,040
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    06-30-2012

View PostGarbad, on Nov 29 2012 - 15:58, said:

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.

Phalynx, the EU guy who does the WOT Performance Analyzer site (http://www.vbaddict.net/wot.php) is currently trying to adjust Efficiency to take into consideration the first key factor of scouting/lighting (spotted) damage.  

He's able to do this due to the 8.0 Battle Results that are uploaded to his site from client apps residing on player's PCs - either his Active Dossier Uploader, or the WOT Statistics program (http://www.saais.co.za/) that lots of folks use.  The end-of-game Battle Results data files do contain spotted damage.

The problem with that is of course that it relies on the player to use the site and make the data available.  Until WG starts making spotted damage available from player stats culled directly from their database, Phalynx's system won't ever catch on with the general player base.

BaldEagle505 #51 Posted Nov 29 2012 - 20:18

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 26729 battles
  • 523
  • [TIP] TIP
  • Member since:
    05-14-2011
Praetor77,
If you don't mind, please check what my eff would be.
I ran the numbers per your formula. If I did this correctly my eff is 2113
I would like to confirm I'm using it correctly.
I must be doing something wrong, how could my score be higher than Garbad's?

I enjoy platooning with some of those guys in your list like Zeven on the rare times I get a chance, but I didn't think I was a more effiecent player than most of the boys in G and Havok. Most of my games are from solo pub matches.

Thanks.

Edited by sapperland, Nov 29 2012 - 20:45.


KilgorSoS #52 Posted Nov 29 2012 - 21:06

    Major

  • Players
  • 26602 battles
  • 11,792
  • Member since:
    07-23-2011

View PostBrock7142, on Nov 29 2012 - 18:53, said:

Another math formula that can be tweaked to make them stats soar!

I find it humorous.

Except yours of course...NOTHING can make them soar...

Brock7142 #53 Posted Nov 29 2012 - 21:14

    Major

  • Players
  • 6402 battles
  • 5,964
  • Member since:
    03-05-2011

View PostKilgorSoS, on Nov 29 2012 - 21:06, said:

Except yours of course...NOTHING can make them soar...

Dude, I can give myself Beyond Super God Eff if I wanted, just a matter of tweaking a formula.

It's quite ridiculous people get all excited over it...

packet_loss #54 Posted Nov 29 2012 - 21:16

    Captain

  • Players
  • 10198 battles
  • 1,562
  • Member since:
    10-22-2011
Once again, the point flies over Brock's head. lol

Edited by packet_loss, Nov 29 2012 - 21:17.


FrodoTSolo #55 Posted Nov 29 2012 - 21:17

    Captain

  • Players
  • 31103 battles
  • 1,597
  • Member since:
    06-02-2011

View PostBrock7142, on Nov 29 2012 - 21:14, said:

Dude, I can give myself Beyond Super God Eff if I wanted, just a matter of tweaking a formula.

It's quite ridiculous people get all excited over it...

Yep an inverse relationship to actual good stats will do it.

Garbad #56 Posted Nov 29 2012 - 21:17

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 29232 battles
  • 14,206
  • [-G-] -G-
  • Member since:
    10-02-2010

View PostBrock7142, on Nov 29 2012 - 21:14, said:

Dude, I can give myself Beyond Super God Eff if I wanted, just a matter of tweaking a formula.

It's quite ridiculous people get all excited over it...
I could fly to the moon if I wanted to.

KilgorSoS #57 Posted Nov 29 2012 - 21:21

    Major

  • Players
  • 26602 battles
  • 11,792
  • Member since:
    07-23-2011

View PostBrock7142, on Nov 29 2012 - 21:14, said:

Dude, I can give myself Beyond Super God Eff if I wanted, just a matter of tweaking a formula.

It's quite ridiculous people get all excited over it...

Yes, we all know you can try to create illusions, but they will never change the reality of your performance in game....

packet_loss #58 Posted Nov 29 2012 - 21:21

    Captain

  • Players
  • 10198 battles
  • 1,562
  • Member since:
    10-22-2011
I think if you want a more accurate rating, you'll have to use more than just a simple equation.  One that can allow for special treatmeant of scout tanks, arty, etc...  otherwise you are ignoring context entirely end up with a lot of arbitrary scalers.

KilgorSoS #59 Posted Nov 29 2012 - 21:22

    Major

  • Players
  • 26602 battles
  • 11,792
  • Member since:
    07-23-2011

View PostGarbad, on Nov 29 2012 - 21:17, said:

I could fly to the moon if I wanted to.
Then Brock will claim to have flown there by "Skipping" the first 10 steps...lolz

CrabEatOff #60 Posted Nov 29 2012 - 21:23

    Major

  • Players
  • 33713 battles
  • 4,756
  • [-G-] -G-
  • Member since:
    06-12-2012
And all he'd need is a picture of some moon dirt, tweaked to show Brock's name written in it!





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

8 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 8 guests, 0 anonymous users