Jump to content


Personal rating


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
27 replies to this topic

bomberman302 #1 Posted Sep 24 2013 - 01:28

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 11211 battles
  • 98
  • [VETS-] VETS-
  • Member since:
    05-26-2012
Just wondering if there some kinda chart for the personal rating under the service record or something to let you know if your a average player or blow average or a ace player

InPlainSight #2 Posted Sep 24 2013 - 01:30

    Major

  • Players
  • 18347 battles
  • 5,901
  • [ANZIO] ANZIO
  • Member since:
    10-17-2011
Try out WoTlabs.net or Noobmeter.com if you search your name you can see if youre good bad or average
http://www.noobmeter...302/1002449193/

CanadianGuitar #3 Posted Sep 24 2013 - 01:30

    Major

  • Players
  • 22041 battles
  • 11,265
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    01-24-2012
WG "If you have a personal rating, you are just the best player"

Edited by CanadianGuitar, Sep 24 2013 - 01:31.


AuraDesru #4 Posted Sep 24 2013 - 01:30

    Captain

  • Players
  • 11109 battles
  • 1,597
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    12-12-2011
I'm pretty  bad
1700 rating :P
That should give u a guess

bomberman302 #5 Posted Sep 24 2013 - 01:32

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 11211 battles
  • 98
  • [VETS-] VETS-
  • Member since:
    05-26-2012
I don't find that accurate the noobmeter was wondering if there something new out to go with 8.8 changes

bomberman302 #6 Posted Sep 24 2013 - 01:33

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 11211 battles
  • 98
  • [VETS-] VETS-
  • Member since:
    05-26-2012

View PostAuraDesru, on Sep 24 2013 - 01:30, said:

I'm pretty  bad
1700 rating :P
That should give u a guess

yea I have a 1800 and some change maybe theres a chart or a list of some sorts on wiki but I haven't found it.

crazyjoe1337 #7 Posted Sep 24 2013 - 01:36

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 10696 battles
  • 323
  • [REL_3] REL_3
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012
I have 5500, however, I don't consider that good or relevant, nor do I care what it is. Why? Because total games played is a factor. You only see ~80% of what your rating would be at ~10k games. You see less than half of that 80% at ~5k games, and so forth. If you wanted to see what it was when 'games played' are no longer a factor because you've reached the limit if the curve, you need to have 30k+ games played.
In short, WG's 'Person Rating' is useless and you should use WN7/8 or Efficiency rating.

bomberman302 #8 Posted Sep 24 2013 - 01:36

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 11211 battles
  • 98
  • [VETS-] VETS-
  • Member since:
    05-26-2012
like a 1 to 500 ur crap
501 to 1200 below average
1201 to 2000 average

you know something like this

CanadianGuitar #9 Posted Sep 24 2013 - 01:44

    Major

  • Players
  • 22041 battles
  • 11,265
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    01-24-2012

View Postbomberman302, on Sep 24 2013 - 01:36, said:

like a 1 to 500 ur crap
501 to 1200 below average
1201 to 2000 average

you know something like this

why would you even wanna know? The personal rating is the worst metric for skill ever

tallstar5 #10 Posted Sep 24 2013 - 01:51

    Major

  • Players
  • 9494 battles
  • 3,780
  • [KV-2] KV-2
  • Member since:
    01-14-2012
The personal rating takes into account battles played, hit rate, and survival rate (not exclusively, but they're considered in the rating for some odd reason). The presence of those three, which measure not at all your contribution to the team effort and therefore your skill in battle, are a guarantee that the personal rating isn't as reliable an indicator of player skill as the third-party rating systems out there.

Edited by tallstar5, Sep 24 2013 - 01:52.


bomberman302 #11 Posted Sep 24 2013 - 01:54

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 11211 battles
  • 98
  • [VETS-] VETS-
  • Member since:
    05-26-2012

View Postcrazyjoe1337, on Sep 24 2013 - 01:36, said:

I have 5500, however, I don't consider that good or relevant, nor do I care what it is. Why? Because total games played is a factor. You only see ~80% of what your rating would be at ~10k games. You see less than half of that 80% at ~5k games, and so forth. If you wanted to see what it was when 'games played' are no longer a factor because you've reached the limit if the curve, you need to have 30k+ games played.
In short, WG's 'Person Rating' is useless and you should use WN7/8 or Efficiency rating.

don't care not what I asked unicorn

bomberman302 #12 Posted Sep 24 2013 - 01:55

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 11211 battles
  • 98
  • [VETS-] VETS-
  • Member since:
    05-26-2012
I asked for a chart I don't care about what your theories you have.

tallstar5 #13 Posted Sep 24 2013 - 01:58

    Major

  • Players
  • 9494 battles
  • 3,780
  • [KV-2] KV-2
  • Member since:
    01-14-2012

View Postbomberman302, on Sep 24 2013 - 01:36, said:

like a 1 to 500 ur crap
501 to 1200 below average
1201 to 2000 average

you know something like this

There is no such chart of rating ranges because the rating is entirely meaningless as an indicator of player skill. WG won't make such a chart, because then they're feeding the eBullies picking on helpless children for their insecure stats, and players won't make such a chart because it's a meaningless rating.

Volacious #14 Posted Sep 24 2013 - 02:00

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 20097 battles
  • 265
  • Member since:
    04-01-2012

View Postbomberman302, on Sep 24 2013 - 01:32, said:

I don't find that accurate the noobmeter was wondering if there something new out to go with 8.8 changes
Deniers gonna deny.  Don't expect a lot of empathy.
  
Also, your stats aren't actually that bad, just accept them and try to improve.

Edited by Volacious, Sep 24 2013 - 02:03.


bomberman302 #15 Posted Sep 24 2013 - 02:02

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 11211 battles
  • 98
  • [VETS-] VETS-
  • Member since:
    05-26-2012
ok nvm them moving along

CanadianGuitar #16 Posted Sep 24 2013 - 02:06

    Major

  • Players
  • 22041 battles
  • 11,265
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    01-24-2012

View Postbomberman302, on Sep 24 2013 - 01:54, said:

don't care not what I asked unicorn

Hes not a unicorn, nor unicum.

View Postbomberman302, on Sep 24 2013 - 01:55, said:

I asked for a chart I don't care about what your theories you have.

View Posttallstar5, on Sep 24 2013 - 01:58, said:

There is no such chart of rating ranges because the rating is entirely meaningless as an indicator of player skill. WG won't make such a chart, because then they're feeding the eBullies picking on helpless children for their insecure stats, and players won't make such a chart because it's a meaningless rating.

They/we have been telling you. THERE IS NO CHART BECAUSE NO ONE THINKS ITS A USEFUL METRIC, AT ALL.

crazyjoe1337 #17 Posted Sep 24 2013 - 02:09

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 10696 battles
  • 323
  • [REL_3] REL_3
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

View Postbomberman302, on Sep 24 2013 - 01:54, said:

don't care not what I asked unicorn
Since you want to be an ass about it.

The_Jonuts #18 Posted Sep 24 2013 - 03:06

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 7471 battles
  • 473
  • [M--M] M--M
  • Member since:
    04-09-2011
There is no chart, because your personal rating can *NOT* be meaningfully compared to other peoples due to the battle count multiplier. You have a few thousand more games to go before any stat in your rating becomes more important than pressing the battle button again.

bomberman302 #19 Posted Sep 24 2013 - 03:13

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 11211 battles
  • 98
  • [VETS-] VETS-
  • Member since:
    05-26-2012

View PostJonuts, on Sep 24 2013 - 03:06, said:

There is no chart, because your personal rating can *NOT* be meaningfully compared to other peoples due to the battle count multiplier. You have a few thousand more games to go before any stat in your rating becomes more important than pressing the battle button again.

ok that's the answer I wanted

sempah #20 Posted Sep 24 2013 - 03:13

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 16770 battles
  • 847
  • [POTT] POTT
  • Member since:
    08-30-2011
think about this one.  you are the only one that has 10k or more battles, therefore the number of battles is not relevant since there isnt 10's of  thousands of players with that many battles.  that makes the personal rating useless.  wait till there's another player that has 10k battles or more then you can compare to him/her.  but that will take years.