Jump to content


Your WR, what it actually means, and why it matters. (reprise)

Setting the record straight

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
358 replies to this topic

Audie_L_Murphy #41 Posted Oct 01 2013 - 04:58

    Major

  • Players
  • 57102 battles
  • 5,657
  • Member since:
    11-27-2012

View PostTrailer_Tank_Boy, on Oct 01 2013 - 04:41, said:

Global WR is a fail metric.

I think performance should be evaluated PER tank.  Period.  End of story and good bye.

IMO, you take any unicum player & stick them in the worst tank in the game & place a lower than average player in the best tank in the same tier, the Unicum is going to post better stats.  Experience matters & players gain experience running any tank.  This experience helps no matter what tank you drive.
My win rate for the M3 Lee is 37% because I used the Lee when I didn't have a clue.  If I stepped into an M3 Lee right now, I will outperform a poor player with a 49% win rate.  Do you know why?  My Global knowledge & skills are better than the player semi-skilled in the M3 Lee.

ShadowDancer27 #42 Posted Oct 01 2013 - 05:07

    Major

  • Players
  • 43901 battles
  • 5,455
  • Member since:
    07-26-2013

View PostGrimJahk, on Sep 30 2013 - 22:51, said:

at 1,300 battles, I wouldn't worry about it much. There are players that are trying to repair after 8k battles.

As long as you are improving, then your lower stats makes you the "Ace" in the hole. While your team may not have faith in you, your opponent will underestimate you.

That means a lot.  At 800 battles I was at 43% and have crawled up to an average 48.5%.  I have 6 keeper tanks and will play those plus my two projects until I settle on 8 keepers - sticking to those tier 3-6 tanks I enjoy until they either age on me and I move on or I spring for garage spots to try something new.  When I feel like I have scrubbed a lot of the just plain stupid mistakes out of my game I will move on up but for now I get schooled often enough.

Swordthrower #43 Posted Oct 01 2013 - 05:31

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 4252 battles
  • 14
  • Member since:
    10-02-2012
I always seem to win around 50% no matter how horrible I play.  I have been making an effort to improve mind you, and I believe I am continually, but judging from my stats, I have to admit I am a tad lucky so far as well.

Justice_Time #44 Posted Oct 01 2013 - 08:08

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 10681 battles
  • 90
  • [VXR] VXR
  • Member since:
    08-14-2012

View PostGrimJahk, on Sep 30 2013 - 21:50, said:

Yes, I said it. It's all on YOU.

So, the math is simple, working from the Law of Averages… if every other player in the match is exactly average, then the only difference is YOU. Either you are better, or worse, than average and it will hinge on your performance.

You also need to account for your performance in the tank you choose to play for that match...

If you are a GLOBAL 47% player at Tier III, You load up that Shiny new Lowe you just bought... DO NOT expect to win 47% of the matches you play. In fact, the smarter thing to do is to know EXACTLY what your WR is in every tank you play. (thus your ability to perform at that level of play with the selected tank)

If you have a 33% WR in a Tier VIII Premium tank... you are doing nothing other than helping your team lose by hitting the "Battle" button.

Everyone has good and bad matches:

The trick is, to make every match count, and always be focused on your contribution to your team. Understand the mechanics, learn the tactics, try to learn something from every match.
  • Play at your skill level (rushing up the tiers is BAD.... m'kay?)
  • Do damage
  • Stay alive to do more damage
  • Help the team win, don't expect them to carry you
Do this, and your WR will climb, along with your enjoyment of the game.

The thing is, not every match will be filled with average players. I have found the matchmaker does sort-of-a "bell curve". It seems to prefer placing 1-2 good players with 1-2 bad players. (and the rest somewhere between.) That isn't consistent though. Sometimes I get teams that are outrageously unbalanced. My win or loss can be virtually guaranteed. In these cases, my contribution (or lack thereof) is negligible.

There are also situations when I contribute a great deal, but the match is lost anyway. I did extremely well in one match, no one seemed to be able to touch me. My allies, on the other hand, were massacred. They were determined to kill me and not cap. So, I fought them off and racked-up another kill or two. In the end, I was surrounded by 5 tanks, and destroyed. In this case my contribution didn't matter at all. I was the top player. (Mighta been 2nd...) In this case, I can honestly say my team failed, and it had nothing to do with me.

It's easy to view the world from the perspective of ultimate self-responsibility... if you are doing well. Good players tend to agree that one good tanker can make a difference, and you can be that guy! But it isn't that simple. A good player goes into a match, does well, and can honestly say, "I made a real difference in that match. I'd even say I won that match for my team." and honestly, they will be right! The thing is, they are already a good player. They have the capacity to play at a level which will, in fact, influence the match. You are expecting each and every player in a match to have such a capacity. You imply it simply isn't being used.

As I mentioned, I'm seeing 1-2 good players (players with stats significantly above the rest) on each side per match. These are the players with the ability to turn the tables. It is these players upon which so much rests.

All that said, let me be clear, I think all players should try their best each game, and should strive to continuously improve.

I just feel you aren't seeing the possibility that even a single one of someone's losses might not have anything to do with their performance. I'm not saying my gameplay is infallible and I'm not saying I don't make mistakes. (and I'm definitely not saying that poor performance can drag down a team.) What I am saying is that, for the average player, factors beyond their control influence the game in many ways. Winning or losing is certainly affected by their actions, but so much else is going on. There are lots of factors to consider when evaluating why you have won or lost a match... My performance is just one of them.

SumiXam #45 Posted Oct 01 2013 - 15:01

    Major

  • Players
  • 7675 battles
  • 4,839
  • Member since:
    09-28-2011

View PostTrailer_Tank_Boy, on Oct 01 2013 - 04:41, said:

Global WR is a fail metric.

I think performance should be evaluated PER tank.  Period.  End of story and good bye.

I certainly hope you read fffred's response to your post because it is spot on. To add to it, there is a place for global win rate and per vehicle win rate. Each tell similar, but slightly different stories. If you look at my global win rate as an example you will see that it deviates above the mean global win rate. On average, I win more than the average tanker. If you peal back the layers a bit you'll see that I suck at arty, my game play is reasonably strong but focused on medium and heavy play (because that's what I enjoy). Other classes are alright but don't have nearly the battle experience in them. The other big thing is that my high tier play needs improvement.

Global win rate, like any other metric, is an indicator. It's a pretty good one too once a player has 2k - 3k battles under their belt. The devil is always in the details though, so there's always more story the deeper you dive. That is where personal knowledge of your own stats can really help you to improve your game.

View PostJustice_Time, on Oct 01 2013 - 08:08, said:


[snip]

I just feel you aren't seeing the possibility that even a single one of someone's losses might not have anything to do with their performance. I'm not saying my gameplay is infallible and I'm not saying I don't make mistakes. (and I'm definitely not saying that poor performance can drag down a team.) What I am saying is that, for the average player, factors beyond their control influence the game in many ways. Winning or losing is certainly affected by their actions, but so much else is going on. There are lots of factors to consider when evaluating why you have won or lost a match... My performance is just one of them.

You raise some good points. It is true that some battles will not be won regardless of what a player does. That's why there aren't players with 100% win rate. Conversely there are battles that will be won regardless of a player's contribution (or lack thereof). That why there aren't players with 0% win rate.

The key is that the better a player becomes at the game, the fewer battles become unwinnable because the player has learned how to influence battles. This is manifest in a player's win rate over time. The further a player deviates from the mean win rate indicates the higher possibility that player has to influence a battle and the less impact the other variables have in the outcome.

GrimJahk #46 Posted Oct 01 2013 - 15:12

    Captain

  • Players
  • 13124 battles
  • 1,081
  • Member since:
    01-14-2013

View PostJustice_Time, on Oct 01 2013 - 08:08, said:

The thing is, not every match will be filled with average players. I have found the matchmaker does sort-of-a "bell curve". It seems to prefer placing 1-2 good players with 1-2 bad players. (and the rest somewhere between.) That isn't consistent though. Sometimes I get teams that are outrageously unbalanced. My win or loss can be virtually guaranteed. In these cases, my contribution (or lack thereof) is negligible.

MM places tanks, not players. The driver of the tank is transparent to MM, and the largest "Luck" factor in the game.

Quote

There are also situations when I contribute a great deal, but the match is lost anyway. I did extremely well in one match, no one seemed to be able to touch me. My allies, on the other hand, were massacred. They were determined to kill me and not cap. So, I fought them off and racked-up another kill or two. In the end, I was surrounded by 5 tanks, and destroyed. In this case my contribution didn't matter at all. I was the top player. (Mighta been 2nd...) In this case, I can honestly say my team failed, and it had nothing to do with me.


I have had loses where, not only was I the highest damage/EXP on the losing side, but I also had more Damage/EXP that ANY player on the winning team.

While statistically it counts as a loss, I still feel pride that I was able to out perform 29 players that match.

Again we're back to statistics. A single game is just noise in the volume of 6k games, It's the base skills that I have developed that have taught me how to affect the outcome of a match. So having ANY game where I was the most significant force is a NET win in my book.

Burning_Desire #47 Posted Oct 01 2013 - 15:17

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 19836 battles
  • 833
  • Member since:
    08-06-2012

View PostNukelavee45, on Sep 30 2013 - 22:06, said:

Such a meaningless statement, in a post filled with nothing of value.  Seriously, every tank is different in its play, so every tank has a learning curve.  The only way to excell on a given tank is to drive it over and over, and that means losing a lot, too.  But, practice makes perfect, right?

So, for some people, when they have 33% on one tank, they had 31% the day before, and tommorow it will be 35%.  So, they are doing nothing by hitting that button except improving, and striving for the point where they, too, can be arrogant twerps.

What about the games lost due to being stock while you research the tree?

Of course, I'm sticking mostly to my Stug and M4 lately, just because I enjoy them more, but while that helps my numbers, it isn't teaching me more about my Tiger II.


This is the typical response from a terrible player. 43.9% w/r and 611 eff....

Mekata #48 Posted Oct 01 2013 - 15:33

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 12505 battles
  • 262
  • Member since:
    02-19-2013

View PostBarnsBroadside, on Sep 30 2013 - 23:18, said:

I'm starting to agree with the philosophy that the only constant is you.  Since I started playing this game I have enjoyed a 50%+ win rate and attributed it entirely to luck.  I still "win" games where I did nothing useful, and I still "lose" games where I work my butt off contributing, and of course there are team imbalances both for and against me.
So what makes me a 53% instead of a 48%?  I would say that it is becauseI win 5% of games that would otherwise be lost.  While I'm far from being any unicum or professional carrier, I do have occational games where I really kick butt.  I would estimate about 1 in 20.  For the rest of the games, I am mostly just carrying my own weight, with a few better than average and a few worse than average games in the mix.
And some potatos still.  :angry:
I agree,  also I think that the players with high win rates subscribe to the "over my dead body" philosophy.

Edited by Mekata, Oct 01 2013 - 15:41.


Jayedubicus #49 Posted Oct 01 2013 - 17:16

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 11637 battles
  • 88
  • Member since:
    08-26-2013

View PostGrimJahk, on Oct 01 2013 - 03:11, said:

Then you understand perfectly.

You have taken the burden on to yourself to improve.

You realized when you were not contributing enough to make a positive difference and went back to learn.

+1 for you.

Thanks!

ShadowDancer27 #50 Posted Oct 01 2013 - 17:56

    Major

  • Players
  • 43901 battles
  • 5,455
  • Member since:
    07-26-2013
When you get to a large number of battles it becomes clear that there is much more to this game than dealing damage.  It is perfectly natural for a TD or Heavy to keep an eye on WN7 to see how they are playing - to get puffed up about that stat compared to someone with a lot of scouts is like a linebacker comparing his tackles per game to the punter.  

I think it would be interesting if WoT put together freak MM sometime.  Pair off 15 turretless TD's against each other across a scout like range of levels T4-T8.  I can hear the roar of rage now.  "Someone go scout!"  or "I can't pen a T8 with my Hetzer I'm out".

Nukelavee45 #51 Posted Oct 01 2013 - 19:20

    Major

  • Players
  • 18933 battles
  • 2,567
  • Member since:
    05-04-2013

Quote

I am hardly an expert here. But for me winning is fun. I can still have fun in the cases when I lose, but doing well is as important to me as learning and improving.
So, I had an epiphany while reading another players post about how bad the MM abuses that player. I took a minute to look them up and see how their stats are… and frankly I was unsurprised.
There will always be unfair matches. However, the law of averages plays a HUGE factor here. If your WR is below average it means that you have to have MORE above average players on your team to offset you in that match.

Yes, I said it. It's all on YOU.

and then

Quote

To the first part; I'll only comment with my opinion.
Stats matter from the moment your goal is to improve, grow, and compete. Most players do not KNOW they fit in that category until 3-5k games. Once stats matter to you, your goal is to find out WHY they are not improving at a rate others suggest they should be.
While I'm certain you are improving, there are some VERY capable players giving you free advice to help you improve faster, and (it seems) you just want to defend your current training method. So be it.

Now, considering you later on point out that MM is based on tank, not player, this is what confuses me - if you know that, why not simply tell the guy that?  "Dude, MM just looks at tanks, not players."  Boom.  Done, and helpful, if the guy accepts he isn't being targeted for a screwing over.

But, apparently, this made it clear that people are always one side or the other of average - well, not exactly the kind of thing that's rocket surgery, or directly relates to any kind of gameplay tip to improve.  Just a "if you suck, accept it's you and not the game."  Again, valid, but pretty basic to anybody mature enough to be honest with themselves.

So, again, nothing of concrete help.  "If your WR sucks, you suck, go get better" is also valid, but it isn't actually helpful.

(Of course, maybe I'm wrong in my assumptions, and people who play this game are all the type that refuse to ever acknowledge their own failings, and think they are amazing because they are special snowflakes, and don't need to learn.  I didn't immediately figure out how to play a warlock in WoW, I didn't assume WoT would be instant either.)

The bolded part is back to you being arrogant with assumptions, again.  How do you know I don't check the forums for advice, or ask better players (or watch better players after I die to see what they do I don't?  But, you assume because I don't accept this groundbreaking "Low WR means gets better" as a huge tip...you assume I'mnot trying at all.  It's elitest.

And the problem with posts like yours is, good intentions aside, it gives the real elitests excuses to wag their e-peens.  OMG, 43%, horrible!  Yeah, it is.  Oh well.

That's why I'm sticking to my Stug and Sherman right now - to practice and improve where the consequences of my inexperience aren't as big a deal.  Really checking all my stats would point that out, because, as the OP said - details.  You can't judge anything by a single stat point...you need all the data to put that point in context.

Somebody points out a damage and kill ratio, but...does that show that I tend to settle for tracking the enemy and letting better players nuke them?  Does my damage stat indicate that I'm good at spotting for my teams? That my spotting damage is usually at least double what my gun does?  Or that I stress survival over bodycount?

Ultimately, this, like any game, requires time to get good.  Smart players of any skill level realize that, and accept it in other players.  On the other hand - blaming newbs for bad games is just like blaming MM for a bad loss, it removes responsiblity and ignores what you can do to improve the situation.

Last - don't think I don't sympathize with the better players in this game.  I see more than my share of wtf moments from newbs in PvP in WoW (like the guy tryingto 5box rogues in a WSG the other day.  Really?), and I'm good enough people ask me advice....but, I also know fixing that kind of problem requires a bit more depth than "Low WR means get gooder".

GrimJahk #52 Posted Oct 01 2013 - 20:03

    Captain

  • Players
  • 13124 battles
  • 1,081
  • Member since:
    01-14-2013

View PostNukelavee45, on Oct 01 2013 - 19:20, said:

The bolded part is back to you being arrogant with assumptions, again.
The bolded part references the fact that you have stated that you will continue to play at tier 5 because that is where you feel you will learn more.
You started by coming to this thread and complaining that it had no value at improving your game. At no point in my OP did I say it would. Nor at any point since have I given SPECIFICS as to how to improve your game.

Quote

How do you know I don't check the forums for advice
This one is easy. Because every bit of advice given by both good and average seasoned players is saying that: you learn more from matches where you stand a chance, and NOT to rush up the tiers beyond your skill level.  

Quote

, or ask better players (or watch better players after I die to see what they do I don't?  But, you assume because I don't accept this groundbreaking "Low WR means gets better" as a huge tip...you assume I'mnot trying at all.  It's elitest.
I've never once cast any derision in this thread about below average players. I simply state that you the player are the only one that is accountable for your performance.  In no way is MM to blame or the other players.
When a player has a WR of 33% in a given tank:
  • at 3 matches? so what,
  • at 20 matches? Time to rethink things, go back down and learn more
  • at 100 matches? Danger.

Quote

And the problem with posts like yours is, good intentions aside, it gives the real elitests excuses to wag their e-peens.  OMG, 43%, horrible!  Yeah, it is.  Oh well.
If that is all you have taken away from this post... why are you bothering to continue this discussion?

Quote

That's why I'm sticking to my Stug and Sherman right now - to practice and improve where the consequences of my inexperience aren't as big a deal.  Really checking all my stats would point that out, because, as the OP said - details.  You can't judge anything by a single stat point...you need all the data to put that point in context.
WR is the ultimate litmus test of whether or not you are contributing to the success or failure of your team.

Quote

Somebody points out a damage and kill ratio, but...does that show that I tend to settle for tracking the enemy and letting better players nuke them?  Does my damage stat indicate that I'm good at spotting for my teams? That my spotting damage is usually at least double what my gun does?  Or that I stress survival over bodycount?
WR is the ultimate litmus test of whether or not you are contributing to the success or failure of your team.

Quote

Ultimately, this, like any game, requires time to get good.  Smart players of any skill level realize that, and accept it in other players.  On the other hand - blaming newbs for bad games is just like blaming MM for a bad loss, it removes responsiblity and ignores what you can do to improve the situation.
WR is the ultimate litmus test of whether or not you are contributing to the success or failure of your team. (see a pattern here?)

Quote

Last - don't think I don't sympathize with the better players in this game.  I see more than my share of wtf moments from newbs in PvP in WoW (like the guy tryingto 5box rogues in a WSG the other day.  Really?), and I'm good enough people ask me advice....but, I also know fixing that kind of problem requires a bit more depth than "Low WR means get gooder".
Please stop using WoW as a comparison to WoT, it is not helping your position in any way. It's like comparing the "Operation" battery game to to actual Surgery
When I am placed on a team full of poor performance players, I know that I cannot rely on them to carry their own weight.
That is all.
For me, that is a opportunity to carry the team.

civicduty #53 Posted Oct 01 2013 - 20:06

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 5864 battles
  • 110
  • Member since:
    07-15-2013
There are two types of posts that are really tiresome:

1) Blame the MM for your performance issues.  Much like a below average car racer who always blames the car.

2) Attacking a post by trying to discredit the poster with their stats.  Yeah, stud, you're good, but address the issue.  As the saying goes, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Although there is definitely some logic at work, the MM seems to have characteristics of a random system.  That is like a coin toss- prior outcomes seem to have no influence on future outcomes.  Having a 14 game losing streak is no more implausible than a 14 game winning streak.  I've had both.  So luck is definitely an advantage.  And, the more you play the more your results will move toward the mean.  That makes the bazillion game Unicom with a 60% win rate really impressive.

ColdSteel5a #54 Posted Oct 01 2013 - 20:11

    Captain

  • Players
  • 43850 battles
  • 1,974
  • [REL-A] REL-A
  • Member since:
    06-19-2013
Nukelavee,
    I did a quick comparison of the two of us on noobmeter and we have similar numbers of games.  The one thing that sticks out is that you are playing, on average about 1 tier higher than I am.  Instead of playing the Tier 5s, you might drop back down and play with some lower tiered tanks and spend time learning the maps and the game mechanics.  Not too long ago I was a 44% win rate as I was rushing up to Tier V.  Now, I play in tiers 3-5, averaging around tier IV and I'm finding that I'm starting to be in top 3 XP in about 1/3 of my games.  My goal is to get to top 3 XP in half my games, and then in 2/3.  THEN I will move up and start playing the higher tiers.
   I've found there is a lot to learn in playing different styles of tanks.  The T40 is a great TD, great vision, can operate on its own (to an extent) because it can abuse the vision rules to spot for itself.  The Hetzer, on the other hand, needs support because its vision sucks.  I haven't gotten a STUG yet, but I do have all the American TVs unlocked, and they play quite differently from the Russians.
   I still have some maps I just don't have a clue where to go to help and lemming rush with the best of them (Fjords, Port, and Tundra).  But, I've played enough types of tanks that on most of the other maps, I can anticipate where different types of opponent vehicles are going to be.  STUG/Hetzer in sniper land, turretless TDs there, Heavies going there etc. and I can use that to make a contribution.
I believe the point of this original post is that WR is a valid statistic and that the individual player is the biggest contributor.  Sure there will be good players on each side, but over the course of 100 games, it's YOUR contribution that really matters.  You bring up a good point about how you are trying to contribut with tracking vehicles instead of killing them - how's that working for you?  Perhaps if you focused more on damaging and removing an opponent's gun from the game, you would see your win rate rise as the 'better' players would not have to spend their shots taking out an enemy in the open and be able to concentrate on the one around the corner that pops out after they shoot.
    Anyway, would like to echo the thought of the OP.  WR is only up to you.  In 1/3 of games, you're going to win.  In 1/3 you're going to lose.  It's the middle third that your ability and contribution really makes the difference.

deathaddict #55 Posted Oct 01 2013 - 22:09

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 220 battles
  • 437
  • [-TSF-] -TSF-
  • Member since:
    06-24-2012

View PostMekata, on Oct 01 2013 - 15:33, said:

I agree,  also I think that the players with high win rates subscribe to the "over my dead body" philosophy.

LOL.! Good/bawss players refuse to loose even when the odds are stacked against them because that's how the "Chosen Ones" are born right?

Molotok_Yaniye #56 Posted Oct 01 2013 - 22:33

    Captain

  • Players
  • 14045 battles
  • 1,492
  • Member since:
    11-11-2011
Great poast, Grim!  +1 to you and several others.

Frijolero #57 Posted Oct 02 2013 - 13:58

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 26465 battles
  • 997
  • Member since:
    03-27-2011

View Postdeathaddict, on Oct 01 2013 - 22:09, said:

LOL.! Good/bawss players refuse to loose even when the odds are stacked against them because that's how the "Chosen Ones" are born right?
There are many legendary medals for victories against the odds. Also now the top player of the losing team gets rewarded as if he was in the winning team, so even more reasons to keep fightin' to the end.
Many times I've won cause didn't give up and kept fightin'. Same with battles lost due to someone of the other team didn't gave up (and the stupid team got overconfident). This is what OP meant, and what makes the difference between a 'good' player and someone who 'plays for fun'.

Edited by Frijolero, Oct 02 2013 - 14:04.


OuttaGum #58 Posted Oct 02 2013 - 14:22

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 19795 battles
  • 108
  • Member since:
    08-09-2013
The last two days have been frustrating: I've had some epic, close games where we still went down in defeat. Win rate isn't a meaningless statistic, but it is a noisy one.

1SLUGGO1 #59 Posted Oct 02 2013 - 14:54

    Major

  • Players
  • 24833 battles
  • 10,197
  • Member since:
    02-23-2012

View PostShadowDancer27, on Oct 01 2013 - 05:07, said:

That means a lot.  At 800 battles I was at 43% and have crawled up to an average 48.5%.  I have 6 keeper tanks and will play those plus my two projects until I settle on 8 keepers - sticking to those tier 3-6 tanks I enjoy until they either age on me and I move on or I spring for garage spots to try something new.  When I feel like I have scrubbed a lot of the just plain stupid mistakes out of my game I will move on up but for now I get schooled often enough.

Stats are a reflection of how well you have done, not something you need to chase down and farm at low tiers.

3PzDiv #60 Posted Oct 02 2013 - 14:55

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 1742 battles
  • 191
  • Member since:
    09-18-2013

View Postdeathaddict, on Oct 01 2013 - 22:09, said:

LOL.! Good/bawss players refuse to loose even when the odds are stacked against them because that's how the "Chosen Ones" are born right?

This goes well beyond WoT, but if you are determined to "fight till the end" and not type "gg" the first time your team is at a disadvantage, you will simply fight very differently. Plus, and I may be alone with this, but having the "winning" team chase you with 3 tanks while you play hide-and-seek in a fast medium tank is one of the most fun aspects of this game for me. It doesn't matter if you actually win, just ticking them off is half the fun.





Also tagged with Setting the record straight

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users