Jump to content


What do stats really mean?


This topic has been archived.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

Enaris #1 Posted Aug 24 2011 - 01:39

    Major

  • Players
  • 16760 battles
  • 2,989
  • [M-I-T] M-I-T
  • Member since:
    03-05-2011
What do game stats mean?  You know, there are lots of answers to that question, and a few dozen threads out there going through the limits of this stat, that stat, and the like.

The thing is, people on this forum have taken to looking at stats in an incredibly unhelpful way.

More often than not, people use the game stats as a way for the rest of us to measure their e-testesterone (ET) levels.   The thing is, it's not so much in looking to see what players have "good" or "bad" stats, but how quickly people resort to stats to create the WoT-Hominem argument.

Can stats give a rough measure of player skill? Yes, a rough measure.  There's so many variables in the mix, that's all it can give.  If you want to look at "avg EXP" you have to figure out if someone is running premium or not.  If you want to look at Hit %, then you can ask "are they firing point blank in knife fights, or are they sniping at 520m?"  Win %? How often do they platoon? Do they typically run elited tanks, or only stay in a tank long enough to "graduate" to the next one?  Average Damage/Battle?  Aside from having to look at what tanks they run (avg damage on a Leo is gonna be a smooooosh lower than a SU-85 after all...), you still don't know if they are using the best gun for that tank... and so on and so forth.

So, at best, the stats can give some rough idea about someone.   The problem though, is that the wrong person is judging those stats.  Where stats are most interesting is in judging your own performance.  They are something you can look at, and see how well you are doing.  They can also give you hints about where to improve.  Do you have a low hit %?  Consider the way you shoot, see if you can improve that.  Do you survive a low % of battles? Why is that? Maybe that shows you have a habit of running into freefire zones...

Most importantly, you can use your stats to watch the trend involved in those stats.  Are your base stats (Dam/Battle, XP/Battle, Win %) improving, holding steady or even taking a step back?  If they're improving, that tells you that you're sharpening your skills.  If they're declining, maybe you need to reasess what you've been doing.

(Note, I consider the per-tank stats to be far more useful than overall stats.  They tell you how you are doing on a particular vehicle after all, and as such, you have a cleaner trend line than one that keeps getting shocks from new stock tanks with less than 100% crews).

When you look at your own stats, they become a tool for you to improve your game (not the only one, or even the most important one, but a useful one nonetheless).  When you use the stats of others to dismiss, degrade and insult them?  You're just showing that your ET level is overflowing.

Note:
I'm sure more than a few will now go and look at my stats.  I'll go ahead and save you the trouble, and give you a rough summary.  I'm an average player at best.  Better overall with Tank Destroyers than tanks, and overall, a poor Heavy Tank driver.  On my best vehicles, I'll average .95-1.1 kills/battle.  So yes, most of you reading this are better than me, I'll freely acknowledge that.

Accidental__God #2 Posted Aug 24 2011 - 01:40

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 18947 battles
  • 535
  • [AR_15] AR_15
  • Member since:
    04-14-2011
My stats drastically improve with the more I drink, so basically I only use stats as a measure of how intoxicated I am.

120mm_he #3 Posted Aug 24 2011 - 01:43

    Major

  • Players
  • 9219 battles
  • 12,054
  • [PBS] PBS
  • Member since:
    02-17-2011
Most of the stats in the game are number of games played oriented. So if you are number one on battles won or kills it just means you played a crapton more games than someone else.

You can literally be a poor player but be a leader just because you have plentiful free time to play hundreds of games a day. Now this doesn't mean that stats are totally useless but you really need to take them with a truckload of salt.

Enaris #4 Posted Aug 24 2011 - 01:46

    Major

  • Players
  • 16760 battles
  • 2,989
  • [M-I-T] M-I-T
  • Member since:
    03-05-2011

View Post120mm_he, on Aug 24 2011 - 01:43, said:

Most of the stats in the game are number of games played oriented. So if you are number one on battles won or kills it just means you played a crapton more games than someone else.

You can literally be a poor player but be a leader just because you have plentiful free time to play hundreds of games a day. Now this doesn't mean that stats are totally useless but you really need to take them with a truckload of salt.

Well, that's true for the "Leader Board" type stats, but I've noticed LOTS of people on this board whose trump argument is "your EXP/Battle is poor.  Shut up and Die"

hectorjr21 #5 Posted Aug 24 2011 - 01:48

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 13092 battles
  • 1,081
  • [SPIDY] SPIDY
  • Member since:
    12-21-2010

View Post120mm_he, on Aug 24 2011 - 01:43, said:

Most of the stats in the game are number of games played oriented. So if you are number one on battles won or kills it just means you played a crapton more games than someone else.

You can literally be a poor player but be a leader just because you have plentiful free time to play hundreds of games a day. Now this doesn't mean that stats are totally useless but you really need to take them with a truckload of salt.
Stats, not ranking/rating.

120mm_he #6 Posted Aug 24 2011 - 01:48

    Major

  • Players
  • 9219 battles
  • 12,054
  • [PBS] PBS
  • Member since:
    02-17-2011

View PostEnaris, on Aug 24 2011 - 01:46, said:

Well, that's true for the "Leader Board" type stats, but I've noticed LOTS of people on this board whose trump argument is "your EXP/Battle is poor.  Shut up and Die"


Most of those are exclusive clan wars gold round spamming players who would rather die by castration from a rusty knife that sully themselves in a random game.

soldierx1 #7 Posted Aug 24 2011 - 02:40

    Sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 13920 battles
  • 162
  • [VAST] VAST
  • Member since:
    09-13-2010
Stats are useful as a whole, less useful when only looking at one or two. Stats for each tank are much better then overall stats for determining performance in a specific tank or type of tank. However I feel stats hold some value in arguments involving tactics and such. Who's tactical judgement would you rather take? The advice from a player who has bad stats or the one with the good stats? I think the answer is fairly obvious. If a person has bad stats they must be making bad judgements.

P.S. Here are some nifty tools for stats:

http://userscripts.o...pts/show/110489

http://wot.ctocopok....oad_cache_e.php

Maiyart #8 Posted Aug 24 2011 - 03:23

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 11982 battles
  • 405
  • Member since:
    02-13-2011
My stats are terrible because I spent a lot of time in low tier tanks, working out the game, Kamikaze runs in premium tanks a few months ago which gave huge amounts of credits, etc. Now I'm playing seriously but the damage to my stats has already been done. As long as I see an improvment which has been the case over the last few weeks, then I'm happy.

Altruismo #9 Posted Aug 24 2011 - 03:38

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 2925 battles
  • 676
  • Member since:
    09-01-2010
The only "single" stat that ammounts to much is win%.
A more skilled player will win more frequently than less skilled player.
All the other stats (xp, accuracy, survival, capture points, spotted, damage dealt, etc etc etc.) are a measure of the means by which a player arrives at their win%, and they are all circumstantial.

Premium players will have more xp, high tier players will do more damage, high% crew and/or accurate guns will have better accuracy, etc etc.

And before people start foaming with the usual, "one person can't affect the outcome" stuff, just look at the Hotchkiss, that little overperforming tank's win% is a direct reflection of what impact "one person" can have on the outcome of a game. In the case of the Hotchkiss a serious armour and firepower advantage in the games it gets matched in is the major factor in it's overperformance. In some other cases with other tanks, the overperformance factor is the person driving the tank.
Take two perfectly even teams of "average players" and replace one person on one side with an excellent player and then randomly shuffle the teams every match, are the teams still "perfectly even"? What do you think the outcome will be?

That said: win% braggarts need to come to terms with the fact that win% is at best a rough indiction of a players ability at the game. You show me someone with 53% wins from 1000 games, and someone with 58% wins from 2000 games, all I can tell from that is that they both know what their doing, and you're better off fighting with them than against them.
Similarly, you how me someone with 42% wins and 3000 games - I'm not going to put a lot of stock in their opinions of game elements.

Enaris #10 Posted Aug 24 2011 - 03:43

    Major

  • Players
  • 16760 battles
  • 2,989
  • [M-I-T] M-I-T
  • Member since:
    03-05-2011

View PostAltruismo, on Aug 24 2011 - 03:38, said:

The only "single" stat that ammounts to much is win%.
A more skilled player will win more frequently than less skilled player.
All the other stats (xp, accuracy, survival, capture points, spotted, damage dealt, etc etc etc.) are a measure of the means by which a player arrives at their win%, and they are all circumstantial.

Premium players will have more xp, high tier players will do more damage, high% crew and/or accurate guns will have better accuracy, etc etc.

And before people start foaming with the usual, "one person can't affect the outcome" stuff, just look at the Hotchkiss, that little overperforming tank's win% is a direct reflection of what impact "one person" can have on the outcome of a game. In the case of the Hotchkiss a serious armour and firepower advantage in the games it gets matched in is the major factor in it's overperformance. In some other cases with other tanks, the overperformance factor is the person driving the tank.
Take two perfectly even teams of "average players" and replace one person on one side with an excellent player and then randomly shuffle the teams every match, are the teams still "perfectly even"? What do you think the outcome will be?

That said: win% braggarts need to come to terms with the fact that win% is at best a rough indiction of a players ability at the game. You show me someone with 53% wins from 1000 games, and someone with 58% wins from 2000 games, all I can tell from that is that they both know what their doing, and you're better off fighting with them than against them.
Similarly, you how me someone with 42% wins and 3000 games - I'm not going to put a lot of stock in their opinions of game elements.

Agreed, those other stats are... circumstantial.  There is also exactly one person who knows those circumstances, and can properly put them into perspective.  (Generally at least). That is the person who's stats they are.  He knows what quality of crew he has, he knows if he snipes or brawls, he knows all of those things.  He can also monitor the basic trend line. (Oh, Win % is also circumstantial.  A player who spends minimal time in a fully equipped tank will have a lower Win %.  A player who platoons a great deal will  hopefully have a higher Win %, and so forth).

That's my point is that people who use stats to compare one to another are missing the point entirely.  It becomes an excuse in E-Testerserone, instead of a way of improving gameplay.  yes, you can look at stats and get a basic sense of where a particular player is on "the curve".  That's almost beside the point though.  

I honestly think the game would be better if the only person who could look at your stats was yourself (and maybe people on your friends list).

Maiyart #11 Posted Aug 24 2011 - 03:48

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 11982 battles
  • 405
  • Member since:
    02-13-2011

View PostAltruismo, on Aug 24 2011 - 03:38, said:

And before people start foaming with the usual, "one person can't affect the outcome" stuff, just look at the Hotchkiss, that little overperforming tank's win% is a direct reflection of what impact "one person" can have on the outcome of a game. In the case of the Hotchkiss a serious armour and firepower advantage in the games it gets matched in is the major factor in it's overperformance. In some other cases with other tanks, the overperformance factor is the person driving the tank.

I don't take out my Hotchkiss anymore even though I've only played 52 games with a 57% win rate with it. Why? Because there's usually a platoon of 2 or 3 hotchkiss players on the other team. Unless you platoon with another hotchkiss, the chance of you being the only hotchkiss player is quite remote. Most times it will be another Hotchkiss on the other team (sometimes a platoon) and it isn't a guaranteed win.

Sadukar09 #12 Posted Aug 24 2011 - 05:08

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 19468 battles
  • 3,300
  • [-G-] -G-
  • Member since:
    02-20-2011
I didn't know I don't play low tier tanks or random pub battles in my tanks by myself.

Mizar_Panzer #13 Posted Aug 24 2011 - 05:09

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 3789 battles
  • 2,421
  • [TT-C] TT-C
  • Member since:
    09-15-2010
In random games, stats only means something if it has a large sample. Still, it dosent tell if the player is improving. Someone can play 1000 terrible games with 40% win rate, then improves and play the next 1000 game with a 50% win rate, but the stat simply dosent show it, unless someone really study it carefully.

Altruismo #14 Posted Aug 24 2011 - 05:13

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 2925 battles
  • 676
  • Member since:
    09-01-2010

View PostEnaris, on Aug 24 2011 - 03:43, said:

(Oh, Win % is also circumstantial.  A player who spends minimal time in a fully equipped tank will have a lower Win %.  A player who platoons a great deal will  hopefully have a higher Win %, and so forth).

Exactly, which is where I'm coming from when I say that win% is a rough indicator of a person's ability.
Someone with a win% greater than about 48% (my idea of "average" factoring in maybe 4% draws) is probably "good", and someone below 48% is probably "not good", but using the win% of person A against the win% of person B in a vacuum without regard for the vehicles involved is fairly pointless.
But let's not pretend that performing better with 100% crews in elite tanks means you can't achieve a decent W/L ratio with a 50% crew in a stock tank.  

View PostEnaris, on Aug 24 2011 - 03:43, said:

That's my point is that people who use stats to compare one to another are missing the point entirely.  It becomes an excuse in E-Testerserone, instead of a way of improving gameplay.  yes, you can look at stats and get a basic sense of where a particular player is on "the curve".  That's almost beside the point though.  

I honestly think the game would be better if the only person who could look at your stats was yourself (and maybe people on your friends list).

I E-stalk people's profiles all the time to weigh up their opinions of game elements. If I see someone posting advice on how to drive a tank, or what modules to equip, I like to be able to see how they perform before I put that advice into practice. I have a pretty good grip on most aspects of this game, but if I think someone knows better I'm happy to follow their lead. For example if I'm reading a thread about advice for SU-85, and player A says "Equip suspension, spall liner, cyclone filter, train your crew in firefighting and run with the 122mm, always charge down the centre of the map!!" and player B says "Equip Rammer, Binocs, and a Camo net, train camo and hide in a bush with the 107 and a good view of choke-points." I can go and check their stats with the SU-85 to see which one of them is likely to know better (no prizes for guessing which of the two would have better stats).

View PostMaiyart, on Aug 24 2011 - 03:48, said:

I don't take out my Hotchkiss anymore even though I've only played 52 games with a 57% win rate with it. Why? Because there's usually a platoon of 2 or 3 hotchkiss players on the other team. Unless you platoon with another hotchkiss, the chance of you being the only hotchkiss player is quite remote. Most times it will be another Hotchkiss on the other team (sometimes a platoon) and it isn't a guaranteed win.

I agree that platooning can impact your win%, because it can multiply the "one person impact" as well as reduce the random factors contributing to your own team composition (A platoon of three Maus is always gonna be on a team with at least three Maus.), but platooning isn't always roses and chocolate boxes. People seem to assume platooning improving your win% is a given, but I have some good friends I platoon with who most definitely do not help me pad my stats  :Smile_honoring:

_Bergs_ #15 Posted Aug 24 2011 - 05:37

    Major

  • Players
  • 22215 battles
  • 2,151
  • [-G-] -G-
  • Member since:
    03-20-2011

View Post120mm_he, on Aug 24 2011 - 01:48, said:

Most of those are exclusive clan wars gold round spamming players who would rather die by castration from a rusty knife that sully themselves in a random game.

I play in plenty of randoms and my stats are above average... so what does that imply?

In fact most of the players in the top of the leader boards are very skilled and didn't get there by just "spamming gold rounds in CW."  <_<

Most of your gold round users in pub matches are frustrated new players that haven't learned where to shoot yet. Standard AP rounds work for almost every tank in this game given you know where to shoot.

Elysion #16 Posted Aug 24 2011 - 05:54

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 5966 battles
  • 801
  • Member since:
    08-29-2010
It is good to point out that win% will get skewed if you platoon a lot.

A team is 15 players, this means that games will inevitably average out to 7 players of below absolute average skill, 7 players of above absolute average skill, and you.

If you are above average, and you platoon with 2 other people who are also above average, you are going to remove one randomized above average player and one randomized below average playing, effectively giving your team 9 above average players and 6 below average players. As opposed to 8 above average players and 7 below average players if you were solo.

Regarding win%

Over the last few days ive been taking screenshots of games that are are either easy wins or easy loses, painstakingly looking up the stats of each player, and seeing what the average team win% was for each team.

It is very consistent that the team with the lower average win % is the one that loses.

The first time i did it i had to start laughing, finally the game made sense. On the team that lost horribly only two people were even above 50%, everyone else was between 43-48%. Every single time i did the search i came up with a number that was 4-% and i stopped even being surprised. the average win percent of that team ended up being 47.6. And thats why they lost while only killing 2 enemies.

If you question the meaningfulness of stats, the next time you see a one sided fight do the same thing. Take a screenshot and look up the players, then average the win% on each team, and compare it to which side won. Then try to say its all luck. And the good thing is that since you are averaging 15 players even the aformentioned stat skewing things like platooning will only only be represented as a decimal of a percent or maybe 1% as far as the teams overall win % is. So if the difference in averaged win percent between teams is significant, say 4% or more, its safe to say the higher averaged win% team will win.

120mm_he #17 Posted Aug 24 2011 - 07:42

    Major

  • Players
  • 9219 battles
  • 12,054
  • [PBS] PBS
  • Member since:
    02-17-2011

View Post_Bergs_, on Aug 24 2011 - 05:37, said:

I play in plenty of randoms and my stats are above average... so what does that imply?

In fact most of the players in the top of the leader boards are very skilled and didn't get there by just "spamming gold rounds in CW."  http://cdn-frm-us.wargaming.net/wot/us/4.1/style_emoticons/default/Smile_sceptic.gif

Most of your gold round users in pub matches are frustrated new players that haven't learned where to shoot yet. Standard AP rounds work for almost every tank in this game given you know where to shoot.


I was talking about the ones who chest beat and point to their stats because they are a bit better than yours and say you are a terrible player. Not that stats are totally useless to gauge a players general skill level.

Kosatka #18 Posted Aug 24 2011 - 08:07

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 3127 battles
  • 870
  • Member since:
    02-05-2011

View PostElysion, on Aug 24 2011 - 05:54, said:

Regarding win%

Over the last few days ive been taking screenshots of games that are are either easy wins or easy loses, painstakingly looking up the stats of each player, and seeing what the average team win% was for each team.

It is very consistent that the team with the lower average win % is the one that loses.

The first time i did it i had to start laughing, finally the game made sense. On the team that lost horribly only two people were even above 50%, everyone else was between 43-48%. Every single time i did the search i came up with a number that was 4-% and i stopped even being surprised. the average win percent of that team ended up being 47.6. And thats why they lost while only killing 2 enemies.

If you question the meaningfulness of stats, the next time you see a one sided fight do the same thing. Take a screenshot and look up the players, then average the win% on each team, and compare it to which side won. Then try to say its all luck. And the good thing is that since you are averaging 15 players even the aformentioned stat skewing things like platooning will only only be represented as a decimal of a percent or maybe 1% as far as the teams overall win % is. So if the difference in averaged win percent between teams is significant, say 4% or more, its safe to say the higher averaged win% team will win.
Agreed, and I've done that once in a while.
On top of that, just look up players whose ability (or lack thereof) you notice in a battle. 99% of the time, the good players you see will have good win rates in that tank and the bad ones will have bad win rates.

View Post120mm_he, on Aug 24 2011 - 07:42, said:

I was talking about the ones who chest beat and point to their stats because they are a bit better than yours and say you are a terrible player. Not that stats are totally useless to gauge a players general skill level.
Stats being meaningful doesn't justify e-posturing.
Saying "I'm better at this game than you are, your argument is invalid" is bad. Not because stats mean nothing, but because it's irrelevant to the argument.
And stats still aren't perfect, and once in a while you do see a good player with 48% in his tank.
There's no meaningful difference between 52% and 53%. There's a meaningful difference between 45% and 53%.

Stats for a single tank are much more valuable than a player's overall stats. T2 Light kills your hit ratio, players aren't equally good at all tanks and so on.

VonKrieg #19 Posted Aug 24 2011 - 08:13

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 15900 battles
  • 1,349
  • Member since:
    01-10-2011
*squints*

Ok... you have enough forum posts, I just may read this ;)

ghsty9700 #20 Posted Aug 24 2011 - 08:17

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 3584 battles
  • 122
  • Member since:
    03-03-2011
I don't think I've ever stayed in a tank long after eliting it.

I just finally got 100% crew on my Su-100 and it's my only maxed crew.

I almost never platoon.


My stats aren't the greatest. But I'm not a bad player and I know this for fact.

But I'm completely convinced that if I elited a tank with 100% crew and platooned consistantly I would have really nice stats compared to what I have current. Yet my playing ability would be the same.