Jump to content


Low win rate question


  • Please log in to reply
118 replies to this topic

Desert_Faux #1 Posted Dec 23 2017 - 20:08

    Major

  • Players
  • 5083 battles
  • 3,050
  • [-DTOM] -DTOM
  • Member since:
    06-02-2013

To have a low win rate don't you have to actively causing your team and self to lose most of the time? 

 

I am not that good of a player but last I checked if I win just over a dozen matches in a row it would put me at 51%, and I suck at this game. 

 

Last game I saw a player with a win rate of just over 43% after 2k battles... I was playing my 2nd battle ever in my T2 Light Tank and we had one player ping the map 5 times in a row. I and others asked him not to do that so much. A player on our team thought he be funny and ping the map over a dozen times (I ended up blocking him in the game). After the game I clicked on his stats and noticed he had 2k + games with a win rate of 43.82% 

 

Am I correct in assuming when you have a win rate that low you are actively causing your team to fail a few times if not most times in battle? 

 

I totally suck and yet my win rate is just over 50% which for as bad as a player I am is pretty good. True I had 2k more games than him but still... low win rates = actively causing their team to fail right? Is it safe to assume that? 



Jackson120 #2 Posted Dec 23 2017 - 20:13

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 20338 battles
  • 737
  • [INVIL] INVIL
  • Member since:
    03-29-2011
Idk if its necessarily true that they actively try to cause harm to the team. Some probably do though. Take me for example, in 2012 I had a 44% win rate and 350 WN8. It was mainly due to playing on an old computer (for 2012 mind you) and getting 250+ ping with 3-8 FPS. I was definitely just as much a try hard then as I am now. I just didn't know where to go, how to deal with certain situations, what to do to put myself in a position to win, and obviously, my hardware limitations. But my point is I was trying every single time i clicked battle, to win. and I was managing a 44% win rate. I am sure most play this game to win. I think it's just they do so little to contribute to the win that they lose most of the time.

rich73 #3 Posted Dec 23 2017 - 20:18

    Major

  • Players
  • 49094 battles
  • 6,140
  • Member since:
    10-17-2011
Win rates are largely manipulated by Wg to ensure unicoms look good and fk the rest of us.If you ever read how Wot works,they say they manipulate players to easier games or harder games so as not to frustrate the player.Of course this does not work as little of Wg planning does.The fact they admit they can manipulate you to harder or easier games says more then they intend.And since they are russian also,you know hanky panky is going on.

scharnhorst310 #4 Posted Dec 23 2017 - 20:23

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 24444 battles
  • 5,821
  • Member since:
    05-04-2011
When you start getting below44% you are getting into interesting territory. I wouldn't say at that point that those people are actively hurting teams (like intentionally pushing teammates, blocking shots, etc) but they do tend to do that type of stuff more often. When we are talking less than 40%, yes we're talking about people who take an active role in hurting their teams. Used to be a clan ARMED, that was notorious for having just horrendously worthless players and they'd go out of there way to make the teammates around them worse. They had a few guys under 40%. Most have been banned long ago. 

Edited by scharnhorst310, Dec 23 2017 - 21:13.


Jackson120 #5 Posted Dec 23 2017 - 20:31

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 20338 battles
  • 737
  • [INVIL] INVIL
  • Member since:
    03-29-2011

View Postrich73, on Dec 23 2017 - 14:18, said:

Win rates are largely manipulated by Wg to ensure unicoms look good and fk the rest of us.If you ever read how Wot works,they say they manipulate players to easier games or harder games so as not to frustrate the player.Of course this does not work as little of Wg planning does.The fact they admit they can manipulate you to harder or easier games says more then they intend.And since they are russian also,you know hanky panky is going on.

 

So anyone with a higher win rate than you obviously paid wargaming so they could loook good? Correct?

Boghie #6 Posted Dec 23 2017 - 20:37

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 5087 battles
  • 437
  • [WCTNT] WCTNT
  • Member since:
    04-10-2016

View PostDesert_Faux, on Dec 23 2017 - 11:08, said:

To have a low win rate don't you have to actively causing your team and self to lose most of the time? 

 

I am not that good of a player but last I checked if I win just over a dozen matches in a row it would put me at 51%, and I suck at this game. 

 

Last game I saw a player with a win rate of just over 43% after 2k battles... I was playing my 2nd battle ever in my T2 Light Tank and we had one player ping the map 5 times in a row. I and others asked him not to do that so much. A player on our team thought he be funny and ping the map over a dozen times (I ended up blocking him in the game). After the game I clicked on his stats and noticed he had 2k + games with a win rate of 43.82% 

 

Am I correct in assuming when you have a win rate that low you are actively causing your team to fail a few times if not most times in battle? 

 

I totally suck and yet my win rate is just over 50% which for as bad as a player I am is pretty good. True I had 2k more games than him but still... low win rates = actively causing their team to fail right? Is it safe to assume that? 

 

A bit over a year ago I was running at something like 44% as well.  I was trying to win, but I didn't really know anything about the game.  I had just started Tier IV games and didn't really even understand the combat tier stuff.  Back then (and, to some extent now) really good players would slum down to the T67 with maxed out crews and equipment and poach us unsuspecting noobs from afar.  I had just found this forum and was tracking on some streamers so I at least knew about 'the vision game'.  I was driving, I got blown up.  I didn't understand the importance of crews though.  So, peak over a hill, attempt a snap shot, miss, and get blapped.  Almost quit, but I knew if they could do it I could do it.

 

Folks here helped me, but trying to actually learn the game caused me initial problems.  Think long, think wrong kinda thing.  I got good advice on tank lines and started working American Mediums and Heavies - and, uuuugggghhhh that damn M3 Lee was sittin' right there.  I may have even dropped below that Bot-Like 44%.  I think at my lowest I was something like a 44% with a Win8 of (believe it or not) 97.  Yeah, that's right a 97 - but I have since seen a 17 on someone else so all is better.

 

Anyway, I had about 2,000 battles in me back then.  I knew what I was doing wrong but didn't know how to fix it.  I really did not like my performance, I knew I was hurting the team, and, no, I didn't think it was funny.  But, it was a fact.

 

With the advice from here, the guidance from good YouTubers, and watching good players adjust to bad situation on Twitch I have dragged my recents to 50%.  It is now Tier VI that is a big issue with me, but I'm workin' it!!!


Edited by Boghie, Dec 23 2017 - 20:41.


ArmorStorm #7 Posted Dec 23 2017 - 20:51

    Major

  • Players
  • 34496 battles
  • 7,449
  • [F__R] F__R
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011

View PostJackson120, on Dec 23 2017 - 13:31, said:

 

So anyone with a higher win rate than you obviously paid wargaming so they could loook good? Correct?

 

It's best to just ignore rich, his meds need some adjustment.

WangOnTheLoose #8 Posted Dec 23 2017 - 21:13

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 25393 battles
  • 2,040
  • [TG] TG
  • Member since:
    09-06-2014

View PostDesert_Faux, on Dec 23 2017 - 14:08, said:

To have a low win rate don't you have to actively causing your team and self to lose most of the time? 

 

I am not that good of a player but last I checked if I win just over a dozen matches in a row it would put me at 51%, and I suck at this game. 

 

Last game I saw a player with a win rate of just over 43% after 2k battles... I was playing my 2nd battle ever in my T2 Light Tank and we had one player ping the map 5 times in a row. I and others asked him not to do that so much. A player on our team thought he be funny and ping the map over a dozen times (I ended up blocking him in the game). After the game I clicked on his stats and noticed he had 2k + games with a win rate of 43.82% 

 

Am I correct in assuming when you have a win rate that low you are actively causing your team to fail a few times if not most times in battle? 

 

I totally suck and yet my win rate is just over 50% which for as bad as a player I am is pretty good. True I had 2k more games than him but still... low win rates = actively causing their team to fail right? Is it safe to assume that? 

 

There are a lot of reasons people can get low win rates

 

1.  Nothing

2.  Playing on a bad computer and getting FPS in the 20s... Or lower.

3.  Not understanding the intricacies of the game mechanics and playing in higher tiers

4.  Some people have disabilities, a while ago a guy posted about how he played with one hand.  Imagine that.

 

I would guess most bad players have a reason for being bad that doesn't include trying to lose.



scharnhorst310 #9 Posted Dec 23 2017 - 21:15

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 24444 battles
  • 5,821
  • Member since:
    05-04-2011

View PostArmorStorm, on Dec 23 2017 - 11:51, said:

 

It's best to just ignore rich, his meds need some adjustment.

 

Are you saying on top of the education system letting him down, the medical system is doing it too? ;)

da_Rock002 #10 Posted Dec 23 2017 - 21:22

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 6836 battles
  • 2,714
  • Member since:
    11-24-2016

View PostDesert_Faux, on Dec 23 2017 - 14:08, said:

To have a low win rate don't you have to actively causing your team and self to lose most of the time?

 

I am not that good of a player but last I checked if I win just over a dozen matches in a row it would put me at 51%, and I suck at this game.

 

Last game I saw a player with a win rate of just over 43% after 2k battles... I was playing my 2nd battle ever in my T2 Light Tank and we had one player ping the map 5 times in a row. I and others asked him not to do that so much. A player on our team thought he be funny and ping the map over a dozen times (I ended up blocking him in the game). After the game I clicked on his stats and noticed he had 2k + games with a win rate of 43.82%

 

Am I correct in assuming when you have a win rate that low you are actively causing your team to fail a few times if not most times in battle?

 

I totally suck and yet my win rate is just over 50% which for as bad as a player I am is pretty good. True I had 2k more games than him but still... low win rates = actively causing their team to fail right? Is it safe to assume that?

 

 

No

A Win Rate is the result of your team versus the other team.   That ought to be fairly obvious.   There are 15 players on each side.   That's 30 players.   Whatever you do is certainly a part of the puzzle, but think about it.   Which of those 30 really affect the outcome and how much do they affect it?   Both teams are going to have a number of weak and a number of strong players.   Which of those would actually have the most influence? the weak ones?    No, the strong ones.   The weak ones have an effect most certainly, but not by much.    Your contribution has been averaged over 4K battles, and is around 300 DMG.   I just researched a battle and the winning team had 7 players whose Avg Dmg was over 1000 each.   Your contribution would have been about 4% of theirs.   In fact, those 7 caused way more than 7000 DMG in that battle.    


 

You (and I since we're both about the same PR, Avg Dmg, etc) are not much of a contribution one way or the other.   Don't sweat your WR until you're actually able to contribute.   Don't sweat your WR at all for any of the hogwash reasons you're going to get in this thread.    The MM doesn't take you out of a lineup so it can put a more effective player into your place, so your presence as a weak player is another fiction you'll hear parroted. 


 

It's hogwash to be told it's your fault.   It will be someday, but not anytime soon.   Maybe a year or so.   Not today or tomorrow.    You do have to git gud but until then, your WR is basically a measure of how often you've gotten placed on a team that won, versus being placed on a team that lost.     


 

There are lots of threads asking how long it takes to git gud.   Read some through.   A number have suggested numbers of battles that work out to be a couple of years worth for the average newbie.   The game is an excellent format.  Get over worrying about WR and it'll be an excellent and enjoyable game.   And learn to sniff out the hogwash and ignore it. 
That might help the most.
 



Redwave11 #11 Posted Dec 23 2017 - 22:19

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 17733 battles
  • 780
  • [WONKA] WONKA
  • Member since:
    07-01-2015

View Postda_Rock002, on Dec 24 2017 - 06:22, said:

 

 

*long post*

 

 

This is all garbage^^

 

You cannot say that an individual player does not have any effect on thier own win rate because it simply isn't true. I actually did some statistical analysis for a thread on how many games are unwinnable even if you perform at your best. I concluded that aproximately 3% of your battles cannot be won (assuming a 6 times avg wn8 performance) and conversly 38% of your battles cannot be lost (assuming a 0 wn8 performance).

 

From this we can say that the lowest win rate you can go is 38% without having to distrupt other players. However the methods i used to achieve this number did not take into account wether being a hitpoint pinata helped your team, if the intimidation of just having a tank on your team impacts your win rate and wether being a pest in chat can affect you win rate (probably missing many more factors too) so it is likely a few points higher in practice.

 

 

 


Edited by Redwave11, Dec 23 2017 - 22:21.


Dogsoldier6 #12 Posted Dec 23 2017 - 22:33

    Major

  • Players
  • 56891 battles
  • 2,771
  • [DD-S] DD-S
  • Member since:
    11-17-2011

Just forget win rate as a gauge of how well you are doing. Instead after every battle ask yourself these three questions..............

1) Did I finish in the top six for Exp earned AND Damage inflicted? If you did then you carried the team.

2) Did I finish in the top six for Exp earned OR Damage inflicted? If you did then you carried your weight in that battle.

3) Did I fail to accomplish #1 or #2? If you did then the team carried you.



uberdice #13 Posted Dec 23 2017 - 23:06

    Major

  • Players
  • 24428 battles
  • 9,866
  • Member since:
    01-14-2012

It's quite simple.

 

An average player occupies one slot on the roster, and is usually worth that slot. Therefore, in an average game, their team goes in with 15 tanks' worth of players against the enemy team's 15.

 

An above average to good player occupies one slot on the roster, but performs well enough that they can carry one or two or more under-performing teammates. Therefore, in an average game, their team goes in with essentially 16 tanks' worth of players against the enemy team's 15, or even more.

 

Conversely, a below average to bad player occupies a team slot but doesn't perform at a level where they can justify their position: they need to be carried by others, putting pressure on the rest of their team. Therefore, in their average game, their team starts the battle with 14.5 tanks, or even less, against the enemy team's 15.

 

Now, because this bad player only occupies one slot, it is, on the surface, impossible for them to count for less than one slot, therefore the team can't go in 13v15 for example, unless there is more than one bad player to begin with. But let's keep talking about averages here. The reality, though, is that some players are so bad that they actively make other players around them less effective. They block friendly shots, they let squishies soak hits while they sit back in their superheavies, they block allied movement during brawls, etc. This is how people can have win rates below 45%: whatever they are doing, their performance is so catastrophically bad that they people around them worse.



Lurus #14 Posted Dec 24 2017 - 09:26

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 10254 battles
  • 88
  • [BURNS] BURNS
  • Member since:
    11-24-2012

there could be many factors. I don't agree or think that it is safe to assume that just because someone has a low winrate it means they are actively causing their team to lose with like team damage or blocking or other forms of say griefing the team. I guess it depends on how low we are talking when we say low win rate because I'm sure some people are low for this reason but I would think it would be sub 40% in most of these cases if its a repeated thing. 

Sure some of the low win rates are from active means of hurting ones team but I feel a lot are from other factors such as maybe causing self to lose like giving up before the battle starts based on like XVM win chances or being bottom tier in a battle ect.... and simply not trying and screwing up their own mentality or morale or suiciding in those games because teams got no chance.

​As well as self losses that occur through not understanding mechanics and/or not caring to learn them or ask for help about them.  As well as from those who are simply progressing way too fast to get to the top of the tree like what can happen with a new player who buys a tier 8 premium immediately or perhaps goes up one line solely and just rushes to tier 10 as fast as possible. 

​Generally as well I would say its safe to assume its worth tossing out about the first few thousand games for a new player as that's about what it takes to get a grasp on the game and tend to see signs of improving at that point if its going to happen at all and sometimes it can take a while to recover your stats from those few thousand games. I'm still trying to work on getting my stats to where they probably could be but I also deal with connection issues which doesn't help matters but brings us to the next point. 

​There are the hardware and well as internet connection reasons as well for bad win rates.  I mean I wouldn't doubt people try to play tanks on a laptop with a touchpad for example or on like bare minimal settings because that's all their system can handle and I know I used to see posts about using things like controllers/joysticks/wheels to play just because they were more comfortable with like using a controller vs keyboard and mouse coming over from being a console gamer or something. 

​There are also those that just don't care to win and while they may not be hurting their team like team blocking or damage they just play to screw around themselves as long as they are "having fun" which usually means they aren't going to try to do what it may take to win.
I had a friend who did all kinds of dumb stuff in his own play and didn't care to try and learn anything because it was just a game and who cares if we win and its just a game so I shouldn't be required to learn. Surprisingly he was halfway decent at the game with like a 47% winrate but ive talked to people with this mentality with sub 45% and doing it knowingly such as like failtoons(when those were still a thing) on purpose because its just a game and its about me having fun forget trying to win.

​I don't disagree with some people with that logic that the game should be fun and enjoyable but if your only form of fun is messing around and doing it on purpose and knowingly to have a laugh at others expense then I wouldn't consider that fun.
I personally consider winning fun myself and a nice objective to have as well as trying to do my own performance and trying my best. 

​Some losses will also just happen unavoidably but I thing there is a barrier where it comes down to some factor with the individual player that they don't care about it,  don't have the ability or means to fix it, or simply don't want to take the time to fix it and that doesn't necessarily mean its someone who is intentionally actively causing their teams to lose. 

 


Edited by Lurus, Dec 24 2017 - 09:30.


dunniteowl #15 Posted Dec 24 2017 - 09:49

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 20615 battles
  • 3,734
  • Member since:
    09-01-2014

View PostDesert_Faux, on Dec 23 2017 - 13:08, said:

To have a low win rate don't you have to actively causing your team and self to lose most of the time? 

 

I am not that good of a player but last I checked if I win just over a dozen matches in a row it would put me at 51%, and I suck at this game. 

 

Last game I saw a player with a win rate of just over 43% after 2k battles... I was playing my 2nd battle ever in my T2 Light Tank and we had one player ping the map 5 times in a row. I and others asked him not to do that so much. A player on our team thought he be funny and ping the map over a dozen times (I ended up blocking him in the game). After the game I clicked on his stats and noticed he had 2k + games with a win rate of 43.82% 

 

Am I correct in assuming when you have a win rate that low you are actively causing your team to fail a few times if not most times in battle? 

 

I totally suck and yet my win rate is just over 50% which for as bad as a player I am is pretty good. True I had 2k more games than him but still... low win rates = actively causing their team to fail right? Is it safe to assume that? 

 

Let's say that, while they are certainly a detriment to their teams, I do not believe it fair to say they are actively -- or intentionally -- ruining their chances to win a match.

 

That said, let's examine some typical responses by low WR players to situations we have seen in matches and described here in the forums:

 

1)  The "I'm'a drown myself, I don't like being bottom tier, makes it too hard to win," types...  They argue that, with MM being so rigged against them, they cannot do anything of merit as a low tier unit, so they opt out, either suiscout YOLO, drown or just AFK and not move.

 

To stay in such a match, they argue, will hurt their WRs.  Of course, opting out doesn't change this fact and now the team they abandon is a gun down to start.  When they do decide to play, they are so unused to having to perform as a top tier unit that they manage a few shots, die and then complain about all the gold spammers ruining their WR, making armor useless.

 

2)  The, "I'm not that bad of a player, if it weren't for...[insert excuse du jour here] ... I'd be doing so much better," types.  These folks, like many of us within humanity, are bad judges of our own skill and worse at judging the skill of others.  These people, though, don't understand that they are awful at this task of gauging their ability relative to their peers.

 

They won't listen to you explain how they fail at game mechanics.  No matter what you tell them, they are a full cup and can take no more filling.  These folks are not so vast in number as to make them intolerable, however they are common enough that many wish there were some way to curb them from higher tiers if possible.

 

3)  The, "I'm just playing for fun!" types.  Hey, I play for fun, too.  My fun just comes in a more complex wrapper than just blowing stuff up and scooting across the field, rinse and repeat.  These folks, imv, are not a real problem, they are just another thing we have to adapt to on the field.  Most of the time, even the "I just want to blow stuff up and have fun" types want to do that as long as they can.  Even so, their interest level is truly that of a 'casual' player and they will invest only as much time in the game as they do pressing W and holding the LMB.

 

There might be another class of sub 45% players, though I would offer that those who are in that range that don't fall into the above categories may have physical, mental or technical limits that prevent them from ever being any better, no matter how much they know it and try to rise above it.

 

That's my take.

 

GL, HF & HSYBF



Stinkdruese #16 Posted Dec 24 2017 - 14:32

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 831 battles
  • 100
  • Member since:
    11-05-2017

View Postdunniteowl, on Dec 24 2017 - 09:49, said:

 

[...]

There might be another class of sub 45% players, though I would offer that those who are in that range that don't fall into the above categories may have physical, mental or technical limits that prevent them from ever being any better, no matter how much they know it and try to rise above it.

 

That's my take.

 

GL, HF & HSYBF

 

I think there are also those who temporarily fall into that category, mostly because:

 

a) They are grinding a tank or crew. So far I started out most of my stock tanks with a sub-45% win rate.

b) They are playing a tank that doesn't fit their play style. From what I have read many players have a tank that is supposedly OP, but they cannot play it if their life depended on it. For me it was the Luchs, which I played very inconsistently.

c) The ones who move up the tiers too fast and face much more experienced/skilled players early on.



Boghie #17 Posted Dec 24 2017 - 16:26

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 5087 battles
  • 437
  • [WCTNT] WCTNT
  • Member since:
    04-10-2016

Re(1):  'Mr. Robot', Tanking /w Science, 4TankersAndDog

Re(2):  'WotLabs WR and Win8', WotLabs

Re(3):  'VBAddict Statistics'

 

  • Assuming 4Tankers and his 50 game survey of a Bot is a valid sample, a Bot 'earns' a 32% WR.  If so, then one must accept that someone with a 43% WR is doing something positive in the game beyond that of a shooting bot.
  • Additionally, since a Draw is a loss, a player with a ~48% WR is average.  Thus, a player with a 43% WR is only 5 points below the average and a player with a WR of 53% is only 5 points above the average. 
  • Now, here is where it gets odd.  A 43%er probably has a Win8 < 300 and a 53%er has a Win8 > 1200.
  • And, the 43%er is in the company of only 6% of the player base while the 53%er is in a group containing 82% of the player base

 

Assuming Tier V where a shot of damage is a little more than 100 and the average damage being 352 we are talking about the average player getting three shots of full damage per game.  (A cursory look at the chart tells me that 3 shots of damage is normal).  The average Win8 for Tier V is about 810.

 

Folks, the 43%er is getting 1 full shot of damage and the 53%er is getting 5 full shots of damage.  Both are far above a Bot at 32% - or, if the folks creating the metrics for Win8 are correct 29%.  The schlep just needs two more connections to be average and another two to be very good.  A schlep can be a griefer or a guy that cannot hit a target or a suiscouter or a Sunday driver but he/she is not a long term statistical Win Killer at 43%.  In any particular game the 43%er can dramatically improve the odds of winning by Sunday driving to a spot and connecting on three rounds rather than one.  Likewise, the Wizard of Westwood can tank a game with bad RNG three extra times.  Both are in the realm of normalcy so neither is actively trying to lose the match.

 

As a note, however, it is amazing that one Bot drags a teams chance of win down 16%.  Having a Deep Red Tomato drags it down just 5%.  This demonstrates that the Win% is a peaky in WoT.  There are very few people at either tail.  That 43%er is sitting around with less than 6% of the player base on the left of the norm while a 54%er is drinking tea with the 5% to the right of the curve.



3bagsfull #18 Posted Dec 24 2017 - 18:10

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 2707 battles
  • 334
  • Member since:
    02-16-2014

View PostBoghie, on Dec 24 2017 - 15:26, said:

Re(1):  'Mr. Robot', Tanking /w Science, 4TankersAndDog

Re(2):  'WotLabs WR and Win8', WotLabs

Re(3):  'VBAddict Statistics'

 

  • Assuming 4Tankers and his 50 game survey of a Bot is a valid sample, a Bot 'earns' a 32% WR.  If so, then one must accept that someone with a 43% WR is doing something positive in the game beyond that of a shooting bot.
  • Additionally, since a Draw is a loss, a player with a ~48% WR is average.  Thus, a player with a 43% WR is only 5 points below the average and a player with a WR of 53% is only 5 points above the average.
  • Now, here is where it gets odd.  A 43%er probably has a Win8 < 300 and a 53%er has a Win8 > 1200.
  • And, the 43%er is in the company of only 6% of the player base while the 53%er is in a group containing 82% of the player base

 

Assuming Tier V where a shot of damage is a little more than 100 and the average damage being 352 we are talking about the average player getting three shots of full damage per game.  (A cursory look at the chart tells me that 3 shots of damage is normal).  The average Win8 for Tier V is about 810.

 

Folks, the 43%er is getting 1 full shot of damage and the 53%er is getting 5 full shots of damage.  Both are far above a Bot at 32% - or, if the folks creating the metrics for Win8 are correct 29%.  The schlep just needs two more connections to be average and another two to be very good.  A schlep can be a griefer or a guy that cannot hit a target or a suiscouter or a Sunday driver but he/she is not a long term statistical Win Killer at 43%.  In any particular game the 43%er can dramatically improve the odds of winning by Sunday driving to a spot and connecting on three rounds rather than one.  Likewise, the Wizard of Westwood can tank a game with bad RNG three extra times.  Both are in the realm of normalcy so neither is actively trying to lose the match.

 

As a note, however, it is amazing that one Bot drags a teams chance of win down 16%.  Having a Deep Red Tomato drags it down just 5%.  This demonstrates that the Win% is a peaky in WoT.  There are very few people at either tail.  That 43%er is sitting around with less than 6% of the player base on the left of the norm while a 54%er is drinking tea with the 5% to the right of the curve.

 

Got a lot of respect for 4tankersanddog, but I find it hard to believe that any team has just a 3-10 chance of pulling back a 1 tank deficit - which essentially a BOT creates - which isn't any different than seeing the multiple tanks in a lot of games that do less that 1 shot of damage.

 

To have a 32% chance of win (overall for the entire account) - you have to be ACTIVELY working AGAINST your own team.   Blocking people from getting to where they need to get to influence the game properly, etc.   That behavior isn't BOT behavior, that's someone with a pulse behind the keyboard/mouse.


Edited by 3bagsfull, Dec 24 2017 - 18:21.


Alky6 #19 Posted Dec 24 2017 - 18:30

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 3932 battles
  • 374
  • Member since:
    06-03-2015
One of the problems is that the more battles you have the harder it is to move the win rate marker because it's an average. Same goes for the other stats. So, the answer really is, git gud fast and stay gud.

3bagsfull #20 Posted Dec 24 2017 - 18:36

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 2707 battles
  • 334
  • Member since:
    02-16-2014

Still, 32%?   I can see that in a single tank but not over an entire account.   In a single tank it's a combination of somebody getting in over their head AND getting a poor matchup on a regular basis.

There is virtually always a corresponding tank on the opposite team that plays just like a BOT - does no damage at all, has no spotting damage either.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users