Jump to content


Low win rate question


  • Please log in to reply
118 replies to this topic

g4143 #101 Posted Jan 01 2018 - 02:28

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 9198 battles
  • 413
  • Member since:
    04-24-2015
All I can say is my win rate sucks and I have two tanks with marks of excellence on them. Just got the second one 24 hours ago.

Desert_Faux #102 Posted Jan 01 2018 - 04:07

    Major

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

View Postg4143, on Jan 01 2018 - 01:28, said:

All I can say is my win rate sucks and I have two tanks with marks of excellence on them. Just got the second one 24 hours ago.

 

How do you figure it sucks? Prove it, cause http://wotlabs.net/na/player/g4143 and http://www.wotstats.org/stats/na/g4143/ actually show otherwise. 

 

Your last 477 games you have a win rate of 52.2%  

 

 



Desert_Faux #103 Posted Jan 01 2018 - 04:16

    Major

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

I've been doing a unscientific test in my grind of my Tier 6 Ikv 65 II TD in the Swedish line.  (I've been slowing increasing my average damage per round in that tank and I also am gaining experience towards the Tier 7 tank in that line too, how ever I doubt I'll play the Tier 7 TD at my skill level but that's besides my current point.)

 

Can someone else independently check a few games in their Tier 6 tank for me? I've noticed 99% of the tanks that do 0 damage while I play in my Tier 6 TD have a negative win rate. My TD faces Tiers 5-8 so according to my results so far 99% of the time a player does NO damage at all in a round they have a negative win rate.

 

How ever the top 3 players on both sides kinda surprised me when I checked random game results. Of the top 3 for damage on both sides only 25-30% of them had winning win rates. I would of thought it of been much higher than that but it appears in my games so far only a fraction of those who do most damage for their team have a positive win rate. 

 

Only thing I can get from the data I have so far is that if you have a bad win rate you are more likely to make your team lose than you are likely to cause your team to win. If you have a good win rate you are less likely to cause your team to win as opposed to the influence a bad player can have on our team. 



Capt_Nixon #104 Posted Jan 01 2018 - 04:33

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 12073 battles
  • 297
  • [FLARE] FLARE
  • Member since:
    09-14-2014

View PostDesert_Faux, on Dec 31 2017 - 21:16, said:

I've been doing a unscientific test in my grind of my Tier 6 Ikv 65 II TD in the Swedish line.  (I've been slowing increasing my average damage per round in that tank and I also am gaining experience towards the Tier 7 tank in that line too, how ever I doubt I'll play the Tier 7 TD at my skill level but that's besides my current point.)

 

Can someone else independently check a few games in their Tier 6 tank for me? I've noticed 99% of the tanks that do 0 damage while I play in my Tier 6 TD have a negative win rate. My TD faces Tiers 5-8 so according to my results so far 99% of the time a player does NO damage at all in a round they have a negative win rate.

 

How ever the top 3 players on both sides kinda surprised me when I checked random game results. Of the top 3 for damage on both sides only 25-30% of them had winning win rates. I would of thought it of been much higher than that but it appears in my games so far only a fraction of those who do most damage for their team have a positive win rate. 

 

Only thing I can get from the data I have so far is that if you have a bad win rate you are more likely to make your team lose than you are likely to cause your team to win. If you have a good win rate you are less likely to cause your team to win as opposed to the influence a bad player can have on our team. 

 

​Unscientifically, I can tell you that playing Tier 6 sucks. Nothing will destroy your enthusiasm for the game, and your win rate, as much as will moving up to Tier 6.

 



scharnhorst310 #105 Posted Jan 01 2018 - 07:04

    Major

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

View PostCapt_Nixon, on Dec 31 2017 - 19:33, said:

 

​Unscientifically, I can tell you that playing Tier 6 sucks. Nothing will destroy your enthusiasm for the game, and your win rate, as much as will moving up to Tier 6.

 

 

its funny I always thought tier 6 was the worst tier in the game. tier 5 is a pretty big jump, very capable and fun tanks at that tier. Tier 7 you start to see higher level gameplay, similar styles to what you will get in higher tiers. The tanks in that tier are more powerful and more similar to their higher tier brethren. Tier 6 is a marginal upgrade from tier 5, at best. Yet it has to deal with significantly more powerful tier 7s, and VASTLY more powerful tier 8s. 



g4143 #106 Posted Jan 01 2018 - 10:44

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 9198 battles
  • 413
  • Member since:
    04-24-2015

View PostDesert_Faux, on Jan 01 2018 - 04:07, said:

 

How do you figure it sucks? Prove it, cause http://wotlabs.net/na/player/g4143 and http://www.wotstats.org/stats/na/g4143/ actually show otherwise. 

 

Your last 477 games you have a win rate of 52.2%  

 

 

 

Well you guys have to figure out if I suck or if I don't suck! I have some of the community saying I suck and others saying I don't.



dunniteowl #107 Posted Jan 01 2018 - 16:37

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 20570 battles
  • 3,684
  • Member since:
    09-01-2014

I think only a few folks directly said you suck.  What you do seem to have an issue with is being triggered before you start regarding MM.  I told you, there was a time I was pretty much like you in my thoughts and feelings about how this game works.  It doesn't work that way and it's foolish to hold onto it.  THAT will hold you back from getting better, this I can promise.

 

I never mentioned your skills overall for one simple reason:  I don't need to.  Your SKILL, per se, is not the issue.  It's a perception and attitude adjustment for you that will make the largest single difference in your enjoyment.  I have decent to very good hand/eye coordination.  I've been playing games of skill and coordination since I picked up those tweezers and took out the Rubber Band Knee in my Operation game back in the early 1960's.  This game definitely benefits from good aim, good timing, good coordination -- IT DOESN'T REQUIRE ALL OF THEM at once all the time.

 

This game is a game of knowing timing.  How long does it take for your opponent to reload?  How many lines of fire are you giving the other side when you peek and poke?  How far can you go in the open before you have to turn and jink?  How many rounds can he pump at me and how fast can I respond?  Is his armor better and if so, can I get away undamaged now?

 

These are not hand/eye coordination concepts.  These are deep level strategy and tactics of engagement concepts and your trigger finger is only a marginal player in this part of the game.

 

Blaming MM, RNG, Seal Clubbers, Noobs, Tomatoes, scrubs, gold rounds, platoon padders, etc. IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE THE SITUATION ONE LITTLE BIT.  This has been my point with all players who express your same issues of blaming other things for the state of your play.  I WAS that guy TOO!  Don't forget that part.

 

The moment I gave up blaming the game for making me ANYTHING and blaming anyone or anything -- including myself -- for how my enjoyment, play or skill progression went, I literally suddenly shot up around 6% in overall playing WR, which, knock wood, generally continues to this day from two years ago.  I don't know if I had more fun, because I was winning more -- or if, because I was having more fun and paying more attention to the game on purpose I was winning more and doing better.  I took only a couple of seconds to realize that it didn't matter, because I was having more fun, winning more and playing better.

 

Sure, the links I provide here or in many other posts helped, make no mistake:

Crew --  Global Wiki

Battle Mechanics -- Global Wiki

 

And I went through:

Lert's Collection of Guides

which is what led me to the wiki links.

 

I will also admit I sort of binge watched a lot of Zeven's Replay Reviews, which, in my not so humble opinion, provides one with the greatest free instructor ever seen by this player.  I will add that I have been instructed, trained, taught, tootled, tutored, shown how, explained, educated, tested and explicated to me many, many things across a variety of disciplines, concepts, vocations and professions and Zeven is, without exception, the best transmitter of information I have yet to come across.

 

So that probably had a bit to do with it, too.  Without my personal attitude change, though, I would not have even bothered with any of that, because the system was at fault and there was nothing I could do about it.  Sound familiar?  You have to drop the blaming and let go of the frustration by understanding that you feel that way because you are out of your comfort zone and that's a good thing.  Once you let that go and learn to remain in that uncomfortable zone where nothing is guaranteed and nothing can be taken for granted while playing you can then really start to get a handle on learning all those tricks and techniques that will literally change the way you see the game.

 

I think you might be there --  almost.  No matter how well you are doing now, I can almost promise you that if you can let that perception of being unable to control your fate go, you will improve your game beyond it.

 

It's like that line in "The Edge of Tomorrow" where Sgt Farrell catches them gambling in the barracks and the final thing he has them parrot for him is:

That through preparation and training we are masters of our fate

 

And, as Sgt. Farrell says to Pvt. Cage, I say to you, "You might find that notion ironic, but trust me, you'll come around."

 

GL, HF & HSYBF 


Edited by dunniteowl, Jan 01 2018 - 16:41.


UTurnTerminator #108 Posted Jan 01 2018 - 17:22

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 8297 battles
  • 526
  • [RGS-V] RGS-V
  • Member since:
    08-25-2015
To answer the original question, I think it would boil down to player skill, and vehicle selection. If you are a very bad player who chooses to play very influential tanks (powerful TD's, heavy tanks, etc.) you will have a very prominent effect on battles and ultimately upon your win-rate. My 2 cents.

Capt_Nixon #109 Posted Jan 01 2018 - 17:45

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 12073 battles
  • 297
  • [FLARE] FLARE
  • Member since:
    09-14-2014

View Postscharnhorst310, on Jan 01 2018 - 00:04, said:

 

its funny I always thought tier 6 was the worst tier in the game. tier 5 is a pretty big jump, very capable and fun tanks at that tier. Tier 7 you start to see higher level gameplay, similar styles to what you will get in higher tiers. The tanks in that tier are more powerful and more similar to their higher tier brethren. Tier 6 is a marginal upgrade from tier 5, at best. Yet it has to deal with significantly more powerful tier 7s, and VASTLY more powerful tier 8s. 

 

​This has pretty much been my experience thus far. Most Tier VI 3-5-7 games I feel like cannon fodder, or completely useless, or both. I've become like a remora ... I attach myself to a Tier 8 shark, and hope to get a scrap from an enemy vehicle he has taken down to 2% health. 

Jer1413 #110 Posted Jan 01 2018 - 18:00

    Captain

  • Players
  • 42771 battles
  • 1,080
  • [RR13] RR13
  • Member since:
    02-24-2013

View PostCapt_Nixon, on Dec 31 2017 - 01:33, said:

Just don't sweat Win Rate.

 

It's the Terry Bradshaw - Archie Manning dynamic. Manning was the far better QB, but you'd never know it from all the Bradshaw fanboys who keep pointing to his rings. The difference was Bradshaw had his fellow Steelers, gobs of Hall of Famers, to help him win. Manning was stuck with a bunch of dregs in New Orleans year after year. He did whatever he could to help his team win, but that only took him so far, despite being the much better QB.

 

If MM gives you Steeler teammates more often than Saints, you can be the inferior QB and still look like one of the better players. But if MM gives you more Saints than Steelers, your Win Rate will be lower than many inferior players. Just do what you can to help your team win, and have fun. 

 

 

But that's a failed analogy.

 

We all get the same MM in the long run, our combinations of teammates and enemies are the same. The only way for your analogy to hold true is for Bradshaw and Manning to QB about 1000 games with totally random players (drawn from a pool of tens of thousands, not just first stringers on 30 teams). Then we would see who was the better quarterback.

 

If somehow you think you're always on the Saints and never on the Steelers, that's a whole other kettle of fish.

 



TLWiz #111 Posted Jan 01 2018 - 18:12

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 19794 battles
  • 9,186
  • [DSSRT] DSSRT
  • Member since:
    12-26-2014

My winrate is crap.  I play 150 different tanks regularly because I like to play different tanks.  I am constantly grinding up lines because I like to grind up lines. Out of 18000 games my most played tank has 366 battles.  I see players with 20000 games and half of those are in one tank. I am also an average-ish player with equal parts brilliant and crap games while mainly being somewhere in the middle. It is what it is.  Other factors such as MM, team quality, and arty are no more burdensome on me than on anybody else so I don't list those as factors for anything.

 

I like playing and I do try to win.  I am a bit over aggressive and that can sometimes help but more often end badly.

 

The bottom line for me is that I enjoy playing. My winrate will be what it will be and that is on me - and I don't sweat it because I'm not paid to play this game.


Edited by TLWiz, Jan 01 2018 - 18:12.


Capt_Nixon #112 Posted Jan 01 2018 - 21:58

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 12073 battles
  • 297
  • [FLARE] FLARE
  • Member since:
    09-14-2014

View PostJer1413, on Jan 01 2018 - 11:00, said:

 

 

But that's a failed analogy.

 

We all get the same MM in the long run, our combinations of teammates and enemies are the same. The only way for your analogy to hold true is for Bradshaw and Manning to QB about 1000 games with totally random players (drawn from a pool of tens of thousands, not just first stringers on 30 teams). Then we would see who was the better quarterback.

 

If somehow you think you're always on the Saints and never on the Steelers, that's a whole other kettle of fish.

 

 

​The assumption being that all combinations of teammates and enemies and their vehicles and loadouts and skill levels are the same for everyone ... which is the common assumption, but I don't think it's the correct one.

 


Edited by Capt_Nixon, Jan 01 2018 - 21:58.


scharnhorst310 #113 Posted Jan 01 2018 - 22:20

    Major

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

View PostCapt_Nixon, on Jan 01 2018 - 12:58, said:

 

​The assumption being that all combinations of teammates and enemies and their vehicles and loadouts and skill levels are the same for everyone ... which is the common assumption, but I don't think it's the correct one.

 

 

The law of averages says that they will be. It just takes thousand of and thousands of battles for the sample size to be large enough. The larger the sample size the more accurate it gets. Now if we are talking about two players with 10k battles and one guy got 100 more "bad" teams then the other, that is a 1% difference. Now 100 seems like a lot to me as mm is random so i'd imagine 10,000 matches would even things out a bit. I'd personally believe we'd see deviations around 50 games one way or the other. Even then, hard to accurately judge a players contribution to get 50 more losses. 

Edited by scharnhorst310, Jan 01 2018 - 22:21.


Capt_Nixon #114 Posted Jan 01 2018 - 22:53

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 12073 battles
  • 297
  • [FLARE] FLARE
  • Member since:
    09-14-2014

View Postscharnhorst310, on Jan 01 2018 - 15:20, said:

 

The law of averages says that they will be. It just takes thousand of and thousands of battles for the sample size to be large enough. 

 

The law of averages says that they *would* be ... if there is a small enough number of independent variables to go with a 'large enough' sample size.

 

If, for a given battle configuration we had five vehicle classes, two tiers, three vehicles per class, and just three different equipment/crew/loadout configurations, you would have 90 different configuration possibilities for each player ... x 15 players = 1,350 possible team configurations for just one battle. An adequate sample size to get a true 'average' with only a 2% margin of error in assessing win rates would be 2000 battles per configuration ... or 2.7 million battles.

 

But we don't have those limited configurations for each battle and player. In addition to some battles having 3 tiers, there are literally a dozen or more vehicles per vehicle class per tier that can be selected, each having different strengths and weaknesses, different equipment, different crew skill levels, and different consumables that make the range of configurations and corresponding outcomes soar beyond the billions. If a 16th vehicle were added to each team for every battle over a course of 10k battles where other random players were shuffled in and out, and those 16th vehicles sat idle to do nothing to help their respective teams, those idle vehicles are only slightly less likely to emerge from 10k battles with 48-52% head-to-head win rates than they are 50-50%, because MM isn't sophisticated enough to say 'Idle Tank A got a little shafted over the last 100 battles from the configuration outcomes, so now we're gonna give Idle Tank B the shaft for the next 100 battles' to make things even.



dunniteowl #115 Posted Jan 01 2018 - 23:00

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 20570 battles
  • 3,684
  • Member since:
    09-01-2014
LOL, you're arguing SPECIFICS of individuals at the same time you're arguing about LARGE NUMBERS for AVERAGES in a population.

Desert_Faux #116 Posted Jan 01 2018 - 23:05

    Major

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

View Postg4143, on Jan 01 2018 - 09:44, said:

 

Well you guys have to figure out if I suck or if I don't suck! I have some of the community saying I suck and others saying I don't.

 

I redact my response as dunniteowl said what I was gonna say a LOT better than I ever could. I didn't read his response until after I posted and I redact my response. 


Edited by Desert_Faux, Jan 01 2018 - 23:09.


Nixeldon #117 Posted Jan 01 2018 - 23:21

    Captain

  • Players
  • 56474 battles
  • 1,563
  • Member since:
    10-30-2011

View PostCapt_Nixon, on Jan 01 2018 - 16:53, said:

 

The law of averages says that they *would* be ... if there is a small enough number of independent variables to go with a 'large enough' sample size.

 

If, for a given battle configuration we had five vehicle classes, two tiers, three vehicles per class, and just three different equipment/crew/loadout configurations, you would have 90 different configuration possibilities for each player ... x 15 players = 1,350 possible team configurations for just one battle. An adequate sample size to get a true 'average' with only a 2% margin of error in assessing win rates would be 2000 battles per configuration ... or 2.7 million battles.

 

But we don't have those limited configurations for each battle and player. In addition to some battles having 3 tiers, there are literally a dozen or more vehicles per vehicle class per tier that can be selected, each having different strengths and weaknesses, different equipment, different crew skill levels, and different consumables that make the range of configurations and corresponding outcomes soar beyond the billions. If a 16th vehicle were added to each team for every battle over a course of 10k battles where other random players were shuffled in and out, and those 16th vehicles sat idle to do nothing to help their respective teams, those idle vehicles are only slightly less likely to emerge from 10k battles with 48-52% head-to-head win rates than they are 50-50%, because MM isn't sophisticated enough to say 'Idle Tank A got a little shafted over the last 100 battles from the configuration outcomes, so now we're gonna give Idle Tank B the shaft for the next 100 battles' to make things even.

 

None of this matters. 

 

View Postdunniteowl, on Jan 01 2018 - 17:00, said:

LOL, you're arguing SPECIFICS of individuals at the same time you're arguing about LARGE NUMBERS for AVERAGES in a population.

 

^^^This.

HITMAN19832006 #118 Posted Jan 12 2018 - 20:53

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 1140 battles
  • 16
  • [LTE_H] LTE_H
  • Member since:
    11-29-2017

I see lots of people talking but not really listening here. When it comes to MM and it's effect on Win Rate us highly dependent on your level of development in WOT.

Most people are below average to average. That's why the best are a small number inherently.

MM will screw you for any reason. You can have 10 goon/suicide squads in a row because the win rate on one of your tanks or all is above 52%. MM will keep putting you into these goon squads until either you get better or the win rate drops below 52.

As a noob, the difference I see between good/great players and everyone else is that the former has the skill set and experience to still carry/win these games. Lemmingrush is a good example of a player who can carry despite MM magic.

But for noobs, we're not there yet. Are we stuck and must accept our fate? No but MM gives you a bad start. Eventually, you'll learn by trying different things and asking questions. As for me, after over 500 battles I finally figured out how to close a flank corridor on Abbey with a Tiger I. Those revelations happen and they will change your game. Be patient. Go for what you can. Kill. Cap. Survive.


Edited by HITMAN19832006, Jan 12 2018 - 20:55.


dunniteowl #119 Posted Jan 17 2018 - 03:10

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 20570 battles
  • 3,684
  • Member since:
    09-01-2014

View PostHITMAN19832006, on Jan 12 2018 - 13:53, said:

I see lots of people talking but not really listening here. When it comes to MM and it's effect on Win Rate us highly dependent on your level of development in WOT.

Most people are below average to average. That's why the best are a small number inherently.

MM will screw you for any reason. You can have 10 goon/suicide squads in a row because the win rate on one of your tanks or all is above 52%. MM will keep putting you into these goon squads until either you get better or the win rate drops below 52.

As a noob, the difference I see between good/great players and everyone else is that the former has the skill set and experience to still carry/win these games. Lemmingrush is a good example of a player who can carry despite MM magic.

But for noobs, we're not there yet. Are we stuck and must accept our fate? No but MM gives you a bad start. Eventually, you'll learn by trying different things and asking questions. As for me, after over 500 battles I finally figured out how to close a flank corridor on Abbey with a Tiger I. Those revelations happen and they will change your game. Be patient. Go for what you can. Kill. Cap. Survive.

 

Please click the links in my post to the OP just a bit above you.  Please?




2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users