Jump to content


Low win rate question


  • Please log in to reply
118 replies to this topic

3bagsfull #21 Posted Dec 24 2017 - 18:55

    Staff sergeant

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

Simple experiment, played 3 games in a Crusader, lost all 3.

 

 

 

Was high tier in 2 of them (though 1 was all Tier V)

Lost all 3 games by 9 tanks minimum (worst was 13 tanks as low tier).


 

Tell me how a BOT creates a 16% worse win rate?    No way my tank reverses that tide in any of those games - none.   Tanks folded like cheap tents in front of a desk fan.



Boghie #22 Posted Dec 24 2017 - 19:17

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 5559 battles
  • 537
  • [WCTNT] WCTNT
  • Member since:
    04-10-2016

View Post3bagsfull, on Dec 24 2017 - 09:10, said:

 

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.

 

The Bot reduces your average chance of win by 16% - but losing that tank still means you win 3 out of 10 games.  A couple of players with a couple of few damaging hits more than normal can recover from a Bot.

 

The point of this post is a question of whether a person with a 43% WR is trying to lose the game.  Like you say they could team kill, block, push, maybe just self spot near arty or spam chat or the map to a negative effect.  All I was trying to say was that someone who is trying to lose the game should perform worse than a Bot.



3bagsfull #23 Posted Dec 24 2017 - 19:20

    Staff sergeant

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

My whole point is 1 tank makes virtually no difference in a game that has so many dynamics:

1)  Tier variation

2)  Crew skill variation

3)  Actual player ability variation

4)  Meta tank variation


 

How anyone can pinpoint a % win rate for a BOT is crazy given all that.  

 

 

 

6 games in, 4 games bottom tier - 50% win rate and never moved.    In fact in one game I actually got credit for spotting 2 tanks and nearly 300 damage assist - but since the game was a steamroll 15-4 win does that even account for contributing even as a BOT?


 

The only thing that seems certain is that if the players in the best meta tanks don't do what they should - the game will steamroll - quick.


Edited by 3bagsfull, Dec 24 2017 - 19:23.


Boghie #24 Posted Dec 24 2017 - 19:31

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 5559 battles
  • 537
  • [WCTNT] WCTNT
  • Member since:
    04-10-2016

View Post3bagsfull, on Dec 24 2017 - 10:20, said:

My whole point is 1 tank makes virtually no difference in a game that has so many dynamics:

1)  Tier variation

2)  Crew skill variation

3)  Actual player ability variation

4)  Meta tank variation


 

How anyone can pinpoint a % win rate for a BOT is crazy given all that.   

 

Watch the video.  He bored himself to death on the common test server with a tank he Botted.  He turned the turret and fired when a tank was spotted.  That is all Bots do, and they must do that or WG apparently will ban the account.

Some Bots will actually move around like a Rumba vacuum cleaner.  They will fire at a spotted tank.  So, a Bot spots, fires, and acts a little like a meat shield.  Not much, but something.

 

And, a Bot (actually an AFK tank) beat TrobsMonkey:teethhappy:

 

Now, if the better players on your team Red Lined and Chai Sniped they could not carry a 43%er because they could not get the two damaging shots necessary to carry the game.  Likewise, if the Deep Red Machines on your team all only got their one shot than you will lose more often than win.  All I was saying is that if a player routinely gets into the game trying to lose he/she will have to do worse than a Bot - which is just kinda there.

 



scharnhorst310 #25 Posted Dec 24 2017 - 19:34

    Major

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

View Post3bagsfull, on Dec 24 2017 - 10:20, said:

My whole point is 1 tank makes virtually no difference in a game that has so many dynamics:

1)  Tier variation

2)  Crew skill variation

3)  Actual player ability variation

4)  Meta tank variation


 

How anyone can pinpoint a % win rate for a BOT is crazy given all that.  

 

 

 

6 games in, 4 games bottom tier - 50% win rate and never moved.    In fact in one game I actually got credit for spotting 2 tanks and nearly 300 damage assist - but since the game was a steamroll 15-4 win does that even account for contributing even as a BOT?


 

The only thing that seems certain is that if the players in the best meta tanks don't do what they should - the game will steamroll - quick.

 

Dude do you understand what sample size is? We are talking about thousands of battles, not 6. I could lose 6 battles in a row, and i'm a little bit better than you. 6 battles in the grand scheme of things is nothing. Its about how you play over hundreds and thousands of matches. If you contribute to your team, making them better consistently that impact will lead to an extra wins. Those little extra wins add up. 



3bagsfull #26 Posted Dec 24 2017 - 20:52

    Staff sergeant

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

View Postscharnhorst310, on Dec 24 2017 - 18:34, said:

 

Dude do you understand what sample size is? We are talking about thousands of battles, not 6. I could lose 6 battles in a row, and i'm a little bit better than you. 6 battles in the grand scheme of things is nothing. Its about how you play over hundreds and thousands of matches. If you contribute to your team, making them better consistently that impact will lead to an extra wins. Those little extra wins add up.

 

I can do what I just did till the cows come home, there is no way if I took a tank into every battle and did absolutely nothing for 100,000 battles that I'd have a 32% win rate SOLE BECAUSE OF JUST MY TANK.   Why?   Because that would mean people like you couldn't carry 1 tank 68% of the time.   The numbers simply don't add up.


 

Win rate is because MULTIPLE tanks don't carry their weight, which makes turning around a 2-3 or even 4 tank deficit that much harder. 



scharnhorst310 #27 Posted Dec 24 2017 - 21:09

    Major

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

View Post3bagsfull, on Dec 24 2017 - 11:52, said:

 

I can do what I just did till the cows come home, there is no way if I took a tank into every battle and did absolutely nothing for 100,000 battles that I'd have a 32% win rate SOLE BECAUSE OF JUST MY TANK.   Why?   Because that would mean people like you couldn't carry 1 tank 68% of the time.   The numbers simply don't add up.


 

Win rate is because MULTIPLE tanks don't carry their weight, which makes turning around a 2-3 or even 4 tank deficit that much harder. 

 

I don't know where you are getting numbers from...

 

I also don't have a clue where you are getting these numbers from (32%) unless it is a mistype because we're talking high thirties low 40s. Either way you can look at some of the most awful players in this game, and look how they win in tier 8+, especially tier 10. Since you don't have many games or much experience in those tiers; i'll tell you from someone who knows a thing or two, that it is a different game. Your level of expected contribution goes up significantly, and if you don't meet that you lose a lot more often. Why terrible players can still get decent winrates in tier 3s; drop them in a tier 10, they have to claw to get a low 40% winrate. You are top tier, where people are better and the mistakes you make cost you very quickly. In tier 3 where people are trying to not get spiddle on their keyboards its different. 

 

Since I can't specifically name him, go look at a clan called ARMED; look at the commander. Look at those winrates in high tiers...


Edited by scharnhorst310, Dec 24 2017 - 21:33.


3bagsfull #28 Posted Dec 24 2017 - 22:40

    Staff sergeant

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

32% is what was quoted from 4tankersanddog for the win rate of a BOT.    It makes no sense to me.



crossedarrows #29 Posted Dec 24 2017 - 23:40

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 24593 battles
  • 47
  • Member since:
    08-15-2015
As you get better in the game, your stats will improve.  If your win rate is also improving, you can infer that your individual tank DOES make a difference even if it is one of fifteen.

Boghie #30 Posted Dec 24 2017 - 23:47

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 5559 battles
  • 537
  • [WCTNT] WCTNT
  • Member since:
    04-10-2016

3BagsFull,

 

Scharnhorst has a WR of 62%.  That means he drags the average player to 48%.  He can drag a Bot with a WR like that.  He has to do it all the time.  That is, by definition, how he wins 62% of the time.

 

I was just in a Tier IV game where I was super XVM happy :teethhappy:

 

My team had the edge in players and tanks.  We had a purple player in a scout, we had a blue player in a HT, and a high green player in another HT.  We had an HT map (Airfield).  The other team had some quality, but their HTs were ruddy red.  Crappy MM for them!!!  I scouted HT zone, took some early shots and vacated position for the blue heavy.  Then I rotated and saw the Chafee.  Uh, the idiot was a Bot.  Then I spotted the green Churchill.  Uh, that idiot was a red line Chai Sniper (very good by the way, but did nothing to win battle).  Then I noted that the HT area was lost almost immediately even though we had the numerical advantage.  Our camping TDs couldn't hit their suiscouters and one looked like the paint on the interior of the gun barrel was never scratched.

 

So, you get all kinds.  Watching the videos on Scharnhorst's site tells me he is not a Chai Sniping Bot or whatever.  He can do his part in covering for all us <49%ers.  All we really have to do is get our two shots in and spot something or maybe slow a blown flank.  If we get four shots in and a spot we are ready to rumble.



Boghie #31 Posted Dec 25 2017 - 22:35

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 5559 battles
  • 537
  • [WCTNT] WCTNT
  • Member since:
    04-10-2016

da_Rock,

 

Reviving, because...  One tank being a Bot should reduce WR by a little less than 7% because that Bot is just 7% of the team.  But, the WR drops by 16% from the average of about 48%.  That tells me that the Wetware behind the keyboard is more important than the vehicle count.  It also tells me that a ruddy red noob isn't as bad as everyone believes.  It is far easier to carry a 4% difference (maybe a shot or two) than a 16% difference.  

 

 



Chalybos #32 Posted Dec 26 2017 - 15:38

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 22596 battles
  • 904
  • Member since:
    04-18-2011
Back when XVM gave odds, I remember seeing our chances increase by like 5% when a player on our team with something like an 1100 PR and a 41% WR died, soooo ... 

Boghie #33 Posted Dec 26 2017 - 17:50

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 5559 battles
  • 537
  • [WCTNT] WCTNT
  • Member since:
    04-10-2016

View PostChalybos, on Dec 26 2017 - 06:38, said:

Back when XVM gave odds, I remember seeing our chances increase by like 5% when a player on our team with something like an 1100 PR and a 41% WR died, soooo ... 

 

Maybe that Ruddy Red Tomato put a round into a highly rated player as he got waxed.  Maybe the round fired at him led to the enemy getting spotted and hit.

 

 



Nixeldon #34 Posted Dec 26 2017 - 18:10

    Captain

  • Players
  • 56781 battles
  • 1,565
  • Member since:
    10-30-2011

View PostBoghie, on Dec 26 2017 - 11:50, said:

 

Maybe that Ruddy Red Tomato put a round into a highly rated player as he got waxed.  Maybe the round fired at him led to the enemy getting spotted and hit.

 

 

 

That isn't how the calculations worked. Win chance is a prediction algorithm. The relative rating of the player could actually count against the team's chances, so that losing that player was actually beneficial to the team's overall success. A high-rated player could account for +20% of the team's total win chance weight. I have seen ~30% in extreme cases.

 

Due to team dependencies requiring players in certain tanks to perform at least some beneficial role(spotting, soaking up damage, dealing damage, flexing, etc.), it is actually better that some players literally afk and maybe spot the cap circle than create an active detriment somewhere on the map.

 



Alky6 #35 Posted Dec 26 2017 - 18:39

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 3934 battles
  • 374
  • Member since:
    06-03-2015
I wish people would stop calling low win rate players "bots".  They are people too. Some players don't have the skill that others have, some are elderly and can't react as quickly as the 15 tear olds. That was demonstrated to me on Christmas eve when My grandson was over for a visit with his dad. We got on the PS4 and played CoD WWII, he's 15 and he blew my mind watching him. He was shooting at enemy that I didn't even see and was making me dizzy with how fast he moved through the scenery while killing enemy. The same would apply to WoT, I love the game, but I'm not 15, and I'm not a bot either.  From what I remember bots in this game were found only in tier's 1 and two and would either sit still or run into the first obstacle and sit for the rest of the game while spewing advertising for hack sites. I can live with being called a noob, or a schitter, but a bot I am not.

scharnhorst310 #36 Posted Dec 26 2017 - 19:03

    Major

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

View PostAlky6, on Dec 26 2017 - 09:39, said:

I wish people would stop calling low win rate players "bots".  They are people too. Some players don't have the skill that others have, some are elderly and can't react as quickly as the 15 tear olds. That was demonstrated to me on Christmas eve when My grandson was over for a visit with his dad. We got on the PS4 and played CoD WWII, he's 15 and he blew my mind watching him. He was shooting at enemy that I didn't even see and was making me dizzy with how fast he moved through the scenery while killing enemy. The same would apply to WoT, I love the game, but I'm not 15, and I'm not a bot either.  From what I remember bots in this game were found only in tier's 1 and two and would either sit still or run into the first obstacle and sit for the rest of the game while spewing advertising for hack sites. I can live with being called a noob, or a schitter, but a bot I am not.

 

Think about it this way; you know you aren't a great player, even you manage a 47% winrate just doing a couple of shots of damage on average... now we're talking about people in the low 40s, high 30% winrate. Can you fathom how awful you'd have to be to drag teams down to that level? You might not be dishing out a world of hurt to other tanks all the time, but 47% winrate means you aren't necessarily dragging teams down. Think about what it would take to get to 43% winrate...

Boghie #37 Posted Dec 26 2017 - 21:29

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 5559 battles
  • 537
  • [WCTNT] WCTNT
  • Member since:
    04-10-2016

View PostNixeldon, on Dec 26 2017 - 09:10, said:

 

That isn't how the calculations worked. Win chance is a prediction algorithm. The relative rating of the player could actually count against the team's chances, so that losing that player was actually beneficial to the team's overall success. A high-rated player could account for +20% of the team's total win chance weight. I have seen ~30% in extreme cases.

 

Due to team dependencies requiring players in certain tanks to perform at least some beneficial role(spotting, soaking up damage, dealing damage, flexing, etc.), it is actually better that some players literally afk and maybe spot the cap circle than create an active detriment somewhere on the map.

 

 

Maybe, but, when I go down if I get a damaging hit on a good player - or take him/her down with me - than that is beneficial to the team.  A Bot would not do that.  Remember, the Win% delta between that 43%er and the average of 48% is probably one more hit for damage.  That 43%er is just 19% behind a Purple player like Scharnhorst or LemmingRush or whatever.  If that player stays in the game and doesn't block, push, TK he/she is an asset.  He might get an additional hit, he might spot someone, he might run into a tree and topple of the other teams purple player.  I seriously doubt that his death - unless he is a TKer - is good for the team. 

 

Scharnhorst, while a 50 game sample is too small 4Tankers did do a survey by acting the role of a Bot for 50 games on the common test server.  He dragged his teams Win% to 32% as a Bot.  He is normally about a 60% player.  So that is a delta of -28%.  He was always bottom tier as well so that is probably also a factor - maybe a Top Tier Bot is better :-}.

 

What would be interesting is to be able to discretely measure performance.  What I mean is that since MM doesn't incorporate skill into the equation than why is there such a team discrepancy when one player is removed?  Is it subjective?  Is there a delta between a Blue/Purple experienced player Chai Sniping damage till he is swarmed and a 41%er pushing into a TD lane and getting waxed three minutes into the game?  The interesting question is what is the delta there.



Beorn_of_the_NorthernSea #38 Posted Dec 26 2017 - 22:40

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 25376 battles
  • 2,652
  • [-SCA-] -SCA-
  • Member since:
    08-07-2014

View Postrich73, on Dec 23 2017 - 11:18, 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.

 

^^^ This right here is some tin-foil hat Bee to the Ess...

 

~B



Nixeldon #39 Posted Dec 27 2017 - 13:14

    Captain

  • Players
  • 56781 battles
  • 1,565
  • Member since:
    10-30-2011

View PostBoghie, on Dec 26 2017 - 15:29, said:

 

Maybe, but, when I go down if I get a damaging hit on a good player - or take him/her down with me - than that is beneficial to the team.  A Bot would not do that.  Remember, the Win% delta between that 43%er and the average of 48% is probably one more hit for damage.  That 43%er is just 19% behind a Purple player like Scharnhorst or LemmingRush or whatever.  If that player stays in the game and doesn't block, push, TK he/she is an asset.  He might get an additional hit, he might spot someone, he might run into a tree and topple of the other teams purple player.  I seriously doubt that his death - unless he is a TKer - is good for the team. 

 

Scharnhorst, while a 50 game sample is too small 4Tankers did do a survey by acting the role of a Bot for 50 games on the common test server.  He dragged his teams Win% to 32% as a Bot.  He is normally about a 60% player.  So that is a delta of -28%.  He was always bottom tier as well so that is probably also a factor - maybe a Top Tier Bot is better :-}.

 

What would be interesting is to be able to discretely measure performance.  What I mean is that since MM doesn't incorporate skill into the equation than why is there such a team discrepancy when one player is removed?  Is it subjective?  Is there a delta between a Blue/Purple experienced player Chai Sniping damage till he is swarmed and a 41%er pushing into a TD lane and getting waxed three minutes into the game?  The interesting question is what is the delta there.

Whether that shot of damage is beneficial is often situational and tank dependent. Bad players tend to occupy useless map positions, trade poorly, lose significant over-matches, push to cap circles like there is a magical forcefield around them, etc. Initial player actions influence the decisions of other players. 

 

A player's win rate is essentially their chance to win any match. The further from the mean a player's win rate is indicates the level of positive versus negative influence that player has on their team's win chances over time, not merely their degree of input. If, as a player, your actions do not facilitate the removal of your tank's equivalent hit points or more, either directly or by amplifying your team's output, what type of influence are you wielding? The most reliable method of winning matches is removing enemy tanks at higher rate than your team's losses. The more a player shifts that burden to the rest of their team, the more of a detriment they become.

 

As for what a bot would or wouldn't do, some of the better bot programs can easily maintain an average win rate. In most tanks, a player only needs to do 1.5 to 3 shots of damage per match to pull a yellow win rate/WN8. 

 

Win rate measures consistency of play and the best and worst players are the most consistent. The best players consistently do things that win more matches. The worst players consistently do things that lose more matches.  It doesn't necessarily matter what it is that these players are/aren't doing for the purpose of this discussion, only that their tendencies are prevalent. Using words like "if" and "might" ignores these persistent player tendencies and emphasizes the exceptions.



Chalybos #40 Posted Dec 27 2017 - 15:24

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 22596 battles
  • 904
  • Member since:
    04-18-2011

View PostBoghie, on Dec 26 2017 - 11:50, said:

 

Maybe that Ruddy Red Tomato put a round into a highly rated player as he got waxed.  Maybe the round fired at him led to the enemy getting spotted and hit.

 

 

 

No.  That particular player did nothing but die.  No damage, no spots, no assist.  He died with zero impact for our team, other than to give the enemy a free kill.

You'll see that happen quite a lot, if you look at the minimap a few times, pay attention to who deploys where at the beginning of a match, and read the after battle report at the end of the match.  If you want to see what a player contributed to a match, you sort the end of battle report by XP.  The guy on the bottom, if he had no damage AND was bottom XP?  Either he gambled real big and lost fast, or he did his best impression of the robot from Lost in Space and flailed his arms around yelling "DANGER! DANGER Will Robinson!" without actually doing anything to help the situation.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users