Jump to content


The MYTH of more skilled players at higher tiers on the NA server


  • Please log in to reply
91 replies to this topic

Kliphie #81 Posted Jan 14 2018 - 21:09

    Major

  • Players
  • 29709 battles
  • 2,407
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    07-20-2012
But as it being Noobmeter data, the "unwashed tater's" data is less likely to be queried and not in their database so it's always going to skew to the high side.  

Edited by Kliphie, Jan 14 2018 - 21:12.


Numerius_Titurius_Sophus #82 Posted Jan 14 2018 - 21:19

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 12063 battles
  • 1,183
  • [EOR] EOR
  • Member since:
    05-07-2015

View PostNeatoMan, on Jan 13 2018 - 18:12, said:

I expect anyone to be able to do what any good scientist would do when their data is questioned; verify it.  I have repeatedly challenged you to verify my data on your own, but you have made it perfectly clear that you are simply too lazy, too stupid, or too much of a wuss to do it.

 

I suspect it's too stupid, because you can't even enter into a discussion about what steps it would require to verify it, let alone discuss how data in general is relevant to the questions you pose.  You still have yet to even say what you consider to be a measure of skill.   You've come up with this idea that you don't even know how to articulate properly.   Even if we posted the right data, you'd have no clue what it means.

 

It's as I said earlier; the argument of the idiot is becoming more and more acceptable "If I can't understand it then it must be wrong", and what's even worse it continues to "I'll just substitute whatever I want as an explanation, and it will be right because in my heart I believe it to be so".

 

Neatoman, I appreciate your enthusiasm but you just cannot argue logic with these people.  You cannot use logic on people that are inherently irrational and/or dishonest.  I know that they are everywhere these days in this political climate but even still, don't waste your time.  The only thing you can do with irrational and/or dishonest people is to ignore them or mock them.  I have chosen the mocking route but I don't recommend it.  Ignore is likely best.

 

What's interesting is that sometimes when I mock, they seem genuinely upset that I am doing so and ask me to argue.  Why? I ask.  If you are confronted with solid, scientific evidence will you change your position?  If you are shown what you said is wrong will you stop saying it in the future?  NO!  You will not!  This means you are not rational and treating you as such is a waste of time.


Edited by Numerius_Titurius_Sophus, Jan 14 2018 - 21:24.


Numerius_Titurius_Sophus #83 Posted Jan 14 2018 - 21:29

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 12063 battles
  • 1,183
  • [EOR] EOR
  • Member since:
    05-07-2015

Let me give an example....myself.

 

Many moons ago I was a Global Warming skeptic.  My reasoning is that back in the 70's there was an 'Ice Age' scare...meaning we were on the verge of an Ice Age and it could start anytime.  The solution for this was to clean up pollution and all the other Green stuff you always hear.  Now we are worried about global warming and the EXACT SAME SOLUTIONS TO PREVENT AN ICE AGE are suggested.  Lunacy, I thought.

 

I was then informed that the Ice Age scare was not from the science community but was a public 'thing'.  Scientists even back then were concerned about warming, not cooling.

 

I did some research and THEY WERE RIGHT!  So I never ever made that argument again.

 

THAT is how arguments and debates work!  If I was irrational I would have denied the evidence and kept spouting the incorrect nonsense I had been doing before.



NeatoMan #84 Posted Jan 15 2018 - 00:13

    Major

  • Players
  • 25524 battles
  • 16,831
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View PostKliphie, on Jan 14 2018 - 15:09, said:

But as it being Noobmeter data, the "unwashed tater's" data is less likely to be queried and not in their database so it's always going to skew to the high side.  

but fewer unwashed taters are getting their data queried as you move up the tiers, which only means they are comprising a lower percentage of the queried players as you go up the tiers.  If tater stats are supposed to lower win rates then the effect would be greater in the lower tiers.

 

This shows the number of vehicles per tier over the last week
http://wot-news.com/...rver/us/norm/en

 

1 Tier
14 126 942 (17.43%)
2 Tier
18 654 607 (23.02%)
3 Tier
13 496 067 (16.65%)
4 Tier
9 315 810 (11.49%)
5 Tier
8 138 526 (10.04%)
6 Tier
6 196 353 (7.64%)
7 Tier
4 203 784 (5.19%)
8 Tier
4 256 384 (5.25%)
9 Tier
1 613 530 (1.99%)
10 Tier
1 051 675 (1.3%)


NeatoMan #85 Posted Jan 17 2018 - 22:38

    Major

  • Players
  • 25524 battles
  • 16,831
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

So, I started mining WoT's API.  The going is slow,  I've done 1000 accounts so far (1000505011 to 1000506011).  I filtered out players with less than 1000 battles, which is ~75-80% of all players, leaving me with ~200 players to analyze.

 

Here is a table and chart showing avg win rate vs avg tier.  The trend is already starting to form.  Higher avg tier players have higher avg win rates.  So, how many players do you think I need to analyze from the official API before you'd accept the results?


 

 



LpBronco #86 Posted Jan 17 2018 - 23:41

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 38166 battles
  • 2,227
  • [TG] TG
  • Member since:
    11-19-2010

Only makes sense that the more successful players hang around longer.

 

What surprises me is that there isn't a natural SBMM that takes effect at higher tiers still depressing the overall winrates as better players play better players. Maybe there is and it just doesn't reflect in this graph.



Old_Noobette #87 Posted Jan 17 2018 - 23:45

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 11959 battles
  • 864
  • Member since:
    12-16-2012
So do,,, on average,, , tier 10 players spend more money on the game ?

NeatoMan #88 Posted Jan 17 2018 - 23:52

    Major

  • Players
  • 25524 battles
  • 16,831
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View PostLpBronco, on Jan 17 2018 - 17:41, said:

Only makes sense that the more successful players hang around longer.

 

What surprises me is that there isn't a natural SBMM that takes effect at higher tiers still depressing the overall winrates as better players play better players. Maybe there is and it just doesn't reflect in this graph.

These are overall player win rates.  The decent players that can support themselves at higher tiers most likely earned even better win rates in the lower and mid tiers, so overall they'd still have higher win rates.  oh, and platoons.

 

added avg number of battles to the data.  As expected, number of battles also increases with average tier.  It looks like players actually do improve with more battles played, despite what people say about it being too easy to fail to the top.

 

when I gather enough data I'll check players above 10k battles.  No newb player with new tank/crew excuses anymore


Edited by NeatoMan, Jan 18 2018 - 01:10.


Kliphie #89 Posted Jan 18 2018 - 14:29

    Major

  • Players
  • 29709 battles
  • 2,407
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    07-20-2012

View PostNeatoMan, on Jan 14 2018 - 17:13, said:

but fewer unwashed taters are getting their data queried as you move up the tiers, which only means they are comprising a lower percentage of the queried players as you go up the tiers.  If tater stats are supposed to lower win rates then the effect would be greater in the lower tiers.

 

 

That's a nice supposition and probably true.  There's no way to quality check that, though. Your randomly going through the API method seems to remove the bias.

Prosqtor #90 Posted Jan 18 2018 - 14:54

    Captain

  • Players
  • 57099 battles
  • 1,913
  • [ONION] ONION
  • Member since:
    12-16-2011

View PostUrabouttudie, on Jan 11 2018 - 17:53, said:

I've posed this question several times in various threads where posters have stated that a lack of high-tier play is indicative of a poorly skilled player. I never get an answer.

 

Can anyone show me ANY statistical proof that there are more skilled players at the higher tiers than are found at lower tiers on the NA server?

 

Can anyone show me ANY statistical proof indicating increased difficulty levels at higher tiers?

 

The presumption here being that there are more better-skilled players to be found at the top tiers and so game play is therefore harder at these tiers than at the lower tiers.

 

Bonus Question: Can anyone define "difficulty level" in the context of WoT? Ie; what specific mechanics establish these "difficulty levels"

 

 

You must be joking here.

 



NeatoMan #91 Posted Jan 18 2018 - 15:23

    Major

  • Players
  • 25524 battles
  • 16,831
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View PostUrabouttudie, on Jan 11 2018 - 17:53, said:

Bonus Question: Can anyone define "difficulty level" in the context of WoT? Ie; what specific mechanics establish these "difficulty levels"

As I go through the API I am finding that even there tiers are referred to as "levels".  Look through the tank information in the API and you will see tank tiers listed as "levels".

 

Straight from the patent:

"The game engine (e.g., as performed by matchmaking server) uses battle levels to manage the difficulty of each battle session. According to one aspect, the level of difficulty of a battle level is not identified or revealed in the game, and players might not be offered any option to choose a difficulty level within a battle session."

 

"difficulty level" is just another way to say "level of difficulty".   It's based on battle level (which is the same as battle tier). 


Edited by NeatoMan, Jan 20 2018 - 05:00.


NeatoMan #92 Posted Jan 19 2018 - 18:11

    Major

  • Players
  • 25524 battles
  • 16,831
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011
nm. see above:

Edited by NeatoMan, Jan 19 2018 - 18:16.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users