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 #41 Posted Jan 12 2018 - 15:36

    Major

  • Players
  • 30607 battles
  • 3,109
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    07-20-2012
How do you "prove" an amorphous concept like "better?"

ThePigSheFlies #42 Posted Jan 12 2018 - 15:51

    Major

  • Players
  • 63937 battles
  • 16,464
  • [SIMP] SIMP
  • Member since:
    10-20-2012

View PostKliphie, on Jan 12 2018 - 09:36, said:

How do you "prove" an amorphous concept like "better?"

 

the same way you call something a myth based on a preconceived notion when one is really just trying to be anti-establishment in their way of "thinking"

NeatoMan #43 Posted Jan 12 2018 - 16:02

    Major

  • Players
  • 25952 battles
  • 17,858
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View PostUrabouttudie, on Jan 12 2018 - 09:02, said:

you must really think highly of yourself Neato...

 

No, I just do not put ANY stock whatsoever into your version of statisitcs...I can make spreadsheets too

Then you need to be more clear of what your requirements for "skilled" are?   better win rates? better PR ratings? better WN8?

 

What about my statistics do you not believe?  I have posted my database and can make it available again if you don't want to look for it.  I have load-in screenshots of all my battles showing the player stats and battle tier displayed by XVM.   You can pick any game in my database at random and I can give you the screenshot for verification (except from patches ~9.13-9.15 that got lost when my old PC died).   I can provide proof for everything in those charts and then some.  You will never win any argument calling that data fabricated or made up.   Want to try?  You are welcome to discuss my data gathering methods anytime.

 

As far as relevance to what you asked, can you explain why 30000 player win rates worth of data is not enough?  Do you honestly believe that I got some kind of special MM whereby only I get better players in my battles as I progressed up the tiers and you did not?  Do you think 30000 players is not a good enough cross section of the player base?  Do you think that everyone gets such unique MM that no player statistics are comparable? 

 

Your statistics knowledge is weak.   It's not my fault that you are either too lazy, or too incompetent to gather the necessary information to figure this out all by yourself.    I guarantee you will come up with similar results if you ever bothered to really look.  I challenge anybody to try.


Edited by NeatoMan, Jan 12 2018 - 17:59.


SirMuttonChops #44 Posted Jan 12 2018 - 16:46

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 7086 battles
  • 826
  • Member since:
    01-06-2013

Saying there are better players at Tier 10 is kind of true in that they obviously were good enough (however none may measure that metric) to grind up the line.

 

But you still have garbage players at every tier just like you have skilled players at every tier.

 

You'll probably find more of the skilled players at the more balanced tiers however, which seems to be the tier 7-8-9 bracket,



Husarski #45 Posted Jan 12 2018 - 17:27

    Major

  • Players
  • 31757 battles
  • 3,961
  • Member since:
    05-13-2011

TIer X has more experienced players. Are they better players? Maybe, maybe not.

 

I have seen tier X tankers do things that you know you shouldn't do by tier III.



ThePigSheFlies #46 Posted Jan 12 2018 - 17:33

    Major

  • Players
  • 63937 battles
  • 16,464
  • [SIMP] SIMP
  • Member since:
    10-20-2012

View PostHusarski, on Jan 12 2018 - 11:27, said:

TIer X has more experienced players. Are they better players? Maybe, maybe not.

 

I have seen tier X tankers do things that you know you shouldn't do by tier III.

 

we all have.

 

the point however, is that the game's relatively few good players tend to concentrate in the upper tiers.



Cognitive_Dissonance #47 Posted Jan 12 2018 - 17:35

    Major

  • Players
  • 39618 battles
  • 6,323
  • [ANASS] ANASS
  • Member since:
    01-31-2013

View PostBear031, on Jan 11 2018 - 18:21, said:

I think it was true once but less so now - the game has been out so long that all player skill level have had time to fail their way into tier 10

 

I am proof of that.

xtc4 #48 Posted Jan 12 2018 - 17:47

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 24638 battles
  • 725
  • [DHO-X] DHO-X
  • Member since:
    01-31-2013

View PostUrabouttudie, on Jan 12 2018 - 09:02, said:

 

you must really think highly of yourself Neato...

 

No, I just do not put ANY stock whatsoever into your version of statisitcs...I can make spreadsheets too

 

So...it seems there are a lot of posters here who firmly believe in this MYTH of better game play at higher tiers...

 

...But no proofs? Nobody?? Any OFFICIAL statistics showing that the amount of better-skilled players increases at top tiers on the NA server?

 

But you are all convinced it is the case eh?

 

...sounds like a familiar argument...

 

still waiting...

 

I sense that we are getting our legs pulled.

moogleslam #49 Posted Jan 12 2018 - 18:57

    Major

  • Players
  • 39137 battles
  • 4,134
  • Member since:
    12-20-2013

If you play a variety of tiers with XVM turned on, it's crystal clear that the skill level is higher at the top tiers.  Besides the odd seal clubber or players starting grinds at lower tiers, there's significantly more greens/teals/purples at the top tiers.  I don't need a statistical analysis to tell me that. I have several Tier 10's, but I also play low tiers as that's all my kids have.  I see enough of both ends of the spectrum to know.  

 

Furthermore, there's no bias here.  I have no need to believe there are higher skilled players at higher tiers than at lower tiers.

 

Beyond that, it's common sense.  Generally, the more someone plays, the better they get, hence you'll find better players at top tiers as those players will have experience whereas those at the lower tiers will not.

 

What is your goal in seeking this answer?



Beorn_of_the_NorthernSea #50 Posted Jan 12 2018 - 19:53

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 25377 battles
  • 2,652
  • [-SCA-] -SCA-
  • Member since:
    08-07-2014

View PostTrauglodyte, on Jan 11 2018 - 19:34, said:

 

I couldn't let that Leo 1 win % go.  A goal that I'm working on is going back and "fixing" all of my ghetto tanks.  It is a hassle but I'm getting them all to 50%.

 

I could not agree with you more.  However, I am not yet good enough to return to the Leopard 1 and bring it back into line.  I need to play a few more tanks first.  But rest assured I will return to my first tier X and I will get it to 50%, or better.

 

~B



FlakKnight #51 Posted Jan 12 2018 - 19:58

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 12776 battles
  • 648
  • Member since:
    11-13-2013
They can't be more skilled at tier 10, roughly half the teams lose at every tier.

/statistics

FlakKnight #52 Posted Jan 12 2018 - 20:01

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 12776 battles
  • 648
  • Member since:
    11-13-2013

View PostBeornotns, on Jan 12 2018 - 18:53, said:

 

I could not agree with you more.  However, I am not yet good enough to return to the Leopard 1 and bring it back into line.  I need to play a few more tanks first.  But rest assured I will return to my first tier X and I will get it to 50%, or better.

 

~B

 

The biggest problem with the leo is it really can't carry as top tier in a 3/5/7 as easily on account of it being made of paper mache and the huge number of corridor maps.  I don't really have issues with it on 5/10 or 15 mm.



Nixeldon #53 Posted Jan 13 2018 - 00:54

    Captain

  • Players
  • 56781 battles
  • 1,566
  • Member since:
    10-30-2011
​Go to wot-news and examine the tier X tank curves. Most tanks perform at roughly average, but most of the win rate intersect points are well above average. This indicates the majority of players underperform at higher tiers. Do the math.
 
 
 
 


NeatoMan #54 Posted Jan 13 2018 - 02:16

    Major

  • Players
  • 25952 battles
  • 17,858
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View PostNixeldon, on Jan 12 2018 - 18:54, said:

​Go to wot-news and examine the tier X tank curves. Most tanks perform at roughly average, but most of the win rate intersect points are well above average. This indicates the majority of players underperform at higher tiers. Do the math.

There are plenty of ways to do it, if you've got the mental aptitude, but Urabouttie has made it clear that either he doesn't have the aptitude or is totally unwilling to apply whatever aptitude he possesses.   He'll only settle for "official" stats (whatever that means).

 

The only "official" stats that would fit the bill are win rate and PR rating.  PR rating obviously won't work since it's partially based on number of games played, so that leaves win rate as the only "official" stat that could possibly satisfy his stated aim.

 

You could easily gather average win rates from players at various tiers and compare it to the server average, but nope not acceptable.  It's got to have a WG stamp of approval on it or he won't accept it.   He can't process anything else.   Such is the world we live in today.   The scientific method keeps getting thrown under the bus in favor of the ignoramus approach



Rocksuperstar #55 Posted Jan 13 2018 - 03:42

    Sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 10816 battles
  • 188
  • Member since:
    01-04-2011

If we're using WN8 as the marker, anyone who puts any effort in at higher tiers with tanks that dish out more damage per shell will naturally get a higher WN8 than with a tier 4 tank.  Get yourself into a Russian TD, find the way you play it most effectively and you can be chalking up 3000+ damage on a pretty regular basis even as an average tanker.  This is countered on the battle field by tanks that have substantially higher hit points, so there's more room to earn more damage and get that WN8 up.

 

If you ever feel that the player base on NA isn't up to par though, go play EU for a few days.  Take a guitar and enough crackers for Smores all round, maybe a book and a warm blanket because you're going to see some incredible amounts of camping and very little above 500/600 WN8 players even at higher tiers.  Dreadful place.



NeatoMan #56 Posted Jan 13 2018 - 04:20

    Major

  • Players
  • 25952 battles
  • 17,858
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

I started entering player data from my most recent games.  So far only got ~30 tier 9 and 10 games.  Shows average number players of each color per battle.  I didn't separate battle tier 10/11 in the new MM.  So far tier 10 players haven't changed all that much from before.  Tier 9 looks like slightly worse, but I only got 10 games recorded so far. 

 

I would have figured with more veterans leaving and newbs buying all those premium tanks it would have dropped more.

 

New MM

 

Old MM

 



moogleslam #57 Posted Jan 13 2018 - 04:27

    Major

  • Players
  • 39137 battles
  • 4,134
  • Member since:
    12-20-2013

View PostRocksuperstar, on Jan 12 2018 - 22:42, said:

If we're using WN8 as the marker, anyone who puts any effort in at higher tiers with tanks that dish out more damage per shell will naturally get a higher WN8 than with a tier 4 tank.  

 

That's not how WN8 works.  It scales for a whole host of things including tier/dmg per tier.

Nixeldon #58 Posted Jan 13 2018 - 04:57

    Captain

  • Players
  • 56781 battles
  • 1,566
  • Member since:
    10-30-2011

View PostNeatoMan, on Jan 12 2018 - 20:16, said:

There are plenty of ways to do it, if you've got the mental aptitude, but Urabouttie has made it clear that either he doesn't have the aptitude or is totally unwilling to apply whatever aptitude he possesses.   He'll only settle for "official" stats (whatever that means).

 

The only "official" stats that would fit the bill are win rate and PR rating.  PR rating obviously won't work since it's partially based on number of games played, so that leaves win rate as the only "official" stat that could possibly satisfy his stated aim.

 

You could easily gather average win rates from players at various tiers and compare it to the server average, but nope not acceptable.  It's got to have a WG stamp of approval on it or he won't accept it.   He can't process anything else.   Such is the world we live in today.   The scientific method keeps getting thrown under the bus in favor of the ignoramus approach

 

It seems to be common around here. 

ThePigSheFlies #59 Posted Jan 13 2018 - 05:32

    Major

  • Players
  • 63937 battles
  • 16,464
  • [SIMP] SIMP
  • Member since:
    10-20-2012

View Postmoogleslam, on Jan 12 2018 - 22:27, said:

 

That's not how WN8 works.  It scales for a whole host of things including tier/dmg per tier.

 

^

this.  TDs have a rather high expected damage, because most players camp in them, get out marginally effective mid-game damage, and then sweep up late game damage on the loss.  on a roflstomp win, they don't get much damage at all because they don't keep up with the damage farm.

 

players with good map awareness can/do farm wn8 in mediums because of their very high dpm, and flexibility.  ~2400 dmg and a kill in the tier 9 Skoda T50 is ~2600 wn8...

now, take a look at LTs, and the T49 only needs like half that damage to hit the same wn8... 

 

oh, and here's what a session of simply doing doubles can turn into with mobile/agile tanks.  it can just as easily go like it did last night where I went 1 for 7...  and due to their fragile hulls they can also obviously get smacked hard for zero or little damage, your mileage may vary:

 

 



Urabouttudie #60 Posted Jan 13 2018 - 16:00

    Captain

  • Players
  • 20871 battles
  • 1,792
  • Member since:
    11-11-2013

View Postxtc4, on Jan 12 2018 - 08:47, said:

I sense that we are getting our legs pulled.

 

3 pages and counting...watch this...

 

View PostNeatoMan, on Jan 12 2018 - 17:16, said:

There are plenty of ways to do it, if you've got the mental aptitude, but Urabouttie has made it clear that either he doesn't have the aptitude or is totally unwilling to apply whatever aptitude he possesses.   He'll only settle for "official" stats (whatever that means).

 

The only "official" stats that would fit the bill are win rate and PR rating.  PR rating obviously won't work since it's partially based on number of games played, so that leaves win rate as the only "official" stat that could possibly satisfy his stated aim.

 

You could easily gather average win rates from players at various tiers and compare it to the server average, but nope not acceptable.  It's got to have a WG stamp of approval on it or he won't accept it.   He can't process anything else.   Such is the world we live in today.   The scientific method keeps getting thrown under the bus in favor of the ignoramus approach

 

Well...anyone can create a spreadsheet and enter fictitious data that reflects the information they want it to...and you just expect everyone to simply accept your data as factual.

 

I trust your data like I trust Gallup Polls...If you have nothing more than petty insults and your potentially nefarious data to continue a discussion with then I guess I've trolled all there is to troll out of you Neatoman.

 

perhaps YOU should put ME on ignore 

 

;)






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users