Jump to content


Five Months of WoT Stat Collection - 2k+ Games Collected


  • Please log in to reply
77 replies to this topic

NeatoMan #21 Posted Aug 09 2018 - 02:53

    Major

  • Players
  • 28180 battles
  • 20,430
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011
Very nice. Can't wait to get back to my pc to see how it compares to my data.  At first glance the margin of victory data looks similar to mine.  

Would be nice to get the raw data to do battle tier vs margin breakdowns

Trauglodyte #22 Posted Aug 09 2018 - 03:07

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 23246 battles
  • 3,662
  • [GSH] GSH
  • Member since:
    06-04-2016

View Postda_Rock002, on Aug 09 2018 - 02:53, said:

 

 


 

Hey, it's good to see someone's numbers.    It's especially good to see someone collecting scores as they tell more about your personal experiences than most stats.

Thanks for sharing.   

Did you notice it looks like around 56% of your battles were 15-7 to 15-0  scores?      What would be really worthwhile would be to see how many your team won of those, versus how many you team lost.    It'd give some indication how random your luck was with the mm. 


 

You don't say how many battles of those 2,133 everyone on your team did damage.   Without knowing that, your "13 teammates" isn't very clear.     What is obvious is that "every game" didn't have 4 of your allies do 0 damage.    You need to restate what you're getting at.    Having 4 teammates do 0 damage certainly did not happen "every game you've played".

 

I did notice that 56% of battles ended in 15-7 to 15-0 but I didn't want to group things like that.  I could have just as easily have said that 64% of games ended between 15-10 and 15-5.  It is a good talking point but it can be a bit misleading, since you're kind of building your own set of goal posts, depending upon the narrative that you want to establish.

 

As to your last question, only 377 games were played where EVERYONE on my team did damage.  So, 17.7% of games.

  • 620 games had at least 1 person (29%)
  • 578 games had at least 2 people (27%)
  • 369 games had at least 3 people (17%)
  • 126 games had at least 4 people (6%)
  • 54 games had at least 5 people (3%)
  • 9 games had at least 6 people (less than 1%)
  • 3 games had at least 7 people (less than 1%)
  • 2 games had at least 8 people (less than 1%)

 

These data points are kind of scary.  Since I can't go back in to see what percentage of people "pulled their weight", I can't say how things worked out.  But, it does show that I had about a 1/3rd chance of playing on a team of 13 people and about a 1 in 5 chance of playing with only 12 people on the team.  Their is a lot of noise in that, obviously, and mistakes do happen.  It just makes you wonder, from game to game, how many people that you've got actually doing something.

 

At the end of the day, I strive to do my weight.  Sadly, and this is part of why I created this stupid Excel booklet, I haven't always done that.  Case in point, I'm only dealing my health in damage or more 55% of the time.  The question is, what does that make me?  Am I a tomato?  Does that make me mediocre?  Am I good and more?  Data is great but it is how you utilize it that is important.  I just want to keep getting better and I really want my teammates to help me more.  I'm not holding my breath on that last bit.


Edited by Trauglodyte, Aug 09 2018 - 03:13.


da_Rock002 #23 Posted Aug 09 2018 - 03:13

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 9355 battles
  • 3,631
  • Member since:
    11-24-2016

View PostTrauglodyte, on Aug 08 2018 - 21:07, said:

 

I did notice that 56% of battles ended in 15-7 to 15-0 but I didn't want to group things like that.  I could have just as easily have said that 64% of games ended between 15-10 and 15-5.  It is a good talking point but it can be a bit misleading, since you're kind of building your own set of goal posts, depending upon the narrative that you want to establish.

 

As to your last question, only 377 games were played where EVERYONE on my team did damage.  So, 17.7% of games.

  • 620 games had at least 1 person (29%)
  • 578 games had at least 2 people (27%)
  • 369 games had at least 3 people (17%)
  • 126 games had at least 4 people (6%)
  • 54 games had at least 5 people (3%)
  • 9 games had at least 6 people (less than 1%)
  • 3 games had at least 7 people (less than 1%)
  • 2 games had at least 8 people (less than 1%)

 

 

Gotta go look, but all that sounds very much like the numbers I've recorded over the last year+. 

 

Glad you didn't mention counts of 15-10 to 15-5 battles because that range means pretty much nothing to most people.


 

thanks for the info

 



NeatoMan #24 Posted Aug 09 2018 - 03:24

    Major

  • Players
  • 28180 battles
  • 20,430
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011
Everyone gets 0 dmg games, the main difference is how often.  Bad players simply get them more often than good players.  Sometimes they both have one of those games at the same time.  It doesn't necessarily mean the MM gave you a crap team.

NeatoMan #25 Posted Aug 09 2018 - 03:33

    Major

  • Players
  • 28180 battles
  • 20,430
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View Postda_Rock002, on Aug 08 2018 - 21:13, said:

Gotta go look, but all that sounds very much like the numbers I've recorded over the last year+. 

 

Glad you didn't mention counts of 15-10 to 15-5 battles because that range means pretty much nothing to most people.

You should post your data in the same format as his so we can compare it using the same standards.  

 

OP,   it would also be nice to include cap games too so we can get an idea of how often these occur for all games played, not just kill all ones.



Flarvin #26 Posted Aug 09 2018 - 03:52

    Major

  • Players
  • 54450 battles
  • 16,467
  • Member since:
    03-29-2013

View PostNeatoMan, on Aug 08 2018 - 21:24, said:

Everyone gets 0 dmg games, the main difference is how often. Bad players simply get them more often than good players. Sometimes they both have one of those games at the same time. It doesn't necessarily mean the MM gave you a crap team.

 

Good players having a zero damage game, pretty much shows that the mm has little to do with crap teams.  

 

Players’ stats don’t win matches, their performance does. 



Badabingg #27 Posted Aug 09 2018 - 04:20

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 7048 battles
  • 331
  • [W-UN2] W-UN2
  • Member since:
    12-07-2015

Bravo

This is a game of statistics and it takes a fair degree of understanding to get it

Few have the numeracy to do that

 

The spread (StdDeviation ) is critical to understanding the distribution

Otherwise you just have a game of  reflexes and lizard brain

 



vinnybagadonuts #28 Posted Aug 09 2018 - 06:14

    Captain

  • Players
  • 30486 battles
  • 1,379
  • Member since:
    06-14-2011

did you really never have a match that was 5/10 while playing a tier9?  that seems really odd to me as i see that quite often playing 9s.

 

or did you just not count that as "bottom" since its only -1?

 

perhaps its just a terminology thing then, where bottom always means -2 and middle will just mean -1?

 

 

either way, very cool you kept track of all this...one of the most interesting threads in awhile.


Edited by vinnybagadonuts, Aug 09 2018 - 06:15.


SwedishEOD #29 Posted Aug 09 2018 - 07:58

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 61180 battles
  • 1,662
  • Member since:
    07-24-2010
0 dmg games happens to everyone sometimes , some of them are people that tries a aggresive yolo scout first thing , some are afk , some are unlucky and faces a FV183 first thing when they turn a corner in their tier 8, and the possibilities goes on. So one zero dmg in a battle is not that surprising. It's when you get 4-5 of them in one battle you kind of stare at the scorecard afterwards in disbelief....

OldFrog75 #30 Posted Aug 09 2018 - 11:23

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 10558 battles
  • 2,549
  • [5M0K3] 5M0K3
  • Member since:
    02-23-2017

Tier VII...:izmena:

 

Great work!  Thanks for sharing this.  :great:


Edited by OldFrog75, Aug 09 2018 - 11:26.


da_Rock002 #31 Posted Aug 09 2018 - 11:37

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 9355 battles
  • 3,631
  • Member since:
    11-24-2016

View PostNeatoMan, on Aug 08 2018 - 21:33, said:

You should post your data in the same format as his so we can compare it using the same standards. 

 

OP,   it would also be nice to include cap games too so we can get an idea of how often these occur for all games played, not just kill all ones.

 

 

How about I post my data as I please?    After all, the important audience is WG, and they should have little trouble verifying what I post.

 

For example...…….

I just noticed some of the counts/stats I recorded for the last two months. 

I fought 333 battles.

170 were wins

163 were losses 


 


 

180 of the 333 battles were WoT/Wg signature blowouts.   My judgement of "blowouts" is based on my researching the two teams in the after battle reports.  It is based on a number of the players' stats to see how the 15 players on one side compared to the 15 players on the other.   After all, the game is a team competition.   Bottom line when judging the match maker is how one team compares to the other.  


 

180 of 333 is 54%.    That 54% bias has shown up in almost every month stats I've recorded since I joined back in '16.    Those signature blowouts are almost 100% rolfstomps that are controlled by the team that got most of the skilled players, like about 1/4 the 30 players in the battle.   I've discovered the other players of course naturally influence the outcomes.   If they are lucky, they are good enough the battle takes more than 2-4 minutes.    


 

Most of the players in those battles really don't 'carry' their side to an upset victory.    They are really just along for the ride, and the ride sucks almost every time.   In fact, their WR is at the mercy of the MM that spits those crap battles out, and it appears they happen around half the time for newbies.    I got no stats from those MM blessed blues that show how often they were lucky in the MM lottery or unlucky.    Since the WG signature matchups are no longer spotlighted by XVM that evidence is now gone so only people who know how to view both teams skills will have a clue what's happening and how often it happens.   and that info for my last two months shows what it's shown for the last year and a half.   ….. 


 

My 54% blowouts have not been "random" at all.   The fanboys have squealed about how random makes everything fair for everyone forever.   I kept my own records to verify that crap.   For some reason my almost 7K battles have consistently shown random in WoT doesn't even out at all.     For example, the last 2 months both show 'WoT random' leaned to one side about 102/184 worth.   But that's only a two month sample.   I've got every month since joining.   I just noticed yesterday that one of them actually leaned the other way.    Wow....    


 

In fact, the WoT/WG signature  matchups show clearly that one segment of WoT players own a huge thank you to WG for padding their 'random' and their WR.    They also show that some players somehow get a random that has a permanent lean to it.   What shows is what happened, not what was imagined.   


 

My last two months were like almost every month's records show.   The last two months recorded 102 blowout losses out of 182 blowouts.   That random is a hard thing to fight.   Any random that almost never leans the other way is hard to fight.  


 

I never once considered formatting my records to suit someone else.   After all WG really doesn't need a specific format do they.  



FrozenKemp #32 Posted Aug 09 2018 - 12:13

    Major

  • Players
  • 52995 battles
  • 9,738
  • Member since:
    04-24-2011
Great work! Very interesting to see a nearly symmetric curve on number of friendly tanks alive after destroying all the enemy.

Boxhawk #33 Posted Aug 09 2018 - 12:17

    Major

  • Players
  • 31190 battles
  • 3,574
  • Member since:
    04-23-2012

View PostGravtech, on Aug 08 2018 - 18:55, said:

look at that curve. This also shows the effect of the snowball effect on outcomes nice job. 

 

No kidding.  57% of his games were 15-7 blowouts or worse.

Pipinghot #34 Posted Aug 09 2018 - 13:04

    Major

  • Players
  • 25960 battles
  • 10,335
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    11-20-2011

View PostTrauglodyte, on Aug 08 2018 - 20:51, said:

What I'm really struggling with is the data that I'm seeing that has no direct causality.

That may be true in the short run (small sample size) but it's not true in the long run (large sample size).

 

This is the point that so many (sooo many) people fail to get, but I'm assuming you will understand - there is no direct causality in a small sample size. Even the very best players in the game can have a losing streak on any given day, or even a below average win rate for a specific week, but the more battles that a person plays the more that their influence starts to show. There's a reason why some people can achieve a 70% WR solo, because their individual contribution matters to their teams, but that same 70% player could look at a sample of 34 games and might not be able to see a "direct causality".

 

And that's because ethis is a team game (or at least a "group game", sometimes "team" is too strong a word). The only people who get to see a direct causality between their personal game play and the outcomes of those games are players of solo games, like Tennis. Roger Federer and Serena Williams directly cause their own win rate because their personal contribution to their team (a team of 1) decides everything about their winning and losing. But the moment you start adding more players, each individual starts to lose that direct cause and affect relationship in their games. Look at how many professional athletes are in their respective Hall of Fame and yet they were on losing teams or teams that never won a championship. No matter how good (or bad) you play in any specific battle there is a very good chance that other players will wreck your efforts (or carry you), and the more players there are on a team the more this is true.

 

The simple act of looking for direct causality between your personal game play and winning/losing over a small sample size is a bad idea, that's simply not how things work when there are 15 people per team.

 

People who want to get better need to focus on getting better, not on watching their stats with an eagle eye. Monitoring stats on a daily, weekly or even monthly basis can do more harm than good. I saw your comment in your next post, "I just want to keep getting better and I really want my teammates to help me more.  I'm not holding my breath on that last bit." The thing to do is focus on skills. Do you have a deep and intuitive understanding of everything on the Battle Mechanics page on the wiki? If you don't, then it's time to start focusing on the gaps, one at a time, until they become part of your thinking. Are you ready to look for a mentor/clan, someone who will help you develop better skills and tell you what you're doing wrong (and of course you have to be willing to listen to what you're doing wrong, so many people are not willing). Are you willing to go into a practice room with a friend and spend a couple of hours driving around a specific map looking for good & bad zones of visibility and lines of fire? There are lots of things you can do to get better, but looking at your stats too often is not one of them. I mean, obviously you want to know if you're improving, but you can't do that by constantly obsessing over your noobmeter page or wotlabs page.



Pipinghot #35 Posted Aug 09 2018 - 13:07

    Major

  • Players
  • 25960 battles
  • 10,335
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    11-20-2011

View Postda_Rock002, on Aug 09 2018 - 05:37, said:

How about I post my data as I please?    After all, the important audience is WG, and they should have little trouble verifying what I post.

WG is not your audience here, they already have the data. ALL the data. Your true audience on the forums is other players, players who are trying to help each other with knowledge and information.



Pipinghot #36 Posted Aug 09 2018 - 13:12

    Major

  • Players
  • 25960 battles
  • 10,335
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    11-20-2011

View Postda_Rock002, on Aug 09 2018 - 05:37, said:

My judgement of "blowouts" is

This is the problem. Your "judgement" of blowouts is not data, it is not information that is useful to anyone else, ever, for any reason.  And then, you call anyone who diagrees with you shills and fanboys, because clearly you think that's how someone treats people when they're serious about understanding the game. So instead of sharing information that could be useful to the community, and having the community appreciate your contribution, you share garbage and call people names. Well played.

View Postda_Rock002, on Aug 09 2018 - 05:37, said:

I never once considered formatting my records to suit someone else.   After all WG really doesn't need a specific format do they.  

That's an understatement, the reality is you've never provided your underlying data so that it could be useless to anyone in any way. All you do is post your personal judgements about your data that you refuse to share in the first place.

 

Private data = garbage data.



da_Rock002 #37 Posted Aug 09 2018 - 13:22

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 9355 battles
  • 3,631
  • Member since:
    11-24-2016

View PostPipinghot, on Aug 09 2018 - 07:04, said:

 there is no direct causality in a small sample size.

 

 

There is always a cause to everything.    It's just not 'proven' with smaller sample sizes.  


 

and of course, smoke comes in all sizes.



Siege_Engine #38 Posted Aug 09 2018 - 13:32

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 11668 battles
  • 1,502
  • Member since:
    01-26-2015

View PostTrauglodyte, on Aug 09 2018 - 00:34, said:

 

Of games where all of one side was killed (i.e., no draws or cap wins), which accounted for 1,932 games (90.5% of games, btw), this is the distribution of outcomes:

  • 15-14 - 2%
  • 15-13 - 3%
  • 15-12 - 5%
  • 15-11 - 6%
  • 15-10 - 9%
  • 15-9 - 9%
  • 15-8- 10%
  • 15-7 - 13%
  • 15-6 - 11%
  • 15-5 - 12%
  • 15-4 - 9%
  • 15-3 - 6%
  • 15-2 - 3%
  • 15-1 - 2%
  • 15-0 - less than 1%

 

 

So ... the data is in:  32%+ of battles are rofl-stomps!!!!   One battle out of three.  I'm not surprised.      :facepalm:



SKurj #39 Posted Aug 09 2018 - 13:36

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 13512 battles
  • 1,292
  • Member since:
    09-05-2010
How can you play that many matches in a tier 9 and not be bottom tier of a 5/10?

NeatoMan #40 Posted Aug 09 2018 - 13:40

    Major

  • Players
  • 28180 battles
  • 20,430
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View Postda_Rock002, on Aug 09 2018 - 05:37, said:

How about I post my data as I please?    After all, the important audience is WG, and they should have little trouble verifying what I post.

 

I never once considered formatting my records to suit someone else.   After all WG really doesn't need a specific format do they.  

This only proves that all your data is garbage, and you know it.  Anybody who is making an honest effort would be willing to do so.  You obviously have no intentions of being honest.

 

Why is it that almost every single person coming down on the rigging side is like that with their data?  My guess is they know real data doesn't support their claims therefore they have to make stuff up.  You got nothing and you know it






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users