Jump to content


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


  • Please log in to reply
77 replies to this topic

NeatoMan #41 Posted Aug 09 2018 - 13:48

    Major

  • Players
  • 26531 battles
  • 18,216
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View PostSiege_Engine, on Aug 09 2018 - 07:32, said:

 

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

Remember he ommitted games that were won by cap or were draws, which was about 10% of his games.  You can reduce that by 3%.  High 20s is what I get in the upper tiers. Blowouts always increased for me as battle tier goes up, and a lot of his games were high battle tier.  I'd like to get his data to do that kind of comparison.  I'm sure it won't be any trouble, unlike daRock.  Who knows what he's got scribbled on his desk.



NeatoMan #42 Posted Aug 09 2018 - 14:12

    Major

  • Players
  • 26531 battles
  • 18,216
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View PostSKurj, on Aug 09 2018 - 07:36, said:

How can you play that many matches in a tier 9 and not be bottom tier of a 5/10?

He counts all matches where he is only 1 tier down as "middle" tier.   Only games where he is 2 tiers down he counted as bottom tier.  Therefore 5-10 battles can only yield top or middle



CallandorsFire #43 Posted Aug 09 2018 - 14:31

    Captain

  • Players
  • 41690 battles
  • 1,477
  • [SEELS] SEELS
  • Member since:
    04-22-2012

I've recently discovered the WOT Replay Analyzer http://forum.worldoftanks.eu/index.php?/topic/185348-1022-wot-replay-analyzer-wip-1-15072018/

 

This thing lets you analyze your replay files and export to Excel, which should help anyone do some studies on their battles.  It works with old versions, too, but does have a memory limit on how many battles it can pull in.  I would recommend it for you data scientists.



Trauglodyte #44 Posted Aug 09 2018 - 14:32

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 16874 battles
  • 2,646
  • [GSH] GSH
  • Member since:
    06-04-2016

View PostNeatoMan, on Aug 09 2018 - 03:33, 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.

 

226 games ended up as non-"kill all, no cap".  117 were wins, 83 were losses, and 26 were draws.  So, roughly 10.5% were non-kill endings.

GeorgePreddy #45 Posted Aug 09 2018 - 14:36

    Major

  • Players
  • 14345 battles
  • 10,382
  • Member since:
    04-11-2013

View PostSiege_Engine, on Aug 09 2018 - 09:32, said:

 

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

 

How did you miss the part where it shows that 34% (2% MOAR than snowballs) of battles are close decisions ???

 

You just ignored that ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



NeatoMan #46 Posted Aug 09 2018 - 14:57

    Major

  • Players
  • 26531 battles
  • 18,216
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View PostTrauglodyte, on Aug 09 2018 - 08:32, said:

226 games ended up as non-"kill all, no cap".  117 were wins, 83 were losses, and 26 were draws.  So, roughly 10.5% were non-kill endings.

Did you record the scores for those?  I can always adjust my data the same as yours, but would also like to dissect your data same way i did mine too.  



Trauglodyte #47 Posted Aug 09 2018 - 15:16

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 16874 battles
  • 2,646
  • [GSH] GSH
  • Member since:
    06-04-2016

View PostNeatoMan, on Aug 09 2018 - 14:57, said:

Did you record the scores for those?  I can always adjust my data the same as yours, but would also like to dissect your data same way i did mine too.  

 

I have it.  Let me put it together.  Let's see if this copy and paste works well enough.  So, of the 226 games that ended in a non-kill all, they fell out as follows:
 
14-9 2%
14-8 2%
14-7 5%
14-6 2%
14-5 1%
14-4 1%
14-3 1%
14-14 2%
14-13 9%
14-12 6%
14-11 5%
14-10 3%
13-9 2%
13-8 2%
13-7 2%
13-6 2%
13-5 1%
13-4 1%
13-3 0%
13-13 2%
13-12 4%
13-11 1%
13-10 4%
13-1 0%
12-9 2%
12-8 1%
12-7 2%
12-6 1%
12-4 0%
12-13 0%
12-12 2%
12-11 2%
12-10 3%
11-9 3%
11-8 2%
11-7 4%
11-6 1%
11-5 0%
11-3 0%
11-13 0%
11-11 2%
10-9 1%
10-8 1%
10-7 0%
10-6 0%
10-5 1%
10-4 1%
10-12 0%
9-8 1%
9-7 1%
9-2 0%
9-10 1%
8-7 0%
8-5 0%
7-9 0%
7-7 0%
7-6 0%
4-9 0%

Edited by Trauglodyte, Aug 09 2018 - 15:19.


NeatoMan #48 Posted Aug 09 2018 - 15:30

    Major

  • Players
  • 26531 battles
  • 18,216
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011
Almost all were close, which would reduce your overall blowout rate to around 29%. Close to what i get for similar tiers.  I will be able to do an exact comparison in a few days

Pipinghot #49 Posted Aug 09 2018 - 16:31

    Major

  • Players
  • 25960 battles
  • 8,924
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    11-20-2011

View Postda_Rock002, on Aug 09 2018 - 07:22, said:

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 amazing how good you are at missing the point. A cynical person might think that you do it intentionally. Fortunately I'm not cynical, I'm just a sincere, erstwhile, charitable person who understands that you're not very good a logic and you constantly fail to understand things. So, good news for you, you never have to worry that I'll cynically assume you're being dumb intentionally.

Pipinghot #50 Posted Aug 09 2018 - 16:32

    Major

  • Players
  • 25960 battles
  • 8,924
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    11-20-2011

View PostSiege_Engine, on Aug 09 2018 - 07:32, said:

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:

No one should be surprised, that's what should be expected in any single-death-per-battle game.



CptSkyhawk #51 Posted Aug 09 2018 - 17:02

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 14456 battles
  • 3,055
  • [T_K_O] T_K_O
  • Member since:
    01-06-2011

View PostPipinghot, on Aug 09 2018 - 01:12, said:

So you want people to buy the idea that Trauglodyte averaged 1 player per team who did 0 damage, but you average 4 players per team who do 0 damage. Somehow you get 4 times as many zero damage players as someone else, and somehow, by a fantastical twist of evil magic, your teams average more 0 damage players than the opposing teams do.

 

Surely you have to see how crazy that sounds...

 

When you go through your screen shots and honestly count up those numbers, every single one of them, I guarantee you'll find out that you're wrong about what you think has been happening. You may not be exaggerating intentionally, but you're definitely exaggerating.

 

Well, based on empirical evidence, I've played 3 games so far today, the first game each team had two tanks deal 0 damage, the second game my team had SIX tanks deal 0 damage and the enemy had none, and the third game my team had no tanks deal 0 damage but the enemy team had FIVE tanks at 0 damage.

So, my team on average has 2.7 tanks doing 0 damage and the enemy team on average has 2.3 tanks doing 0 damage!

SwedishEOD #52 Posted Aug 09 2018 - 18:33

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 59914 battles
  • 1,595
  • [-G-] -G-
  • Member since:
    07-24-2010
Where is SoTrue when you need him for some proper infection in a discussion.......

NeatoMan #53 Posted Aug 09 2018 - 18:40

    Major

  • Players
  • 26531 battles
  • 18,216
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View PostSwedishEOD, on Aug 09 2018 - 12:33, said:

Where is SoTrue when you need him for some proper infection in a discussion.......

We don't need to inject any more butchered pseudo statistics into what so far has been a normal analysis. One person adding his own (daRock) is enough



owlgator #54 Posted Aug 09 2018 - 19:09

    Captain

  • Players
  • 14827 battles
  • 1,361
  • Member since:
    05-27-2011

View PostTrauglodyte, on Aug 08 2018 - 17:34, said:

Across those 2,133 games, I've had 2,168 players on my team deal 0 damage.  That means that, in every game that I've played, I've only really had 13 teammates.  NOTE:  I did not tabulate the numbers for the other teams.  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%)

I know it was previously mentioned, but damn - 1 in 4 rounds you'll have at least 3 teammates do zero damage?  Add those that just get one decent shot off and it's even more impressive to watch those high quality players carry battle after battle.

 

View PostBoxhawk, on Aug 09 2018 - 05:17, said:

 

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

I would think seeing 57% isn't too shocking as 8/15 is 53%+... I would have expected this to be MUCH higher.



QuicksilverJPR #55 Posted Aug 09 2018 - 20:44

    Major

  • Players
  • 26163 battles
  • 4,214
  • [RPG] RPG
  • Member since:
    01-17-2013

View PostSwedishEOD, on Aug 09 2018 - 01:58, said:

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....

 

Had a game two days ago (tier 9 match, 5/10 MM setup) where 12 people on my team did one average penetrating shot or less of damage in the game, and my team nearly won  :teethhappy: !  Needless to say, those types of games are uber-rare.  not sure I've ever seen it before (certainly don't recall that happening)...

 

 



Pipinghot #56 Posted Aug 09 2018 - 21:07

    Major

  • Players
  • 25960 battles
  • 8,924
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    11-20-2011

View PostCptSkyhawk, on Aug 09 2018 - 11:02, said:

View PostPipinghot, on Aug 09 2018 - 01:12, said:

So you want people to buy the idea that Trauglodyte averaged 1 player per team who did 0 damage, but you average 4 players per team who do 0 damage. Somehow you get 4 times as many zero damage players as someone else, and somehow, by a fantastical twist of evil magic, your teams average more 0 damage players than the opposing teams do.

 

Surely you have to see how crazy that sounds...

 

When you go through your screen shots and honestly count up those numbers, every single one of them, I guarantee you'll find out that you're wrong about what you think has been happening. You may not be exaggerating intentionally, but you're definitely exaggerating.

Well, based on empirical evidence, I've played 3 games so far today, the first game each team had two tanks deal 0 damage, the second game my team had SIX tanks deal 0 damage and the enemy had none, and the third game my team had no tanks deal 0 damage but the enemy team had FIVE tanks at 0 damage.


So, my team on average has 2.7 tanks doing 0 damage and the enemy team on average has 2.3 tanks doing 0 damage!

[Edit] Removed my overly harsh response, misinterpreted his intent.


Edited by Pipinghot, Aug 09 2018 - 22:48.


CptSkyhawk #57 Posted Aug 09 2018 - 21:12

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 14456 battles
  • 3,055
  • [T_K_O] T_K_O
  • Member since:
    01-06-2011

View PostPipinghot, on Aug 09 2018 - 21:07, said:

3 games means nothing, stopped reading right there. You need to understand the meaning and importance of sample size if you're going to participate in this thread. Find someone your trust, who also understand statistics, and ask them to explain it to you.

 

I was being facetious, but I doubt you have the wit to understand that.  Also, I hardly need someone of YOUR level to talk about any sort of mathematics to me, it's honestly laughable.

ArmorStorm #58 Posted Aug 09 2018 - 21:13

    Major

  • Players
  • 35622 battles
  • 7,847
  • [F__R] F__R
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011

View PostTrauglodyte, on Aug 08 2018 - 17:34, said:

In the spirit of some of the arguments that have taken place on this forum, I've taken it upon myself, since I'm a stat nerd in and out of game, to do some data tabulation since midway through March.  None of what I'm listing below is meant to steer a conversation in any direction or another.  Rather, it is simply raw data collected over 2,133 games.  So, take it for what it is.

 

411 games at tier 6

412 games at tier 7

729 games at tier 8

581 games at tier 9

 

Average game tier for tier 6 matches:  7.18

  • 164 games on the bottom
  • 152 games in the middle
  • 169 games on top

 

Average game tier for tier 7 matches:  7.99

  • 121 games on the bottom
  • 167 games in the middle
  • 124 games on top

 

Average game tier for tier 8 matches:  9.24

  • 326 games on the bottom
  • 255 games in the middle
  • 149 games on top

 

Average game tier for tier 9 matches:  9.68

  • 0 games on the bottom (no duh!)
  • 394 games in the middle
  • 187 games on top

 

Looking at the data for game templates, the data showed:

  • 77% of games were 3/5/7
  • 21% of games were 5/10
  • 3% of games were single tier

 

To expand upon that data, here it is by tier:

  • Tier 6:  75% were 3/5/7, 22% were 5/10, and 3% were single tier
  • Tier 7:  80% were 3/5/7, 19% were 5/10, and 1% were single tier
  • Tier 8:  77% were 3/5/7, 18% were 5/10, and 5% were single tier
  • Tier 9:  74% were 3/5/7, 25% were 5/10, and 1% were single tier

 

Looking at the difference between my tank tier and game tier, I saw the following:

  • Tier 6:  40% had 2 tiers of separation, 37% were 1 tier different, and 23% no tier diff
  • Tier 7:  29% had 2 tiers of separation, 41% were 1 tier different, 30% no tier diff <--- strange how tier 7 is so pure and balanced
  • Tier 8:  45% had 2 tiers of separation, 35% were 1 tier different, 21% no tier diff
  • Tier 9:  32% had 2 tiers of separation, 68% were 1 tier different, less than 1% no tier diff

 

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%

 

The average difference in team damage for game tiers 6-10 in a Loss compared to a Win is roughly -33%

  • -31% for tier 10 games
  • -26% for tier 9 games
  • -23% for tier 8 games
  • -35% for tier 7 games
  • -48% for tier 6 games

 

Across those 2,133 games, I've had 2,168 players on my team deal 0 damage.  That means that, in every game that I've played, I've only really had 13 teammates.  NOTE:  I did not tabulate the numbers for the other teams.  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%)

 

I think you are doing a disservice saying that you only had 13 teammates.  Zero damage doesn't say they didn't play, or even succeed (I have a 2500 point spotting match with zero damage), and doing a small amount of damage doesn't mean that they contributed if they were in a 1000 hp tank and did 57 hit points.  Or even more if they also failed to help the team win and just stayed in the back getting garbage damage at the end of a loss.

 

Very nice data overall, interesting and possibly helpful for deciding what tiers to play.  Plus one!



Pipinghot #59 Posted Aug 09 2018 - 22:46

    Major

  • Players
  • 25960 battles
  • 8,924
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    11-20-2011

View PostCptSkyhawk, on Aug 09 2018 - 15:12, said:

View PostPipinghot, on Aug 09 2018 - 21:07, said:

3 games means nothing, stopped reading right there. You need to understand the meaning and importance of sample size if you're going to participate in this thread. Find someone your trust, who also understand statistics, and ask them to explain it to you.

I was being facetious, but I doubt you have the wit to understand that.  Also, I hardly need someone of YOUR level to talk about any sort of mathematics to me, it's honestly laughable.

My level of what, you didn't complete your sentence so... that's a pretty weak insult.

 

p.s. You're right about one thing, I was overly harsh to you. In hindsight I can see that you were trying to be funny and didn't deserve a response that took you seriously. Sorry about that.



Unicorn_ #60 Posted Aug 10 2018 - 02:10

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 6262 battles
  • 367
  • Member since:
    02-10-2015
Shills don't like data or facts.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users