Jump to content


winrate is not a reflection of player skill


  • Please log in to reply
804 replies to this topic

cheapbooks #141 Posted Apr 18 2019 - 10:54

    Captain

  • Players
  • 42001 battles
  • 1,439
  • [CBKS] CBKS
  • Member since:
    08-21-2013

winrate is absolutely positively not a measure of player skill:

 

"Individual performance in team-based online games"

"The longer the users play, the more the performance related to their teams reverts to the mean—which is approximately 0.5"

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rsos.180329

 

A bunch of nerds did an official study that proves that people playing games with matchmakers like World of Tanks should revert to a 50% winrate. The reason this does not happen in WOT is because some players are stat padding.



cheapbooks #142 Posted Apr 18 2019 - 10:56

    Captain

  • Players
  • 42001 battles
  • 1,439
  • [CBKS] CBKS
  • Member since:
    08-21-2013
If winrate really is player skill, then you could go and join every fantasy sport league, put the best skilled players on your team, and win tons of cash. But that doesn't happen because the other teams are doing the same thing. Which equalizes the advantage of skilled players.

CV_Rework_is_Fine #143 Posted Apr 18 2019 - 11:04

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 25997 battles
  • 18,850
  • [GDF] GDF
  • Member since:
    09-22-2010

View Postcheapbooks, on Apr 18 2019 - 09:56, said:

If winrate really is player skill, then you could go and join every fantasy sport league, put the best skilled players on your team, and win tons of cash. But that doesn't happen because the other teams are doing the same thing. Which equalizes the advantage of skilled players.

 

Tell you what, there is an easy way to settle this.

 

You get a team of 45%ers, we will make a team of 65%ers, let's have a tournament first team to lets say 20 wins. If WR truly isn't a reflection of player skill, then the games, and the numbers of wins should be close. 



da_Rock002 #144 Posted Apr 18 2019 - 11:06

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 11155 battles
  • 4,198
  • Member since:
    11-24-2016

View PostNeatoMan, on Apr 17 2019 - 09:53, said:

 

why do baseball teams win when the clean-up man goes 0-5?

why do baseball teams lose when the starting pitcher gives up no runs?

 

because you are not alone on the battle field.  There are 29 other players in battle, whose combined efforts often overshadow your individual performance.  Win rate represents how consistent your contributions have been over the long run.   You keep making the mistake of extrapolating single battle results into long term statistics.  You will always be wrong when you look at it that way.

 

if the clean up man consistently goes 0-5, do you really think that team won't lose more?.

if the starting pitcher consistently gives up no runs, do you really think that team won't win more?

 

players who consistently contribute less, lose more.

players who consistently contribute a lot, win more.

...not every game, but definitely more.

 

 

There are 30 players in a WoT RANDOM battle, right.

 So you say the outcome of each battle is the result of players who consistently contribute less, because that results in losing more games over time.


 

Now that is ridiculous because the outcome of each battle a player participates in is the result of 30 players contributions in that battle.   The results over time come from a battle at a time.    And in each batter, every one of the 30 players does nothing more than contribute.   The result of every single battle is a sum of all 30 contributions.   No more and no less.   And absolutely nothing to do with any player's career stats over his career.


 

The fact that a player may happen to contribute more over time than any other players is irrelevant to the outcome of the battle being fought.  It's irrelevant what happened over time or will happen over more time.    The result of every single battle is the result of 30 player contributions in that battle.     The potential contribution they bring is interesting for oddsmaking but does nothing to decide the outcome.      A player's actual contribution can be predicted, but that prediction does absolutely nothing that affects the outcome at all.    What can control the outcome is the balance of two teams.   And that is completely beyond each player's control.


 

You're right about players influencing their WR over time.   But in fact, during each battle that influence is only one of 30.   In fact, the result of 30 players' influences is what decides each of those players WR from each battle.    And since WoT battles are between two teams, each teams influence is a major controlling factor.


Edited by da_Rock002, Apr 18 2019 - 11:10.


Nixeldon #145 Posted Apr 18 2019 - 11:11

    Major

  • Players
  • 63338 battles
  • 2,463
  • Member since:
    10-30-2011

View PostTolos, on Apr 18 2019 - 05:04, said:

 

Tell you what, there is an easy way to settle this.

 

You get a team of 45%ers, we will make a team of 65%ers, let's have a tournament first team to lets say 20 wins. If WR truly isn't a reflection of player skill, then the games, and the numbers of wins should be close. 

This has the potential to be highly profitable, in so many ways.



da_Rock002 #146 Posted Apr 18 2019 - 11:30

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 11155 battles
  • 4,198
  • Member since:
    11-24-2016

WR is a stat that starts very simply.     Each battle results in a Win, Loss or Draw.    WoT considers Draws to be Losses for both teams.    So in WoT your first WR would be 0 or 100 after your first battle.   Your next WR would be 0 or 50 or 100.   etc etc      

 

So WR is the sum of individual battles.   Individual battle outcomes are the result of team competition.   The team is the deciding factor, not the individual.   Teams decide the outcome.


 

It's MM that chooses the two sides in your battles, and luck decides which side you're on.    It's really good for you to contribute a lot, but how many newbies can?  In fact, even if you contribute a ton of damage, what're the odds your performance controls the outcome.   In fact, what're the odds your influence in the battle decides the outcome.   How can it actually decide an outcome that's the result of 30 contributors?   


 

But it can influence your WR over time.    Do you really believe that means your WR is your fault? 

 


 



da_Rock002 #147 Posted Apr 18 2019 - 11:35

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 11155 battles
  • 4,198
  • Member since:
    11-24-2016

View PostTolos, on Apr 18 2019 - 05:04, said:

 

Tell you what, there is an easy way to settle this.

 

You get a team of 45%ers, we will make a team of 65%ers, let's have a tournament first team to lets say 20 wins. If WR truly isn't a reflection of player skill, then the games, and the numbers of wins should be close.

 

 

Oh absolutely WR is a reflection of player skill. 

Absolutely...…

Which team is probably going to win?   The one with the most skilled players, or the most skill, probably wins most often, right. 


 

WR is actually a reflection for sure.   It does reflect your contributions over time for sure.   However, it actually shows clearly how often your team won, or your team lost.    And what controls the teams you are on?



_Tsavo_ #148 Posted Apr 18 2019 - 11:52

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 48467 battles
  • 21,055
  • [RELIC] RELIC
  • Member since:
    02-16-2011

View Postcheapbooks, on Apr 18 2019 - 04:54, said:

winrate is absolutely positively not a measure of player skill:

 

"Individual performance in team-based online games"

"The longer the users play, the more the performance related to their teams reverts to the mean—which is approximately 0.5"

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rsos.180329

 

A bunch of nerds did an official study that proves that people playing games with matchmakers like World of Tanks should revert to a 50% winrate. The reason this does not happen in WOT is because some players are stat padding.

 

Wrong

 

View Postcheapbooks, on Apr 18 2019 - 04:56, said:

If winrate really is player skill, then you could go and join every fantasy sport league, put the best skilled players on your team, and win tons of cash. But that doesn't happen because the other teams are doing the same thing. Which equalizes the advantage of skilled players.

 

Wrong



Nixeldon #149 Posted Apr 18 2019 - 11:59

    Major

  • Players
  • 63338 battles
  • 2,463
  • Member since:
    10-30-2011

View Postcheapbooks, on Apr 18 2019 - 04:54, said:

winrate is absolutely positively not a measure of player skill:

 

"Individual performance in team-based online games"

"The longer the users play, the more the performance related to their teams reverts to the mean—which is approximately 0.5"

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rsos.180329

 

A bunch of nerds did an official study that proves that people playing games with matchmakers like World of Tanks should revert to a 50% winrate. The reason this does not happen in WOT is because some players are stat padding.

Did you even read the study you linked? It referenced individual performance deterioration during a gaming session related to prolonged demanding cognitive activity.

 

LoL does not have a format or matchmaker like WOT and uses its own Elo player matching for most modes of play.  The author(s) even mention that fact in the rest of the paragraph you conveniently omitted. 

 

"A possible explanation might be related to the design of the game. In fact, players are given Elo-like ratings—a method used to calculate the relative skill of players in competitor-versus-competitor games such as chess—and these ratings are used to assemble teams of players with comparable skills. In other words, if a player’s skill improves he/she will be paired up against players with similar skill level, and analogously if the skill level decreases. Thus, the likelihood to win each match is not significantly better than 50%."

 



NeatoMan #150 Posted Apr 18 2019 - 12:01

    Major

  • Players
  • 30038 battles
  • 22,110
  • [ROXY] ROXY
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View Postda_Rock002, on Apr 18 2019 - 05:30, said:

So WR is the sum of individual battles.   Individual battle outcomes are the result of team competition.   The team is the deciding factor, not the individual.   Teams decide the outcome.

The individual contributes to the team.  Contribute nothing and the rest of the team has to make up for it.  Contribute a lot and the rest of the team has to do less in order to win.  Your contributions make it easier or harder for your team to win.   Win rate reflects the part you contribute to your teams. 

 

The fact that it's the team that wins doesn't absolve you of your responsibility to contribute to your team, nor does it mean you have no control over your own win rate.  If win rate were independent of the individual, everyone would have a 50% win rate (minus draws).  Clearly that's not the case.



_Tsavo_ #151 Posted Apr 18 2019 - 12:03

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 48467 battles
  • 21,055
  • [RELIC] RELIC
  • Member since:
    02-16-2011

View PostNixeldon, on Apr 18 2019 - 05:59, said:

 

"A possible explanation might be related to the design of the game. In fact, players are given Elo-like ratings—a method used to calculate the relative skill of players in competitor-versus-competitor games such as chess—and these ratings are used to assemble teams of players with comparable skills. In other words, if a player’s skill improves he/she will be paired up against players with similar skill level, and analogously if the skill level decreases. Thus, the likelihood to win each match is not significantly better than 50%."

 

 

Hey!   SBMM brings players closer to 50%!  Who knew! 

 

 

Also Cheap only sees what supports his wonky views. 



SynfulSun #152 Posted Apr 18 2019 - 12:03

    Major

  • Players
  • 13987 battles
  • 3,288
  • [CMPRE] CMPRE
  • Member since:
    05-04-2012

You seem tense...

Do you want to talk about it?



Firemoth #153 Posted Apr 18 2019 - 12:14

    Major

  • Players
  • 39108 battles
  • 4,582
  • Member since:
    05-21-2011
this must be why all pro-esports teams are made up of bots.

Edited by Firemoth, Apr 18 2019 - 12:14.


I_QQ_4_U #154 Posted Apr 18 2019 - 12:46

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 25738 battles
  • 9,663
  • Member since:
    10-17-2016

View Postcheapbooks, on Apr 18 2019 - 10:54, said:

winrate is absolutely positively not a measure of player skill:

 

"Individual performance in team-based online games"

"The longer the users play, the more the performance related to their teams reverts to the mean—which is approximately 0.5"

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rsos.180329

 

A bunch of nerds did an official study that proves that people playing games with matchmakers like World of Tanks should revert to a 50% winrate. The reason this does not happen in WOT is because some players are stat padding.

 

 

 If you take 100 stat padders with 55% W/R's and put them up against 100 46%ers, all with 5000 games played, and put them on equal terms over 1000 games the stat padders will win the vast majority of the time because even if the stat padders do play inferior players more often to inflate their numbers they have at least learned something of the games mechanics.

 

   Win rate is not an absolute measure of a players ability, you have to take into effect other variables to compare one player to another who have equal W/R but it is a general indication of a players ability. A player who does much better at lower tiers than higher ones is always going to be better than a player who consistently plays badly at every level, there is just no denying it.

 

 Yes good players have bad games and bad players have good games but their recent win rates will ALWAYS be an indicator of who's a better player unless the bad player is purposely trying to play bad in which case it still makes them a bad player because they are hindering the ability of their teams to win.

 

 

 



SARCASTIC_SQUID #155 Posted Apr 18 2019 - 13:26

    Private

  • -Players-
  • 1045 battles
  • 8
  • [SAKU] SAKU
  • Member since:
    12-27-2015

LOL cant make this stuff up

 

Winrate IS and always will be an indicator of your skill or lack there of.... PERIOD

There are other factors, but YOUR ability to carry the battle to victory is a skill not all players have.

 

Hence, the crying, whining, and whatever excuse there is ...oh PING... I knew I forgot one.

Load tissues vs repair kit in the future.



da_Rock002 #156 Posted Apr 18 2019 - 13:45

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 11155 battles
  • 4,198
  • Member since:
    11-24-2016

View PostNeatoMan, on Apr 18 2019 - 06:01, said:

The individual contributes to the team.  Contribute nothing and the rest of the team has to make up for it.  Contribute a lot and the rest of the team has to do less in order to win.  Your contributions make it easier or harder for your team to win.   Win rate reflects the part you contribute to your teams.

 

The fact that it's the team that wins doesn't absolve you of your responsibility to contribute to your team, nor does it mean you have no control over your own win rate.  If win rate were independent of the individual, everyone would have a 50% win rate (minus draws).  Clearly that's not the case.

 

 

Your contribution helps or hinders your team from winning.   But no matter what your contribution is, if your team beats the other team, your WR benefits.


 

Whether you are absolved or not is totally irrelevant to what you get from your teams performance, whether your team wins or loses.   Win rate originates from individual battles.   Individual battles are won or lost by how each team performs.   Every player's WR comes from his team's performance versus the other team's performance.   To try and attach the WR to an individual player is ridiculous.    No matter how badly you spin your argument, WR comes from 30 player's efforts, and the influence of just one of them is not why that player gets a win or a loss to add to his statistic.


 

And speaking of a ridiculous spin on where WR comes from:    "If winrate was independent of the individual, everyone would have a 50% win rate."     is another pile of half-truth BS.    WR clearly does not rely on one aspect of the many things in WoT that influence the outcome of battles.   The removal of one of them has zero chance of producing a 50% WR.   And removing one that has miniscule value just might have less than zero chance.



Jer1413 #157 Posted Apr 18 2019 - 13:51

    Captain

  • Players
  • 50186 battles
  • 1,721
  • [RR13] RR13
  • Member since:
    02-24-2013

View Postda_Rock002, on Apr 18 2019 - 12:45, said:

 

 

Your contribution helps or hinders your team from winning.   But no matter what your contribution is, if your team beats the other team, your WR benefits.

 

 

 

But don't you agree that the more often you contribute in a positive way, the more often "your team beats the other team"? And the more significant the contribution, the greater the effect?

 

 

 


Edited by Jer1413, Apr 18 2019 - 13:54.


da_Rock002 #158 Posted Apr 18 2019 - 13:54

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 11155 battles
  • 4,198
  • Member since:
    11-24-2016

View PostSARCASTIC_SQUID, on Apr 18 2019 - 07:26, said:

LOL cant make this stuff up

 

Winrate IS and always will be an indicator of your skill or lack there of.... PERIOD

There are other factors, but YOUR ability to carry the battle to victory is a skill not all players have.

 

Hence, the crying, whining, and whatever excuse there is ...oh PING... I knew I forgot one.

Load tissues vs repair kit in the future.

 

 

period .………..    not now and not "always"


 

When I started WoT, I held a WR greater than 50% for some time. 

"Always" falls within that time.


 

"My" WR back then wasn't even close to reflecting my skill, much less describing it exactly.   It wasn't a true description of my skill back then, and hasn't really been spot on yet.  


 

On the other hand, my WR really has been catching up recently.   Something that's still trying to catch up really isn't what anyone would call accurate.



Guido1212 #159 Posted Apr 18 2019 - 14:00

    Community Contributor

  • Players
  • 84815 battles
  • 9,320
  • [GFLC] GFLC
  • Member since:
    06-11-2011

View Postcheapbooks, on Apr 18 2019 - 09:54, said:

winrate is absolutely positively not a measure of player skill:

 

"Individual performance in team-based online games"

"The longer the users play, the more the performance related to their teams reverts to the mean—which is approximately 0.5"

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rsos.180329

 

A bunch of nerds did an official study that proves that people playing games with matchmakers like World of Tanks should revert to a 50% winrate. The reason this does not happen in WOT is because some players are stat padding.

 

You really didn't read that study did you?  Because it's not saying what you think it is.

da_Rock002 #160 Posted Apr 18 2019 - 14:02

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 11155 battles
  • 4,198
  • Member since:
    11-24-2016

View PostJer1413, on Apr 18 2019 - 07:51, said:

 

 

But don't you agree that the more often you contribute in a positive way, the more often "your team beats the other team"? And the more significant the contribution, the greater the effect?

 

 

 

 

 

Do you really think that proves that WR is an accurate measure of my ability?   It never has been.   When I started WoT I held a 50% WR for quite awhile.   A year or so ago my WR hit bottom.    Since then it's steadily climbed.   Since then it hasn't been close to the actual WR percentage in the battles I participated in.   "participated in" is a good description of how WoT works.  

 

Don't you agree that the contribution of all 30 players in each game decides the WR of that game?    Would you agree the WR from each game is where your present WR came from?   We absolutely do contribute but that contribution falls way short of describing our contributions. 


 

Just because a stat is influenced by something does not mean all other influences can't be the main source of that stat.    The main controlling source for WR is the performance of your team versus the performance of the other team.    And those two sources put even your good influences in the shade.


Edited by da_Rock002, Apr 18 2019 - 14:07.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users