Jump to content


winrate is not a reflection of player skill


  • Please log in to reply
774 replies to this topic

Vulcan_Spectre #161 Posted Apr 18 2019 - 14:03

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 3305 battles
  • 503
  • [ACE1] ACE1
  • Member since:
    12-25-2017

View PostKliphie, on Apr 17 2019 - 07:23, said:

Simple question, why do some players win more than others?  

 

cause they have 'skill', or RNG on their side

NeatoMan #162 Posted Apr 18 2019 - 14:06

    Major

  • Players
  • 27945 battles
  • 19,884
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View Postda_Rock002, on Apr 18 2019 - 05:06, said:

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.

NO.  That is something your warped little brain keeps coming up with.  That is not what I said.

 

Block Quote

..... 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.

 this is the only true statement you've come up with so far


 

Block Quote

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.

 This is where you go completely wrong.  Bigger contributions are more likely to lead to wins, and low contributions lead to more losses.  That is proven by data on INDIVIDUAL game WN8s vs win rates.   Having a bigger contribution is like weighting a coin; it is more likely to end up heads. Win rate is a measure of that weighting.   You are incorrectly trying to say that because that coin can still land on tails, it negates the fact that the coin is weighted.    If what you said were true everyone would have 50% win rates (minus draws).  That is not happening.

 

 

Block Quote

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.

This makes no sense.   How can something have absolutely no influence over individual battles, yet at the same time show up over time?  If there is no influence in individual battles, then the sum of those individual battles will also show no influence.  Clearly that's not happening.

 

This data here on individual game performance shows that you are completely wrong.  These are the sum of individual game performances for various players.  Every single player analyzed, from purple to tomato, shows that higher individual game performance leads to more wins.  Try to explain how EVERY SINGLE PLAYER loses far more games when they contribute almost nothing to their individual battles, and also wins far more games when they contribute a lot to their individual battles, yet somehow do not influence their individual battles.

 

 

you can check for yourself and download this information from WoTNumbers if you don't believe me.  Every single player you choose will show this effect, even yourself.


Edited by NeatoMan, Apr 18 2019 - 14:39.


Jer1413 #163 Posted Apr 18 2019 - 14:06

    Captain

  • Players
  • 46954 battles
  • 1,331
  • [RR13] RR13
  • Member since:
    02-24-2013

View Postda_Rock002, on Apr 18 2019 - 12:54, said:

 

 

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.

 

You've been playing better recently and winning more. Weird how that works.

 

Posted Image

 

 



ThunderBob #164 Posted Apr 18 2019 - 14:07

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 4447 battles
  • 67
  • [MOOBS] MOOBS
  • Member since:
    02-07-2013

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.

 

A bunch of nerds studied the NFL and concluded all teams will have a 50 percent win rate. Players like Drew Bries and Aaron rodgers have no impact. The NFL thereby is rigging their matchmaker.  Aaron Rodgers doesn't care about winning, only padding his yardage stats. 

da_Rock002 #165 Posted Apr 18 2019 - 14:16

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 8952 battles
  • 3,431
  • Member since:
    11-24-2016

View PostJer1413, on Apr 18 2019 - 08:06, said:

 

You've been playing better recently and winning more. Weird how that works.

 

Posted Image

 

 

 

 

And my WR of record in WoT says what?

 

Weird  how that works

Wrong how that works

 

The issue here is whether or not a person's WR describes his skill.  

Funny how everyone stresses over a somewhat worthless skill descriptor that's supposed to be ignored by the game developers.



da_Rock002 #166 Posted Apr 18 2019 - 14:17

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 8952 battles
  • 3,431
  • Member since:
    11-24-2016

TIME TO ROLL OUT THE SMOKE AND MIRRORS.....

 


 



Nixeldon #167 Posted Apr 18 2019 - 14:34

    Captain

  • Players
  • 59810 battles
  • 1,979
  • [PRTSN] PRTSN
  • Member since:
    10-30-2011

View Postda_Rock002, on Apr 18 2019 - 08:16, said:

The issue here is whether or not a person's WR describes his skill.  

No, that isn't the issue and no one is claiming that.



NeatoMan #168 Posted Apr 18 2019 - 14:40

    Major

  • Players
  • 27945 battles
  • 19,884
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View Postda_Rock002, on Apr 18 2019 - 08:17, said:

TIME TO ROLL OUT THE SMOKE AND MIRRORS.. put on the blinders and ignore the facts even when they are staring me right in the face

fixed



Copacetic #169 Posted Apr 18 2019 - 15:11

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 45133 battles
  • 941
  • [ZEUS] ZEUS
  • Member since:
    02-04-2014

View Postda_Rock002, on Apr 18 2019 - 14:16, said:

 

 

And my WR of record in WoT says what?

 

Weird  how that works

Wrong how that works

 

The issue here is whether or not a person's WR describes his skill.  

Funny how everyone stresses over a somewhat worthless skill descriptor that's supposed to be ignored by the game developers.

Umm that's why there are 'recent' stats as well as 'lifetime' stats. To account for players actually learning the game and improving. Why is that a problem?



Jer1413 #170 Posted Apr 18 2019 - 15:18

    Captain

  • Players
  • 46954 battles
  • 1,331
  • [RR13] RR13
  • Member since:
    02-24-2013

View Postda_Rock002, on Apr 18 2019 - 13:16, said:

 

 

And my WR of record in WoT says what?

 

Weird  how that works

Wrong how that works

 

The issue here is whether or not a person's WR describes his skill.  

Funny how everyone stresses over a somewhat worthless skill descriptor that's supposed to be ignored by the game developers.

 

Your WR of record in WoT (as far WOTLabs says anyways) is that you've won 48.55% of your total battles, but have recently won 53.59% of about your last 1000 battles while playing with a WN8 over 50% better than your total WN8.

 

So what is your argument again?

 

The reason that WR does matter and differentiates players skill is entirely because MM ignores it when making matches. When everything else is balanced, it's only what you bring to the game that defines your WR over a large enough sample size (like about 1000 games that are used to calculate your recents).

 

 


Edited by Jer1413, Apr 18 2019 - 15:25.


cheapbooks #171 Posted Apr 18 2019 - 15:23

    Captain

  • Players
  • 38594 battles
  • 1,136
  • [CBKS] CBKS
  • Member since:
    08-21-2013

You have a higher winrate because you are a better skilled player than the players on the other team.

 

Therefor, you are getting preferential matchmaking. WOT is only matching you with other players who have less skill than you, and the matchmaking is rigged. That is the only way to explain your higher skill-based win rate.



_Tsavo_ #172 Posted Apr 18 2019 - 15:26

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 45179 battles
  • 19,241
  • [BRVE] BRVE
  • Member since:
    02-16-2011

View Postcheapbooks, on Apr 18 2019 - 09:23, said:

You have a higher winrate because you are a better skilled player than the players on the other team.

 

Therefor, you are getting preferential matchmaking. WOT is only matching you with other players who have less skill than you, and the matchmaking is rigged. That is the only way to explain your higher skill-based win rate.

 

WRONG

Jer1413 #173 Posted Apr 18 2019 - 15:29

    Captain

  • Players
  • 46954 battles
  • 1,331
  • [RR13] RR13
  • Member since:
    02-24-2013

View Postcheapbooks, on Apr 18 2019 - 14:23, said:

You have a higher winrate because you are a better skilled player than the players on the other team.

 

Therefor, you are getting preferential matchmaking. WOT is only matching you with other players who have less skill than you, and the matchmaking is rigged. That is the only way to explain your higher skill-based win rate.

 

 

If you're a better skilled player than the server average, then you have earned and deserve the better win rate. Of course you're gonna win more, that's what better skilled players do any competitive environment.

 

Nothing is preferential or rigged, we all get the same teammates and opponents as everybody else.

 



Kliphie #174 Posted Apr 18 2019 - 15:30

    Major

  • Players
  • 32196 battles
  • 4,503
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    07-20-2012

View Postcheapbooks, on Apr 18 2019 - 09:23, said:

You have a higher winrate because you are a better skilled player than the players on the other team.

 

That goes counter to your original statment.  

_Tsavo_ #175 Posted Apr 18 2019 - 15:31

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 45179 battles
  • 19,241
  • [BRVE] BRVE
  • Member since:
    02-16-2011

View PostKliphie, on Apr 18 2019 - 09:30, said:

 

That goes counter to your original statment.  

 

He's trolling.  I'm guessing that was the point from the get-go.

Nixeldon #176 Posted Apr 18 2019 - 15:32

    Captain

  • Players
  • 59810 battles
  • 1,979
  • [PRTSN] PRTSN
  • Member since:
    10-30-2011

View Postcheapbooks, on Apr 18 2019 - 09:23, said:

You have a higher winrate because you are a better skilled player than the players on the other team.

 

Therefor, you are getting preferential matchmaking. WOT is only matching you with other players who have less skill than you, and the matchmaking is rigged. That is the only way to explain your higher skill-based win rate.

 

I am pretty certain you are not a mathematics major. I'll place my wager along with Tolos' best of 20.

moogleslam #177 Posted Apr 18 2019 - 15:39

    Major

  • Players
  • 45087 battles
  • 4,898
  • [GURUS] GURUS
  • Member since:
    12-20-2013

I commend everyone who actually gets it, and who painstakingly tries to explain these basic concepts to those who don't.  I'll try to summarize.  Assume a sample size of, say, at least 10,000 battles for the following statements:

 

  • Almost all players fall somewhere between a 40% and a 65% Win Rate, i.e. a 25% variation.
  • WN8 is a player metric based on factors such as damage and kills, i.e. skill.
  • Players with bad WN8 will also have bad Win Rates.  Players with good WN8 will also have good Win Rates.
  • We now know that skill factors into how much a player wins or loses.  This is also shown quite clearly in the wotlabs chart.
  • Each player is the only constant in all of their battles, and where they fall within that 25% variation in Win Rate, is therefore truly representative of their skill.
  • Yes, this means that in 75% of your battles, you cannon impact the outcome, and this is the part that is the result of having 14 other random players on your team with varying skill sets, and likewise for the enemy team.
  • Each player impacts their own Win Rate equally.  Some players are just driving theirs (and their teammates) toward 40%, some are driving theirs toward 50%, while others are driving theirs (and their teammates) toward 65%.  
  • From a skill perspective, the MM is 100% random.  This has been proven by players who have taken the time to calculate the average Win Rates and WN8 of their team and the enemy team, over hundreds or thousands of battles, and they are completely equal.

 

Like the OP, cheapbooks, I did not understand all of this when I started playing the game, but I took the time to listen and learn from kind people on the forums who were willing to give up their time to explain it.  I have been wrong on many counts in the past, and hey, if I'm wrong on any of this, and you can explain how with logic and numbers, I'm all for that.  If you stubbornly stick to your misguided conspiracy theories which have been disproven time and time again, we should all probably just leave you to it.

 

cheapbooks, and others who believe this nonsense, I suggest you start here:  http://forum.worldof...-posts-of-mine/

 

This is really painful.  Stay in school, kids.

 

 



Blackstone #178 Posted Apr 18 2019 - 15:40

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 20965 battles
  • 2,128
  • [ITKU] ITKU
  • Member since:
    04-19-2011

View Postcheapbooks, on Apr 18 2019 - 09:23, said:

You have a higher winrate because you are a better skilled player than the players on the other team.

 

Therefor, you are getting preferential matchmaking. WOT is only matching you with other players who have less skill than you, and the matchmaking is rigged. That is the only way to explain your higher skill-based win rate.

 

This is factually wrong. Please cite a reference for this. The voices in your heard don't count.

(I swear, the insane sh*t people come up with....)


Edited by Blackstone, Apr 18 2019 - 15:41.


cheapbooks #179 Posted Apr 18 2019 - 16:19

    Captain

  • Players
  • 38594 battles
  • 1,136
  • [CBKS] CBKS
  • Member since:
    08-21-2013

I just looked at approximately the top 7 winners of WOT Ranked Battles.

https://worldoftanks.com/en/ratings/ranked/#wot&w_p=1&w_l=first

 

The best WOT players in the world.

 

Most of them have 53% or 54% winrates for *RANDOM BATTLES*.

https://worldoftanks.com/en/community/accounts/1000956907-Vu777/#wot&w_su=random 

(second place finisher Ranked Battles, 53% winrate for Random Battles)

 

So I guess either the 52% random battle players beat all the 65% super unicums, or all the above-53% random battle winrate players just decided not to play.



dunniteowl #180 Posted Apr 18 2019 - 16:21

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 29715 battles
  • 7,422
  • Member since:
    09-01-2014

I'm at a point where I cannot contribute anything better than what's already been said in refutation of the OP and those who 'side' with him.  I am also quite at a loss to say ANYTHING further with regard to how to get those folks to Open Their Eyes and Ears to the cold hard facts of logic and reason.

 

Is there something like Godwin's Corollary that can be applied to this thread without referencing that guy from WWII who took Germany to war?  If there is, we should invoke it.

 

On the other hand, I have to admit, some of this stuff is just amazingly funny when you realize how warped a mind has to be to believe some of this stuff when they 'explain' their position.

 

I think the only real reason I would have made the attempt at all is to stop the spread of infectious idiocy that the OP and those who agree with him from further damaging the unquestioning minds that might read this poppycock.  Fortunately, we have plenty of other folks more willing to engage and take the time to explain a more factual position.

 

I would have jumped in and 'helped' more than I tried already, except that I've also got other things on my mind that reduces my patience and engagement for this sort of stuff the last few days.

 

I would like to thank those who have been patient and willing to explain how WR DOES, in fact, become a measure of skill and how the correlation of other factors apply in other metric formats.  That said, I stand by my last positive mention on this matter:

 

If you had to pick ONE STAT to use to measure skill, Win Rate would be King.  There is a reason you can be a low WN8 Player and still have a high WR and it's not necessarily stat padding.  If you have a Bad WR and a High WN8, you are a damage farmer, pure and simple, because you don't play to win, you wait to get damage instead.  If you have a high WR and a high WN8, you are showing that, even if you are stat padding, you are making a POSITIVE contribution to the end result of winning.  If you have a low WN8 and a high WR, then you are making positive contributions to the outcome of winning without necessarily making those contributions in the form of High Damage or Lots of Kills, while STILL making a positive contribution to your team.

 

So, yes, WR IS a "Measure" of Skill and if you were to use just one to adjudicate a player, WR would be king in this matter.  You can't 'just be lucky' and achieve a high Win Rate.  It simply IS NOT POSSIBLE in this game to be that lucky.

 

You folks who, like the OP, need to find a reason to excuse it or make you feel better?  Please, don't stop.  I need to have more laughter on these forums and if you can't be funny on purpose, you can all at least play the 'straight' man in this comedy of dualism.

 

 

GL, HF & HSYBF!
OvO 






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users