Jump to content


winrate is not a reflection of player skill


  • Please log in to reply
774 replies to this topic

dabull02 #461 Posted Jun 14 2019 - 20:26

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 22626 battles
  • 42
  • [TSA2] TSA2
  • Member since:
    12-27-2012

OP has a mediocre win rate at best.

 

Color me surprised.

 

Ascertaining someone's skill through overall/recent winrate alone is pretty dumb, however. There is a number of factors that determine win rate outside of skill: the tanks played, amount of premium ammunition used on average, platoon composition, tank configuration, premium account, average tier number  etc. Having said that, high win rate is highly correlated with other skill indicators such as average damage, putting to rest OP's hogwash post.


Edited by dabull02, Jun 14 2019 - 20:40.


Pipinghot #462 Posted Jun 14 2019 - 23:25

    Major

  • Players
  • 25960 battles
  • 9,940
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    11-20-2011

View PostPuddleSplasher, on Apr 17 2019 - 09:06, said:

It takes balls to post on a troll forum your thoughts and reasoning wether correct or wrong.

So you think it takes balls to say things that are wrong, ignorant and stupid. Um... sure.



Nixeldon #463 Posted Jun 14 2019 - 23:39

    Captain

  • Players
  • 59952 battles
  • 1,988
  • [PRTSN] PRTSN
  • Member since:
    10-30-2011

View Postthelegionnaire1, on Jun 14 2019 - 06:26, said:

are you just ignoring what i'm saying now by balancing  the game the fights  are more reliant on skill.

btw about overwatch yea youroverwatch is not a really respected  channel in the overwatch community its popular but  tends to be extremely biased if you really want i can link you to all the forum posts disliking things that youroverwatch has done or said. also the "blow outs" have more to do with the meta  so say you have a pro mei player that nice shes not meta right now soo your actively hurting your team to take that pro player on your team. also blowout in round based games does not mean same thing  as it does in WOT. wot its wiping the floor only losing a 2-3 tanks and killing all the enemy. in overwatch the matches can be extremely close but if one team ends up winning every round even if every round was extremely close and goes to overtime each time its still called a blowout. 

 

Edit*

btw i love how you post the stats  and bring up blowouts yet you fail to mention what tends to cause them outside of pro matches, which is the SR system. for those that dont know its overwatch's  version of WN8 it also affect how many points you will win/lose per match its also complelely borked and lead to team refusing to work together and be part of a team because x player is trying to protect their SR. ie the team needs another tank but everyone will refused to switch to a tank because it would hurt their SR to switch roles.  and i would like it noted while i want balance i do not what overwatch's borked SR system 

 

Can you answer the question, please? How does balancing skill allow skill to have more influence?

 

Win rates in WOT have a normal distribution which indicates that win rates aren't manipulated to a fixed rate nor completely random. The win rates in WOT also have a strong correlation to the per player performance.

 

Not only that, but the player skill by rank in Overwatch also follow the same distribution. 

 

It doesn't matter if you respect Your Overwatch, the point is that blowouts are a normal result of Overwatch matches. You claimed fewer blowouts due to skill balance, yet blowouts are common in many games with skill balancing from professional competition to the most amateur. 


Edited by Nixeldon, Jun 14 2019 - 23:40.


Pipinghot #464 Posted Jun 14 2019 - 23:39

    Major

  • Players
  • 25960 battles
  • 9,940
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    11-20-2011

View Postsicario_soldado, on Jun 13 2019 - 09:25, said:

View PostcKy_, on Apr 17 2019 - 08:23, said:

Better players perform better in battle and as a result better players win more often. They do not win 100% of the time, because no one player is good enough to carry every single team. Just like how you pointed out that AFK'ers or bots or whatever don't have a 0% winrate, they have a 38% winrate. This shows that despite the AFK player putting a massive handicap on the team, there sometimes are good players that can carry a 14v15 battle. 

 

"a player with 0 skill is still able to passively scout" Then why doesn't he? Oh yeah, because he isn't skilled enough at the game to know how to effectively passive scout, he might not even know what passive scouting is. 

 

"you never call LATAM players tomatos strictly because they play with high ping times" I don't think anyone calls them bad because of their high ping (even though their ping isn't even high). Almost everyone knows that there is no correlation between ping and skill.

 

"you should not fear gold ammo. if winrate were only player skill, then gold ammo would have 0 affect in the game" Gold ammo spam generally does have very little to no impact on the battle if the player spamming the gold ammo is a bad player.

 

"teamwork, which is not individual player skill" Being able to effectively use your team to your advantage is, in fact, a part of being a skilled player. Bad players cannot and do not play as a team.

 

I'll just take this silly forum post as drunk ramblings from a frustrated below average player.

Players don't win in WOT, teams win or lose. you win or lose as a team, weather you like it or not. You are 1/15th of the win or the loss.

Being 1/15th of a team doesn't mean you have only 1/15th of the influence over the team's success. This is a very basic concept, and if you're having a hard time understanding it then you'll never understand how to have a higher win rate.

* A bad player has less than 1/15th of the influence over their team's success.

* A good player has more than 1/15th of the influence over their team's success.

 

Everyone is 1/15th of the team, but that does not mean that everyone contributes 1/15th of the teams success or failure. People who contribute more on average will have higher win rates whereas people who contribute less on average will have lower win rates. It's true that "you win or lose as a team", but people who consistently contribute more to their teams help their teams win more often, and those players end up with higher win rates.

 

No one can control whether they lose a single battle, no one. But everyone can control how often they win or lose based on how much they contribute to their teams over time. Better players win more often, worse players win less often. Whether or not you like it, that's not a difficult concept.



dunniteowl #465 Posted Jun 14 2019 - 23:45

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 29826 battles
  • 7,449
  • Member since:
    09-01-2014

^^^  I cannot understand WHY everyone doesn't get this, but this is pretty much it.  ^^^

 

OvO



Pipinghot #466 Posted Jun 14 2019 - 23:50

    Major

  • Players
  • 25960 battles
  • 9,940
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    11-20-2011

View Postda_Rock002, on Jun 14 2019 - 10:50, said:

View PostJer1413, on Jun 14 2019 - 10:13, said:

So what is it that you really want to see balanced?

 

If none of the accepted skill metrics actually measure skill, what exactly is a balanced MM supposed to use to ensure a balance of skill?

I'm getting blue in the face from saying WoT signature matchups stink up the game for the newbies and less skilled.   Their unbalanced teams naturally favor the team with the top players over the team of weak players.     Balancing the existing lineups in those matchups is "what I really want."

And I'm getting blue in the face pointing out that there's no such thing as your imaginary "WoT signature matchup". Just because you keep repeating your lie doesn't make it true.

 

What you falsely call a "signature matchup" is actually unusual, only a small portion of matches. If there really is any such thing as a "signature matchup" it's battles with a 40%-60% chance of winning since that's the largest portion of all the battles you play. There are significantly fewer battles outside of the 40%-60% range so those battles you're talking about cannot be the "signature matchups".



Pipinghot #467 Posted Jun 14 2019 - 23:52

    Major

  • Players
  • 25960 battles
  • 9,940
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    11-20-2011

View Postda_Rock002, on Jun 14 2019 - 11:09, said:

View PostNeatoMan, on Jun 14 2019 - 10:15, said:

You are all nitpicking the details, as if it explains the general rule.   "Because I can't tell player skill apart to within 1 or 2% of win rate, that means win rate is not a good indicator of skill".  That seems to be the entire argument.   The same can be said of every single performance metric used in game, yet you seem so eager to use those same metrics to demand skill balance.  If they are good enough for that purpose then so is win rate.

Actually I'm answering a question that nitpicked the details.

 

I've said more than once, let WG consider how to best define the ruler they want to use and go with it.    That really isn't nitpicking.

They already have, the ruler they chose is called "Random".

 

If you honestly wanted to let WG "consider how to best define the ruler" you would have shut up a very long time ago.



Ironmike11B #468 Posted Jun 14 2019 - 23:57

    Major

  • Players
  • 31306 battles
  • 2,275
  • [BOND] BOND
  • Member since:
    01-11-2013

Here is what a lot of folks don't understand.

 

  • About 40% of games you are going to win no matter what you do individually
  • About 40% of games you are going to lose no matter what you do individually
  • It's the remaining 20% that you are able to influence

 

That 20% is where you can make or break a team. Your positioning, your damage against the right target, flexing when needed, etc. Your KNOWLEDGE is the difference.



moogleslam #469 Posted Jun 15 2019 - 00:19

    Major

  • Players
  • 45176 battles
  • 4,902
  • [GURUS] GURUS
  • Member since:
    12-20-2013

View Postdunniteowl, on Jun 14 2019 - 18:45, said:

I cannot understand WHY everyone doesn't get this

 

  • Lack of education
  • Inability to take responsibility
  • Brainwashing
  • Lack of IQ
  • Stubbornness
  • Allergy to Facts
  • Dunning Kruger
  • Lyme Disease
  • Political Affiliations
  • Inability to admit defeat
  • Conspiracy theorist


da_Rock002 #470 Posted Jun 15 2019 - 02:59

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 8984 battles
  • 3,453
  • Member since:
    11-24-2016

View PostPipinghot, on Jun 14 2019 - 17:39, said:

Being 1/15th of a team doesn't mean you have only 1/15th of the influence over the team's success. This is a very basic concept, and if you're having a hard time understanding it then you'll never understand how to have a higher win rate.

* A bad player has less than 1/15th of the influence over their team's success.

* A good player has more than 1/15th of the influence over their team's success.

 

Everyone is 1/15th of the team, but that does not mean that everyone contributes 1/15th of the teams success or failure. People who contribute more on average will have higher win rates whereas people who contribute less on average will have lower win rates. It's true that "you win or lose as a team", but people who consistently contribute more to their teams help their teams win more often, and those players end up with higher win rates.

 

No one can control whether they lose a single battle, no one. But everyone can control how often they win or lose based on how much they contribute to their teams over time. Better players win more often, worse players win less often. Whether or not you like it, that's not a difficult concept.

 

Yeah, and that's why having unbalanced team matchups matters so much.    When one team has the influential players (the ones with more than 1/15th worth of influence) and the other does not, the team with significant influence benefits simply because MM ignores the one thing that has the most influence in competition between two teams.



Pipinghot #471 Posted Jun 15 2019 - 04:11

    Major

  • Players
  • 25960 battles
  • 9,940
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    11-20-2011

View Postda_Rock002, on Jun 14 2019 - 20:59, said:

View PostPipinghot, on Jun 14 2019 - 17:39, said:

Being 1/15th of a team doesn't mean you have only 1/15th of the influence over the team's success. This is a very basic concept, and if you're having a hard time understanding it then you'll never understand how to have a higher win rate.

* A bad player has less than 1/15th of the influence over their team's success.

* A good player has more than 1/15th of the influence over their team's success.

 

Everyone is 1/15th of the team, but that does not mean that everyone contributes 1/15th of the teams success or failure. People who contribute more on average will have higher win rates whereas people who contribute less on average will have lower win rates. It's true that "you win or lose as a team", but people who consistently contribute more to their teams help their teams win more often, and those players end up with higher win rates.

 

No one can control whether they lose a single battle, no one. But everyone can control how often they win or lose based on how much they contribute to their teams over time. Better players win more often, worse players win less often. Whether or not you like it, that's not a difficult concept.

Yeah, and that's why having unbalanced team matchups matters so much.    When one team has the influential players (the ones with more than 1/15th worth of influence) and the other does not, the team with significant influence benefits simply because MM ignores the one thing that has the most influence in competition between two teams.

They only matter to people who want the game to gift them with a better win rate, people who like earning their win rate are just fine with those battles.

 

WoT is a game based on competition, if people want to win more often they have the right to do the work to become more competitive. Winning battles is not a right, it's earned.



cloudwalkr #472 Posted Jun 22 2019 - 21:20

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 56027 battles
  • 5,772
  • Member since:
    04-05-2011

The sheer amount of stupid on display by a few in this thread is beyond astounding.

 

some of you take stupid to heights very few have see.  I'd say you should be proud for setting at least one bar high in your life...but it's not the bar you want to be setting.



D1rkjr #473 Posted Jun 22 2019 - 22:56

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 22120 battles
  • 412
  • Member since:
    11-26-2012
The only times win rate isnt corelated to skill is when a bad player constantly platoons with very good players, inflating their win rate or when a very skilled player is a massive troll who doesnt actually do their best to win. You could also. I suspect have a very good player who only plays with terrible tanks and in terrible platoons. 

madbite #474 Posted Jun 22 2019 - 23:47

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 61981 battles
  • 26
  • [CRGE] CRGE
  • Member since:
    09-20-2011
Glad clan wars will pop soon with them reward tanks. the scramble to meet the requirements to join some clans is nice wake up call.

shaggy996 #475 Posted Jun 23 2019 - 00:19

    Captain

  • Players
  • 46509 battles
  • 1,414
  • [THUGZ] THUGZ
  • Member since:
    11-17-2012

View Postmadbite, on Jun 22 2019 - 14:47, said:

Glad clan wars will pop soon with them reward tanks. the scramble to meet the requirements to join some clans is nice wake up call.

no the bad players who dont try and dont care if they win, will come cry that it is unfair that we get tanks and they should get them also. Even though they are unwilling to work for them. 



cheapbooks #476 Posted Jun 23 2019 - 23:33

    Captain

  • Players
  • 38599 battles
  • 1,139
  • [CBKS] CBKS
  • Member since:
    08-21-2013

View Postdabull02, on Jun 14 2019 - 20:26, said:

OP has a mediocre win rate at best.

 

Color me surprised.

 

Ascertaining someone's skill through overall/recent winrate alone is pretty dumb, however. There is a number of factors that determine win rate outside of skill: the tanks played, amount of premium ammunition used on average, platoon composition, tank configuration, premium account, average tier number  etc. Having said that, high win rate is highly correlated with other skill indicators such as average damage, putting to rest OP's hogwash post.

 

in 38,000 battles I am better than 96% of players for spotting according to the in game stats. that is player skill.

 

I had one month which was posted in this forum where I ranked higher than 100% of all players for spotting and had a 40% winrate.

 

winrate is not an individual measure. it is a team measure, and it is for random teams. it is not an accurate measure of individual player skill. I posted overwhelming factual evidence in this forum post, and you may have chosen to not read it. the overwhelming evidence shows that winrate is primarily impacted by over-powered tanks, platooning, and the tier you play in.

 

if I wanted to, I could make my winrate 65% just by playing OP tanks and seal clubbing just like the rest of you do, but I choose not to because stats are not important to me in this game, and peer pressure does not influence me. every unicum account I have ever looked at had large numbers of games in OP tanks and large numbers of battles in low tier games. 

 

unicum = stat padder

 

I had a game with 7,800 spotting damage in tier 6 and my WN8 was 617. 

 

if I were a crap player I would not have an Emil 1951 sitting in my garage right now. I earned it through good gameplay, with crap low-pen tanks (obj 416 <-- garbage tank of the year, ISM, 53tp, AMX 65tp) and AP rounds. all the top players play Skorpion and Progetto. according to stats I read online only 387 NA players have an Emil 1951, and none of us are below average players.

 

winrate and WN8 stats are complete garbage and only ignorant fools believe they are a measure of individual player skill.

 

 


Edited by cheapbooks, Jun 23 2019 - 23:46.


cheapbooks #477 Posted Jun 23 2019 - 23:41

    Captain

  • Players
  • 38599 battles
  • 1,139
  • [CBKS] CBKS
  • Member since:
    08-21-2013
seriously I am sick of all of you stat padders whining in frontline that you want to lose because you aren't good enough to get a good rank.

Flarvin #478 Posted Jun 23 2019 - 23:44

    Major

  • Players
  • 54081 battles
  • 15,837
  • Member since:
    03-29-2013

View Postcheapbooks, on Jun 23 2019 - 17:41, said:

seriously I am sick of all of you stat padders whining in frontline that you want to lose because you aren't good enough to get a good rank.

 

That is your own fault. 

 

Why care want others whine about? No one forces you to care. 



NeatoMan #479 Posted Jun 23 2019 - 23:45

    Major

  • Players
  • 27986 battles
  • 19,938
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View Postcheapbooks, on Jun 23 2019 - 17:33, said:

in 38,000 battles I am better than 96% of players for spotting according to the in game stats. that is player skill.

 

winrate and WN8 stats are complete garbage and only ignorant fools believe they are a measure of individual player skill.

what about WG's own PR rating?  It does take into account spotting and other stats that WN8 doesn't.  Your PR is pretty much in line with your overall win rate, so what's the problem?  Your PR puts you at just above average, and your win rate is also just above average.  Seems legit.



cheapbooks #480 Posted Jun 23 2019 - 23:47

    Captain

  • Players
  • 38599 battles
  • 1,139
  • [CBKS] CBKS
  • Member since:
    08-21-2013

View PostNeatoMan, on Jun 23 2019 - 23:45, said:

what about WG's own PR rating?  It does take into account spotting and other stats that WN8 doesn't.  Your PR is pretty much in line with your overall win rate, so what's the problem?  Your PR puts you at just above average, and your win rate is also just above average.  Seems legit.

 

my winrate is low because I play all the tanks, and I play them stock. I play the crap tanks with the crap guns and the AP rounds. 

 

unicums do not because they are just stat padders, which is why they do not show up in the top players on the ranked battles


Edited by cheapbooks, Jun 23 2019 - 23:50.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users