Jump to content


620 battles, interesting winrate stats. Draw your own conclusions.

winrate stats premium boosters booster wins losses

  • Please log in to reply
102 replies to this topic

Cupujoe #61 Posted Sep 02 2020 - 17:16

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 11 battles
  • 1,216
  • Member since:
    12-25-2019
Pipinghot will be banned for bringing facts and logic to a "feelz" discussion.

I_QQ_4_U #62 Posted Sep 02 2020 - 17:21

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 27442 battles
  • 11,475
  • Member since:
    10-17-2016

View PostKani_Bist, on Sep 02 2020 - 16:15, said:


The silly stories you cheerleaders make up to *splain* away any negative fact about WOT amuses me.

 

 

 

 

Well you are a joke here so I guess it's nice that you can get as much amusement as we do about you.

 

View PostKani_Bist, on Sep 02 2020 - 16:15, said:

 

I like the one where my win% is steadily decreasing while every other stat increases so folks like you (who have NEVER played a game with me) decide that now I'm back camping for end game damage (in a 2 minute game lol). Or that you got killed by arty because you are so good lol and they targeted you.

 

Other than the fact that your stats are pretty much flat lined I guess? Over the last 1000 games 49.6 to 49.2 W/R is flatlined, 934 to 956 Wn8 is flatlined, 712 to 762 damage is flatlined, 566 to 578 XP is flatlined. Stop looking at the pretty pictures and look at the numbers.

 

 



ReeseThePickle #63 Posted Sep 02 2020 - 17:23

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 9448 battles
  • 35
  • [-ZOO-] -ZOO-
  • Member since:
    12-11-2016

View PostJaspo, on Sep 02 2020 - 03:26, said:

What's with all these comments accusing me of trying to prove something? I did an experiment and published the results. Made no conclusive statements about anything. Granted, it could've been done better in some ways; most experiments can. This is a hobby though, I'm not getting paid to do this, I'm not going to go crazy rigorous about it.

It's not the fact that you're trying to prove something, it's the fact that you don't understand that this is all subconscious and it's not that WG is somehow rigging the game, it's that something in your head is making you want to get through the games faster or you try to be more aggressive. You might not realize that this is the case, but it is.



Tao_Te_Hobbit #64 Posted Sep 02 2020 - 19:18

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 31284 battles
  • 7,515
  • [TER] TER
  • Member since:
    02-28-2016

View PostMarkd73, on Sep 01 2020 - 22:26, said:

 

 

Using Ad Hominems like "shills" and "trolls" weakens your argument and makes people think you are thin skinned abd intolerant to differing opinions/perspectives.

 

Don't be that guy.

 

But I *am* thin-skinned and intolerant when those opinions and perspectives are WRONG!  :angry:

 

View PostPipinghot, on Sep 02 2020 - 08:29, said:

Hehe yeah, human nature is funny.

 

"I only have 300 of these in my inventory, I need to click Battle so that I don't waste a single second of booster time" - natural human behavior that should make us chuckle at ourselves like you have. :)

 

I remember a glorious Golden Age when this account was down to 43 boosters.  I think it's sitting at near-400 right now, including some of the rare and highly-coveted credit boosters.

 

At my normal rate of play that would be about 4 months of running full boosters, presuming WG didn't give me a single new one just for existing (setting aside those ones that pop up in TankRewards and suchlike).

 

View PostCupujoe, on Sep 02 2020 - 09:16, said:

Pipinghot will be banned for bringing facts and logic to a "feelz" discussion.

 

You think he'd know better, but he does that kinda thing all the time.  :facepalm:



_Kradok_ #65 Posted Sep 02 2020 - 19:27

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 37505 battles
  • 4,498
  • [-WTA-] -WTA-
  • Member since:
    10-09-2014

View PostJaspo, on Sep 01 2020 - 21:57, said:

I'm not making a point. 

 

Now.... you're making sense.

 

Spud pretty-much summed you up early-on.

 

:honoring:



spud_tuber #66 Posted Sep 02 2020 - 21:16

    Major

  • Players
  • 64541 battles
  • 10,586
  • Member since:
    08-26-2013

View Post_Kradok_, on Sep 02 2020 - 12:27, said:

 

Now.... you're making sense.

 

Spud pretty-much summed you up early-on.

 

:honoring:

To be fair to the guy,  his edit of the post that drew my initial attention is.. much less cringe worthy.. than it was originally.  



_Kradok_ #67 Posted Sep 02 2020 - 21:24

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 37505 battles
  • 4,498
  • [-WTA-] -WTA-
  • Member since:
    10-09-2014

View Postspud_tuber, on Sep 02 2020 - 15:16, said:

To be fair to the guy,  his edit of the post that drew my initial attention is.. much less cringe worthy.. than it was originally.  

 

For me... my respect for you reading this thread has only grown.

 

:honoring:



spud_tuber #68 Posted Sep 02 2020 - 21:28

    Major

  • Players
  • 64541 battles
  • 10,586
  • Member since:
    08-26-2013

View PostJaspo, on Sep 01 2020 - 20:43, said:

You most certainly have put forth conclusions. Reread your stuff. If I was "shutting it down" its because it was stating as fact something that is speculative, and also hinted at a bit of a personal attack stemming from your own preconceived notions. How you've presented your other possible conclusions here is how you should've presented your first. Do note that the data is most certainly not deliberately falsified, though I probably can't prove it aside from referencing my replays from that time period.

I failed to mention this earlier, but I do need to compliment you on at least thinking about how you could demonstrate the validity of your data rather than getting offended at someone voicing the possibility it might be falsified.

 

While I'm here, I'll mention again, I wasn't the one who publicly posted the conclusion which you took offense to.  I haven't actually drawn any conclusions,  and while I have posted speculation as to possible conclusions people could draw, that was entirely in the post which you were responding to with the above quote. 



Tao_Te_Hobbit #69 Posted Sep 02 2020 - 21:38

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 31284 battles
  • 7,515
  • [TER] TER
  • Member since:
    02-28-2016

View Postspud_tuber, on Sep 02 2020 - 13:16, said:

To be fair to the guy,  his edit of the post that drew my initial attention is.. much less cringe worthy.. than it was originally.  

View Post_Kradok_, on Sep 02 2020 - 13:24, said:

 

For me... my respect for you reading this thread has only grown.

 

:honoring:

 

Alright you two....  :sceptic:



HEATN00B #70 Posted Sep 02 2020 - 22:01

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 18580 battles
  • 86
  • [YOON] YOON
  • Member since:
    12-09-2013

Way to many variables to try to prove premium account vs none. A more competent player would also be required. One who can actually carry a  team. Turning on reserves makes you use a diffferent play style it is a fact.

You need to ask a few questions before you start a comparison like that.

Were you grinding a tank?

Were you playing nothing but spg?

Was it the weekend?

Did you play op tank 100% of the time?

Did you platoon part of the time?

Did you seal club?

I can go on and on about how you can change your winrate but you should get the point.

 



8_Hussars #71 Posted Sep 03 2020 - 00:31

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 63297 battles
  • 710
  • Member since:
    09-17-2013

View PostZombie_Snuggles, on Sep 01 2020 - 23:34, said:

 

You're better at lower tiers! I win! But wait we all are better at lower tiers! hmmmmmm.....

 

View PostPipinghot, on Sep 02 2020 - 08:43, said:

You're better at low tiers and you're better at some tanks than others.

 

*Whew!* That was hard.


I was hoping the OP would recognize his own last 1000 match stats (as of a day or so ago)...

I can only conclude,
their performance for the previous 397 battles (1037-640) was exceptional.
that below average spots in all classes perhaps indicates passive play.
that below average damage at all tiers and all classes indicates passive play 

 



ThePigSheFlies #72 Posted Sep 03 2020 - 16:17

    Major

  • Players
  • 82740 battles
  • 19,671
  • [YOUJO] YOUJO
  • Member since:
    10-20-2012

View PostJaspo, on Sep 01 2020 - 21:26, said:

What's with all these comments accusing me of trying to prove something? I did an experiment and published the results. Made no conclusive statements about anything. Granted, it could've been done better in some ways; most experiments can. This is a hobby though, I'm not getting paid to do this, I'm not going to go crazy rigorous about it.

 

you yourself stated that you began this 'experiment' and I quote "Following a months-long drop in my winrate with no identifiable cause"

 

I am curious how much effort you put into identifying a cause before you concluded that testing for booster/prem time was a variable worth even looking at...



13Jake55 #73 Posted Sep 03 2020 - 16:50

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 25789 battles
  • 1,854
  • Member since:
    02-02-2017

There could be a line of code in the mm to take into account whether you are in a premium account or not but if there is I believe it would put you in favorable matchups. And there could be code in for boosters that would put you in a less favorable matchup. However it is impossi le to know for sure because wg bas not explicitly said there was not. Just like the losing bucket theory. I know I have noticed if I am doing good I usually get top tier but if I am losing I get bottom tier mm.is mm accounting for my play to put me with other players on losing streaks. All of this is possible without us knowing about it. Saying that there is a certain percentage of battles that your play can influence the outcome even if mm is out to screw you and yes there are ones that yiu have no chance. But it is what it is and if you like playing wot then just play to enjoy the game and don't o erthink it.



Markd73 #74 Posted Sep 03 2020 - 17:06

    Major

  • Players
  • 36395 battles
  • 8,495
  • [2M8TA] 2M8TA
  • Member since:
    04-20-2011

View Post13Jake55, on Sep 03 2020 - 15:50, said:

There could be a line of code in the mm to take into account whether you are in a premium account or not but if there is I believe it would put you in favorable matchups. And there could be code in for boosters that would put you in a less favorable matchup. However it is impossi le to know for sure because wg bas not explicitly said there was not. Just like the losing bucket theory. I know I have noticed if I am doing good I usually get top tier but if I am losing I get bottom tier mm.is mm accounting for my play to put me with other players on losing streaks. All of this is possible without us knowing about it. Saying that there is a certain percentage of battles that your play can influence the outcome even if mm is out to screw you and yes there are ones that yiu have no chance. But it is what it is and if you like playing wot then just play to enjoy the game and don't o erthink it.

 

Agreed that all of this is possible. The intellectually honest response is "I don't know" and it is not jumping to conclusions based on feelz/anecdotal data/confirmation bias. Only make up your mind when there is a preponderance of valid evidence that supports a position.

 

 


Edited by Markd73, Sep 03 2020 - 17:07.


Jaspo #75 Posted Sep 07 2020 - 13:59

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 34617 battles
  • 583
  • [SLUGZ] SLUGZ
  • Member since:
    03-12-2015

View PostThePigSheFlies, on Sep 03 2020 - 09:17, said:

 

you yourself stated that you began this 'experiment' and I quote "Following a months-long drop in my winrate with no identifiable cause"

 

I am curious how much effort you put into identifying a cause before you concluded that testing for booster/prem time was a variable worth even looking at...

Yes, I did indeed have a months-long considerable drop in winrate despite a minor increase in wn8/player rating during that same period. I had not done anything different in that 1-2k game period than I had done in the previous 28k games, and by that reasoning it was indeed without identifiable cause. This occurred prior to the collection of this data and had no impact on the study, just making that clear since some of the people here seem confused about that point. It did prompt me to begin the study however, which was the first time I've done any such thing, just pointing that out so you don't think I did a bunch of these things and handpicked the one that showed the results I "wanted" (whatever that is :facepalm:)...but you've also asked here, "why track boosters and prem time?"

 

Short answer, I've played over 30k battles at this point. Do you really think I'm not intimately familiar with this game's trends?

 

Slightly less short answer, I often wonder about and ponder what exactly Wargaming is trying to accomplish with their decisions about pretty much everything, since they often seem quite unintuitive, though generally deliberately manipulative.

 

Long answer, I do have a hypothesis of sorts, stemming from those ponderings, which I might write out in full when I have the time, though the patronizing and condescending responses I receive here make me more than a little hesitant to do so.

 

In brief the hypothesis is as follows: Wargaming has 2 overarching goals as an MMO - to make money and to keep the servers as populated as possible. We see lots of missions and other things clearly geared toward making people stay in session longer than they would've necessarily liked - and the design of both boosters and premium time, being hourly/daily rather than by the battle, fit with this philosophy as well - the cumulative result of these things being a sustained higher server population. Wargaming could be presuming players who are using boosters and premium time to be more susceptible to chasing the carrot on the stick than those who are not, meaning that they would tolerate losses better than the other players, meaning that they would be willing to participate in more battles per day in the effort to get, say, those 5 daily premium wins, and server-wide this effort would lead to a consistently higher player count at any given time if more battles without the desired result were added to those players' sessions, causing them to play more battles per session overall.

 

I apologize, my presentation of that idea was a bit messy, but again, it was just the brief summary of the idea. I don't necessarily consider this hypothesis to have much validity, but it was, in part, my inspiration for focusing on those variables. Another reason was that they were simply variables that could be easily recorded along with wins and losses. As I've stated in previous posts here, there were quite a few other things I would've liked to track but it would've been more hassle than I wanted to deal with.



NateRocko #76 Posted Sep 07 2020 - 14:07

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 1758 battles
  • 1,178
  • [KTSHA] KTSHA
  • Member since:
    08-21-2020
The problem with all these conspiracy theories is that it makes no sense. If premium time and boosters caused losses, no one would buy them. And that puts WG out of profit, now does that sound like something WG would do?

NeatoMan #77 Posted Sep 07 2020 - 14:14

    Major

  • Players
  • 30692 battles
  • 23,081
  • [ROXY] ROXY
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View PostNateRocko, on Sep 07 2020 - 08:07, said:

The problem with all these conspiracy theories is that it makes no sense. If premium time and boosters caused losses, no one would buy them. And that puts WG out of profit, now does that sound like something WG would do?
Funny how most of them complain that they will no longer spend money when they're losing, but they think everyone else is weak, have no self control, and will spend more. 

Jaspo #78 Posted Sep 07 2020 - 14:14

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 34617 battles
  • 583
  • [SLUGZ] SLUGZ
  • Member since:
    03-12-2015

View PostNateRocko, on Sep 07 2020 - 07:07, said:

The problem with all these conspiracy theories is that it makes no sense. If premium time and boosters caused losses, no one would buy them. And that puts WG out of profit, now does that sound like something WG would do?

Sure, but as long as no one realizes they're getting more losses with premium time, all is good, and as a company you're killing two birds with one stone. As I say though, I don't consider it very likely either. A larger study would be interesting. I'm no longer interested in doing it though, since all I'd get is hate apparently, no matter the result.



DrWho_ #79 Posted Sep 07 2020 - 15:15

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 35885 battles
  • 4,588
  • [B-S-B] B-S-B
  • Member since:
    07-29-2017

View PostJaspo, on Sep 07 2020 - 14:14, said:

Sure, but as long as no one realizes they're getting more losses with premium time, all is good, and as a company you're killing two birds with one stone. As I say though, I don't consider it very likely either. A larger study would be interesting. I'm no longer interested in doing it though, since all I'd get is hate apparently, no matter the result.

 

Considering how many people who has played WoT over the 10 yesr it's been in existence, don't you think someone, and probably more than a few, has given this some thought and looked it ?

Considering how many sites there are dedicated to this game, stats, news, rumours ..... you name it, if there was even the slightest indication that this sort of thing was happening someone's who's favourite web site isn't conspiracy-theories-r-us.net wouldn't have noticed and proven it by now ?

Not saying WG isn't manipulating their player base into spending more time and money but that in itself doesn't imply that they're manipulating the game as such



XGeneralChromeX #80 Posted Sep 07 2020 - 16:52

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 1859 battles
  • 149
  • Member since:
    04-05-2020

Rule #1 of WR:

Don't worry about win rate. 

 

Rule #2 of WR:

Don't worry about win rate. 

 

Rule # of WR:

If all else fails refer to rules 1 and 2.

 

If you worry about win rate, it impacts how you play the game. Instead, always worry about putting yourself in position to get useful damage throughout the match, and win rate takes care of itself. 

 

The very fact that you recorded all of this shows where your focus was. Avg Dmg > win rate- if you keep this at the top of your focus, you will win more. 







Also tagged with winrate, stats, premium, boosters, booster, wins, losses

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users