Jump to content


Efficiency Rating Calculator


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
215 replies to this topic

Garbad #141 Posted Feb 13 2012 - 17:01

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 28016 battles
  • 14,206
  • [-G-] -G-
  • Member since:
    10-02-2010
I was kinda curious, so I uploaded into this to see some of my tanks individually:
http://wot-dossier.a.../dossier/455206

Top 5:

MkVII Tetrarch  4367.1
Bat Chatillon   3850.2
M2 Light Tank   3106.6
Lorraine 40 t   2543.3
T-44            2477.2

Interesting that my tier 2 tanks look grossly powerful, mainly because of the ease of farming tier 2. Lorraine/batchat are to be expected, but T-44? Its not even close to my best tier 8 medium. It may be my worst. It also ranks tanks like my Tiger really high, when I have terrible stats in it.

Worst 5:

E-100           1234.0
VK 3002 (DB)    1143.6
ARL 44         1107.6
T82             1068.5
Object 212      957.0

And 3 of my worst 5 have win rates over 80%. And the T82 rapes for its tier, its just punished for evidently not capping (oh, sorry, next time I'll stop dominating the other team by killing to pad my cap stats and be "more efficient"). Even my ARL is hardly bad, tbh, I think I outplayed 95%+ of all tankers in it, yet my efficiency is terrible.

The more I look at efficiency, the more gimmicky it appears. Its just not a good measure.  Win rate, exp, damage per game, and efficiency as a very distant fourth, if that.

Jiri_Starrider #142 Posted Feb 13 2012 - 17:07

    Major

  • Players
  • 7235 battles
  • 2,415
  • [TB] TB
  • Member since:
    09-28-2010

View PostFrodoTSolo, on Feb 13 2012 - 14:26, said:

It does make sense when you think about it.  Assume you are damaging whatever it is you hit (derpy KV for example).  In a tier 5 game you might one shot all the opponents, but you are doing less damage (assuming you can only do 300 damage to a 300 HP tank).  At the higher tier games, the derp is still damaging tanks but it is wasting little excess damage.

Interesting point, but that's not a "bonus" that's just fulfilling your potential. Saying that is like saying a E-100 chucking HE out of the 2nd gun and a KV/152 using HE also (nearly same damage and pen stats) will get the same reward for nearly oneshotting a Tiger. I'd rather trust Snib's calculations he posted about above.

therowman #143 Posted Feb 13 2012 - 17:23

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 9908 battles
  • 5,663
  • Member since:
    01-14-2011
the caculator doesn't take into account people who drive scout tanks, which they could be doing amazing in, kills your efficiency due to damage done ect.

Orion03 #144 Posted Feb 13 2012 - 21:56

    Captain

  • Players
  • 9516 battles
  • 1,770
  • Member since:
    08-17-2011

View Posttherowman, on Feb 13 2012 - 17:23, said:

the caculator doesn't take into account people who drive scout tanks, which they could be doing amazing in, kills your efficiency due to damage done ect.

my T-50-2 has and efficiency rating of 2302
better then my E100 rating of 1800

ireconi #145 Posted Feb 13 2012 - 22:08

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 9367 battles
  • 862
  • Member since:
    02-08-2011
Nice post..

Mines 1469.73

LizardStrips #146 Posted Feb 14 2012 - 00:36

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 7767 battles
  • 40
  • [B4CON] B4CON
  • Member since:
    03-29-2011
I definitively think there is more too it than numbers, but you don't need the numbers to validate your game play. I absolutely know that I have superior tanking skill than most players. When I enter each game I anticipate that the odds will be stacked again me. The best round are where you find someone special and work together to destroy everything in your path, only to find the entire other 13 team-mates have been crushed by inferior tanks. Going back and saving the day against all odds are the rounds that make up for all the little things.

Flakker2 #147 Posted Feb 14 2012 - 00:53

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 40850 battles
  • 1,880
  • Member since:
    07-17-2010

View PostLizardStrips, on Feb 14 2012 - 00:36, said:

I definitively think there is more too it than numbers, but you don't need the numbers to validate your game play. I absolutely know that I have superior tanking skill than most players. When I enter each game I anticipate that the odds will be stacked again me. The best round are where you find someone special and work together to destroy everything in your path, only to find the entire other 13 team-mates have been crushed by inferior tanks. Going back and saving the day against all odds are the rounds that make up for all the little things.

Yep, I definetely know what you mean. There was this one time that comes to memory, I was platooned with Bronco, while I was still in AOD. We both were running E-75s for fun, even though we had the E-100.

There was one battle where it was just us 2 against 6-7 enemy tanks, and we killed them all. I think we ended up with 13 kills overall between the 2 of us, which is not bad for a 2 men platoon. It was pretty intense. I think at one point I ran my tank in front of his to absorb a hit. We were talking on Vent about which target to focus on next and worked like machines.

I was somewhat tense after that game, as I felt my energy drained :-)

OttoT #148 Posted Feb 14 2012 - 00:57

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 39736 battles
  • 2,498
  • [RELSH] RELSH
  • Member since:
    10-10-2010
1257.52  About where I should be. tho in my own mind i'm the TD god. :P

BearFlag #149 Posted Feb 14 2012 - 01:14

    Major

  • Players
  • 28657 battles
  • 2,388
  • Member since:
    04-29-2011
The entire skill debate can be reduced to one's damage done per game in a KV imo.  :)

Praetor77 #150 Posted Feb 14 2012 - 18:47

    Captain

  • Players
  • 29723 battles
  • 1,675
  • Member since:
    05-01-2011
Many of the things you mention cannot be measured and are not captured as stats anywhere.

The efficiency calc is the best I have seen so far, in regards to calculating a value that "measures" how good a player you are.

SmashPuppet #151 Posted Feb 14 2012 - 21:52

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 24279 battles
  • 134
  • Member since:
    07-21-2011
Stats are great but never give you the true picture. Not in games, not in real life! =) They do give you a basis to start from though.

I know exactly what the OP is saying though. Quite often other players or myself will work for the better of the team.

Just the other day in my type 59 (yes i know!) I decided to do what that tank does best. Work with the heavies and harass the enemy while ours deal out the damage. (Wolfpacks are great but often leave the team sparse and vulnerable. Support your heavies and TD's!)

I took on an AMX 13 90 and an IS7 dancing around them before our Maus and a Tiger II were able to crest the hill and join, I badly damaged the AMX 13 90 while avoiding the IS7 as I had tracked him and the Tiger II was able to finish off the AMX just in time. I then concentrated on tracking the IS7 and a KV5 that showed up. I was eventually destroyed but it allowed the Maus and Tiger II to finish both the IS7 and KV-5 off while mostly being ignored. The engagement lasted nearly 2 full minutes!
I do this same thing in my Patton or Pershing and though I don't get any kills, it's very exciting and is a great trade off for one medium and two or more heavies while our own big boys come out of it virtually unscathed.

Another great tactic is to dish out as much damage as you can at any and all tanks you see (situation allowing). I'd rather hurt 6+ tanks than simply finish off 3 or 4 but will if I have the opportunity. I'll also allow a lower tier tank to get the actual kill if they can. They can use the confidence and XP more than I can.
This game is not about the kills but the leaderboard/roster is entirely geared for it which is misleading I think and is the reason for those only interested in the kill. You don't get very much XP for a finishing shot and especially if it wasn't you that dealt the original damage in the first place. =)

Anyway, folks who play for the team as a whole like that have no real stats to show it. It's a shame really but it's pretty much impossible to track play like that and record it as a number.

The same thing happens a lot in sports. A player's stats might not be great but that player's style might be just the right kind to allow other players on their team to become superstars!
I think the efficiency calculator is a good indicator of the individual player playing for his/her own ends and not team play itself. Only your peers can judge or decide your value in team play.

Just my 2 cents...
~Pup

SumiXam #152 Posted Feb 14 2012 - 22:09

    Major

  • Players
  • 7675 battles
  • 4,842
  • Member since:
    09-28-2011

View PostPraetor77, on Feb 14 2012 - 18:47, said:

Many of the things you mention cannot be measured and are not captured as stats anywhere.

The efficiency calc is the best I have seen so far, in regards to calculating a value that "measures" how good a player you are.

Any effort to quantify and trend a given activity will have flaws, anomalies, etc. Generally speaking, the 'unmeasurables' are represented indirectly in the 'measurables' e.g. a player who consistently and effectively adapts tactics to the flow of the battle will have that reflected in their measurable statistics/efficiency over time. Quantifying efficiency, win rates, etc. serves as an indicator of a trend, but is only a single data point. To get a better picture you would need to measure a given set of data over time; establishing a trend to determine whether or not the given player was trending up, down or flat in whatever measure is in question.

Kavik_Kang #153 Posted Feb 14 2012 - 22:38

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 23427 battles
  • 750
  • Member since:
    09-04-2011
This efficiency calculator can really only compare similar players.  For example, the more games you've played in high teir tanks the better your numbers are going to be.  Especially considering factors like non-prem players who have so much grinding to do they may have literally thousands of games where they intentionally suicide charged and wanted to die in the first 2 minutes.

I think any type of rating like this should only take into account games played in tier 8 or higher tanks.  You will get a MUCH more accurate comparison of players that way.  Lower tier tanks are often not used with survival or good play in mind, especially by non-prem players.  But at Tier 8 and higher all players are generally just trying to play their best, stay alive, kill things, and win.  Below tier 8 that is very often not true.

And considering that there are several tier 8 premium tanks that are probably also used carelessly on purpose, you'll get even more accurate ratings by only taking tier 9 and 10 tanks into account.

KilgorSoS #154 Posted Feb 14 2012 - 23:15

    Major

  • Players
  • 26602 battles
  • 11,792
  • Member since:
    07-23-2011
The Efficiency calculator is a GREAT TOOL period... There are repeatable constants that prove it so.

Bad players have a low efficiency rating
Great players have a high efficiency rating

I have NEVER seen a great player with a low efficiency rating
Nor a bad player with a high efficiency rating

I have seen players with a low efficiency rating, posting numerous times why the calculator is garbage, and making excuses for their lack of tactics/skill...

I have NOT seen players with a high efficiency rating asserting the calculator is junk...

Since win/loss ratios are NOT even considered by the calculator, only the KEY factors for determining skill, AND the calculator also shows your avg tank level, it is pretty dang accurate...

Instead of dismissing it as hogwash and continuing to FAIL in battle, why don't you learn from it and work on your weaknesses..

Garbad #155 Posted Feb 14 2012 - 23:17

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 28016 battles
  • 14,206
  • [-G-] -G-
  • Member since:
    10-02-2010

View PostKilgorSoS, on Feb 14 2012 - 23:15, said:

I have NOT seen players with a high efficiency rating asserting the calculator is junk...
The calculator is junk.

Sincerely, a unicums with some tanks in the 4k range.

KilgorSoS #156 Posted Feb 14 2012 - 23:25

    Major

  • Players
  • 26602 battles
  • 11,792
  • Member since:
    07-23-2011

View PostGarbad, on Feb 14 2012 - 23:17, said:

The calculator is junk.

Sincerely, a unicums with some tanks in the 4k range.

I expected YOU to post something of this sort :Smile_honoring:

"It's always the Unicums, always"

BobLoblaw #157 Posted Feb 14 2012 - 23:40

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 21903 battles
  • 1,127
  • Member since:
    07-27-2010
1685.16

Honestly, I'm more in the 1100-1200 range when drunk, which is 90% of the time spent playing this.  Shenanigans.  More grasping at straws.  Besides, capping is for them other guys.

CCC_Dober #158 Posted Feb 14 2012 - 23:48

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 1,476
  • Member since:
    10-19-2010
You can add me too and I think there are plenty more around that just cba to post.
This calculator is by no means transparent. Didn't see no formula, nothing.

And what's more important: the calculator takes results into account that were obtained in a 15 vs 15 environment, not a 1 vs 1 duel. That's a HUGE difference. For me that is enough to dismiss the stats and subsequently drawn conclusions as fatally flawed and not representative. And no, it's impossible to clean the stats or try to break them down to be representative. Doing so would dismiss the the effects of teamplay which allows disadvantaged players to overcome odds they normally wouldn't.

Let's face it. WG has no idea how statistics have to be used correctly, nor how they need to be interpreted. They demonstrate that lack every time they base and justify balance decisions on GWR alone. This is far beyond ridiculous.

KilgorSoS #159 Posted Feb 14 2012 - 23:48

    Major

  • Players
  • 26602 battles
  • 11,792
  • Member since:
    07-23-2011

View PostBobLoblaw, on Feb 14 2012 - 23:40, said:

1685.16

Honestly, I'm more in the 1100-1200 range when drunk, which is 90% of the time spent playing this.  Shenanigans.  More grasping at straws.  Besides, capping is for them other guys.


Yes the ONE factor that the calculator fails in considering is the amount of Bourbon consumed per match :Smile-izmena:

EchelonIII #160 Posted Feb 16 2012 - 12:30

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 15966 battles
  • 4,783
  • [BULLS] BULLS
  • Member since:
    09-11-2010
Until they iron out the many kinks in efficiency ratings, Win Rate remains my gold standard.

http://wot-dossier.a...r/454484#damage

Seriously, my StuG gets 1298 eff to my JPanthers 2011 despite all other ratios being the same? My stug even has a higher win rate!




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users