Jump to content


Efficiency Rating Calculator


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
223 replies to this topic

jaggen #141 Posted Feb 13 2012 - 15:12

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 943
  • Member since:
    07-14-2011
+1 CCC_Dober  

I think Dober eloquently described exactly how a good tanker can achieve a higher than normal win rate, also how the average of WoT players are in the 50% neighborhood. According to the calculator I'm at 1609. Considering I never platoon, and most crews are started at 80% sometimes 100%, starting out with stock tanks, reaching 53% overall and win rates in the 50+ % on all my tanks in total random pugs would make me some kind of tanker God....not so...I do just okay IMO

Using my E-75 numbers as example of how even in a great tank an above average player can struggle to do well, but is still at the mercy of the other 14 players on his team doing well, and the random number generator at least in my mind tells me that using a persons win% for a snapshot of that persons "skill level" is flawed because there are too many variables in effect.

Platooning with another good player/s working together can make the world of difference in a match and thus improve overall win rates. E.G. I came across Farva twice yesterday who being platooned with another in elited Pattons were pretty much unstoppable. They kicked the crap outta my random made up team both times I faced them, and thus they have obviously better win rates as a result. That in mind any platooning players that work together will have higher win rates than non coordinated pug solo'ers proving further the win% as a snapshot is skewed.

One of the reasons I hate the random number generator is it fabricates "luck" in place of skill where in a situation a player might have outplayed another can still be beaten due to shots not being effective vs the others getting good rolls. When it comes down to the one shot that can make a difference either way depending on the roll you're given further effecting the players stats. Even though over thousands of games it may average out are they on the lucky side of the rolls more often than not? That still can be an influence. I highly doubt it will accurately end up around 50% because it would need to track what you were given each shot fired in order to know whether to give you good rolls or bad to keep it balanced.  

I think this calculator gives a much better view of a players skill as a tanker, but then is the player platooned a lot, sometimes, or never? You still have to look at several of the players tank's numbers to get clearer picture of how well they do vs a win%.

Jovialmadness #142 Posted Feb 13 2012 - 15:16

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 3,997
  • Member since:
    10-08-2010

View PostDingBat, on Feb 13 2012 - 14:47, said:

For the love of god, will you people please stop:

1. Drawing conclusions based on small samples
2. Throwing out a measure because it doesn't cover every conceivable in-game scenario

Anyone can have a great game. Anyone can have a crappy game. Good players have great games more frequently than poor players and they have poor games less frequently. That's pretty much the definition of "good" vs "poor". Looking at a single game means nothing.

The world is full of flawed "Ratings", sports being the worst offender. It should be taken as OBVIOUS that the rating is not comprehensive. It's not meant to be. That doesn't change the fact that they are both useful and used. Does the +/- rating tell me everything I need to know about a hockey player? Hell no. But is it used and considered useful? Hell yes.

Well I'm sorry.  I'm not a stat freak that goes by the numbers.  I don't use stats to determine if I'll platoon up with someone.  Most of my buds I play with have 50-60% win% as an example.  I also routinely platoon up with players sporting 45-50% win%.  It's how they play in the game that matters.  Not a freaking number.  That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it! :Smile_great:

DingBat #143 Posted Feb 13 2012 - 15:21

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 3,410
  • Member since:
    09-09-2010

View PostJovialmadness, on Feb 13 2012 - 15:16, said:

Well I'm sorry.  I'm not a stat freak that goes by the numbers.  I don't use stats to determine if I'll platoon up with someone.  Most of my buds I play with have 50-60% win% as an example.  I also routinely platoon up with players sporting 45-50% win%.  It's how they play in the game that matters.  Not a freaking number.  That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it! :Smile_great:

Nobody says you should do differently. I don't choose who I play with, when I platoon, by numbers either. But we need to keep in mind that this preference, and our opinions, have nothing to do with the value of the stats. Stats don't care if we don't care. They just are.

trackday #144 Posted Feb 13 2012 - 15:38

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 134
  • Member since:
    12-15-2011
How do you get the efficiency calculator to look at just one tank?

Klaxius #145 Posted Feb 13 2012 - 16:27

    Sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 104
  • Member since:
    09-10-2010
I will end the discussion on stat weights, e-peen boosting, and global rankings right here.  If you have ever played a video game competitively, you would know that only 1 stat matters.  It is not accuracy.  It is not kills (yes CoD fans, the game is not about big numbers).  It is not capture points, nor defender points, nor % of battles survived.  The only stat that matters at all, ever is the big W.  I don't care if you won 15-0 or if you won 15-14 with you killing the last 4 people solo, if you don't get the W, your all-star work means nothing.

You may get upset at this and you may downvote me (btw I don't care much, I have this friend named Shawn), but if you take this advice seriously, you will improve.  And if you need more proof, talk to a first place tournament team and a second place tournament team and ask them what the difference is.  SPOILER - 1st place has a W next to their name, 2nd has a L.

Garbad #146 Posted Feb 13 2012 - 16:44

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 14,206
  • Member since:
    10-02-2010

View PostEzz, on Feb 13 2012 - 06:17, said:

I'm pretty sure everyone appears a noob when you're a unicum.
Most of the other unicums look like noobs to me. That's probably why I hate everyone :D

Sgt_Kachalin #147 Posted Feb 13 2012 - 16:51

    Captain

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 1,484
  • Member since:
    04-14-2011

View PostKlaxius, on Feb 13 2012 - 16:27, said:

I will end the discussion on stat weights, e-peen boosting, and global rankings right here.  If you have ever played a video game competitively, you would know that only 1 stat matters.

Except in the competitive world the stat really doesn't matter, the individual win matters. Nothing illustrates that better than a single elimination tournament.

Conflating just playing the game with a tournament doesn't work.

Klaxius #148 Posted Feb 13 2012 - 16:55

    Sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 104
  • Member since:
    09-10-2010

View PostSgt_Kachalin, on Feb 13 2012 - 16:51, said:

Except in the competitive world the stat really doesn't matter, the individual win matters. Nothing illustrates that better than a single elimination tournament.

Conflating just playing the game with a tournament doesn't work.

You obviously didn't read.  I actually said the only thing that matters is winning.

Garbad #149 Posted Feb 13 2012 - 17:01

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 14,206
  • 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 #150 Posted Feb 13 2012 - 17:07

    Major

  • Wiki Staff
  • 0 battles
  • 2,372
  • 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 #151 Posted Feb 13 2012 - 17:23

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 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 #152 Posted Feb 13 2012 - 21:56

    Captain

  • Players
  • 0 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 #153 Posted Feb 13 2012 - 22:08

    First lieutenant

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

Mines 1469.73

LizardStrips #154 Posted Feb 14 2012 - 00:36

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 40
  • 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 #155 Posted Feb 14 2012 - 00:53

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 1,856
  • 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 #156 Posted Feb 14 2012 - 00:57

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 2,074
  • Member since:
    10-10-2010
1257.52  About where I should be. tho in my own mind i'm the TD god. :P

CryoVolt #157 Posted Feb 14 2012 - 01:14

    Major

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 2,268
  • Member since:
    04-29-2011
The entire skill debate can be reduced to one's damage done per game in a KV imo.  :)

Praetor77 #158 Posted Feb 14 2012 - 18:47

    Captain

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 1,695
  • 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 #159 Posted Feb 14 2012 - 21:52

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 128
  • 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 #160 Posted Feb 14 2012 - 22:09

    Major

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 4,841
  • 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.