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This topic has been archived.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

RobertK #181 Posted Feb 16 2012 - 17:29

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 730
  • Member since:
    09-06-2011

View PostCCC_Dober, on Feb 16 2012 - 17:07, said:

No they simply don't. The law of large numbers doesn't apply. The way this game sets up 'experiments' violates the definition by default.



It is never 'the same experiment' or match when you play in an uncontrolled random environment.

So many people don't care for the basics of statistics, probably because it's convenient. And obviously opinions > facts  <_<

Um, you are confusing things. It isn't the play environment that is important for determining whether the trials are identical. It is the distribution of possible teammates that might bias the results. Since the matchmaker only looks at the tier and type of tanks when choosing sides and ignores the players, it seems to me that the trials are essentially identical from a formal standpoint. What might also introduce bias is if all the tanks of a particular type are put on one side. That would mean that if that tank were underpowered, there would be a bias toward that team losing. But that bias would only show up if the person involved is playing that particular tank since, otherwise, which team the grouped underpowered tanks would be on would be random.

Bob

Garbad #182 Posted Feb 16 2012 - 17:31

    Major

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

View PostKilljoyCutter, on Feb 16 2012 - 17:27, said:

Honest question, what if the player is playing a lot of matches in tanks that disproportionately get the bottom half of the roster?  My guess is that this is part of why it's far more telling to compare individual tanks...
Yes, overall stats are not useful to compare. You must compare tank to tank, ideally with 250+ games played on each tank, to get an accurate picture.

RobertK #183 Posted Feb 16 2012 - 17:40

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 730
  • Member since:
    09-06-2011
I haven't done the analysis, but I would guess that this effect that Killjoycutter is describing should be most obvious in higher tier tanks.

In a high tier tank, a good player would have the best chance to influence whether their team wins. Conversely, a poor player that is relied on to pull more weight and fails would influence their team in the opposite direction. So I would expect that in tier 9 and 10 tanks, good players would have even higher win rates compared to their overall win rate while poor players would be even worse than their overall win rate. In other tiers, there is more of a chance to not be near the top.

Bob

Garbad #184 Posted Feb 16 2012 - 17:43

    Major

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

View PostRobertK, on Feb 16 2012 - 17:40, said:

I haven't done the analysis, but I would guess that this effect that Killjoycutter is describing should be most obvious in higher tier tanks.

In a high tier tank, a good player would have the best chance to influence whether their team wins. Conversely, a poor player that is relied on to pull more weight and fails would influence their team in the opposite direction. So I would expect that in tier 9 and 10 tanks, good players would have even higher win rates compared to their overall win rate while poor players would be even worse than their overall win rate. In other tiers, there is more of a chance to not be near the top.

Bob
That's probably generally true, but not only tier 9/10. Any tank that tends to be on top (t9 heavy, t5 heavy, t2, etc). And of course then clan wars also pad a lot of people's t10 tanks, so I think t10 is one of the least helpful tanks to compare.

teamoldmill #185 Posted Feb 16 2012 - 18:38

    Major

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 8,520
  • Member since:
    03-19-2011
I am a borderline great player? News to me.

I did notice, using the individual tool on some website, that my efficiency rating on my higher tier tanks is way, way better. Having so many lower tier tanks hurts me. But they are so much fun sometimes!

apocoluster #186 Posted Feb 16 2012 - 18:49

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 1,043
  • Member since:
    07-12-2010
This thing cant be right...@1462.37  it rates me as a high end good player almost great player...lol  LIES

teamoldmill #187 Posted Feb 16 2012 - 19:01

    Major

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 8,520
  • Member since:
    03-19-2011
What is global rating mean? 312 value here, 9709 place. Is there a place to go to actually get a handle at what all the stats mean and how they are calculated? I have no idea what efficiency rating means but for higher = better.

n01An #188 Posted Feb 19 2012 - 19:17

    Corporal

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 26
  • Member since:
    08-29-2010
The calculator fails it is too garbled.

mmike87 #189 Posted Feb 19 2012 - 20:19

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 460
  • Member since:
    06-19-2011
I was just thrilled to be on the high side of average.

bulldog1986 #190 Posted Feb 21 2012 - 00:07

    Staff sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 478
  • Member since:
    09-09-2010
1821.2

I didnt even know what the hell a unicum was until someone in my clan started calling me that one day, who made up that word?


And for the record I believe I am just an average player with situational awareness.

Rainybeet #191 Posted Feb 21 2012 - 18:12

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 179
  • Member since:
    06-25-2011
I love this number because it has kept me from getting REALLY frustrated with some tanks, and it helps to keep win/loss record in perspective.  I am a player that loves playing new tanks, and I have played 96 of them, so it took me forever to save up the money to buy my Ferdie and Tiger II.  I finally broke down and sold a few of my favorites, Jagdpanther, KV-3, KV-1s, etc, and I bought the Tiger II and Ferdie on the same day.

I had never been so disappointed in a tank as I was with the Ferdie.  In 1700+ battles in TDs I thought that I would kick ass in the Ferdie, but my win/loss started around 20% and stayed low battle after battle.  Looking at the Efficiency rating I was performing OK though (12-1300), so it kept me willing to work through the grind to get the better guns.  Now with 43 battles I have clawed my way up to 42%w 56%l and 2%d with a 1588 efficiency, and I still have 7k exp to go to unlock the top gun and 38k exp to unlock the best engine.

Logically I know that with an 80% hit ratio, an average damage dealt of 1419 per battle, and an average of 1 medal every 5 games I am doing pretty good, but sitting at such a horrible win ratio when I am in the top 1/3 of most battles makes it hard to want to keep playing a tank that I could sell for nearly 2 million credits.  The Efficiency Rating has become my new number of choice because it lets me look at my actual performance, and helps me remember that sometimes luck DOES play a huge role in early win ratios.

On the flip side, I have a 56% win rate with my EZ-8 in around 75 games, but never felt that I was all that great with it (I am horrible with pretty much every American tank, much to my dismay).  My Efficiency rating of 925 shows me that my teams were winning despite me, not because of me :), and that selling it off was a good idea.

I know that this rating, like every other one, is not perfect, but since it takes multiple factors into account instead of just looking at one number, it sure seems like the best gauge we have so far.

Urban_Cohort #192 Posted Feb 21 2012 - 18:58

    Major

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 2,395
  • Member since:
    09-28-2011
I barely qualify as an average tanker  :(  Reasonably accurate, I'm smart when I think things through but I realize I'm not a particularly talented tank commander.  AND I'm overly aggressive  :D

Though I think I rate higher in the average subset since there are some intangibles that the calculator can't take into account...like how 85% of the time I'm filling massive voids in the line (read: entire flanks) and, as a result get overrun when 3 tanks of similar tiers to myself (or higher) show up to blow my turret out the exhaust.

Ezz #193 Posted Feb 21 2012 - 21:16

    Major

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 6,131
  • Member since:
    08-20-2011

View PostRainybeet, on Feb 21 2012 - 18:12, said:

On the flip side, I have a 56% win rate with my EZ-8 in around 75 games, but never felt that I was all that great with it (I am horrible with pretty much every American tank, much to my dismay).  My Efficiency rating of 925 shows me that my teams were winning despite me, not because of me :), and that selling it off was a good idea.
Personally i'd say you are giving this efficiency calculator too much importance. What that tells you is that in those game you won 56% of those games with an efficiency of 925. Sure, play and try to improve that efficiency, but don't assume that because that efficiency is lower than some other tank that you are therefore not holding your weight. Remember that the calculator strongly favours heavies - whether it's by the games +45% or not is unclear. But given that's your weighting in game, i'd equate that 925 efficiency to something more like 1300 of a heavy.

My suggestion would be to keep tabs on your win% - and use the efficiency as one of the means to improving that win%. In other words, if you won 56% with an efficiency of 925, you'd probably win even more with an efficiency higher than that.

KiwiMark67 #194 Posted Feb 21 2012 - 22:41

    Major

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 4,506
  • Member since:
    08-24-2011

View Postbulldog1986, on Feb 21 2012 - 00:07, said:

And for the record I believe I am just an average player with situational awareness.

If you have situational awareness then you ain't an average player!  An average player doesn't even notice when the home base is being capped!

DracoArgentum #195 Posted Feb 22 2012 - 11:37

    Major

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 2,633
  • Member since:
    09-25-2011

View PostRainybeet, on Feb 21 2012 - 18:12, said:

I know that this rating, like every other one, is not perfect, but since it takes multiple factors into account instead of just looking at one number, it sure seems like the best gauge we have so far.

Win % already takes everything you can do to win into account. The calculator simply picks four things and turns them into one number. For a start you're measuring based on less data. Then theres the fact that the four stats it does look at are weighted according to whatever biases the creator of the algorithm has.

I would be extremely suprised if the creator actually analysed the full body of stats across the community and then determined what the weights should be. Same goes for the tier weights. Did they creator look at the average in each tier and weight based on that? I doubt that.

CCC_Dober #196 Posted Feb 22 2012 - 12:02

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 1,476
  • Member since:
    10-19-2010
On topic: I don't judge you for using statistics any way you want and I'm very astonished to get neg for sticking close to the requirements of a quoted law. Just goes to show how much common sense is worth here.

There are several ways you can create and use statistics and that's what this fuss is all about. The way WG set stats up is more likely geared towards the information they want to gain, not you.

And above all things, there is a scientific way to handle statistics. As I tried to point out already: stick to the definition of the law and work with it. That is the correct and proven method. Doing it any other way, just to save time or because it's more convenient is just asking for trouble.

Ultimately only WG knows what these statistics truly represent, assuming they did their homework right. The best you have right now are guesses and wishes. Don't put too much weight on statistics that are not properly documented. That's just asking for trouble, believe it or not.

MagicPony #197 Posted Feb 22 2012 - 12:23

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 316
  • Member since:
    12-02-2011

View PostKiwiMark67, on Feb 21 2012 - 22:41, said:

If you have situational awareness then you ain't an average player!  An average player doesn't even notice when the home base is being capped!

That is bad players. They dont know the base is being capped. The average players only know their base being capped when the red bar popped up. The good players predict the inevitable base capping and already in position to defend the base.

Get the win rate mod and spectate the high win rate player. You can see their position, target priority, and movements are totally different to those with 45% or less.

Everytime i spectate someone, I can tell right away if he got less than 45% winrate.

Posted Image

rinying #198 Posted Feb 24 2012 - 01:07

    Major

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 5,746
  • Member since:
    04-07-2011
i love outperforming other players though when im in an "inferior" tank. im not talking tier wise im talking t34 fighting is-4, apparently the worst t9 heavy fighting one i believe to be of the best, or the best. but anyways on to the story

i was on lakeville in my t34, top tier, only other t9 was an is-4. i decided to go city because its closer together and i excel in close quarters. so anyways i go and the first thing i spot is a type and one shot later hes running like a scalded cat. litterally. so i advance cautiously up the city trying to find my next target, and i start overlooking via a hill on the same type, i fire and do about 300 damage to him again. then i get shot from behind and my ammo rack gets hit, so i turn right around to see an is-4 staring me in my face. i click the rep kit as fast as possible onto the ammo rack and proceed to fire smack dab into the middle of the is-4s armor, doing about 400 damage to him ( all i could tell is that he has the upgraded turret from the 1790 hp) and of course causing him to back right around the corner. i figured out i reloaded faster then he did when he came back round the corner just as i reloaded, and popped another shell into him while he returned the favor, both penning i think. i go and fire at him again since he is retreating then wait a while since im at 470 or so hp and hes 1 shot away from death, asking my allies who have succesfully taken the lower city to assist me, they didnt. so i rounded the corner and he popped out and we both dinked each other, with me falling back cause of my armor on the hull is easy to pen. after a while since noone was helping me i decided that since the valley was lost, i might as well bring him down with me and i rounded the corner one last time and he lit up like a christmas tree, coming around the corner from a hill to pop me first, he didnt. without aiming i managed to hit his side, killing him in the process and winning the duel. unfortunately we did not win the battle as they had succesfully taken the valley a while ago and took over our base as i was about 50% done with capping theirs. sad tragedy but i impressed myself during the duel, managing to kill an is-4 from 100% hp with him getting the first shot in the process ;) with the 120mm of course. later in himmelsdorf today i figured out you can pen an is-4s top turret via a little spot on its turret, right on the front as well. i gave one a nasty surprise when i did 500 damage to him by that weakspot lol

Vulcans_Hammer #199 Posted Feb 24 2012 - 01:22

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 994
  • Member since:
    07-03-2011
If you are a dedicated scout IE T-50.
Destroyed,damage,defense and capture averages are low and really don't attest to your abilities.

Ezz #200 Posted Feb 24 2012 - 01:28

    Major

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 6,131
  • Member since:
    08-20-2011

View Post99VulcansHammers, on Feb 24 2012 - 01:22, said:

If you are a dedicated scout IE T-50.
Destroyed,damage,defense and capture averages are low and really don't attest to your abilities.
And realistically neither does 'spotted'. If only there was a stat for damage done by others while spotted by you.