361 replies to this topic

[Flagellum]

Xendojo, on 13 June 2012 - 06:13 AM, said:

49% win rate (in my best tank T110e5 its 52% in about 500 battles)
78% hit rate( in my T110e5 its 86%)
They will have no idea that i am one of the best T110 drivers out there,

hahahahaahahahahahahahahaha

You surely know how to entertain others.

[Xendojo]

Flagellum, on 13 June 2012 - 06:17 AM, said:

hahahahaahahahahahahahahaha

You surely know how to entertain others.

Thank you for making my point for me, griefers like you are the problem. Totally ignored my statement about ignoring stats, and eating bad stats to secure a win.
Totally focused on on the numbers and used them out of context.

Thank you again for proving my post correct.

Edited by Xendojo, 13 June 2012 - 06:22 AM.

[hornet331]

Franklen Avignon, on 13 June 2012 - 05:51 AM, said:

I'm wary of PRI's "convergence," frankly. From the videos we've all seen, it seems that weapons are spot-on accurate, however, they claim they system isn't in place yet, so I'll wait and see. I'm hoping that convergence is going to end up being a system very close to what WoT has in place.

You can compensate for convergence its just a matter of practice, you cant compensate for randomness.

As for the other thing yes I know what ballistics are and there is nothing like that in wot... a shell cant leave the barrel in any other matter then in a straight line (if everything ok with the barrel). In WoT it can, as suddenly the shell leaves the barrel you often see it flying off in a totally unrealistic angle (I only shot in sniper mode and that has nothing to do with server lag either, since i only use the server corss hair). As you have said its a stupid cone the have which gets choose by random and thats is as skill unfriendly as it gets. Since you can do nothing to compensate for it.

If it would have a normal ballistic trajectory you would have to aim manually a bit higher to compensate for gravity/air friction (wot does this automatically) and you would have to aim left/right for wind compensation, but that wouldn't affect a fast traveling shell in the first 100m...

Im rambling to much about WoT.. as said I am glad MOW will be more skill based and less herp derp randum chancu...

[SmackZ]

Xendojo, on 13 June 2012 - 06:18 AM, said:

Thank you for making my point for me, griefers like you are the problem. Totally ignored my statement about ignoring stats, and eating bad stats to secure a win.
Totally focused on on the numbers and used them out of context.

you got baited, by a 5 post troll...dont sweat the small crap.

[Xendojo]

SmackZ, on 13 June 2012 - 06:21 AM, said:

you got baited, by a 5 post troll...dont sweat the small crap.

Nah that was a perfect example of how people with bad intent twist the stats, which as i stated is the major problem outlined in this thread.

[hornet331]

WulfNine, on 13 June 2012 - 06:13 AM, said:

Now you have

Bit extreme... but yes thats happens... quite often.. its already annoying enough when you have a tank in the reticle for over 90% and then hit the ground in front of the tank (despite the reticle isnt even pointing near the ground)

And its hard to believe that there are WOT players who defend this crappy system...

Inb4 people say its the fault of the recorded battle.

Edited by hornet331, 13 June 2012 - 06:29 AM.

[Scarlett Avignon]

WulfNine, on 13 June 2012 - 06:13 AM, said:

Now you have

Point taken (I'll assume you didn't find or create a photoshopped pic just to make a point.)

However, that's obviously a bug and not a case of the reticle being inaccurate due to purposefully designed programming.

[Flagellum]

Xendojo, on 13 June 2012 - 06:18 AM, said:

Thank you for making my point for me, griefers like you are the problem. Totally ignored my statement about ignoring stats, and eating bad stats to secure a win.
Totally focused on on the numbers and used them out of context.

Thank you again for proving my post correct.

You actually have 49% win rate with T110, not 52%. and T110 is one of THE BEST tanks in WoT.
You are a bad player overall.

and 47% win rate with T32? What is wrong with you?

Edited by Flagellum, 13 June 2012 - 06:36 AM.

[SmackZ]

You are right wot has its quirks but hey its an arcade game not a sim in any shape or fashion so that being said how much accuracy can you expect and the random factor is always there even in real life

[McBrahman]

FaustianQ, on 13 June 2012 - 06:06 AM, said:

Not, it's actual math, not some faith based ideology. If someone is winning 60% of the time, and the objective is to win, then in comparison to someone with 40% wins, they are better at the objective of the game, they are more skilled.

You say:
If someone is winning 60% of the time => they are better at the objective => they are more skilled

I say:
If someone is in the winning team 60% of the time => he is in the winning team 60% of the time

a) he don't change sides on uneven matches (how to track this?)
he has a clan-server with his mates against randoms (how to track this?)
c) he is with his mates and they leave on loosing battles (migth be trackt to some degree?)
d) he always chooses the side with an advantage by weapon or map or the bigger number of clans (how to track this?)
e) he joins matches with a "clear" coming out; winning team joiner (how to track this?)
f) he is on the faction with the overall better players

I dont doubt the fact that someone who has 60%wl has been in winning team 60% of the matches. But how does that connect to "skill"?


We had an disease over here and they ask the people which food they consumed bevor they got infected. Tomato was top1, so these clever statistic-fans had the conclusion that the tomato was spreading the disease. It was not. Tomato was just the most liked vegetable.

[hornet331]

Franklen Avignon, on 13 June 2012 - 06:32 AM, said:

Point taken (I'll assume you didn't find or create a photoshopped pic just to make a point.)

However, that's obviously a bug and not a case of the reticle being inaccurate due to purposefully designed programming.

wow are you payed by WG? You sound exactly like there PR department...

First denying that its there, then saying its a bug, when even more evidence is brought forward, they somewhat reveal the game mechanics and then say it is working like intended and might think about adjusting it to compensate for "extreme" situations.

SmackZ, on 13 June 2012 - 06:21 AM, said:

you got baited, by a 5 post troll...dont sweat the small crap.

most ironic post ever... in a thread that whines about stats, they complain about post counts...

[Tarskin]

Rioter, on 12 June 2012 - 09:45 PM, said:

I see the point, but the stats in WoT are essential for team/clan commanders.

I look at stats but also (of at least equal importance) is someone's ability to follow orders and and communication skills.

PS: Let's (pretty please) not have the entire 'i have 44% win ratio because i have bad luck with my teams' discussion here.....

[Xendojo]

Flagellum, on 13 June 2012 - 06:33 AM, said:

You actually have 49% win rate with T110. and T110 is one of THE BEST tanks in WoT.
You are a bad player overall.

and 47% win rate with T32? What is wrong with you?

Back on topic, thank you AGAIN for proving my point. You actually have zero idea of what my skill is, but insist that those numbers are an accurate representation. This is why the option for stats to be made public should be in the players hands.

[SmackZ]

nope was just putting my bait out for you lol

[Reruns]

Used correctly, stats are an extremely valuable tool in basically every situation ever. However, some stats are of dubious value (e.g. batting average). Win rate has been made totally obsolete by the more sophisticated measures that form the basis of competitive matchmaking systems. It also does not function at all as a measure of performance when such systems are in place.

Since we don't know ahead of time what makes a good predictor, the best choice is to expose as much as possible. Unfortunately, to do this kind of analysis, we need to actually be able to look at significant amounts of data, which means public. On the other hand, the more esoteric a stat is, the harder it is to troll people over it.

[Tarskin]

Xendojo, on 13 June 2012 - 06:13 AM, said:

7,200 battles :
T110e5 its 52% in about 500 battles
hit rate in my T110e5 its 86%)

They will have no idea that i am one of the best T110 drivers out there

I really dislike people bashing other people because of bad stats but..... you just took it to the other extreme by claiming to 'be one of the best T110 drivers' with slightly above average stats...

[Scarlett Avignon]

hornet331, on 13 June 2012 - 06:36 AM, said:

wow are you payed by WG? You sound exactly like there PR department...

First denying that its there, then saying its a bug, when even more evidence is brought forward, they somewhat reveal the game mechanics and then say it is working like intended and might think about adjusting it to compensate for "extreme" situations.

I never denied it was there. I said I've never experienced it, then gave my opinion on what I thought was producing the phenomena.

Claiming that wargaming sometimes wants the shells to shoot out the side of the gun barrel at a near 90 deg angle just to frak with people that they depend on to get paid is a level of tinfoil hattery of epic scale.

[Flagellum]

Xendojo, on 13 June 2012 - 06:37 AM, said:

Back on topic, thank you AGAIN for proving my point. You actually have zero idea of what my skill is, but insist that those numbers are an accurate representation. This is why the option for stats to be made public should be in the players hands.

Oh I do have perfectly good idea of you skills.Your average damage in T110 is 1934 per game. You drive tier 10 tank for over 500 battles and can't even do proper damage to enemy tanks.

[SmackZ]

Tarskin, on 13 June 2012 - 06:41 AM, said:

I really dislike people bashing other people because of bad stats but..... you just took it to the other extreme by claiming to 'be one of the best T110 drivers' with slightly above average stats...

good point!

[hornet331]

McBrahman, on 13 June 2012 - 06:35 AM, said:

You say:
If someone is winning 60% of the time => they are better at the objective => they are more skilled

I say:
If someone is in the winning team 60% of the time => he is in the winning team 60% of the time

a) he don't change sides on uneven matches (how to track this?)

Irrelevant for the games discussed here since you can't do it (neither WoT, nor in MWO)

he has a clan-server with his mates against randoms (how to track this?)

Irrelevant for the games discussed here since you can't do it (neither WoT, nor in MWO)

c) he is with his mates and they leave on loosing battles (migth be trackt to some degree?)

Irrelevant for the games discussed here since the lose is counted even when you leave before the match ends.

d) he always chooses the side with an advantage by weapon or map or the bigger number of clans (how to track this?)

Irrelevant for the games discussed here since you can't do it (neither WoT, nor in MWO) your teams get chosen at random

e) he joins matches with a "clear" coming out; winning team joiner (how to track this?)

Irrelevant for the games discussed here since you can't do it (neither WoT, nor in MWO)

f) he is on the faction with the overall better players

Irrelevant for the games discussed here since you can't do it (neither WoT, nor in MWO)

While your points are valide for normals FPS with dedicated server that can even be clan owned MWO won't have anything of that (at least in the beginning) you just click battle, maybe choose what game mode and your matched randomly. Same goes for WoT (where even game modes are random now)

In this sort of games you can't influence any of your given variables since they are "random" the only thing how you can influence the outcome is by battlefield performance, or the lack of it.