Jump to content


More bad players = higher win rates (prove me wrong)


  • Please log in to reply
75 replies to this topic

Serapth #21 Posted 23 March 2015 - 07:12 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 8415 battles
  • 2,391
  • Member since:
    07-25-2014

View PostSkiFletch, on 23 March 2015 - 07:09 PM, said:

On the weekends, I'm either sweating a heart pounding game which is essentially 2v7; OR I'm laughing at how easy the match is.  Often times on weekends it's like practice when the enemy team has ZERO clue.  I posted up on the flank of a JagdTiger (tier IX) peppering him with my Cent 7.  He didn't turn towards me or retreat...  He wasn't afk either.  kept wagging his gun.

 

I had one game on Winter Warkovia where the ENTIRE TEAM went cap.  There were 6 of us at windmill, we just shrugged and started lighting them up.  I think I did 4,500 damage that match and all I did was click shoot over and over.  I could have done 12000+ damage that round if it wasn't for the tanks beside me also lighting them up!

Edited by Serapth, 23 March 2015 - 07:12 PM.


glass2707 #22 Posted 23 March 2015 - 07:17 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 30004 battles
  • 3,070
  • [GRIM]
  • Member since:
    09-27-2014

View PostSerapth, on 23 March 2015 - 05:25 PM, said:

I don't really think its all that much about win rates, it isn't for me.  I think pretty much everyone has experienced peeks and valleys at this point.

 

What really gets to players on the weekend is the sheer futility of it all.  When you've just lost your fourth straight 4000+ damage round, you start to get a bit pissed.  When it only seems to happen on certain days, you start to draw conclusions.

 

It may be that a massive influx of terrabad players is actually a boon to average or below average win rate players.  Perhaps it marginalizes the amount the a unicum can carry.  Who knows.  What it certainly does though is boosts the advantage gained by platooning.

 

Personally I don't sweat games where I do 4k damage and lose.  Generally speaking in life you should worry about what you can control.  I do try to direct teammates, but some refuse to listen and what can you do.

 

Lots of good points in this thread.  You should be flexible and adapt to whatever makes it most likely for your team to win that game.  So even if it would be better to not all go lighthouse to maximize your chance of winning that game you need to be flexible enough to support that.  Trying to solo take the hill doesn't really prove anything.  

 

Of course what we should do in an ideal situation and what we decide to do on the fly in a game can vary greatly



tedg5 #23 Posted 23 March 2015 - 08:49 PM

    Tater salad

  • Players
  • 55230 battles
  • 5,586
  • [AGOGO]
  • Member since:
    07-04-2014

View PostSerapth, on 23 March 2015 - 06:25 PM, said:

 

This may come across overly harsh, but you've basically summed up one of the major issue a lot of "good" players have with the game.  A complete lack of strategic thought. Or I suppose, flexibility is the key.

 

The ability to know when to do something stupid instead of something smart.  Also the ability to herd goats.  Those are two of the keys of minimizing the pain of stupid players.

 

I think there are a lot of players out there that are talented at the game, very talented.  They also know the "right" places to go, and do so unerringly.  It's the last part that marks the mistake...  I quite often see 60ish win rate players go off alone and die, because their team did something brain dead and they didn't support.  It's like that t-54 that goes mines even though the enemy has 4 mediums to his one.  Being able to adapt to challenging situations is a critical skill to develop.

 

That said, some teams are so epically bad that you've lost no matter what you do.

 

I think this sums up the situation perfectly, there is plenty to be upset about this game in weekends, but probably the top GRRRR for me is potatoes making classic bad choices right at start, going swamp on Maldovia, camping, YOLO, capping too soon, etc. I have learned it is better to support the stupid plan than be a Yolo on my own. Then the few times it actually works out and we manage to salvage a win, knowing that they will kill many tankers with this stupid behavior because it is a "winning strategy".

ComradePike #24 Posted 23 March 2015 - 09:34 PM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 10781 battles
  • 838
  • [SRT]
  • Member since:
    06-04-2011

View PostCptCheez, on 23 March 2015 - 04:12 PM, said:

We're all playing a game that can only have 3 results: Win, Lose or Draw.  Hmm that sounds like a good name for a game show, I should look into that...but I digress.

 

Because there's a limited number of players with only those few results, there is a fixed number of Wins that anybody can get.  What does that mean for everyone else?  Well, a Win for you comes at the expense of a Loss for 7 other people.  I've been playing around with this in a stats simulator this morning (many thanks to Saigoned!!) and found some interesting results.  In a pool of 200 players, I can select a desired Win Rate for Player #1 and then run a simulation of however many games I want it to play.  Player #1 is always in the game and the other 13 players are chosen randomly from the pool of 199 and assigned to each team.  If I run around 7000 games for Player #1, that results in an average of 450 games for everyone else.

 

All things being equal and if I leave Player #1 set to 50%, everybody else's WR should be around 50%, right?  We're talking average of the whole pool.  Of course there's variance within that pool, ranging anywhere from 43-56%.

 

But what happens if we change the WR of Player #1?  If I set a target WR for Player #1 to be just 53%, the average WR of the other 199 players drops from 50% to 49.7%.  That's an aggregate loss of 59.7% for the 199 other players just so 1 player can gain 3%.

 

For Player #1 to get a 55% Win Rate, the average WR of the rest of the pool drops from 50% to 49.6%.  Aggregate loss of 79.6% for the 199 other players just so 1 player can gain 5%.

 

For Player #1 to get a 60% Win Rate, the average WR of the rest of the pool has to drop to 49%.  199 people have to give up 1% of their WR for 1 single person to gain 10%.  Does that mean all 199 players in the pool are at 49% WR?  Nah, it's an average, remember?  They still range from 42% - 55%.

 

But what if we have a small clan of 20 players with an average 60% WR?  Of course we then have to change the results table.  If one or more clan members is on the green team, that will increase Player #1's chance of winning.  But if one or more clan members is on the red, that will tip the scales the other way.  That's all taken into account.  So with these 20 people all at 60% WR, the average WR of the other 180 players in the pool drops to 48%, ranging anywhere from 39.27% (we've all seen that guy) - 58.51%!  An aggregate loss of 360% for the clan gain of 200.

 

TL;DR - If your WR is over 50%, thank the potatoes you see in the game.  They're the ones whose lower WR is allowing yours to be that high. :child:

 

Wow, this is some nice work man. +1



Ksftwe #25 Posted 23 March 2015 - 10:04 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 26250 battles
  • 4,256
  • [PRAMO]
  • Member since:
    09-09-2014

View PostLetsg0Met586, on 23 March 2015 - 09:16 AM, said:

Assuming the matchmaker does not deliberately create loser teams (maybe a bad assumption) more bad players means good players get higher win rates.  Why?  Think of it this way, if all players were equally skilled and eveybody drove the same tank (eliminating tank effect), everybody would have the same win rate as battles go to infinity.  As player skill variance increases, then WR variance increases.  The bigger the difference in skill between good and bad players, the bigger the difference in WR between good and bad players.  The closer in skill, the tighter the WR variance.  Therefore arguments that noobs and potatoes ruin win rates are the opposite of truth.  Please explain why I'm wrong. 

 

Using statistical jargon to back up your argument, I see. Luckily, I took a college-level Statistics course before so let's delve right in.

 

Your analysis is correct to an extent, but you're focusing too much on a single scenario and a single element. What you said about the WR variance increase would be true if the bad players kept going on the same side of the team "spectrum." Ex. A batch of 3-player batch of potato tanks are continuously together, dragging their team down (which is, subsequently, the only way they could have a low win ratio themselves). Don't forget that for someone to have a high WR, someone must have a low WR. Idiots are just as likely to end up on your team as they are for the enemy, making stretching the variance on BOTH scales. If, let's say, your WR is 60% and a potato's WR is 40%, he should, theoretically, have absolutely no effect on your overall average assuming he is on your team and the opposing team an equal number of times.

 


 

[SCAMO] > [PRAMO]


mehliveat #26 Posted 23 March 2015 - 10:23 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 300 battles
  • 3,196
  • Member since:
    08-05-2014
The problem with noob teams isn't that whether it ends up in a win or loss.  The problem is that the games are boring as hell.  7-0 wipeout.  0-7 wipeout.  You might as well go toss a few coins

Letsg0Met586 #27 Posted 24 March 2015 - 12:51 AM

    Junior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 8070 battles
  • 181
  • Member since:
    08-23-2014

View PostKsftwe, on 23 March 2015 - 10:04 PM, said:

 

Using statistical jargon to back up your argument, I see. Luckily, I took a college-level Statistics course before so let's delve right in.

 

Your analysis is correct to an extent, but you're focusing too much on a single scenario and a single element. What you said about the WR variance increase would be true if the bad players kept going on the same side of the team "spectrum." Ex. A batch of 3-player batch of potato tanks are continuously together, dragging their team down (which is, subsequently, the only way they could have a low win ratio themselves). Don't forget that for someone to have a high WR, someone must have a low WR. Idiots are just as likely to end up on your team as they are for the enemy, making stretching the variance on BOTH scales. If, let's say, your WR is 60% and a potato's WR is 40%, he should, theoretically, have absolutely no effect on your overall average assuming he is on your team and the opposing team an equal number of times.

 

 

I'm not following your argument I'm afraid.  So long as teams are thrown together randomly (ie, you're just as likely to wind up with good players as bad player), then adding worse players to the mix will boost your win rate for the reasons explained above. Nothing you've said contradicts my argument. 

NevirSayDie #28 Posted 24 March 2015 - 01:09 AM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 10005 battles
  • 1,411
  • [TAN60]
  • Member since:
    03-19-2012

View Postmehliveat, on 23 March 2015 - 10:23 PM, said:

The problem with noob teams isn't that whether it ends up in a win or loss.  The problem is that the games are boring as hell.  7-0 wipeout.  0-7 wipeout.  You might as well go toss a few coins

Right, this is essentially caused by the high skill gap between players. Because there are so many awful players and some good ones, the chances of the "matchmaker" randomly picking two teams of similar skill are very low. 

 

This means that it's unlikely for a good player to be able to carry his teammates. If his teammates are decent, they win 7-0. If his teammates are bad, they lose 0-7. This pulls everyone's WR toward the median (just under 50%). 

 

tl;dr bad players do cause the win rate of good players to drop. 



Ksftwe #29 Posted 24 March 2015 - 01:44 AM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 26250 battles
  • 4,256
  • [PRAMO]
  • Member since:
    09-09-2014

View PostLetsg0Met586, on 23 March 2015 - 08:51 PM, said:

 

I'm not following your argument I'm afraid.  So long as teams are thrown together randomly (ie, you're just as likely to wind up with good players as bad player), then adding worse players to the mix will boost your win rate for the reasons explained above. Nothing you've said contradicts my argument. 

 

Maybe I'll use actual numbers this time around, because I actually could barely understand what I was saying back there, too. *facedesk*

 

Let's make some fundamental, theoretical assumptions, using statistics.

1) A noob has a 30% chance of victory*

2) A noob has a 50% chance of appearing on either team

3) YOU, the pro, have a 75% chance of victory*

* Both of these are if they are alone with a group of completely average, 50% WR-level players

 

MATH TIME - Remember, this is all from your point of view, as a pro with a 75% WR (dear lord that is high)

Noob as a teammate: (0.3 + 0.75) / 2 = 52.5% chance of victory

Noob as an opponent: ([1 - 0.3] + 0.75) / 2 = 72.5% chance of victory

50-50 shot for each scenario; average those two and you get 62.5% chance of a victory as long as that noob stays in your games.

 

You just lowered your win ratio by quite a bit.

 

Unrealistic? Sure, let's go again.

1) A noob has a 40% chance of victory (that's reasonable)

2) A noob, again, has a 50-50 shot of appearing on either team

3) A pro has a 60% chance of victory (again, fairly reasonable)

 

MATH TIME

Noob as a teammate: (0.4 + 0.6) / 2 = 50% chance of victory

Noob as an opponent: ([1 - 0.4] + 0.6) / 2 = 60% chance of victory.

That's an average 55% chance of victory with that noob in existence. You just lowered your WR again.

 

In fact, we would see this trend go on and on until both the noob and the pro approach a WR of 50%, in which case the averages would balance out to nothing.

 

I tried to make this as straightforward as possible, so hopefully this cleared something up.

 

Spoiler

 


 

[SCAMO] > [PRAMO]


glass2707 #30 Posted 24 March 2015 - 06:27 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 30004 battles
  • 3,070
  • [GRIM]
  • Member since:
    09-27-2014
Keep in mind that the best that anyone does without platooning is 65% WR.  Nobody is even 65% on wotbstars that has platooned in < 5% of their matches.  Also note that Concep was going to attempt to play 500 games solo and keep his WR the same.  He seems to have abandoned that like 50 games in as I had 2 games at lunch against him yesterday and he was platooned both times(our teams split the two games).  

The point there is that nobody wins 75% solo, 65% seems like the upward limit.  

tcamp48 #31 Posted 24 March 2015 - 06:31 PM

    Artista pazzo

  • Players
  • 73034 battles
  • 4,570
  • [III-S]
  • Member since:
    07-01-2014
WR is dependent on skill, your own plus 6 others on your team trying to help you win and 7 others trying to keep your WR% down. If there was a graph chart just showing one night's worth of skill and WR%,.............it'd look like a Richter Scale readout. 

NevirSayDie #32 Posted 24 March 2015 - 07:02 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 10005 battles
  • 1,411
  • [TAN60]
  • Member since:
    03-19-2012

View Postglass2707, on 24 March 2015 - 06:27 PM, said:

Keep in mind that the best that anyone does without platooning is 65% WR. Nobody is even 65% on wotbstars that has platooned in < 5% of their matches. Also note that Concep was going to attempt to play 500 games solo and keep his WR the same. He seems to have abandoned that like 50 games in as I had 2 games at lunch against him yesterday and he was platooned both times(our teams split the two games).

The point there is that nobody wins 75% solo, 65% seems like the upward limit.

 

Right. This is because only about 25%-30% of matches are close enough for one player to sway. Because players are so bad, and others are decent, and a few are good, it's rare to find two teams that are evenly-matched. 

 

This is what people mean when they say that noobs drag their WR down. It's true that if everyone was as good as you, everyone would have a 50% WR (or rather 48% after accounting for draws). 

 

But it's also very true that bad players cause good solo players to have a lower WR. If my teammates were as good as the enemy team every match, I would have a near-100% win rate. Why? Because I would almost always be able to swing the balance of the teams from dead even (i.e. my 6 teammates are exactly as good as 6 players on their team) to winning (i.e. I'm better than their 7th player, by a lot, so we win.) 

 

Of course, that would be kind of lame, too. Which is why Blitz needs a real matchmaker. Not just a line of code that puts 14 random players across 3 tiers together. A real matchmaking algorithm that sorts players according to skill, to make the matches as close as possible. 



CptCheez #33 Posted 24 March 2015 - 07:57 PM

    This Space Intentionally Left Blank

  • Players
  • 15398 battles
  • 6,798
  • Member since:
    07-08-2014

View PostNevirSayDie, on 24 March 2015 - 02:02 PM, said:

This is what people mean when they say that noobs drag their WR down. It's true that if everyone was as good as you, everyone averaged together would have a 50% WR (or rather 48% after accounting for draws). 

 

FTFY.  Everyone wouldn't have a 50% WR, but averaged together, yes.  There would still be variance across individuals, usually ranging around 42-58% from the simulations I've run.


"When the going gets tough and the stomach acids flow, 
The cold wind of conformity is nipping at your nose.
When some trendy new atrocity has brought you to your knees
Come with us we'll sail the Seas of Cheese."


NevirSayDie #34 Posted 24 March 2015 - 08:57 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 10005 battles
  • 1,411
  • [TAN60]
  • Member since:
    03-19-2012

View PostCptCheez, on 24 March 2015 - 07:57 PM, said:

 

FTFY.  Everyone wouldn't have a 50% WR, but averaged together, yes.  There would still be variance across individuals, usually ranging around 42-58% from the simulations I've run.

 

Thanks. I was just meaning to address the argument that "if you had to play against players as good as yourself, the game wouldn't be fun any more." It's true that even if everyone was exactly the same skill level, there would still be a little variance in their WR. But the real point is that real matchmaking does not make the game stop being fun, it makes the game more fun. 

Meows_really_heckin #35 Posted 24 March 2015 - 09:40 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 3375 battles
  • 1,646
  • Member since:
    05-27-2013

View Postglass2707, on 24 March 2015 - 10:27 AM, said:

Keep in mind that the best that anyone does without platooning is 65% WR. Nobody is even 65% on wotbstars that has platooned in < 5% of their matches. Also note that Concep was going to attempt to play 500 games solo and keep his WR the same. He seems to have abandoned that like 50 games in as I had 2 games at lunch against him yesterday and he was platooned both times(our teams split the two games).

The point there is that nobody wins 75% solo, 65% seems like the upward limit.

He abandoned it not because he couldn't do it. He just doesn't think it's the best time


YDCACUf.gif

 


tpcshadow #36 Posted 24 March 2015 - 11:46 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 37587 battles
  • 2,043
  • [SPUD]
  • Member since:
    06-29-2014

View PostKsftwe, on 23 March 2015 - 07:44 PM, said:

 

Maybe I'll use actual numbers this time around, because I actually could barely understand what I was saying back there, too. *facedesk*

 

Let's make some fundamental, theoretical assumptions, using statistics.

1) A noob has a 30% chance of victory*

2) A noob has a 50% chance of appearing on either team

3) YOU, the pro, have a 75% chance of victory*

* Both of these are if they are alone with a group of completely average, 50% WR-level players

 

MATH TIME - Remember, this is all from your point of view, as a pro with a 75% WR (dear lord that is high)

Noob as a teammate: (0.3 + 0.75) / 2 = 52.5% chance of victory

Noob as an opponent: ([1 - 0.3] + 0.75) / 2 = 72.5% chance of victory

50-50 shot for each scenario; average those two and you get 62.5% chance of a victory as long as that noob stays in your games.

 

You just lowered your win ratio by quite a bit.

 

Unrealistic? Sure, let's go again.

1) A noob has a 40% chance of victory (that's reasonable)

2) A noob, again, has a 50-50 shot of appearing on either team

3) A pro has a 60% chance of victory (again, fairly reasonable)

 

MATH TIME

Noob as a teammate: (0.4 + 0.6) / 2 = 50% chance of victory

Noob as an opponent: ([1 - 0.4] + 0.6) / 2 = 60% chance of victory.

That's an average 55% chance of victory with that noob in existence. You just lowered your WR again.

 

In fact, we would see this trend go on and on until both the noob and the pro approach a WR of 50%, in which case the averages would balance out to nothing.

 

I tried to make this as straightforward as possible, so hopefully this cleared something up.

 

Spoiler

 

 

This backs up what seems to be the case - there is more of a "pull" to the middle making it harder to increase WR. I wonder how many with 60+% WR are still increasing and how many are fighting to maintain their WR.

 



_Willy #37 Posted 24 March 2015 - 11:53 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 21131 battles
  • 1,229
  • Member since:
    09-08-2014

dont make sacrifices, don't be the one taking hits, let your team do that. Pray they are not potatoes.. And yes, it is very much team based, requireing your team to make some contribution for a win.

 



skittlestime #38 Posted 25 March 2015 - 12:39 AM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 49723 battles
  • 792
  • [GRIM]
  • Member since:
    10-12-2011

More bad players = more dead good ones. 

 

If your team is loaded with sub par players chances are the best spots will be unsupported. The hill, the bunker, the windmill, etc....  A player no matter how good he/she is can't hold off a team that knows what it's doing solo. Heavy medium or TD a good player or in some cases players are toast with a team with bad tactics. I have personally had three 5500-6000 damage losses today solo. I thought I would try the t62 solo and it's been a disaster even tho my damage is higher then average in that tank. 

 



ats1080 #39 Posted 27 March 2015 - 05:27 PM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 1453 battles
  • 683
  • Member since:
    08-20-2011

View PostKsftwe, on 23 March 2015 - 08:44 PM, said:

 

Maybe I'll use actual numbers this time around, because I actually could barely understand what I was saying back there, too. *facedesk*

 

Let's make some fundamental, theoretical assumptions, using statistics.

1) A noob has a 30% chance of victory*

2) A noob has a 50% chance of appearing on either team

3) YOU, the pro, have a 75% chance of victory*

* Both of these are if they are alone with a group of completely average, 50% WR-level players

 

MATH TIME - Remember, this is all from your point of view, as a pro with a 75% WR (dear lord that is high)

Noob as a teammate: (0.3 + 0.75) / 2 = 52.5% chance of victory

Noob as an opponent: ([1 - 0.3] + 0.75) / 2 = 72.5% chance of victory

50-50 shot for each scenario; average those two and you get 62.5% chance of a victory as long as that noob stays in your games.

 

You just lowered your win ratio by quite a bit.

 

Unrealistic? Sure, let's go again.

1) A noob has a 40% chance of victory (that's reasonable)

2) A noob, again, has a 50-50 shot of appearing on either team

3) A pro has a 60% chance of victory (again, fairly reasonable)

 

MATH TIME

Noob as a teammate: (0.4 + 0.6) / 2 = 50% chance of victory

Noob as an opponent: ([1 - 0.4] + 0.6) / 2 = 60% chance of victory.

That's an average 55% chance of victory with that noob in existence. You just lowered your WR again.

 

In fact, we would see this trend go on and on until both the noob and the pro approach a WR of 50%, in which case the averages would balance out to nothing.

 

I tried to make this as straightforward as possible, so hopefully this cleared something up.

 

Spoiler

 

 

This.  More bad players does not equal higher win rate.  What both of you also failed to mention is MM (bottom tier?) and RNG.  1 potato on the other side with a lucky ammo rack or fire will take out or severely cripple that good player with no skills involved.

 

Don't even get me started with arty on PC.



ats1080 #40 Posted 27 March 2015 - 05:28 PM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 1453 battles
  • 683
  • Member since:
    08-20-2011

View Posttpcshadow, on 24 March 2015 - 06:46 PM, said:

 

This backs up what seems to be the case - there is more of a "pull" to the middle making it harder to increase WR. I wonder how many with 60+% WR are still increasing and how many are fighting to maintain their WR.

 

 

Platoon at tier 7 and you will win 90% of the matches.  It's only after you go higher or lower that teams become much much harder to carry.




2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users