Jump to content


Strong Correlation of Survival Rate to Win Rate

survival win rate

  • Please log in to reply
53 replies to this topic

beerusdagod #1 Posted 11 October 2016 - 03:22 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 27143 battles
  • 2,110
  • Member since:
    10-03-2015

 

Argument:  Common sense tells us that if you win the battle, there is a reasonably high chance you also survived.  But the inverse question: if you survive, do you then win- is equally important and intriguing and worthy of analysis.  There are a lot of threads out there that ask "How do I Improve My Win Rate", we see them almost daily.  In most of those threads at least one person usually responds with "survive".  

 

Without boring you with statistical anomalies and in-depth investigations, let me present you with 6 images that I took from random forum players across all win rates and skill levels.  The GREEN circles represent an instance where the Win Rate and Survival Rate were highly correlated, and the RED circles represent times when the Win Rate and Survival rate were inversely correlated.  

The results across 130 data points show that 103 of them were "positives" (79.2%) and 27 were "negative" (20.8%).  This statistically represents two strongly correlated data sets; thus, that Win Rate and Survival rate are very closely "linked".

 

To further the investigation, I took those same 6 player references and ran win rate against the damage that they averaged to check for correlation.  The results were quite surprising... that although damage is indeed correlated as well, it is nowhere near as correlated to win rate as survival is (58% as opposed to 79% respectively).  But, taking it yet one step further then, I wanted to see if survival was correlated to damage (independent of win rate), and it indeed is highly correlated (67%).  Therefore, doing damage alone is not nearly as strongly correlated to winning the battle as surviving is; however doing damage and surviving together is extremely correlated.   

 

What does this mean in tanker's terms?  Probably nothing mind-blowing here, but what I present is statistical truth based on real data that supports what we all already take for granted (but can now confidently take for granted)- Therefore;

 

Survival is Strongly Correlated to Win Rate (79%)

Damage is Correlated to Win Rate, but not as Strongly (58%)

Survival is Strongly Correlated to Damage (67%)

 

TL;DR:  Conclusion:  No surprises here... When you survive, you have a much higher chance of doing more damage.  If you do more damage, you have a reasonably higher chance of winning.  If you survive the battle and do more damage, you have a far superior chance of winning.  

 

If you think about it practically in simple tanking terms-

 

>>> Staying in the game means you get to keep firing

>>> Continuing to fire means you keep doing damage

>>> Continuing to do damage means you are killing more red tanks

>>> Killing more red tanks means you are increasing your chances of winning the battle

 

Is this groundbreaking?  No.  But what it is, is proof that if you want to win games, you need to survive.  

 

 


Check out my VIDEOS on my Profile Page:   http://forum.wotblit...7o7-1016011594/


PixelBucket #2 Posted 11 October 2016 - 03:24 PM

    Level 90 Loser

  • Players
  • 22086 battles
  • 3,290
  • [PRT]
  • Member since:
    12-31-2014

View Posto7o7, on 11 October 2016 - 10:22 AM, said:

 

Argument:  Common sense tells us that if you win the battle, there is a reasonably high chance you also survived.  But the inverse question: if you survive, do you then win- is equally important and intriguing and worthy of analysis.  There are a lot of threads out there that ask "How do I Improve My Win Rate", we see them almost daily.  In most of those threads at least one person usually responds with "survive".  

 

Without boring you with statistical anomalies and in-depth investigations, let me present you with 6 images that I took from random forum players across all win rates and skill levels.  The GREEN circles represent an instance where the Win Rate and Survival Rate were highly correlated, and the RED circles represent times when the Win Rate and Survival rate were inversely correlated.  

The results across 130 data points show that 103 of them were "positives" (79.2%) and 27 were "negative" (20.8%).  This statistically represents two strongly correlated data sets; thus, that Win Rate and Survival rate are very closely "linked".

 

To further the investigation, I took those same 6 player references and ran win rate against the damage that they averaged to check for correlation.  The results were quite surprising... that although damage is indeed correlated as well, it is nowhere near as correlated to win rate as survival is (58% as opposed to 79% respectively).  But, taking it yet one step further then, I wanted to see if survival was correlated to damage (independent of win rate), and it indeed is highly correlated (67%).  Therefore, doing damage alone is not nearly as strongly correlated to winning the battle as surviving is; however doing damage and surviving together is extremely correlated.   

 

What does this mean in tanker's terms?  Probably nothing mind-blowing here, but what I present is statistical truth based on real data that supports what we all already take for granted (but can now confidently take for granted)- Therefore;

 

Survival is Strongly Correlated to Win Rate (79%)

Damage is Correlated to Win Rate, but not as Strongly (58%)

Survival is Strongly Correlated to Damage (67%)

 

TL;DR:  Conclusion:  No surprises here... When you survive, you have a much higher chance of doing more damage.  If you do more damage, you have a reasonably higher chance of winning.  If you survive the battle and do more damage, you have a far superior chance of winning.  

 

If you think about it practically in simple tanking terms-

 

>>> Staying in the game means you get to keep firing

>>> Continuing to fire means you keep doing damage

>>> Continuing to do damage means you are killing more red tanks

>>> Killing more red tanks means you are increasing your chances of winning the battle

 

Is this groundbreaking?  No.  But what it is, is proof that if you want to win games, you need to survive.  

 

 

 

+1. Hopefully this will teach some of the more inexperienced players here how they can improve.

My Top Tanks: Lowe (#880), Type 61 (#834), Helsing H0 (#797), Pz. S35 739 (#778), ARL 44 (#661), T7 Car (#654), STB-1 (#502), MT-25 (#442), Excelsior (ironically(#422), M22 Locust (#322), T23E3 (#223), Pz. 38 (t) nA (#211), Alecto (#197), Pz 35 (t) (#168),

T-25 (#166), Stridsvagn 74A2 (#151), Angry Connor (#63!), T-15 (#50!), Pz. 38 (t) (#31!)

In My Garage: T-25, Tetrarch, Pz 38 (t), Pz 35 (t),  SU-122-44, Helsing H0, Kuro Mori Mine, Pz IV Anko SP, E 50 M, T7 Car, T2 Light, Locust, T-15, Stridsvagn 74A2, T23E3, Angry Connor, Lowe, Leopard 1, 112, STB-1, AMX M4 45, Type 61, WT Auf Pz IV, T28 Proto

Lines I am currently grinding: T110E4 (Currently at T28 Proto), AMX 50B (Currently at AMX M4 45)

"As can likely be inferred, I am a sad, lonely excuse of a human being"


Woody36327 #3 Posted 11 October 2016 - 03:33 PM

    Thorn in XJS' side since 2016!

  • Players
  • 32246 battles
  • 317
  • [TYPHN]
  • Member since:
    01-02-2016
Excellent summation

"14? My scotch is older than that............"


spgilboy #4 Posted 11 October 2016 - 03:35 PM

    Junior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 29132 battles
  • 151
  • [HOOD]
  • Member since:
    03-01-2016
The struggle when I was learning how to play was that surviving and doing damage weren't linked to together. You want to survive so you hide but then you want to do damage so you go out in the open and shoot. The link is how to us cover so that you can shoot tanks and survive. That was the gap in my game for a long time. Once you figure out that going outside ways or just staying in the open is not required to do damage. That you need to move and shoot and that was a learned skill that I wish I had grasped sooner.

bg2b #5 Posted 11 October 2016 - 03:36 PM

    M4 Lifestyle

  • Players
  • 21070 battles
  • 2,350
  • [SPUD]
  • Member since:
    12-10-2015

View Posto7o7, on 11 October 2016 - 11:22 AM, said:

But the inverse question: if you survive, do you then win- is equally important and intriguing and worthy of analysis.

 

Aside from the very rare draw, I find it pretty hard to survive without winning...

Posit1ve_ #6 Posted 11 October 2016 - 03:41 PM

    Credits Master

  • Players
  • 63070 battles
  • 5,698
  • [_V_]
  • Member since:
    04-12-2011

Correlation does not imply causation.

 

What I think you should be looking at is the percentage of wins survived compared with winrate


336 tanks in the garage!

 

Your local friendly credits guru: http://forum.wotblit...__fromsearch__1  (Most upvoted post on the forums!!!!)

Certified Batignolles Chatillon 25t addict


mjm68 #7 Posted 11 October 2016 - 03:41 PM

    M.C.R.D grad class of '86

  • Players
  • 29214 battles
  • 649
  • [III-S]
  • Member since:
    07-09-2014

View PostPixelBucket, on 11 October 2016 - 09:24 AM, said:

 

+1. Hopefully this will teach some of the more inexperienced players here how they can improve.

 

Sadly the ones that need lots of help don't even look at the forums, they just hit exit to the garage and hit battle in another tank after calling their team Noobs when they YOLO.

Semper Fidelis

sed etiam periculosum veteres

 


DrFerd #8 Posted 11 October 2016 - 03:43 PM

    Certified BlitzWeather Forecaster

  • Players
  • 40808 battles
  • 738
  • [III-S]
  • Member since:
    06-29-2014

Nicely done and clear for everyone who cares enough to come to the forums.

 

Without being a bore I could be pointed out that there are ways to add a measure of certainty to the links between survival and winning. Statistical evaluation (as opposed to the use of "stats" such as percentages etc) is boring as all heck, but will tell you without much doubt at all that your "links" are very much real. 


YouTube & Blog  https://ferdsquad.com 


SgtFreemanCdn2014 #9 Posted 11 October 2016 - 03:48 PM

    Junior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 32332 battles
  • 130
  • [-CFE-]
  • Member since:
    04-19-2014
You're bang on, and it ain't really rocket science.  It takes us all some time playing to realize that you have to protect your tank.  And just because your tanks is "fast" doesn't mean you should charge ahead of your team, get too exposed, find the reds and die fast.  I still have to remind myself of that!  Cheers

SirStix #10 Posted 11 October 2016 - 03:51 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Players
  • 554 battles
  • 31
  • Member since:
    09-02-2016
Good article, +1. But most people know that the more you survive the more you win, and the problem lies in how to survive longer.

Posit1ve_ #11 Posted 11 October 2016 - 03:54 PM

    Credits Master

  • Players
  • 63070 battles
  • 5,698
  • [_V_]
  • Member since:
    04-12-2011

Again, correlation does not imply causation. Despite the high correlation, surviving does not necessarily cause you to win more. Especially when you keep in mind winning more gives you more opportunities to survive. That's why I don't like telling players to simply "improve their survival rate". What's more telling is when you look at their survival rate compared with their win rate. 

 

Also, I personally don't like the survival rate stat since it is a bad indicator of player skill alone. You can get a good survival rate with extremely passive play, and on the flip side, I conserve my HP throughout most of the game, but I tend to trade it away at the end of matches to deal more damage resulting in a lower survival rate than is telling of my play style.


336 tanks in the garage!

 

Your local friendly credits guru: http://forum.wotblit...__fromsearch__1  (Most upvoted post on the forums!!!!)

Certified Batignolles Chatillon 25t addict


FuriousFox77 #12 Posted 11 October 2016 - 03:54 PM

    Junior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 32407 battles
  • 209
  • [FL-TH]
  • Member since:
    11-03-2014

I have an other point of view on survival rate, wr and damage. You said that being more carefull of your survival during battle lead you to make your gun stay in battle and then dealing damage, the thing is tho I think it's the other wat around, doing more damage will lead you to have better chamce of surviving, here is why: 

 

As you can see from the best players in blitz, they have the most aggressive gameplay of all players wich lead them on doing more damage and then having less ennemie guns to shoot at them and at the same time having better chance of surviving, try asking a lot of the good players if they sit back and play it mostly safe all battle, the answer will most likely be no. Players in Blitz are too scared wich lead them to survive most of the battle but at the end they will find themselves alone against the whole ennemy team for not pushing ealier with the good players on their team. 

 



Posit1ve_ #13 Posted 11 October 2016 - 03:54 PM

    Credits Master

  • Players
  • 63070 battles
  • 5,698
  • [_V_]
  • Member since:
    04-12-2011

View PostSirStix, on 11 October 2016 - 09:51 AM, said:

Good article, +1. But most people know that the more you survive the more you win, and the problem lies in how to survive longer.

 

That's because the best way to increase survival IMO is to win more. And the way you win more is by dealing more damage

336 tanks in the garage!

 

Your local friendly credits guru: http://forum.wotblit...__fromsearch__1  (Most upvoted post on the forums!!!!)

Certified Batignolles Chatillon 25t addict


FuriousFox77 #14 Posted 11 October 2016 - 03:58 PM

    Junior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 32407 battles
  • 209
  • [FL-TH]
  • Member since:
    11-03-2014
From my personnal experience after 20 000 battles, I have told myself the most ''what are these guys doing ! ... Come and help'' rather then ''Wow this guy went suicide and died''

SchnauzerKampfwagenIV #15 Posted 11 October 2016 - 03:58 PM

    If injured in battle please call Dr. S. Paul Abpraller III DVM E

  • Players
  • 40642 battles
  • 2,081
  • [ISSAH]
  • Member since:
    05-08-2015
As I've improved,  Ive noticed I've gotten out of some hairy situations that I would not have in the past. I went on to either win with low hp or deal substantially more damage before getting killed win or lose.

Posit1ve_ #16 Posted 11 October 2016 - 03:58 PM

    Credits Master

  • Players
  • 63070 battles
  • 5,698
  • [_V_]
  • Member since:
    04-12-2011

View PostFuriousFox77, on 11 October 2016 - 09:54 AM, said:

I have an other point of view on survival rate, wr and damage. You said that being more carefull of your survival during battle lead you to make your gun stay in battle and then dealing damage, the thing is tho I think it's the other wat around, doing more damage will lead you to have better chamce of surviving, here is why: 

 

As you can see from the best players in blitz, they have the most aggressive gameplay of all players wich lead them on doing more damage and then having less ennemie guns to shoot at them and at the same time having better chance of surviving, try asking a lot of the good players if they sit back and play it mostly safe all battle, the answer will most likely be no. Players in Blitz are too scared wich lead them to survive most of the battle but at the end they will find themselves alone against the whole ennemy team for not pushing ealier with the good players on their team. 

 

 

My thoughts exactly. Trying to survive doesn't raise winrate. Winning however will increase survival rate. And you win by dealing damage. 

 

If if you focus on survival, the most obvious way would be to AFK and sit in your spawn. But that doesn't cause you to win more now does it? In less extreme cases, in order to survive you may find yourself cowering behind cover for extended periods of time and holding your shots. But that doesn't help you win either.

 

The best way to survive is to win, and to win, you have to deal damage. My policy now is damage above everything else, and it's working for me. My 30 day WR is around 64%, and my survival rate as a result has climbed considerably along with my WR.


336 tanks in the garage!

 

Your local friendly credits guru: http://forum.wotblit...__fromsearch__1  (Most upvoted post on the forums!!!!)

Certified Batignolles Chatillon 25t addict


Kiser_Sosei #17 Posted 11 October 2016 - 03:59 PM

    Who is Kiser Sosei?!?

  • Players
  • 36147 battles
  • 1,548
  • [III-R]
  • Member since:
    11-12-2014
The part that bugs me is when the Yoloers are calling you a coward and camper all game just for not sitting out in the open and dying.

"MM may not be rigged but RNGesus only answers the prayers of one team."
My WOTB Youtube Channel.

https://www.blitzsta...com/Kiser_Sosei


Rocket_na #18 Posted 11 October 2016 - 04:02 PM

    I Blame Rocket

  • Players
  • 17079 battles
  • 3,800
  • [SCSC]
  • Member since:
    06-28-2014

Totally awesome info.

The devil is in the details.

The gap between survival and doing damage, and doing damage but dying early, vs. camping and no damage. This is where the gap is huge.

Doing Damage and Surviving is a difficult task these days. I feel the Game is far more Difficult now than ever. WG and some of the Community may see MM, Map, Economy as making game easier, it's not, it's harder. I used to be able to Solo and Carry, now, unless in an OP tank, it's near impossible. 

 

 



FlammeumDraco333 #19 Posted 11 October 2016 - 04:06 PM

    18 Y.O. Boomer

  • Players
  • 15306 battles
  • 3,333
  • [META]
  • Member since:
    06-22-2015

>48% survival in E 75

>51% wins

>43% survival in STA-1

>51% wins

>36% survival in Centurion

>54% wins

 

Average damages are 2115, 1553, and 1506 respectively, with the E 75 and STA-1 being almost entirely platooned. Not sure why this gap exists, because all of my stats except average spots are higher in the STA-1, yet winrate is lower. I have no way to explain this.


View PostSystemrename, on 03 February 2015 - 04:06 PM, said:

Whatever, since people seem content with the plain oleophobic coating and dragging their meaty, calloused workman's thumbs around like proto-lizards sliding up out of the primordial ooze onto dry land, it's just more for me.  I'm happy to float on fiber and run circles around you filthy casuals. Eat my dust, snail thumbs.

 Sauce

If þou hæst ane anime līcnesse, þīne opinīoun mēneþ no-þing.

 


Rocket_na #20 Posted 11 October 2016 - 04:18 PM

    I Blame Rocket

  • Players
  • 17079 battles
  • 3,800
  • [SCSC]
  • Member since:
    06-28-2014

View PostFlammeumDraco333, on 11 October 2016 - 10:06 AM, said:

>48% survival in E 75

>51% wins

>43% survival in STA-1

>51% wins

>36% survival in Centurion

>54% wins

 

Average damages are 2115, 1553, and 1506 respectively, with the E 75 and STA-1 being almost entirely platooned. Not sure why this gap exists, because all of my stats except average spots are higher in the STA-1, yet winrate is lower. I have no way to explain this.

 

Looking at my stats. I noticed the wider the gap between WR & SR, I got carried. When the two are close together, I carried.  Just a quick glance, snap judgement regarding my stats.






Also tagged with survival, win rate

2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users