Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
senseNOTmade

How long does it take to reach Rank 1? ~Data Analysis

37 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

319
[ASHIP]
Members
580 posts
5,182 battles

I ran some of the data on Ranked Battles available on WoWs-numbers through an excel spreadsheet to see what I could find. If anybody knows other sites where data on the 8th Season of Ranked Battles can be found, please tell me.

NOTE: If you find what I wrote here interesting, I've continued the analysis by comparing these stats with players' random battle winrates in a post further down the thread.

It took an average of 232 battles to reach Rank 1. 

image.png.03bfa11e2db8e9b2e9af75d71788983d.png

 Graph shows the number of battles played in ranked by players who had reached rank 1 by January 25th.

491 players had reached rank 1 when I collected my data. The distribution follows a negative binomial, which is to be expected as such a distribution describes the number of occurrences before a certain number of failures is reached (so, how many battles occur before enough stars are reached). The mean number of battles amongst them was 232.9, but with a very high spread. The highest number of battles played was 1087 (32 battles per day for a month), while the lowest was a mear 70. So how can we avoid having to spend 8 hours per day playing in order to reach rank 1?

Each Lost Star adds an average of 2.15 to the Number of Battles needed for Rank 1.

image.png.e3b05108984a784473b75f3b8ae08e6d.png 

Graph shows the winrates of players who reached rank 1 relative to the number of battles they played in ranked.

Unsurprisingly, winrate is by far the best predictor of how many battles people have played in ranked. The correlation is curved as we would expect, as having a lower winrate means that you both gain fewer stars and lose more. The correlation is also negative, implying that players did not hang around and play lots more battles after achieving rank 1.

By using available data I was able to calculate how many stars players lost, versus how many games they lost without losing a star (either because they were at an irrevocable rank or because they were top of the team). See my method here:

Spoiler

 

We can calculate how often players lost stars, versus losing a battle but not a star, with the following operation:

bad losses= losses in which you lose a star

good losses= losses in which no star is lost (either due to irrevocable rank or top of the team, includes battles played after achieving rank 1)

Assumption:

69 total stars needed for rank 1. It is assumed that all players started the season with 23 stars due to having achieved rank 1 in the previous season, hence they need 46 stars. Note that I got a small number of negative results from my calculations, meaning that this assumption held for most but not all players.

Calculating Number of Bad Losses

Given that:

wins-(bad losses)=(number of stars needed)

(win rate)=wins/(number of battles)

Then:

(win rate)*(number of battles)=wins

(win rate)*(number of battles)-(bad losses)=46

(bad losses)= (win rate)*(number of battles)-46

Calculating Number of Good Losses

(number of battles)=wins + (bad losses) + (good losses)

(number of battles)= ((win rate)*(number of battles) + ((win rate)*(number of battles)-46) + (good losses)

(good losses)= (number of battles)-((win rate)*(number of battles)-((win rate)*(number of battles)-46)

(rate of good losses)= ((number of battles)-((win rate)*(number of battles)-((win rate)*(number of battles)-46))/(number of battles)-((win rate)*(number of battles)))

 

image.png.1e484668ccb8917251850533a9ab960b.png

 Graph shows win rate and calculated number of "bad losses" (losses in which a star was lost) relative to number of battles.

Unsurprisingly, stars lost increases linearly as win rate falls. The best player only had 7 losses in which they lost a star. The worst had 489. The trend line is:

2.15(stars lost)+55.77=(number of battles)

So each star you lose increases the number of battles you need to reach rank 1 by an average of 2.15.

Being Top of the Team is important but not necessary for achieving Rank 1 quickly.

image.png.944630923da940502330fd7a38f3ea5d.png

 Graph shows win rate and the proportion of good losses relative to number of battles played.

Good losses are losses in which the star is retained, either due to a rank being irrevocable or the player being top of their team. Rate of good losses is the number of good losses divided by the total number of losses that player experienced. 

Again, unsurprisingly, players with high winrates and low number of battles played had the highest rate of good losses. The best player had 65% of his losses be good losses, while the worst had just 2% of his losses be good losses. The mean RoGLs was 24%.

However, there is significant variance, with a standard deviation of 10%. Some players with fewer than 150 battles played had a worse RoGLs than those who had to play 1000 matches to achieve rank 1.

More interestingly, the worst performers in terms of win rate were not the worst performers in terms of RoGLs. Instead, as seen on the graph, a group of players with winrates ranging from 55% to 60%, and number of battles played between 100 and 250 did worst. This might be because a lower number of losses allowed a few anomalies to skew the results of these players, or the ship type they were playing was more team-dependent, meaning that if the team did poorly, they did poorly as well. Anyone have any alternative explanations?

 Average Frags was more important than Average Damage to getting Rank 1 quickly (mostly).

image.png.578fc52fa2becda97419ecc27f057b1a.pngimage.png.ce3c46a77274b0024aa8ab3496fb65a0.png 

Data taken from all players who had reached rank 1 by January 25th.

These graphs compare the average damage players caused and their average frags with the number of battles they played to reach rank 1. As can be seen, both have very high spreads, but the average frags better predicts the number of battles played. This would suggest that perhaps taking enemy guns out of action is more important than getting high damage.

Note that the correlation in both graphs is negative. This suggests that good players did not continue playing ranked after achieving rank 1. Instead, most people seem to have made it to rank 1 and then stopped playing.

Further, note that neither of these are linear correlations. This suggests that, when you're really struggling, small increases in your average damage/frags has a big impact on how many battles you must play, but the opposite is true if you're a good player.

Average Damage has a normal distribution with a mean of 52227, and with the highest average damage being 102376, and the lowest average damage being 18567. Average Frags has a logarithmic distribution, with a mean of 0.82, with the highest average frags being 1.44 and the lowest being 0.46.

Spoiler

image.png.d7eb3825589edc74a7bd69323e404b35.pngimage.png.4ce4538755bb40288cf2fc01ab16dfe5.png

Graphs show the number of players who achieved this level of average damage/frags.

Higher Damage increases the Win Rate of Cruisers, but not for other Ship Types.

image.png.6cb55bf087fd206d4de3ac6357ba2cd8.png

 Graph shows win rate compared with average damage of different ship classes. Ship classes of the same type (BB, CA/CL, DD and CV) are distinguished by color.

Note that this graph includes data from all players, not just those who achieved rank 1. Also note that the biases caused in winrate of ships being matched against themselves a lot (which in random battles only occurs for CVs), is present to some extent for all ships in this analysis due to the increased restrictions in the MM.

As expected, BBs do the most damage, followed by CVs, then CA/CLs, with DDs at the bottom.

The average damage for DDs and CVs increases only slightly despite large changes in winrate. This implies that, for these classes, damage output is not the important feature which gives these ships an edge over their counterparts. BBs also have surprisingly little variation in damage output, despite this usually being the class which is thought of as the big damage dealer.

CA/CLs are the class for which differences in damage output best explain the differences in win rate. This implies that the main advantage that some CA/CL classes have over others is in their damage output, as oppose to differences in utility or defence.

In ranked, there are always an equal number of each ship type on each team. As such, by definition, each ship type (BB, CA/CL, DD or CV) has a win rate of 50%. However, if you look at the graph, it appears as if (for example) most BB have a winrate >50%. This can only be explained by the lower winrate BBs being more popular than the high winrate BBs. By contrast, most DDs appear below the 50% axis, implying that most players are playing the four high winrate DDs. CVs and CA/CLs appear about equally spread across the 50% axis.

82.1% of Players who reached Rank 1 had Premium Accounts.

image.png.380d28f88d7be64fca89c9c12063ec92.pngimage.png.aff45d93994baf90d7d8d7ed8b626799.png

First Graph shows average experience relative to number of battles played, while the second graph shows average experience relative to experience record, all data taken from players who achieved rank 1.

In the first graph we see that, instead of the usual curving trend between number of battles and other factors, here there are two distinct correlations. A similar pattern occurs if you compare average experience with average frags or average damage, but not in the second graph which shows average experience compared with players' experience records. The size of the bottom trend remains consistent no matter what average experience is being compared to, at 88 data points. The gap between the trends in terms of average experience is consistently *1.5 the lower correlation.

This therefore clearly indicates the number of players using premium time while playing ranked. By counting the data points, we can see that (88/491)*100%=17.2% not using premium time, or 82.1% on premium time.

Personally, I found this result surprising.

 2 Players used CVs to achieve Rank 1, but many more likely used a CV at least once.

image.png.8395bd5fdb2c0770505f46f4795e5f84.pngimage.png.6a3e7f37b0ec55695eb0e643c7a51eea.png

  The first graph compares average plane kills with number of battles played for all players who achieved rank 1. The second graph shows plane kill record relative to average plane kills for the same populations.

The first graph clearly shows that 2 players had a far higher average plane kill stat than all the other rank 1 players, indicating that they used CVs. These players had some of the lowest number of battles played (although not the absolute lowest). What's also interesting is that none of the players with very high number of battles played had high average plane kill stats.

The second graph indicates that, although our 2 CV captains have a far higher average plane kill stats, several other players rival them in terms of plane kill records. This indicates that either several players got extremely lucky while using an AA specced ship, or they brought out a CV a few times themselves and had at least a couple great games.

 Damage/Frag/Experience Records are totally unimportant to achieving Rank 1 quickly.

image.png.8909446011884a2acdcbf9429ce231e6.png

Nothing much to say. Records are unimportant in ranked.

 Better ships are not prefered by the Player Base.

image.png.56bc35290c424575164045ba2495dc01.png 

Graph shows popularity of different ship classes relative to their win rates and average damage.

There is no correlation between either win rate or average damage and the popularity of a ship class. This might indicate that players did not pick their ships based on how good that ship performed on average. 

 

So what do you guys think? Were you surprised by anything? Have I misinterpreted something? Is there something more I should add? Your opinions are welcome.

Where the data is from:

All data taken from WoWs-numbers at 5pm GMT on the 25th of January. Note that this was before the end of this season of ranked battles.

 

Edited because I misspelt raisins.

Edited by senseNOTmade
  • Cool 44

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,216
[RKLES]
Members
7,075 posts
8,720 battles

The Cruiser data explains why my Bismarck ended up with 55% WR in Ranked because it's secindaries can spit fire like a CA if the enemy is within range.

Based onnthe WR chart looks like I gave up a little short of the requisite number f battles statistically speaking for me to Rank out. But I had been stuck in Rank 5 for so long that wanted to keep WR some what intact since late season was draining with all the teams suddenly more interested in killing allied ships than enemy ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
359
[DAY]
Members
1,154 posts
11,492 battles
38 minutes ago, senseNOTmade said:

Being Top of the Team is important but not necessary for achieving Rank 1 quickly.

image.png.944630923da940502330fd7a38f3ea5d.png

 Graph shows win rate and the proportion of good losses relative to number of battles played.

More interestingly, the worst performers in terms of win rate were not the worst performers in terms of RoGLs. Instead, as seen on the graph, a group of players with winrates ranging from 55% to 60%, and number of battles played between 100 and 250 did worst. This might be because a lower number of losses allowed a few anomalies to skew the results of these players, or the ship type they were playing was more team-dependent, meaning that if the team did poorly, they did poorly as well. Anyone have any alternative explanations?

 

i was thinking something along the line of "play to keep star" vs "play to win"

typical "play to keep star" would be an atago roaming off at the beginning of the game to the other direction, after our main fleet was crushed by enemy due to absence of 1 cruiser, and is about to lose, the atago got a high caliber and kept his star, i would expect good "good lose" ratio but bad win rate

"play to win" would be radar/hydro play, if you fail, you wont be the one keeping star, but your team will be a lot more likely to win, and in the end you reach rank 1 faster......i think most people with under 200 games and low "GL" rate is playing this way

 

Quote

82.1% of Players who reached Rank 1 had Premium Accounts.

image.png.380d28f88d7be64fca89c9c12063ec92.pngimage.png.aff45d93994baf90d7d8d7ed8b626799.png

First Graph shows average experience relative to number of battles played, while the second graph shows average experience relative to experience record, all data taken from players who achieved rank 1.

In the first graph we see that, instead of the usual curving trend between number of battles and other factors, here there are two distinct correlations. A similar pattern occurs if you compare average experience with average frags or average damage, but not in the second graph which shows average experience compared with players' experience records. The size of the bottom trend remains consistent no matter what average experience is being compared to, at 88 data points. The gap between the trends in terms of average experience is consistently *1.5 the lower correlation.

This therefore clearly indicates the number of players using premium time while playing ranked. By counting the data points, we can see that (88/491)*100%=17.2% not using premium time, or 82.1% on premium time.

Personally, I found this result surprising.

one thing to note......clan war storm league rewards 30day premium, for me at least, when i ranked my 30day premium still hasnt expired.....

i think there is a group of people out there in the same situation as me, and it wont surprise me that in general clans that reach storm league 30 win perform better than average

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,216
[RKLES]
Members
7,075 posts
8,720 battles
8 minutes ago, HorrorRoach said:

Wow, now I don't feel bad about stopping at rank 10.

Yeah late Ranked tends to turn into chaos when the bad players manage to slide their way up to high ranks by sheer numbers of battles.

I am going to have to have every Ranked worthy ship I own ready for next season so I can hopefully hit Rank 1 before upper ranks turnninto a mad house. That was the flaw I had was what turned out to be some of my prized Ranked ships in this season and last. I acquired them late in the seasons so while they did well, they were not available for me to use in Ranked early enough to get to Rank 1.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
253
[SUCIT]
Members
765 posts
3,487 battles
43 minutes ago, senseNOTmade said:

-snip

I guess your name doesn't hold true, eh?

Very good compilation of info.  Thank's for putting this together. 

I'd be very interested seeing a players Random winrate plotted next to how many battles it took to get Rank 1.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
381
[SALTY]
[SALTY]
Members
258 posts
4,619 battles

I did it ^.^

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,819
Members
5,574 posts
7,121 battles

Awesome info, thanks for sharing!

 

Very happy I didn't touch Ranked this season. 

 

Sounds like I would've had more fun fiddling myself with a cheese grater..

Edited by Wulfgarn
  • Cool 2
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
9,434 posts
11,601 battles
34 minutes ago, Admiral_Thrawn_1 said:

Yeah late Ranked tends to turn into chaos when the bad players manage to slide their way up to high ranks by sheer numbers of battles.

I am going to have to have every Ranked worthy ship I own ready for next season so I can hopefully hit Rank 1 before upper ranks turnninto a mad house. That was the flaw I had was what turned out to be some of my prized Ranked ships in this season and last. I acquired them late in the seasons so while they did well, they were not available for me to use in Ranked early enough to get to Rank 1.

how will you getaway from yourself ?  :cap_rambo:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator
1,266 posts
13 battles

A really great job with this! I appreciate your detailed research and hard work on this as well. Nicely done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
213
[4HIM]
Beta Testers
1,006 posts
9,158 battles

Yeah stopped at T9, seemed a good place, too hard to continue with any certainty of success. Spending about 32 hours of my life if the games are on average of 8 minutes ( that would be a interesting number to find, average time of battle, I am just guessing 8 minutes)  doesn't seem like a lot, but 3 hours of ships a night is a lot for me, so that would be about 11 days or 15 days if your doing 2 hours... again not bad, if you can hang on the average, but depression, at my own poor play at times, bad teams won out so stopping seemed prudent.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27
[OO7]
Members
86 posts
11,195 battles

Great work on take times analysis all those data. Avg 200+ battle is the reason I never serious about rank battle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,653
[TBW]
Members
6,293 posts
11,849 battles

Very good work there thumbs up.

I just used the Ranked Season to grind my tier 8's to tier 9. This has been the most satisfying ranked season because of that. They should change the name of "Ranked" to "Yo Yo  Grind" season though. Out of everything that WOWs has to offer, Ranked season is the biggest disappointment, for me anyway. The ships are very desirable but the grind just makes me want to go play other games. They also have something else to grind during the ranked grind season. I had to go and get Crossout and play another game for a while, after the grind for the DOY. I wish I was part of your statistics but the pointless up and down just seems to anger me and makes the game not fun at all. Random battles are quite a bit the same as ranked.

I did have more fun at Yo Yo Grind season this time though, because I didn't go in trying to get to Yo Yo Grind Rank 1. It is nice to play battles without 12 ships per side all of the time (which gets real old too). I just used this season to my advantage and it was a better time. It's too bad that I will never have so many ships I need to grind during a Ranked season again.

Edited by Sovereigndawg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
609
[HEROS]
Members
1,391 posts
11,803 battles

I see a government think tank tank job that pay rather well and only take 20 hours week to do in your future!

Get that resume off to the RAND corporation soon!

 

Effects of Premium time:

  That Premium time holders made it to rank one more often then no premium... No surprise to me. Ranked is one of those places where you burn consumables, mostly premium consumables,  If for no other reason then to gain those 3 commander skill points back for running superintendent to use elsewhere.  (premiums consumables always give you one additional charge anyway...it's a trade off).  It's all about the money earnings here.. Premium players make more money per match.. non premiums don't make as much which means they need to supliment their ranked play with regular PvE and PvP to make sure they have the ready cash to continue affording their consumables in ranked.  Maybe a surprise for you, but not for me!  (I ran to rank 5 mostly F2P.. got some premium time during the last 2 weeks)

 

Frags more important then damage:

   Absolutely!  Damage is only important in that accumulated damage adds to a little thing called "combat Loss Grouping" which is the point where accumulated damage starts taking ships out of action as they run out of HP, and that this typically effcets 2/3 of the ships on a team at the same time.. which is why you see in randon battles teams suddly being up several ships all at once because a group of opposing ships were attritioned down to the point of hitting CLG and suddenly expired..  Dealing damage is mostly about driving CLG in a fight.  Out right kills are better but those aren't anywhere as common as many would like!  So you gotta work up to it.  It's been a toss up in fights.. Shot the most dangerous or the closest or the one you CAN damage. but the more damage pumped out over time has a physiological effect.  But the loss of ships out right has an even greater effect. Perception of the situation is every bit as important as the reality.  ALso bear in mind that in a 7 v 7 fight every ship lost stringly impacts the teams damage PPM (potential per minute).. so yes a dead ships are much better then damaged ships to getting the win.. finish them cripples!

 

Better ships:

  No surprise to me there.  the ship is a tool, take YOUR best tool.  The one YOU do best in.  Just previous to this ranked season we had one more season of Supremacy League at tier 8 which I played extensively with Sun Tsu Warriors "Citadel Nation" runnng a "No Smoke" Kagero with RPF.  I would have prefered to have run my Harekaze but we needed the premium slot (limit of 3 premium ships per match) so that my team could run with its typical setup  (9 ship limit) of CV, 3 BB (1 premium unless we ran a premium CV), Kutuzov, Kutazov, Chappy,  Gearing and my Kagero (also limited to 3 smoke ships.. the 2 Kut's and the Gearing).

 SO when this season broke I ran with my Harekaze.  with the Kagero standing in when the Hare got sunk way to soon and I didn't feel like waiting foe that match to end.

I ran with the ship I had the most experience with in the tier with a commander and build all ready set up for competitive play.    If I hadn't gotten ht with back to back flu's during January I swear I would have made rank 1!

but there were like 6-7 days where I was just to sick to play.. *sigh* I'll bag it next season!

What I did notice is even players in "crap" ships did just fine as long as they knew what their ship could do, and what could be done to counter them that they could avoid.   I honestly do not think that there are any "bad" tier 8 ships.  Bad players.. yea, lots, bad ships.. no, not so much.  

Anyway, Thank you for your properly done (as near as I can tell) statistical break down of the season..  Some good stuff there for those that look carefully.  And some considerations that can be incorporated into what tactics to employ to achieve even greater success.

 Well done sir, well done!

TL_Warlord_Roff

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
319
[ASHIP]
Members
580 posts
5,182 battles

 

On 1/29/2018 at 10:24 PM, Morpheous said:

 Spending about 32 hours of my life if the games are on average of 8 minutes ( that would be a interesting number to find, average time of battle, I am just guessing 8 minutes)  doesn't seem like a lot, but 3 hours of ships a night is a lot for me, so that would be about 11 days or 15 days if your doing 2 hours... 

Actually, this is a really good point. My guess would be that battles in ranked are a bit longer (maybe in the 10-12 minute range), but that still works out to approximately 1.5 hours of game time per day for an entire month for the average player who reached rank 1. Bear in mind though that the standard deviation for number of battles is very large, so this won't be a very useful calculus for any individual player. I do think this is one of the primary things WG considered when balancing ranked though.

On 1/29/2018 at 11:24 PM, TL_Warlord_Roff said:

Better ships:

  No surprise to me there.  the ship is a tool, take YOUR best tool.  The one YOU do best in. 

Hmm, I did find it surprising though. While I agree that people will choose the ships they are best in, it should also be the case that a ship with a higher average win rate is more peoples' favorite ship. My guess is that many of the people who got rank 1 actually took an attitude similar to @Sovereigndawg and grinding whichever ship they happened to have in port.

On 1/29/2018 at 8:52 PM, XpliCT_PaiiN said:

I'd be very interested seeing a players Random winrate plotted next to how many battles it took to get Rank 1.  

I was gonna say that copying out all the data would be way too much effort, but here I am, having copied out the data for a random sample of 150 rank 1 players (NOTE: I excluded any players for which data could not be found, or data was incomplete. Technically, that's gonna make a sampling bias). And I did get some very interesting results.

Good Winrates in Random is NO guarantee of good performance in Ranked.

 image.png.211f83e6ef7c93dd06225adfa71b6bc8.png

 Graph compares winrates in ranked and winrates in random for players who reached rank 1. Diagonal line shows all positions with equal winrates in ranked/random, so players above the line did better in random than in ranked, and players below the line did better in ranked.

The most interesting part of this diagram is the funnel shape. Players with around 50% winrates in random battles are all clustered around 50% in ranked, meaning that if you are only average in random battles you will also perform just average in ranked battles.

However, the spread of winrates in ranked increases rapidly as winrate in random increases. While some players with a random battles winrate around 65% manage 75-80% winrates in ranked, others with even higher winrates in random barely manage 53% in ranked. In other words, doing well in random makes it possible to do well in ranked, but not guaranteed.

I have an explanation for this which I'll get to at the end of this post, but if you can think of anything then please write it down now and then tell me after you've finished reading. One explanation might be that some players with high winrates in random battles may have been handicapped by not being able to play in divisions as they were used to. Others might have gained that winrate at different tiers or in ships not available in this season of ranked battles. In any case it seems as if there's some factor not accounted for in this graph which affects the winrates of high skill players but not of low skill players. What might it be?

On Average, rank 1 players had a 1.4% LOWER winrate in ranked than they do in random.

image.png.43e2420d329ca5aaa6a3aa16ebbc8999.png

 Graph shows how often players had changes in their winrate (going from random to ranked) of different amounts. Negative values indicate better performance in random, while positive values indicate better performance in ranked.

So the mean change in winrate coming from random to ranked for these rank 1 players is -1.4%. Hence most players did worse. There's a standard deviation of 5.8% on that value, which is pretty high. As seen in the previous graph, how large that spread is likely to be for you depends on how good a player you are.

The distribution is roughly binomial, which is what you'd expect from a winrate-related statistic.

The variation in success of high skilled players was not due to having different damage or average frag performance.

image.png.1fabfc59b03fb1a61c28709e011b44df.png

 Graph shows rank 1 players' average frags (orange) and average damage (blue) in ranked games, relative to the change in their winrates going from random to ranked battles.

This graph shows the same funnel shape as in the first graph, but this time relating average frags/damage to changes in winrate. Again, we see that players with bad damage/frag performance consistently have about the same winrate in ranked as they do in random. However, players with high average damage/frags both over AND underperformed their random battle winrates. This implies that the variation in performance of high skill players is not due to their performance in battle, at least in terms of average damage/frags.

Keep in mind that this graph is a lot more messy, so the chances of these results being due to random chance is fairly strong.

Luck may be a HUGE element in ranked, but only for high skill players.

image.png.479bb64cf9e87f6d3fcc2996cc6c1b8d.png

This graph relates the change in players' winrates from random to ranked with the number of battles they needed to reach rank 1.

This graph may shed some light as to the reason for our mysterious funnel shape. Players with a high number of battles played tend to have a ranked battles winrate which is very close to their winrate in random battles, which makes sense due to the many battles they've played in ranked averaging out their winstreaks with defeatstreaks. Such players also have low random battles winrates, as only relatively low skilled players need so many battles to get to rank 1. This explains why the winrates of low skilled players were about the same in ranked as they were in random.

Players with an extremely low number of  battles also tend to significantly over perform their random battles winrate, suggesting that in order to reach rank 1 in less than 130 battles or so, you need to be good AND extremely lucky.

The greatest variation is seen amongst players who played between 150 and 400 battles in ranked. This is for two reasons: firstly, these players have played too few battles for anomalous winstreaks or defeatstreaks to get averaged out of their data. Secondly, it is possible for players to get to this section either by being an extremely good player who underperformed (hence there are players with a large negative change in their winrates here) and by being an ok player who overperformed (hence there are players here with positive changes in their winrates). The players with large negative changes in winrate are probably just as skilled as those who needed only 130 battles or less, but simply got unlucky.

However, note that there are a lot more (and a lot more extreme) negative changes in winrate than positive ones in this section. Being an ok player who overperformed is therefore possible, but far less likely than being a good player who underperformed. My explanation therefore is that luck plays a significant role in ranked battles and explains the funnel shape from earlier, but that it only really affects high skill players because they've played a lot less battles than the low skill players who still made it to rank 1.

 

 Miscellaneous points:

-Most people have really bad taste in usernames.

-Surprising number of people replace the 'L's in their names with capitalized 'i's. It's really annoying!

-Many of the players with extremely high WR in random battles played predominantly in divisions (gives around a 10% boost is my guess).

-There was no relationship between plane kills in ranked and change in winrate, meaning that a plane kill has the same value in ranked as it does in random.

-It's a lot of fun checking if people I meet in game are in my database.

Download my spreadsheets:

I've tried attaching my spreadsheet for anyone who is interested.

Ranked Battles Season 8.xlsx

Edited by senseNOTmade
  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
253
[SUCIT]
Members
765 posts
3,487 battles
1 hour ago, senseNOTmade said:

-snip

You have no idea how amazing this information is.  I wish I could give you far more than an upvote for just the sheer amount of time it took to compile all that data.  Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41
[SYN]
Members
245 posts
9,575 battles

Great Work Sir - myself, I stop at rank 10 each season, Im not a good enough player for ranked, and right around rank 10 is where I start losing stars( yes I rank out at Rank 10)...but I found your review/research to be excellent +1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
246
[PLPT]
Members
577 posts
6,446 battles
On 1/29/2018 at 12:01 PM, senseNOTmade said:

This implies that, for these classes, damage output is not the important feature which gives these ships an edge over their counterparts.

And yet damage is the thing WG rewards the most, and the stat most *amateur* statisticians think is most important.

Really great to see someone who can actually do stats putting out quality information.

Since several of these results go against common “wisdom,” there is probably an opportunity to put together a “moneyball” clan of quality players who are overlooked by naïve analysis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,216
[RKLES]
Members
7,075 posts
8,720 battles

Going to take a few Months for to get to Rank, since I refuse to use X ships to do it due to costs of operating them.

So I now have to wait few months until Wargaming hopefully does a Ranked Tier 6 or 7.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,843
[O7]
Supertester, Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
10,650 posts
7,540 battles
16 minutes ago, Admiral_Thrawn_1 said:

Going to take a few Months for to get to Rank, since I refuse to use X ships to do it due to costs of operating them.

So I now have to wait few months until Wargaming hopefully does a Ranked Tier 6 or 7.

Dont forget the rank flags you get at ranks 10 and 5 have pretty substantial discounts on operating costs. 10% and 20% respectively I believe, combine that with the 10% discount flag and the +20% income of many of the camos and if you cant make a profit you probably dont play well enough to compete in ranked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,216
[RKLES]
Members
7,075 posts
8,720 battles
3 minutes ago, 1nv4d3rZ1m said:

Dont forget the rank flags you get at ranks 10 and 5 have pretty substantial discounts on operating costs. 10% and 20% respectively I believe, combine that with the 10% discount flag and the +20% income of many of the camos and if you cant make a profit you probably dont play well enough to compete in ranked.

Yeah but without 30 days of premium time there is likely not going to be credits for entire Ranked grind, but you are right the flags might possibly help enough to do it. I can certainly test it out and see if it works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×