Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Aeries1

T8 - 10 Players

34 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
636 posts
7,580 battles

So I finally completed, with much frustration, a 100 game evaluation of high tier players.

In the games I have played from T8 to especially T10.

Unicum - 53

Great - 95

Good - 200

Average -707

Below Average - 752

Bad - 593

Of the 2400 players throughout this 100 game run, this is how they brake down by rating.

This makes me not only sad, but contemplating going back to T2 - 4 for funsies, and well why not.

If below average players infest high tiers, why not have a little fun in low tiers.

Take away from this what you may.   Nothing but data for the community. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,061
[WOLF7]
Members
12,101 posts

Pretty much lines up with the stats from Warships.today showing top 100 players by games played. 80% of the players simply can't clear a 1000 WTR, this has been true for a year now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,206
[NGAGE]
Members
3,487 posts
8,509 battles

Hmmm I wonder where i'd fall into this.

I was going to say I've played like crap recently but then again I have a 1300+ WTR in those "crap games"  and won 16/18 of them sooooooo...

 

Are those stats by player for their overall stats? Or for their stats in the ship they were in? There are a lot of people with good winrates who are terribad in the higher tiers. I have around a 56% TX solo wr which makes me wonder what percentile that would put me in for TX players...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
323
[-WTP-]
[-WTP-]
Members
920 posts
7,478 battles
31 minutes ago, Aeries1 said:

So I finally completed, with much frustration, a 100 game evaluation of high tier players.

In the games I have played from T8 to especially T10.

Unicum - 53

Great - 95

Good - 200

Average -707

Below Average - 752

Bad - 593

Of the 2400 players throughout this 100 game run, this is how they brake down by rating.

This makes me not only sad, but contemplating going back to T2 - 4 for funsies, and well why not.

If below average players infest high tiers, why not have a little fun in low tiers.

Take away from this what you may.   Nothing but data for the community. 

Looks about right.

That one particular line is something I've been doing more of the last couple months. The light bulb went off after a terrible T10 defeat. I thought "wow...it's just as bad as low tier....hmmm haven't played those is a while." At least at lower tiers the ships aren't so incredibly powerful that mistakes made by yourself or others can't be compensated for. It's bad to lose your DDs early, but not as bad at T6 for example.

Hard to leave the 8-10's alone when they're required for pretty much everything.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,530
[AXANR]
Members
3,417 posts
18,291 battles
25 minutes ago, awiggin said:

Pretty much lines up with the stats from Warships.today showing top 100 players by games played. 80% of the players simply can't clear a 1000 WTR, this has been true for a year now.

In fairness, WTR is a terrible metric. It heavily overemphasizes raw damage at the expense of quality damage and all the non-quantifiable ways players can impact the game. 

By quality damage, I mean for example: if you hit a DD for 5k dmg, that is a bigger contribution to a win than taking 20k dmg off a BB, in most circumstances. But WTR only cares about your raw damage number. Someone can sit in back farming damage and have a higher WTR than someone who is capping and contesting caps...the player who just farms damage will have a lower win rate usually, but win rate only accounts for 20% of WTR while raw damage accounts for 50%. This is somewhat ameliorated by being tied to the average damage numbers for each additional ship as your WTR is calculated based on what ships you were in and what your performance is comparable to others in the same ship, since obviously no one expects a Kidd to average the same dmg as a Bismarck, for example....but it's still a thing.

For example, my WTR is on the low side in Farragut, but my win rate is above average in her. Why? Some players play Farragut and focus on doing damage, and they rack up really impressive damage totals. I play Farragut as a cap control boat first and DD hunter second, so although I do get games where I bag BBs and rack up huge damage, my average damage in her is on the low side. But, although I'm a fairly average player overall, I have hundreds of games in Farragut and am one of the better knife fighters in her I've seen, so I usually am able to win cap fights and find ways to do the right damage at the right time to influence the game. 

WTR can be a useful metric, but when I want to evaluate player skill, there's only one main metric I care about, win rate, and one secondary one, average tier. I tend to use average tier as a tiebreaker because seal clubbing pads win rates...if someone has a 58% win rate, but their win rates are low for high-tier ships and they have 2000 battles in Black Swan at 80%, then they are likely less skilled than someone with a 53% win rate but they maintain that despite playing at the higher tiers and don't rely on seal clubbing for their stats (which is not to say there's anything wrong with seal clubbing...my Clemson and Vampire get played often. But I play most of my battles in tier 6 and up.)

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,035
[O_O]
[O_O]
Members
3,734 posts
16,042 battles
24 minutes ago, HeathenForay said:

.

Hard to leave the 8-10's alone when they're required for pretty much everything.

 

That is the sad part. I enjoy the game - as a whole - but not the high tiers. Some would say if you are good enough then the high tier meta won't bother you but, even in a T10 win, I feel drained and like I "survived" the match even when I am top three. No fun at all.

WG is forcing unprepared players to higher tiers with Ranked and Clan Battles requirements which, IMHO, worsens the experience. Everyone wants the loot, including me. It would be nice to see some of the major events at lower tiers every once in a while.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,530
[AXANR]
Members
3,417 posts
18,291 battles
21 minutes ago, Khafni said:

That is the sad part. I enjoy the game - as a whole - but not the high tiers. Some would say if you are good enough then the high tier meta won't bother you but, even in a T10 win, I feel drained and like I "survived" the match even when I am top three. No fun at all.

WG is forcing unprepared players to higher tiers with Ranked and Clan Battles requirements which, IMHO, worsens the experience. Everyone wants the loot, including me. It would be nice to see some of the major events at lower tiers every once in a while.

I enjoy tier 10 in some boats (I love my Republique and Worcester) but the lower tiers tend to be more freewheeling and just plain fun. 

I do think WG is making a mistake by making this next ranked season tier 10 again. I really enjoyed it last season and have no problem with having one out of every three or four ranked seasons be tier 10, but I dislike having two ranked seasons in a row at tier 10. I think it's leading to a lot of unprepared players climbing to tier 10 before they're ready just to be able to participate and then get roflstomped because they haven't developed the skills to compete at that tier well. You can get away with mistakes in low to mid tiers that will get you deleted in a single salvo at tier 10...in a tier 10 match, mistakes are much less survivable. As it should be, but I don't think it's good for the game to incentivize players to push too fast to tier 10, and my concern is that by making a second ranked season in a row take place at tier 10, that's going to intensify the current issue of players grinding up to tier 10 too quickly so they can participate. 

I can live with clan battles being consistently tier 10...people want to bring their best ships to clan battles, and that does provide an incentive for more experienced people to work on their tier 10s and not sealclub as much. But ranked battles should continue to move around in tier each season and not fall into the same 'always tier 10' meta as clan battles, both for variety and to give less experienced players the opportunity to compete without powergrinding up to a tier they aren't ready to be competitive in. I would have liked to see a season of tier 6 and/or tier 7 this time since we did tier 10 last season (preferably tier 6, both because tier 7 is a weird tier for competitive due to certain OP premiums that aren't sold anymore and because I really really really want to take my beloved T-61 into ranked ;) )

Edited by poeticmotion
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
449
[90TH]
Members
979 posts
9,060 battles

Statistically speaking, this means absolutely nothing whatsoever.  There are no conclusions you can draw from this without comparing against the prior (general population) distribution.

FWIW, the median win rate appears to be about 48%, yet most people assume incorrectly that 50% is an "average player."  Not so.  Win rate is not a normal distribution and has skewness; someone with a 50% WR is actually an above-average player.

I really wish most of the community who espouses "stats" would just STFU, because not many actually know what they're talking about.

Edited by n00bot
  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
323
[-WTP-]
[-WTP-]
Members
920 posts
7,478 battles
24 minutes ago, Khafni said:

That is the sad part. I enjoy the game - as a whole - but not the high tiers. Some would say if you are good enough then the high tier meta won't bother you but, even in a T10 win, I feel drained and like I "survived" the match even when I am top three. No fun at all.

WG is forcing unprepared players to higher tiers with Ranked and Clan Battles requirements which, IMHO, worsens the experience. Everyone wants the loot, including me. It would be nice to see some of the major events at lower tiers every once in a while.

Completely agree. Don't get me wrong I love all the T10s I have so far, but gameplay can be exhausting sometimes. 

Surface detectability. Air detectability. Gun fired in smoke. Gun bloom in the open. Radar ranges for 6 different reds. Torp distances. Consumable cool-downs. Everyone and their mother has hydro because there's almost no CVs anymore. The CVs that do exist are really good. Proper angling...at 20km. The list goes on and on...

Low tiers are like a breath of fresh air lol...sure a lot of the above applies to low tier matches but it's more relaxed. I think people would play more often if they spread the incentives more evenly throughout the tiers. I notice people playing in excess of their skill level at high tiers just because they think they have to, get frustrated, come on here after 500 games and announce they're quitting...maybe should've stayed at T5 but nooo "had" to get the Tirpitz for missions O_o

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
449
[90TH]
Members
979 posts
9,060 battles
2 hours ago, Aeries1 said:

Unicum - 53

Great - 95

Good - 200

Average -707

Below Average - 752

Bad - 593

All this means is that your classification got the labels wrong.  An average player is mislabeled as "Below Average" by whatever "stats" site you got this from.

As I mentioned above, "most" players will have a win rate below 50%.  49% players are actually above average.  This "stats" site probably just uses 50% as an (ignorant) lower bound on the "Average" class.

Edited by n00bot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,676
[TNG-3]
Members
2,229 posts
11,345 battles
11 hours ago, Aeries1 said:

So I finally completed, with much frustration, a 100 game evaluation of high tier players.

In the games I have played from T8 to especially T10.

Unicum - 53

Great - 95

Good - 200

Average -707

Below Average - 752

Bad - 593

Of the 2400 players throughout this 100 game run, this is how they brake down by rating.

This makes me not only sad, but contemplating going back to T2 - 4 for funsies, and well why not.

If below average players infest high tiers, why not have a little fun in low tiers.

Take away from this what you may.   Nothing but data for the community. 

Now do the same thing with low tiers. There are more potatoes at the lower tiers.  And i hope you weren't using matchmaking monitor in your evaluation. Because that tool sucks. It only gives you the stats of the ship they brought and most have too small a sample size. You need their entire performance history to get a better judge of performance than what 11 battles in a given ship will tell you about the player's capacity to produce results.

Edited by VGLance
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
336
[-BRS-]
Members
1,586 posts
16,530 battles
4 hours ago, Aeries1 said:

So I finally completed, with much frustration, a 100 game evaluation of high tier players.

In the games I have played from T8 to especially T10.

Unicum - 53

Great - 95

Good - 200

Average -707

Below Average - 752

Bad - 593

Of the 2400 players throughout this 100 game run, this is how they brake down by rating.

This makes me not only sad, but contemplating going back to T2 - 4 for funsies, and well why not.

If below average players infest high tiers, why not have a little fun in low tiers.

Take away from this what you may.   Nothing but data for the community. 

How many were DD's ?  because the upper Tiers are full of DD's who think the middle of the cap within pissing range of a Radar cruiser is a good place to sit.

They have no idea what they are doing and the hardest part of a high tier match is trying to keep them alive.

Sorry I do not mean to offend to many DD players but High Tier games in general are won and lost by the teams that usually have the least of the worst DD's

Just like CV's,  good to great DD's in the Uppers are far and few between.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
90
[WOLF1]
[WOLF1]
Beta Testers
1,141 posts
13,207 battles

Seems to take longer to get good at playing T10.  You can consistently be top 3 on your team at say T7, but be pretty ineffective at T10.  Just finishing most T10 games in the top half of your team can be tough to manage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
174
[_ARP_]
Beta Testers
631 posts
5,869 battles
6 hours ago, Aeries1 said:

So I finally completed, with much frustration, a 100 game evaluation of high tier players.

In the games I have played from T8 to especially T10.

Unicum - 53

Great - 95

Good - 200

Average -707

Below Average - 752

Bad - 593

Of the 2400 players throughout this 100 game run, this is how they brake down by rating.

This makes me not only sad, but contemplating going back to T2 - 4 for funsies, and well why not.

If below average players infest high tiers, why not have a little fun in low tiers.

Take away from this what you may.   Nothing but data for the community. 

The average, below average, and bad players are who let players like me have consistent great/good games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
884
[INTEL]
Members
1,459 posts
11,984 battles

.

 

2 hours ago, GUNSTAR_THE_LEGEND said:

How many were DD's ?  because the upper Tiers are full of DD's who think the middle of the cap within pissing range of a Radar cruiser is a good place to sit.

 

A small correction to that. Upper tiers are full of players who think the middle of a cap in radar range of a cruiser is the correct place for a DD.

 Yesterday I played a match in Fletcher with 3 radar cruisers on the red team. B cap had a Moskva parked on the corner of an island right on the cap edge. There was a Seattle lurking close beside another island. I personally kept the Moskva lit the entire flippin match. He was still over 3/4 hp when we lost. In fact all three red radar ships were still alive. Take a wild guess who got blamed for the loss.

Today in a T10 while playing the Kidd on Hotspot. I'm cruising the middle trying to keep reds spotted. A pair of red Worcesters behind islands on both flanks. "Kidd, move up and spot behind C!!" Uh.. "H*** NO!

My solo W/R and survival rate in DD's T7-9 are both over 55% because I'm not stupid enough to throw my ship away pushing into radar. I rarely put up monster damage games and my average damage is mediocre, but I'm commonly the last DD alive in a match.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,121
[WOLF3]
Members
20,886 posts
19,292 battles

Every tier is packed with bad players.  Your team is just as much an enemy in terms of achieving victory as those red ships.  One can only hope there's enough decent help on the "team" to drag the potatoes across the finish line for a victory.  But sometimes the sabotage of bad play by potatoes is just too much to overcome.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
997
[C-CA]
[C-CA]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
3,189 posts
4,996 battles

Huh, the "average" player is at or just below (being dragged down by the fact that they only have direct control over 1/24th of each battle, roughly speaking) average. How shocking. Truly a revelation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
102 posts
633 battles

Does look like a standard Bell curve, especially given the way unicums are vs bad players. Given that the ratings are largely against each other, that does make sense.

I'd think, but haven't worked the numbers, that the only way you could have more than half of the players be average would be to have a steady out flux of the poorest players from the game. That holds the implication that we are currently going through an influx of newer, less experienced players, entering higher tiers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,887
Members
23,178 posts
5,841 battles
12 hours ago, Aeries1 said:

If below average players infest high tiers, why not have a little fun in low tiers.

As long as you realise the breakdown's gonna be about the same no matter what tiers you play.

And while we appreciate the data, it's certainly not a revelation of any kind.

If anything, I'm surprised there's as many above average players by comarison as there are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,097
[LODGE]
[LODGE]
Members
2,813 posts
6,031 battles
5 hours ago, Ares1967 said:

.

 

A small correction to that. Upper tiers are full of players who think the middle of a cap in radar range of a cruiser is the correct place for a DD.

 Yesterday I played a match in Fletcher with 3 radar cruisers on the red team. B cap had a Moskva parked on the corner of an island right on the cap edge. There was a Seattle lurking close beside another island. I personally kept the Moskva lit the entire flippin match. He was still over 3/4 hp when we lost. In fact all three red radar ships were still alive. Take a wild guess who got blamed for the loss.

Today in a T10 while playing the Kidd on Hotspot. I'm cruising the middle trying to keep reds spotted. A pair of red Worcesters behind islands on both flanks. "Kidd, move up and spot behind C!!" Uh.. "H*** NO!

My solo W/R and survival rate in DD's T7-9 are both over 55% because I'm not stupid enough to throw my ship away pushing into radar. I rarely put up monster damage games and my average damage is mediocre, but I'm commonly the last DD alive in a match.

Same here. 57% solo DD win rate at T10, 54% at T9. WTR/PR are below average / bad, but damage is good and finding ways to win that don't get rewarded.

That's what DD play is now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
482
[TMS]
Members
2,492 posts
25,610 battles
7 hours ago, Ares1967 said:

.

 

A small correction to that. Upper tiers are full of players who think the middle of a cap in radar range of a cruiser is the correct place for a DD.

 Yesterday I played a match in Fletcher with 3 radar cruisers on the red team. B cap had a Moskva parked on the corner of an island right on the cap edge. There was a Seattle lurking close beside another island. I personally kept the Moskva lit the entire flippin match. He was still over 3/4 hp when we lost. In fact all three red radar ships were still alive. Take a wild guess who got blamed for the loss.

Today in a T10 while playing the Kidd on Hotspot. I'm cruising the middle trying to keep reds spotted. A pair of red Worcesters behind islands on both flanks. "Kidd, move up and spot behind C!!" Uh.. "H*** NO!

My solo W/R and survival rate in DD's T7-9 are both over 55% because I'm not stupid enough to throw my ship away pushing into radar. I rarely put up monster damage games and my average damage is mediocre, but I'm commonly the last DD alive in a match.

I hear you man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
656
[LOU1]
Members
3,678 posts
9,992 battles

Three questions about restricting T10 play to average and above:

Without those 1300 below average players, what would the wait times be?

Without 1300 below average players, how would the others maintain their current status?

Without those 1300 below average players, would not the distribution now place some former above average into below average which creates a never ending circle of slowly eliminating all players until you end up choosing between the 1 above average player and the 1 below average player?

(Would I be able to play?  Which stat would be used? Overall: 49%/800, 65 day: 60%/1,000, 24 day: 75%/1,374)

Edited by ExploratorOne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
400
[MIA-P]
Members
671 posts
6,612 battles

For clarity, did you use winrate, overall WTR from wows-numbers, or WTR of the player at whatever tier he was in?

 

That there are so many people with below average stats is to be expected. In a way this game is a zero-sum competition for stats; win for one player is a loss for another; a kill or damage done by one player indirectly prevents another player from getting kills or doing damage. So for there to be lots of over-performing players at these tiers necessitates there being lots of under-performing players too. This doesn't necessarily mean that the below-average players are bad, just that they are worse than the rest. If every player in the game had their raw skill tripled, you'd still end up with a significant portion of players being below average.

 

That there are so many more below average than above average players is interesting, but not unexpected. For one, winrate can be modeled as a negative binomial function, which we would expect to have such a shape. It is also the case that being highly skilled isn't equivalent to being low skilled. High skilled players (at least, skilled relative to the average) have the ability to strongly affect the outcome of the match, while low skilled players are more like missing a teammate; they hardly have any effect on the battlefield at all. As a result, one unicum player more than makes up for one bad player, allowing a small group of unicum players to 'take away' damage and wins from a large population of below average players (again, looking at this as a zero-sum game). This is also why unicums have winrates in the 60-70% range (10%-20% away from the mean), while bad players have winrates around 45% (only 5% away from the mean). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×