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

Personal Ratings (PR)

43 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

42
[DRAC0]
Members
62 posts

Does anyone else ever wonder why the majority of players are rated as "bad"?  Seems to me that the rating need tweaking.  Somewhere in that pool of "badness" between a PR of 0 to 750 is the truly average player.  And by average I mean that the vast majority of players in Random games are not even rated "average".  I think that raises a credibility problem for the ratings system, IMHO. 

Typically, matches look like this ss.  The actual avg PR in this match (drastically influenced by one stratospheric player PR) is only 873.

I appreciate the views of the community in this regard.  And yes, I know that there is historical data on the server to "justify" the ratings system.  On the ground, it doesn't seem to bear out the reality I see playing T3 every day.

 

mm-pr.jpg

Edited by unseaworthy
inserted clarification
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,432
[O_O]
Members
5,940 posts
13,721 battles

Do you think tier 3 is the proper tier to take your samples from?  I mean, I would imagine tier 3 and 4 are full of inexperienced players.

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42
[DRAC0]
Members
62 posts

I think this applies to all lower to middle tiers.  My Dad plays high tiers all the time and that's different, although he says it has changed lately.  I have played a few games in mid tiers with his account and I can see the same sort of thing.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,311
[FML]
Members
3,279 posts
13,911 battles
6 minutes ago, unseaworthy said:

Does anyone else ever wonder why the majority of players are rated as "bad"?  Seems to me that the rating need tweaking.  Somewhere in that pool of "badness" between a PR of 0 to 750 is the truly average player.  And by average I mean that the vast majority of players in Random games are not even rated "average".  I think that raises a credibility problem for the ratings system, IMHO. 

Typically, matches look like this ss.  The actual avg PR in this match (drastically influenced by one stratospheric player PR) is only 873.

I appreciate the views of the community in this regard.  And yes, I know that there is historical data on the server to "justify" the ratings system.  On the ground, it doesn't seem to bear out the reality I see playing T3 every day.

mm-pr.jpg

1) It is quite possible that you can have entire battles full of below-server average players.  

2) Stop using matchmaking monitor.  It really saps the fun out of the game.  Instead, berate your teammates for doing dumb stuff only after they've done it; not before...

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42
[DRAC0]
Members
62 posts
5 minutes ago, UltimateNewbie said:

1) It is quite possible that you can have entire battles full of below-server average players.  

2) Stop using matchmaking monitor.  It really saps the fun out of the game.  Instead, berate your teammates for doing dumb stuff only after they've done it; not before...

I guess you agree with my point.  I play dozens of games every week, and the majority of players on both sides aren't even "average" players under the current rating system.  That doesn't make any sense at all.  If everyone is below average or worse, what does "average" even mean?  That a Tier Level 7 player is great playing Tier III?  Duh,  we all know that's true already!

I see you know MM.  It doesn't sap the fun out of the game  for me.  It goes a long way toward explaining why I lose in many cases (including the one in my example).  

Edited by unseaworthy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42
[DRAC0]
Members
62 posts
8 minutes ago, Dareios said:

how is this post not locked already for name and shame breach?

I posted a sanitized version.  Thanks for helping to keep this conversation going and not being locked.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,158
[KWF]
Members
3,798 posts
5,502 battles
46 minutes ago, unseaworthy said:

I guess you agree with my point.  I play dozens of games every week, and the majority of players on both sides aren't even "average" players under the current rating system.  That doesn't make any sense at all.  If everyone is below average or worse, what does "average" even mean?  That a Tier Level 7 player is great playing Tier III?  Duh,  we all know that's true already!

I see you know MM.  It doesn't sap the fun out of the game  for me.  It goes a long way toward explaining why I lose in many cases (including the one in my example).  

PR is an arbitrary value created by people not connected to WG so it follows their subjective opinions of what constitutes skill. That doesn't mean PR is worthless, just that it's more of an indicator to be checked with various other things to get a better idea since it can be farmed.

Solo winrate, average tier played, survival rates, these are things that can affect player skill alot, yet MMM doesn't show. The way PR in ships works is that the lower the average damage, the higher you can push your PR. This can be especially apparent in old ships with very high battle numbers. Low tiers fall in both categories. 

As an example, feel free to look up my Sims stats. Based on wowsnanumbers I have 3568 PR in Sims. If you look at averages for Sims you will see it's the third most played tier VII DD, with low average damage and average winrate. This in turn gives me the ability to get a pretty impressive PR without being the best player around really. 

Now imagine doing something similar with low tiers, and add there a lower enemy skill level too.

Bottom line, PR is a useful indicator and tool to gauge your improvement, but gauging real skill can be more complex.

Edited by warheart1992
  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30
[WOLFG]
Members
101 posts
7,478 battles

There are a lot of reasons for most people being “below average”, but as far as I can tell the primary is that player skill is a gamma distribution (think of a bell curve shifted to the left with a long tail to the right) and the PR formula is better suited to a normal distribution.

A better reflection of where people are would be there last 300 or so battles and us a percentile distribution for expected damage, wins and ships sunk (rather than difference from a mean). I suspect you would the. Have a more realistic sense of where you are and where your team is.

Edited by pallas_2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
741
[LOU1]
Members
4,044 posts
11,225 battles

This discussion assumes there is a valid measurement of skill available.  To my knowledge, there has never been a consensus on a reliable indicator, outside of WR.  Personally, I feel the usual cause of a loss is my inability to do what it takes to help my team win.  Since I am the only thing that I can control in a battle, I try to focus my efforts on that.  I try to know my ship, watch the map, recognize where I can have an impact, and (most importantly) try to limit my mistakes.  Most importantly, I try to apply my limited ability to focus on what is happened in the current battle and not on how good or bad other players in the battle have been in the past.  (Human beings can only hold one thought at a time and switch between foci to be able to multitask).

I would expect, however, that a reliable indicator would show that most players at T4 and below were not skilled at the game and are playing below average.  I would further expect Tier 6/7 might look better in terms of the arbitrary measurements used.  The previous poster's mention of the bell curve I believe is spot on, as it illustrates most things encountered in our world. 

One of many versions, all of them are relatively similar:

86PWzJ9.jpg

I try to remember that this is a game played for fun by the vast majority.  They expect a normal shooter with simplistic collision models.  The idea that the gun, shell, target armor, target angling, previous damage, and other factors are calculated for each shot is foreign to them.  There are clan wars, King of the Sea, and ranked battles for those more interested in bringing the striving for excellence and tracking of the work world into a game played for fun.

DISCLAIMER:  I am one of the players that strives for excellence.  Due to that, I have resorted to PvE for an extended period because I end up playing when tired and distracted and do not want to endanger my upward climb to 60%+.    One of the joys of tracking stats, I guess.  Note my low overall PR from playing 100's of low damage battles in my early days.

Edited by ExploratorOne
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,706
[H_]
Members
3,351 posts
14,917 battles
1 hour ago, unseaworthy said:

Does anyone else ever wonder why the majority of players are rated as "bad"?

I've never looked myself up because I'm surely in the terrible range....  But, I don't play the "game" seriously: because it's not a SIM and everything is made up !  So, why would anyone expect "Superb" if that never was their goal?  Ask yourself, why isn't there an in-game Leader Board?  Where the game itself generates a list of "definitive rankings?"  Because the game isn't designed as a meritocracy at all.......it's an arcade cooperative mature shooter in a small Brown Ocean niche.....it doesn't need ratings to drive people off.

What is bad?  Some of the most fun I've ever had were in matches I've played were with team mostly full with terrible players !  Why?  Because we were having fun first and winning came second.....   There are thousands of people in this game like me whom "really don't care" about getting any better than I am today.  When it stops being fun, I'll leave....... 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42
[DRAC0]
Members
62 posts
13 minutes ago, Estimated_Prophet said:

Because as far as I can tell, PR is nothing more than a reflection of average damage done.

Technically it's described as a blend of:

  1. dmg rate
  2. frag rate
  3. WR

from highest importance to lowest - and not in the same proportions...

Edited by unseaworthy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42
[DRAC0]
Members
62 posts
29 minutes ago, ExploratorOne said:

This discussion assumes there is a valid measurement of skill available.  To my knowledge, there has never been a consensus on a reliable indicator, outside of WR.  Personally, I feel the usual cause of a loss is my inability to do what it takes to help my team win.  Since I am the only thing that I can control in a battle, I try to focus my efforts on that.  I try to know my ship, watch the map, recognize where I can have an impact, and (most importantly) try to limit my mistakes.  Most importantly, I try to apply my limited ability to focus on what is happened in the current battle and not on how good or bad other players in the battle have been in the past.  (Human beings can only hold one thought at a time and switch between foci to be able to multitask).

I would expect, however, that a reliable indicator would show that most players at T4 and below were not skilled at the game and are playing below average.  I would further expect Tier 6/7 might look better in terms of the arbitrary measurements used.  The previous poster's mention of the bell curve I believe is spot on, as it illustrates most things encountered in our world. 

One of many versions, all of them are relatively similar:

86PWzJ9.jpg

I try to remember that this is a game played for fun by the vast majority.  They expect a normal shooter with simplistic collision models.  The idea that the gun, shell, target armor, target angling, previous damage, and other factors are calculated for each shot is foreign to them.  There are clan wars, King of the Sea, and ranked battles for those more interested in bringing the striving for excellence and tracking of the work world into a game played for fun.

DISCLAIMER:  I am one of the players that strives for excellence.  Due to that, I have resorted to PvE for an extended period because I end up playing when tired and distracted and do not want to endanger my upward climb to 60%+.    One of the joys of tracking stats, I guess.  Note my low overall PR from playing 100's of low damage battles in my early days.

I think PR is actually (when looking at an extensive/long term player history) a pretty accurate metric of player skill.  Being a successful player means causing damage to the other team, sinking their ships, and helping your team win.  In the same way that hitting winners and aces and winning % effects the ranking of tennis players in a tournament or on a particular circuit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
5,059 posts
9,013 battles

Back when there were several WoWs stat pages that gave out PR/PTR - there were many an argument as to which one was "correct" or "more correct".  As noted already - PR/PTR is strictly created by whatever formula the site designed.  Some put more stock into kills than damage and others did the opposite.

WR is not a good indicator of skill - the WR for an individual is very plastic (or it can be very plastic).

Edited by CylonRed
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,306
[PN]
[PN]
Beta Testers
8,144 posts
20,756 battles
2 hours ago, UltimateNewbie said:

Stop using matchmaking monitor. 

@unseaworthy ^^^^^^ that right there says it all. Uninstall that crap!

PR is the work of 3rd party sites not WG and has nothing to do with team make ups. Match Maker uses only ship type and tier.

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,768
Members
2,226 posts
4,845 battles

Maybe 5% of the playerbase knows what they are doing and the game mechanics. The rest have no clue and just play for damage.

thats why you see dumb crap where like someone in a Pepsicola charges into a cap and goes broadside against 2-3 BBs at start of match.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42
[DRAC0]
Members
62 posts
3 minutes ago, Legio_X_ said:

Maybe 5% of the playerbase knows what they are doing and the game mechanics. The rest have no clue and just play for damage.

thats why you see dumb crap where like someone in a Pepsicola charges into a cap and goes broadside against 2-3 BBs at start of match.

I see some value in having a player on my team capable of averaging huge amounts of damage and sinking ships.  Call me crazy!!!  LoL

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
85
[-A-8-]
Members
175 posts
15,281 battles

Out of interest where is the PR seen? Having looked at my profile, both in game and on the WoWs website, I don't see a number for it. Is this being generated by WoWs themselves or is it being calculated by a 3rd party?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,844
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
3,579 posts
12,460 battles
  1. Needs a larger sample size
  2. 1250 PR is the mean, not the median
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42
[DRAC0]
Members
62 posts
18 minutes ago, wildgooseman said:

Out of interest where is the PR seen? Having looked at my profile, both in game and on the WoWs website, I don't see a number for it. Is this being generated by WoWs themselves or is it being calculated by a 3rd party?

The underlying numbers come from wargamming.net .  The "rating system" is a 3rd party system shown here.  https://na.wows-numbers.com/personal/rating  I've heard players argue that "stats don't exist" or "stats don't matter" but I think they have real value.  

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,706
[H_]
Members
3,351 posts
14,917 battles
43 minutes ago, CAPTMUDDXX said:

@unseaworthy ^^^^^^ that right there says it all. Uninstall that crap!

PR is the work of 3rd party sites not WG and has nothing to do with team make ups. Match Maker uses only ship type and tier.

I agree !   There is far too much "variation" in the game to use a simplistic metric to determine skill.....  And, determining skill does what exactly???  It will never be used in an Arcade MM !!!  The game would implode to satisfy the 15% whom find it necessary to "be measured"......  Geeze guys.  Uninstall that crap and simply "play the game..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,980 posts
18,696 battles

Well there's a few things that are skewing the numbers here

First your using the lower level mm

Not alot of good players hang out here there's a few but most good players aren't

 Secondly a lot of the really good players don't play randoms anymore or very little, sigh

 Thirdly good old you know who turned the playerbase over this year with a rework and so a lot of the middle level players quit or moved on,  which good old you know who is hoping to draw back with Submarines and Christmas

 But you're right there's over all a lot lower skill level base out there playing right now then I can remember in a long time

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,261
[PSP]
[PSP]
Members
10,990 posts
3 hours ago, unseaworthy said:

Does anyone else ever wonder why the majority of players are rated as "bad"?  Seems to me that the rating need tweaking.  Somewhere in that pool of "badness" between a PR of 0 to 750 is the truly average player.  And by average I mean that the vast majority of players in Random games are not even rated "average".  I think that raises a credibility problem for the ratings system, IMHO. 

Typically, matches look like this ss.  The actual avg PR in this match (drastically influenced by one stratospheric player PR) is only 873.

I appreciate the views of the community in this regard.  And yes, I know that there is historical data on the server to "justify" the ratings system.  On the ground, it doesn't seem to bear out the reality I see playing T3 every day.

 

mm-pr.jpg

It seems that most gaming "stats" sites operators actually know very little about statistics. This is not surprising because statistics are used inappropriately most of the time by non-scientists.

Without an indicator of variability you can't really tell if two players' averages are actually significantly different from each other. Take for example a stats site where 47% is "bad," and 53% is "good." Depending on the variation involved, everything from "bad" to "good" might actually fall within the standard error of the mean and thus be considered non significant. 

There also is a big problem with PR if it is weighted heavily toward team wins and losses. An individual may play superbly, getting a Kraken, a High Caliber, and a Confederate every game but be on crappy teams for twenty games and thus take twenty losses in a row. Conversely, a very poor player might luck into a run of good teams and have a high PR due to being carried. Usually, halfway decent teams can carry one or two players so a poor player can actually have a relatively good PR simply by being carried all the time.

Things like average individual XP might be a better indicator of skill than wins and losses. However, even this doesn't take into account those who help a team by spotting, decoying, and other things that might help win games but generate very little XP.

Therefore, PR is just someone's idea of how the variables in a game should be weighted and combined into a single value. Different sites may calculate PR values differently too so you can't easily compare them to each other.

 

Edited by Snargfargle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,261
[PSP]
[PSP]
Members
10,990 posts
33 minutes ago, unseaworthy said:

The underlying numbers come from wargamming.net .  The "rating system" is a 3rd party system shown here.  https://na.wows-numbers.com/personal/rating  I've heard players argue that "stats don't exist" or "stats don't matter" but I think they have real value.  

What has value is a trend line. If your XP and damage values for a specific ship are trending up you are probably getting better with it as time goes on. Of course even these values depend a lot on who you are playing and playing with at any given time. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×