Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Winter_Man

How many battles does it take to reach rank 1?

34 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

14
[-FINS]
Members
38 posts
4,378 battles

Now that ranked season 18 has started, I thought I'd share this simulation with everyone. Here's how many battles it takes to reach rank 1 based on your win rate:

image.thumb.png.f68c443da5de161e003405cd74fbef53.png

 

The simulation is written in Python 3.8 and is open source. You can view the codebase here: https://github.com/jcorvino/wows-ranked

  • Cool 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
253
[IMP]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
346 posts
5,626 battles

There's a reason of why I literally never play more than like 50 battles during ranked seasons. The task of reaching Rank 1 is monumental to me, I just don't have the time nor the patience to do it. Especially when WG creates a mode in which you can play as many battles as you want in a day and gain no progress at all.

 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,654
[WORX]
Members
11,910 posts
19,455 battles

Rank WR and Random WR are not the same nor is it an indicator of how many battles it will take to Rank out...

Your table is also geared to the top %5 and %1 of the Random population... I am not sure, there is going to be a lot of %56 WR players in Rank, just going off the Current and past composition of players. To reflect this... I suggest you redo this graph to reflect reality... Here are my suggestions

  • Top the graph at %70
    • Anything above %70 represent <%1of the WOWS population.
      • This means in your play time, these are the unicorns of WOWS.. The Lockness of WOWS. Very rare find.
  • You can bottom out/start the graph at say %40, that is where the other %5 if the WOWS players are in all servers. You're more then likely to come across these players then anything above %80wr or above.
  • I would highlight, the %45-%55 WR block clearly... They represent the %90 percentile of the WOWS population for all server regions.
    • Basically, these are the bulk of the players you're going to face.

IMO, WR dont determine how many games it takes to rank out... I find, having an over capable ship, over a tech ship of lesser capabilities of ships playing against... Have a bigger factor, then WR..

 

On avg. to Rank out starts at 150 games.

Edited by Navalpride33
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 2
  • Meh 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14
[-FINS]
Members
38 posts
4,378 battles
3 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

Rank WR and Random WR are not the same nor is it an indicator of how many battles it will take to Rank out...

Your table is also geared to the top %5 and %1 of the Random population... I am not sure, there is going to be a lot of %56 WR players in Ran just going off the Current and past composition of players. To reflect this... I suggest you redo this graph to reflect reality... Here are my suggestions

  • Top the graph at %70
    • Anything above %70 represent <%1of the WOWS population.
      • This means in your play time, these are the unicorns of WOWS.. The Lockness of WOWS.
  • You can bottom out/start the graph at say %40, that is the other %5 if the WOWS players in all servers. You're more then likely to come across these players then anything above %80wr or above.
  • I would highlight, the %45-%55 WR block clearly... They represent the %90 percentile of the WOWS population for all server regions.
    • Basically, these are the bulk of the players you're going to face.

IMO, WR dont determine how many games it takes to rank out... I find, having an over capable over a tech ship of lesser capabilities of ships playing against... Have a bigger factor then WR..

 

On avg. to Rank out starts at 150 games.

You have some good suggestions. I'll address them each...

  • Do you know that ranked win rate is not the same as random battle win rate? Yes. Win rate in the simulation refers to your ranked win rate. There is no data publicly available that allows us to correlate the rank WR to random battle WR unfortunately. Otherwise I would try to make it related to your random battle win rate since it is easy to see your random battle WR.
  • Why doesn't the graph end at 70% and start at 40%? The program simulates how many battles it takes to reach rank 1. For every win rate between 48% and 100% it simulates 50,000 players trying to reach rank 1. It counts the wins required for each simulated player and determines the median battles required for a player to reach rank 1. As a player's win rate approaches 100%, it becomes much easier for the program to simulate the player (since they typically reach rank 1 much quicker). As a player's win rate approaches ~50% it becomes painfully slow to simulate. If I had a super computer I could simulate lower win rates, but as you drop below 48% the required battles quickly exceeds 1,000. It is not feasible for players below ~48% WR to attain rank 1 because it will take too long to play enough battles.
  • Why don't you highlight the 45% to 55% block clearly since most players fall into this category? In my original post I only included the summary graph. There are more detailed histograms for each win rate available here: https://github.com/jcorvino/wows-ranked/tree/master/example-regular-season. I've included an example image for 50%

image.thumb.png.8b6941a74cf670e2fbdd026eb38e8f81.png

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,654
[WORX]
Members
11,910 posts
19,455 battles
14 minutes ago, Winter_Man said:

Why don't you highlight the 45% to 55% block clearly since most players fall into this category? In my original post I only included the summary graph. There are more detailed histograms for each win rate available here: https://github.com/jcorvino/wows-ranked/tree/master/example-regular-season. I've included an example image for 50%

And I TY for this ^^^ because must people are not going to understand fully what you're trying to show...

IMO, the graph has a percentage of deviation that is higher then what I think it is normal... Did you account for the high percentage of Deviation while inputing the numbers for the graph?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,599
[KWF]
Members
5,175 posts
6,659 battles

Just curious, why 15% on save a star? And if15% is an average, shouldn't there be a correlation between higher WR and higher save a star %?  And even there there's also to consider different ships being able to save a star more frequently than others.

Have heard from many players more experienced than me in Ranked that it isn't a matter of only winning constantly, but managing to consistently save a star on losses.

Still, pretty interesting, if somewhat depressing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14
[-FINS]
Members
38 posts
4,378 battles
12 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

And I TY for this ^^^ because must people are not going to understand fully what you're trying to show...

IMO, the graph has a percentage of deviation that is higher then what I think it is normal... Did you account for the high percentage of Deviation while inputing the numbers for the graph?

 

By deviation, I assume you mean the confidence interval. That is next on my "to do" list. I'd like to update the summary graph so that it shows the 95% confidence bounds. In general, as your win rate gets lower, your "deviation" increases. So People with 48% win rate could take 700 battles to reach rank 1 or they could take 3,000 battles to reach rank 1. While people with a 60% win rate will almost never take more than 300 matches to reach rank 1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14
[-FINS]
Members
38 posts
4,378 battles
15 minutes ago, warheart1992 said:

Just curious, why 15% on save a star? And if15% is an average, shouldn't there be a correlation between higher WR and higher save a star %?  And even there there's also to consider different ships being able to save a star more frequently than others.

Have heard from many players more experienced than me in Ranked that it isn't a matter of only winning constantly, but managing to consistently save a star on losses.

Still, pretty interesting, if somewhat depressing.

You're right. There should be a correlation between win rate and the chance of you getting first place. I could not find any data to correlate the two, so I assumed it was random (since there are 7 players, a 1 in 7 chance is just under 15%). In general, as your win rate gets higher you will reach rank 1 quicker. So much quicker that your first place chance doesn't really change how quickly you reach rank 1 if you have a high win rate. First place chance has the largest impact on lower win rate players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14
[-FINS]
Members
38 posts
4,378 battles
1 hour ago, Torenico said:

There's a reason of why I literally never play more than like 50 battles during ranked seasons. The task of reaching Rank 1 is monumental to me, I just don't have the time nor the patience to do it. Especially when WG creates a mode in which you can play as many battles as you want in a day and gain no progress at all.

 

Yeah my personal opinion is that getting to rank 11 or 12 then stopping is the best move. It gives you most of the bonuses without wasting too much time. The program I wrote can also simulate how long it takes to reach a specific rank (doesn't have to be rank 1). So if people are interested I could make a graph of how hard it is to stop at rank 11 starting from 18.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,654
[WORX]
Members
11,910 posts
19,455 battles
3 minutes ago, Winter_Man said:

By deviation, I assume you mean the confidence interval. That is next on my "to do" list. I'd like to update the summary graph so that it shows the 95% confidence bounds. In general, as your win rate gets lower, your "deviation" increases. So People with 48% win rate could take 700 battles to reach rank 1 or they could take 3,000 battles to reach rank 1. While people with a 60% win rate will almost never take more than 300 matches to reach rank 1.

The CI is more complex (depending on the project), I would also point out... A %95 CI doesn't absolute certainty, it does represent, "the 95% probability relates to the reliability of the estimation procedure, not to a specific calculated interval."

In your study, I wanted to know.. If you've entered into you data of your graph, the deviation % from the numbers your posted... Your numbers, just on a glance are IMO, to high...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,382
[A-I-M]
Members
3,683 posts
23,744 battles

Its been several years ago, but I recall that back when there were more irrevocable ranks than there are now, someone with a 40- 45% winrate ranked out in something like 760 battles. 

That was a supreme devotion to pressing the Battle button. 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14
[-FINS]
Members
38 posts
4,378 battles
3 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

The CI is more complex (depending on the project), I would also point out... A %95 CI doesn't absolute certainty, it does represent, "the 95% probability relates to the reliability of the estimation procedure, not to a specific calculated interval."

In your study, I wanted to know.. If you've entered into you data of your graph, the deviation % from the numbers your posted... Your numbers, just on a glance are IMO, to high...

 

The summary graph was generated by simulating 52 separate win rates (48%, 49%, ... 99% 100%). For each win rate 50,000 players were simulated and the program counted the number of battles each player took to reach rank 1. The median battles for each win rate was shown on the summary graph. By definition, half the players will take less battles than shown on the summary graph and half the players will take more battles. Since there is no certainty (i.e. playing ranked battles has inherent randomness), the best way to show the randomness is with confidence bounds. Typically people use 95% confidence bounds.

As for the inputs, the only 2 inputs are win rate and first place chance. Since I control these inputs and simulate each possible win rate, there is no deviation associated with them. The deviation is only in the output.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14
[-FINS]
Members
38 posts
4,378 battles
5 minutes ago, Pugilistic said:

Its been several years ago, but I recall that back when there were more irrevocable ranks than there are now, someone with a 40- 45% winrate ranked out in something like 760 battles. 

That was a supreme devotion to pressing the Battle button. 

 

Oh man that sounds rough! I've never done more than 130 ranked battles in a season and I thought that was crazy haha (although I never made rank 1 :Smile_sad:)

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
459
[-TRM-]
[-TRM-]
Members
1,703 posts
5,351 battles

I spent about 12 hours today in Ranked.

 

15 to 12. Thats it. Running two t10 ships alternating.

The last map had just two small objs in middle A and B. I watched the entire team avoid and spread around to both flanks while two enemy DDs take it pretty as you please. Then start shooting to pick off the onesies at the far sides with massed fire.

Win rate is less than 10%. You will never reach rank anything today or any day with such crappy team performance.

FYI I died inside B and A with minotaur shot up by 6 in about 10 seconds. The only good news for today is I sold the anchorage for credits to advance the German DD research towards T10, I can do something with it way better than the anchorage which is a anchor in battle around the neck.

Edited by xHeavy
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,252
[WIB]
Alpha Tester
3,978 posts
2,472 battles
2 hours ago, Torenico said:

There's a reason of why I literally never play more than like 50 battles during ranked seasons. The task of reaching Rank 1 is monumental to me, I just don't have the time nor the patience to do it. Especially when WG creates a mode in which you can play as many battles as you want in a day and gain no progress at all.

 

Yeah I feel the same.  I am playing ranked right now but that is just so I can get at some of the low hanging fruit.  I made Rank 14 tonight after 11 battles.  That net'ed me 600 steel and some flags, better than nothing.   While at this rate, I will never be able to buy a steel ship, 600 steel converts into 6000 coal which is a nice boost toward the 180-190k coal (with coupon) I need for the coal ship I have my eye on and that is pretty significant for just a single night of play.   I figure I might try to get down to Rank 11 or maybe 10 depending how much of a pain in the butt it is but I only have one Tier 10 ship and I am working on a campaign that doesn't let me progress it in ranked so I can't take too much time on this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
392 posts
7,119 battles
57 minutes ago, xHeavy said:

I spent about 12 hours today in Ranked.

 

15 to 12. Thats it. Running two t10 ships alternating.

The last map had just two small objs in middle A and B. I watched the entire team avoid and spread around to both flanks while two enemy DDs take it pretty as you please. Then start shooting to pick off the onesies at the far sides with massed fire.

Win rate is less than 10%. You will never reach rank anything today or any day with such crappy team performance.

FYI I died inside B and A with minotaur shot up by 6 in about 10 seconds. The only good news for today is I sold the anchorage for credits to advance the German DD research towards T10, I can do something with it way better than the anchorage which is a anchor in battle around the neck.

dont stress yourself too much .

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,187
[DVYJC]
Members
3,656 posts
8,656 battles
3 hours ago, xHeavy said:

I spent about 12 hours today in Ranked.

 

15 to 12. Thats it. Running two t10 ships alternating.

The last map had just two small objs in middle A and B. I watched the entire team avoid and spread around to both flanks while two enemy DDs take it pretty as you please. Then start shooting to pick off the onesies at the far sides with massed fire.

Win rate is less than 10%. You will never reach rank anything today or any day with such crappy team performance.

FYI I died inside B and A with minotaur shot up by 6 in about 10 seconds. The only good news for today is I sold the anchorage for credits to advance the German DD research towards T10, I can do something with it way better than the anchorage which is a anchor in battle around the neck.

I'm not sure I'm seeing any good news.

You A) bought the Anchorage for actual money by paying doubloons to complete it early, B) sold it for credits, which can easily be acquired for free, and C) used the credits to advance a tech tree grind that can also be done for free in D) a line widely considered to have been heavily power crept since its inception.

Rule #3 of WOWS is "Never sell a premium ship." If you do, you're out real money for no gain, you tempt RNGesus to give it to you in a future supercontainer, and you lose out on the opportunity to use it in future events requiring that specific ship, or to use it if the gameplay meta, your skill and tastes, or the ship stats themselves shift.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14
[-FINS]
Members
38 posts
4,378 battles
10 hours ago, xHeavy said:

I spent about 12 hours today in Ranked.

 

15 to 12. Thats it. Running two t10 ships alternating.

The last map had just two small objs in middle A and B. I watched the entire team avoid and spread around to both flanks while two enemy DDs take it pretty as you please. Then start shooting to pick off the onesies at the far sides with massed fire.

Win rate is less than 10%. You will never reach rank anything today or any day with such crappy team performance.

FYI I died inside B and A with minotaur shot up by 6 in about 10 seconds. The only good news for today is I sold the anchorage for credits to advance the German DD research towards T10, I can do something with it way better than the anchorage which is a anchor in battle around the neck.

Sorry to hear about your ranked experience! Just remember that you earned all the low-hanging prizes and there's no shame in stopping at 12 (I do it often). As for the Anchorage, I'm with @RainbowFartingUnicorn that it's a bad idea to sell premium ships. If you want it back I think you can submit a ticket to WG and ask.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7
[1-]
Members
5 posts
7,106 battles

Yeah this about accurate. However. And this is a big however. I’m an above average player in randoms, but I had a 52% WR the first time I achieved rank 1 last season (the 17th season). This graph suggests I would’ve taken like 600 battles to do it. I did it in 270 something battles. So this implies I saved my star quite often then which in itself implies two things further 

1) I’m not a super unicum but it’s actually not that hard to save a star in ranked because the level of play is so bad these days especially in ranked.

and/or

2) WR is not the definitive indicator of skill but apart of an overall package including the ability to SAVE a star. In which case, 15% is not accurate in my case.

 

Maybe add more graphs with different star-saving-rates so people who know their WRs and battles have a good clue of where they’ll land?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12
[ICBM]
Members
0 posts

I've ranked out twice. once with around 400 battles at 51% WR. Last season I did it in around 230 battles with 53% wr, although I will say that this WR was heavily skewed by playing Loyang abysymally with a 45% WR. Once I switched to cossack, I ranked out fairly quickly. 57% wr on that ship, so probably the data from last season for me is a little skewed. I suspect if you had a more consistent 53% WR, it would take more than 230 battles to rank out. Not sure though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×