Jump to content
Korean Random

Praetor77

User
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    48

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Praetor77

  2. Posted · Edited by Praetor77

    The reason for using a ratio scale is that it decompresses the distribution from the middle. What is the sense of a scale if every single player you meet in game has 900-1100 rating? It loses usefulness in being able to predict how well that player normally plays.

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_measurement

     

    Ratio scale

    The ratio type takes its name from the fact that measurement is the estimation of the ratio between a magnitude of a continuous quantity and a unit magnitude of the same kind (Michell, 1997, 1999). A ratio scale possesses a meaningful (unique and non-arbitrary) zero value. Most measurement in the physical sciences and engineering is done on ratio scales. Examples include mass, length, duration, plane angle, energy and electric charge. Ratios are allowed because having a non-arbitrary zero point makes it meaningful to say, for example, that one object has "twice the length" of another. Very informally, many ratio scales can be described as specifying "how much" of something (i.e. an amount or magnitude) or "how many" (a count). The Kelvin temperature scale is a ratio scale because it has a unique, non-arbitrary zero point called absolute zero. The zero point of the Celsius scale is at 273.15 kelvins, so Celsius is not a ratio scale.

     

     

     

    The reason for changing to a ratio scale is that, once again, it decompresses the values from the middle, making a wider bell curve, which makes WN8 more effective and useful at predicting player competence/skill. 

     

    With interval scale (WN7), 0 rating meant 0 stats, 0 kills, 0 damage, 0 spots. The problem is that even a bot gets some spots, and even some kills and damage if it is a more complicated one.

    With ratio scale, 0 rating means 0 contribution to winning. You will notice no players had WN7 scores below 300 (unless they had tier penalty applied to them). In WN8 the worst players in the game get 0-100 rating, regardless of the fact that they do not have 0 stats, they do contribute nothing to wins, for example a 38% win player.

    v8r6.jpg

     

     

     

    And I don´t know why you find it hard to believe that a player can contribute 4 times more to victory than an average player. This is true. This is why an average player "wins" 7% of matches (49% winrate, 7% above the winrate for doing absolutely nothing), while the best players in game can get winrates of around 70% while playing solo (no platoon), which is 28% above the winrate for doing nothing. So yes these players do 4 times more than the average player to help his team win. Of course, this is not linear for each stat, they don´t do 4 times more damage and kills than an average player, which is what makes the ratio scale in WN8 clever and useful.

     

     

    Again, the interval scale used in WN7/Efficiency/etc. is not really good at comparing one player to another. There is a HUGE difference in skill between a 500 WN7 player and a 900 WN7 player, which will now be better represented in WN8, as maybe they would have 200 and 1000 WN8. The same goes for the unicum players, with a huge difference in skill between a 1750 WN7 player and a 2000 WN7 player, which will now be better represented in the WN8 ratings, with maybe 2200 and 3000 WN8.

     

     

    About the 1-100 scale, I was simply suggesting something which I feel would be more useful for me than the standard 1-100, 50 median scale. Doing what I suggested, dividing WN8 by 32 for the 1-100 scale (with all players above 3200 WN8 having 100), maintains the ratio scale properties of WN8. If, however, of course you are more than free to use the same process of bringing the rating to a 0-100 scale that has been used before, this removes the interval scale properties of WN8, and turns it back into an interval scale, which is less useful to me, IMHO.


     

     

     

    PS:Oh yeah, about the per-tank values they would need to be updated every patch.

     

    PS2: The coefficients in step three were determined using Eureqa, a program which uses iterative genetic algorithms to find mathematical relationships between sets of data.

    http://www.nutonian.com/products/eureqa/

    Eureqa determined that these coefficients are the best way in which we can approximate/estimate how much a player should win, given his stats.

    It is explained better and in more detail in the Word document.

     

    PS3: Another big change from WN7 to WN8, is that we now have per-tank normalized damage. So now we can fairly compare the average damage of two players who played absolutely different tanks. Using tier-based damage normalization in WN7 made average damage less useful, since we all know that if one player played a lot of games in AMX40 and another in T40, their average damages will not be comparable. 

    In WN8, using per-tank damage comparisons allows this stat to be much more useful, even more useful than average kills. Therefore, WN8 is more heavily weighed on damage than on kills, which prevents WN8 farming, as some people did with WN7, farming kills in low tier games, and damage in high tier games.

  3. Posted

    If you guys feel it would be best, I could write a smaller summary.

     

    My intention was to get the formula to the XVM developers so they could start thinking about implementation in XVM. The full text of the Word article is more for people who really want to know in depth how WN8 works. :)

  4. Posted

    WN8 is finished. I hope Seriych can explain it better to you guys, since Google translate is pretty bad.

     

    Basically, a per-tank "expected" stat table is used. The stats for each tank are multiplied by the number of games played on that tank, and then added all together. Then the total stats for the player are compared with these total "expected" stats. Then we use a couple formulas to calculate the final value of WN8 like this:

     

    The Steps of WN8 –

     

    Step 1
    rDAMAGE = avgDmg / expDmg
    rSPOT = avgSpot / expSpot
    rFRAG = avgFrag / expFrag
    rDEF = avgDef / expDef
    rWIN = avgWinRate / expWinRate

     

    Step 1 takes the counts of tanks played on account, and multiplies them by the expected stats to get the account total expected values. Then the actual account totals (your total dmg, frags, spots, def, win-rate) are divided by the expected values to give the ratios.

     

     

    Step 2
    rWINc = max(0, (rWIN - 0.71) / (1- 0.71))
    rDAMAGEc= max(0, (rDAMAGE-0.22) / (1-0.22))
    rFRAGc = min(rDAMAGEc+0.2 , max(0, (rFRAG-0.12) / (1-0.12)))
    rSPOTc = min (rDAMAGEc+0.1 ,  max(0, (rSPOT-0.38) / (1-0.38)))
    rDEFc = min (rDAMAGEc+0.1 , max(0, (rDEF-0.10) / (1-0.10)))

    Step 2 sets the zero point for the ratios. See the assumptions section for more info on why this happen. min  and max are functions to ensure the ratios stay within bounds. The constants are in the format of

    (rSTAT – constant ) / (1 – constant)

    To normalize that a player with all rSTATc of 1 would receive 1500 WN8.

     

     

    Step 3
    WN8 = 980*rDAMAGEc + 210*rDAMAGEc*rFRAGc + 155*rFRAGc*rSPOTc + 75*rDEFc*rFRAGc + 145*MIN(1.8,rWINc)

    Step 3 takes the weighted (in Step 1) and normalized (in step 2) performance ratios and processes them through the coefficients determined for the final formula, reported above. This puts the scale on the more meaningful 0-5000, gives the relative weights of damage and reflects the interactions between frags*spots, def*frags and dmg*frags.

     

     

    Here is a document explaining everything in detail, it is in English, but I hope Seryich can translate it into Russian soon:

     

    http://www.mediafire.com/?23qbgbc9ydjcyff

     

     

    WN8 has many advantages over WN7.

    First of all, it can measure player skill regardless of what tanks he chooses to play. So WN8 cannot be "farmed" by playing a large number of games on OP tanks. Also, no more farming by playing tier 1 and 10 as was possible for WN7 (see document for more details).

    Secondly, the fact that it is a ratio scale, allows people to directly compare scores. A player with 4000 WN8 contributes 4 times as much to winning a game as a player with 1000 WN8.

    Thirdly, WN8 should be easy to translate into a 0-100 scale. Simply divide WN8 by 32. Approximately 99.99% of players have less than 3200 WN8. Those players above 3200 WN8 will have 100 on the 0-100 scale. An average player will have a score of around 25.

     

     

    I would be happy to answer questions and concerns, and I would be thrilled if WN8 could be implemented into XVM. There is no doubt in my mind it is a much better metric than WN7.


    Oh yeah, this is the updated per-tank expected stats table:

     

    http://www.mediafire.com/?lp574zkezhht1ge

    • Upvote 7

  5. Posted

    shnog anwered some things... but here I go...

     

    @Praetor77,

    All is well. People just do not understand what you want to do.

    But where will you get the top100 data on the tanks? API WG for a long time does not give values to individual tanks.

    http://www.vbaddict.net/wot.php

     

    поэтому уже месяц на хелке только во взвод, уже +200 к WN6


     

     

    How to deal with light tanks that work on detection of the enemy, not the damage? Playing on their player has a low rating.


     

     

    You can collect a representative sample of those who use statistics. This information is available for statistics. I think that the developers can do it. But perhaps it is time-consuming.

    It is not clear why the proposed take TOP100. You can take the average of the level and he already believed.

    Average was tested first and does not work well. WE tried the average between average and top and that did not work well either.

     

    your dmg will be comperade to he dmg of top-100 on the same wehicle, so if top players have 500 dmg per battle, it'll be OK to have 450 and keep good rating. That is quite obvious.

    Exactly.

  6. Posted

    каких отклонений?

     

     

    Для чего вообще делается этот рейтинг? Чтобы понимать, кто играет хорошо - а кто плохо. Понятное дело, что папок, которые бьют детей на младших левелах - надо занижать, это сделано в WN6. В wn7 опять планку опустили и дали повод фармить стату на Т49, когда 5лвл в массе - нубы.

    Теперь предложение урезать статут по отдельным танкам. Смысл? Появятся другие, которые интереснее остальных на своем уровне, будем и их зарезать?

     

    Почему нельзя взять танк, посчитать для каждого танка - средний уровень, а потом считать рейтинг игрока относительно среднего уровня на танке пропорционально кол-ву боев на нем?

     

    А так получается что взводного хелла предлагают порезать, а ротного полтоса никто поднять не предлагает. Да и вообще, ротные бои в которых стат падает - почему-то никто не предлагает учитывать, о какой тогда субъективности рейтинга речь?

     

    Using google translate which is pretty terrible, but the idea is very simple. Use player-tank data to calculate top100 damage and kills like what appears in the service record when using XVM. This will allow honest comparison of each tank´s "power". For WN7, if you have the same player play an A-20 and a Su122-54, his WN7 would surely be lower than if he played Tetrarch and Object 704.

     

    The idea is to use per-tank top100 stats to multiply times the number of games a player has on each tank, then divide that by number of battles. Then you divide his overall account average by this number. We call this rSTATS, for ratio. So rFRAGS would be the players average frags divided by what the top100 would have gotten for the amount of games he has played in each tank. Same for rDAMAGE, rSPOT, rCAP, rDEFENSE, etc.

     

    So, for example, for M4 Sherman top100 numbers are 1000 damage and 2.5 frags per game. For T1 3 frags and 400 damage. For Je100 1.5 frags and 3000 damage. Lets suppose a player opens 4 accounts and plays different tanks on each of them.

     

    Lets say player A plays 10000 games on T1 averaging 3 frags and 500 damage. Average tier 1. WN7 (including low tier penalty) is about 1700.

    Player B plays 5000 games on T1 and 5000 on JE100, averaging 2.25 frags and .1700 damage. Average tier 5.5. WN7 is 2750.

    Player C plays 5000 games on M4 and 5000 on JE100,average 2 frags and 2000 damage. Average tier 7.5. WN7 is 2430.

    Played D plays 10000 games on Je100. WN7 is 1840.

     

    For WN8, his score would be around 2150 for all four cases.

  7. Posted

    Hi guys, just wanted to let you guys know that I am working on something similar to the Teff system for WN8. 

     

    It should increase the WN accuracy inmensely, also becoming inmune to farming stats with "OP" tanks, like many people are doing with T49, Hellcat, F155, etc.

  10. Posted · Edited by Praetor77

    I have recently had access to the wotlabs.net database, and I analyzed th server population for scores. I have pretty different numbers to this:

     

    1111ol.png

     

    I think this is using the ENTIRE server population which is silly because many, MANY accounts have very few battles on them. I put in a filter of at least 1000 battles and got these results:

     

    1000 Battle filter
    WN7 better than

    300   5%
    450  10%
    600  20%
    700  30%
    800  40%
    900  50%
    1000 60%
    1100 70%
    1150 75%
    1250 80%
    1400 90%
    1550 95%
    1850 99%
    2050 99,9%

     

     

    Efficiency better than

    550   5%
    650  10%
    750  20%
    800  30%
    900  40%
    950  50%
    1050 60%
    1100 70%
    1150 75%
    1250 80%
    1400 90%
    1500 95%
    1750 99%
    1950 99,9%

     

    Based on this, your color table ends up having WAY too many of the active players in the yellow and green areas. I suggest something like the following:

     

    tableeu.jpg

     

    Or, you can run your analysis again on your own data setting a lower battle limit as 1000 or 2000.

     

     

    I would also suggest adding a category of 90%sup, since a 1450 WN7 players is MUCH MUCH better than a 1150 one but they are currently colored the same in XVM. Even i you don´t want to use the extra category, you take it out and you would have a very close, but better version of your color table, much more close to reality.

     

     

     Ha, I thought that you will be engage in the implementation :-) I myself can not do this. I just gave an idea.

    • Upvote 1

  11. Posted

    For calculating avg tier played, it was proposed arties count as two tiers higher. No formula...

     

    However, it was decided not to do that since we needed API to do that. When WG reclassifies arties into tier 1-10 the problem with WN7 overestimating arty player skill will be fixed.

  13. Posted · Edited by Praetor77

    First of all I think we are not understanding each other, I am not complaining about my E score. I am just saying E value should be calculated with stats for each server. I may be a 7 on RU server, but on NA server I would surely have a higher score. Using RU server data for E calculation, for some tanks, there may not be ANY players in NA server who get E scores of X, for example. Am I clear? What I mean is, E values should be calculated with top 100 and average stats for each server, or they kind of lose their usefulness.

  20. Posted · Edited by Praetor77

    In my humble opinion average damage is not good because it is VERY easy to get more than 80 damage in tier 1, but not so easy to get over 1730 dmg in tier 10...

     

    Average damages get distorted because MANY more players play low tiers than high tiers, and also much better players play high tiers so... I would use top-seed to balance between tanks, you divide the players by the topseed damage or kills,  then you can multiply by whatever value you wish in order to maintain a similar balance to WN/efficiency scores.

  21. Posted

    O_o

    The damage part of the formula did not change...

     

    Only the spots and pedotanker penalty changed. 



    Now that I reread what you posted Seyrich, yeah you are right, we would only need the number of games played on each tank...interesting idea. If we simply use the topend damage/kill as 100% of score for each tank, that could be easily done... and sounds interesting! I wouldn´t use averages since they are very misleading. Appropriate multipliers would have to be devised for each term to make that into a proper scale.

     

    I thought you were proposing to use stats for each tank, calculating a rating for each tank using top-end server stats for each tank, and then calculating the player´s score combining his score for each tank...

  22. Posted · Edited by Praetor77

    A tank-specific rating should be more accurate than a global stat based one like WN7. The problem is the NA API gives some wrong stats with certain tanks. If that worked, then it would be interesting to devise a tank-specific rating, and what you describe sounds like a very good start.

  23. Posted · Edited by Praetor77

    Guys I wanted to let you know we have made some changes to WN.

     

    We noticed the sea of red usually occurs in low tier matches, which was due to low tier avg due to small number of games. We corrected the "sealclubber" or "pedotanker" penalty so it will not apply to new players anymore. We also apply a penalty to "spots" for players with avg tier 1-2, since pedotankers get MANY spots due to high view range of tanks compared to enemies when used with 100% crew and equipment.

     

    This is the WN7 formula:

     

     

    (1240-1040/(MIN(TIER,6))^0.164)*FRAGS
    +DAMAGE*530/(184*e^(0.24*TIER)+130)
    +SPOT*125*MIN(TIER, 3)/3
    +MIN(DEF,2.2)*100
    +((185/(0.17+e^((WINRATE-35)*-0.134)))-500)*0.45
    -5 - MIN(TIER,5))*125] / [1 + e^( ( TIER - (GAMESPLAYED/220)^(3/TIER) )*1.5 )]

    • Upvote 1

  25. Posted · Edited by Praetor77

    So how was the scale recalculated? Did you decide on 0-99 or 0-999?

     

    Glad to see you chose WN over eff... :D

     

    How are the color scales? I am 91, but blue instead of purple...

     

     

    Also, I dont believe xWN needs any rescaling of the scores, simply translate to a 0-99 scale using the data you have...

    Lastly, it would be nice to have a different scale for each server...

×
×
  • Create New...