[WN6, WN7 рейтинг]

[nemoW 84]

ничуть не хуже того же засвета

 

поддерживаю

[POLIROID 210]

Плохие игроки долго не живут, хорошие имеют высокую выживаемость.

Не совсем согласен. Артоводы выживают на 70% больше боев чем легкие танки, однако находят они также на 70% танков меньше. Инбаланснимы на фоне этих двух параметров выглядят средние танки. Они и находят много танков, и доживают до конца боя часто. Хотя это все еще зависит от игрока =) Edited February 1, 2013 by POLIROID

[nemoW 84]

Не совсем согласен. Артоводы выживают на 70% больше боев чем легкие танки, однако находят они также на 70% танков меньше. Инбаланснимы на фоне этих двух параметров выглядят средние танки. Они и находят много танков, и доживают до конца боя часто. Хотя это все еще зависит от игрока =)

ОК, значит выживаемость можно использовать только в эффективности по танку, с учетом типа танка.

[sirmax 5,499]

Praetor77, please read this posts:

http://www.koreanrandom.com/forum/topic/2625-wn6-vs-eff-in-default-config-wn6-%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B8-eff-%D0%B2-%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%B3%D0%B5-%D0%BF%D0%BE-%D1%83%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%87%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8E/page-3?do=findComment&comment=32998

http://www.koreanrandom.com/forum/topic/2625-wn6-vs-eff-in-default-config-wn6-%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B8-eff-%D0%B2-%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%B3%D0%B5-%D0%BF%D0%BE-%D1%83%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%87%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8E/page-5?do=findComment&comment=33096

http://www.koreanrandom.com/forum/topic/2625-wn6-vs-eff-in-default-config-wn6-%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B8-eff-%D0%B2-%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%B3%D0%B5-%D0%BF%D0%BE-%D1%83%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%87%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8E/page-5?do=findComment&comment=33119

http://www.koreanrandom.com/forum/topic/2625-wn6-vs-eff-in-default-config-wn6-%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B8-eff-%D0%B2-%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%B3%D0%B5-%D0%BF%D0%BE-%D1%83%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%87%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8E/page-5?do=findComment&comment=33201

 

They are in russian, but I hope google translate will help you.

 

The main idea is to make range of WN6 values the same as EFF. Currently the difference is big, and WN6 have a log of values less then zero.

 

Also you can use this file for analyze: http://code.google.com/p/wot-xvm/downloads/detail?name=players.accdb.7z

This is the current database with 4.2 million users.

Edited February 2, 2013 by sirmax

[seriych 2,178]

@Praetor77,

(google translate)

Sirmax's links lead to the Russian-language messages, but the language of formulas and graphs are international :-) I try to describe what it was about the Russian language description of these graphs.
First of all, we think that wn6 is very good formula. Moreover, we want to use wn6 the default instead eff. (I am not a XVM developer, but I say "we", as a general view of Russian-speaking community, influencing the development XVM)
But to do that, we need to solve a number of problems. The main is that the same rating on different formulas mean superiority over different percentage of players. For example, 1000 points eff - it's better than 70% of the players, and 1000 points wn6 - it's better than 80% of the players. Thus wn6 1000 better than eff 1000. But how much better? And, for example, which is better, 1000 eff or 900 wn6? Even the creators of the formula is unlikely to immediately respond, not to mention the players swept simple: the number of changes, but the best new or worse, is not clear. Most will simply assume that if the number has increased, so they became better assess if reduced, then worse. And this is absolutely not true. Plus, what to do with the color by color, it should also change, and this introduces more confusion. Therefore it is necessary to adjust (normalize) the total value wn6, so that the same score wn6 and eff mean superior equal to the percentage of players. That's what I tried to do in the above links. And I think turned out well, because the final wn6''' gives very good results. In XVM invited to use it wn6'''.

Что-то Praetor77 куда-то пропал, а тем временем в американской ветке разработки формулы начались волнения как раз по поводу того, что игроки резко покраснели при переходе на wn6:

http://forum.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/184017-actual-statistically-sound-efficiency-formula/page__st__1260

Edited February 3, 2013 by seriych

[nemoW 84]

а тем временем в американской ветке разработки формулы начались волнения как раз по поводу того, что игроки резко покраснели при переходе на wn6:

Мне нравится их термин "Red Army". :D

[x_e_n_y 5]

Выскажу соображения по формулам для рейтинга вообще.

 

Очевидно, что основой большинства рейтингов является дамаг и фраги.

Да больше, по сути, и опереться не на что.

Дамаг по засвету не учитывается и не может быть использован, процент побед затруднительно использовать ввиду педобирства и взводноротных боёв.

 

В то же время, нельзя утвеждать, что скилл=дамаг. Иначе бы можно было просто сравнивать дамаг и не париться по поводу рейтингов.

 

Поэтому задача адекватного рейтинга, имхо, это - скорректировать показатели дамага с учётом среднего уровня боёв и второстепенных параметров, влияюoих на исход боя.

 

В формуле WN6 довольно неплохо коэффициенты дамага. Из второстепенных параметров используются первоначальный засвет, защита базы и винрейт.

 

Я бы предложил увеличить количество второстепенных параметров.

 

Зачем их увеличивать? Затем, что

а) эти второстепенные параметры отражают игровую активность игрока, их использование делает рейтинг точнее;

б) большое количество параметров, отражающих разные стороны игрового процесса, затрудняют фальсификацию и накрутку рейтинга (возможно играть на дамаг в ущерб проценту побед, но если в рейтинге учитываются оба параметра, то фальсифицировать рейтинг не получится);

в) использование дополнительных параметров "растягивает" рейтинг, что делает его точнее (хороший игрок совершает много действий и его показатели по всем параметрам превышают парметры плохого игрока, чем больше парметров - тем больше разрыв между рейтингом хорошего игрока и рейтингом плохого).

 

В связи с этим я бы предложил добавить в WN6 ряд параметров:

1) процент выживания, причём учитывать с 25% и более (хорошие игроки с плохой выживаемостью мне неизвестны)

2) среднее очков захвата (конечно, этот параметр скомпрометирован формулой вот-ньюс, но из-за отрицать факт побед по захвату не стоит), но при этом вес очков захвата сделать в 2 раза ниже очков защиты и засчитывать не более 2

3) ещё можно бы учитывать частоту получения медалек (конечно, если это можно просчитать из данных апи)

 

Не совсем согласен. Артоводы выживают на 70% больше боев чем легкие танки, однако находят они также на 70% танков меньше. Инбаланснимы на фоне этих двух параметров выглядят средние танки. Они и находят много танков, и доживают до конца боя часто. Хотя это все еще зависит от игрока =)

Ну вот это как раз это и хорошо.

А то раньше артоводы жаловались, что игра на арте минусит рейтинг.

Процент выживаемости нивелирует для техники второго эшелона малое количество засветов.

Свет, СТ и ТТ получают бонус за первоначальный засвет, а ПТ и арта - за то, что долго жили.

Станет тяжее фармить рейтинг ололосветом.

Edited February 4, 2013 by x_e_n_y

[jage 73]

хочу добавить про тот же захват,пока ВГ будет считать очки захвата базы при не захваченной полностью базы,

то упираться в захват не надо

[x_e_n_y 5]

хочу добавить про тот же захват,пока ВГ будет считать очки захвата базы при не захваченной полностью базы,

то упираться в захват не надо

 

Ну так я и пишу, что учитывать не более 2 средних очков захвата максимум и оценивать захват в 2 раза ниже защиты.

[Praetor77 20]

I've been pretty busy with work lately, sorry about the extended leave of absence.

 

WN6 range is bigger because I believe it more fairly evaluates player skill, giving less points to those that were just stealing cap points at end of game and artificially inflated their efficiency. The same happens at the high end. Efficiency gave too few points for damage and kills, so really good players were getting artificially low scores if they did not cap a lot.

 

WN6 was designed to have a similar range of scores to efficiency, but the differences that still exist, I believe are due to the differences inherent to the calculations.

 

Again, regarding the huge amount of red WN6 players, I believe efficiency gives some of these bad players 1000-1200 scores but simply based on their capture stealing, and not due to actual skill. I have yet to see a RED WN6 player do anything decent in a battle...

 

 

 

Players with negative WN6 are SURELY bots, or at are least using bots for large amount of games. They truly DO deserve the negative scores. Of course, WN6 score doesnt make much sense for players who are very new to the game (less than 1000 games played).

 

 

I find the statistical analysis interesting, but I do not see the advantage in normalizing to efficiency (the proposed change simply raises the scores incrmentally for sub 1500 WN6 players). Making WN6 more like Efficiency makes no sense to me. We all agree WN6 is better, so why try to make it more like Eff? Also, in those graphs we really cannot see what is happening with higher scores, to see that we would need logarithmic scale for y axis, or simply an Eff vs WN6 graph and a Eff vs WN6' graph. I think it is a bad idea, the linear approximation shows that WN6' is simply lowering WN6 scores and adding an arbitrary amount of score. That score will be similar to whan eff adds for capping... again not a good idea IMHO.

 

I think it makes much more sense to simply change the coloring scale. As I proposed in a post, coloring for WN6 would be changed to:

 

"wn": [
      { "value": 500,  "color": "0xFF1A00" },
      { "value": 700,  "color": "0xE77F00" },
      { "value": 900,  "color": "0xECCD00" },
      { "value": 1100, "color": "0xAFFF00" },
      { "value": 1350, "color": "0x2FFF00" },
      { "value": 1500, "color": "0x00FFB3" },
      { "value": 1700, "color": "0x00BCFF" },
      { "value": 2000, "color": "0x2121FF" },
      { "value": 9999, "color": "0x8C00E9" }
    ],

 

This was done with a small random sample, but this could be changed to achieve a more similar color scale to Eff:

 

"wn": [
      { "value": 200,  "color": "0xFF1A00" },
      { "value": 500,  "color": "0xE77F00" },
      { "value": 800,  "color": "0xECCD00" },
      { "value": 1000, "color": "0xAFFF00" },
      { "value": 1250, "color": "0x2FFF00" },
      { "value": 1400, "color": "0x00FFB3" },
      { "value": 1700, "color": "0x00BCFF" },
      { "value": 2000, "color": "0x2121FF" },
      { "value": 9999, "color": "0x8C00E9" }
    ],

 

The idea was to actually assign scores that corresponded to % of server players with that score or more...

 

WN5 Percentage Better than X% of server

less than 500 8.0% 0.0%
500-699 17.0% 8.0%
700-899 25.0% 25.0%
900-1099 23.0% 50.0%
1100-1349 17.0% 73.0%
1350-1499 5.0% 90.0%
1500-1699 3.0% 95.0%
1700-1999 1.0% 99.0%
2000+ 0.2% 99.8%

 

Maybe limits could be better calculated with this larger sample, but once again, changing WN scores to be more like efficiency is not a good idea. Just change the color scale to be more similar to efficiency % of server color scale if you wish.

Edited February 6, 2013 by Praetor77

[seriych 2,178]

Ну и как объяснить ему, что большинству плевать будет на цвет и они будут оценивать, сравнивая новые числа со старыми?

 

 

less than 1000 games played

In my analysis are participating only players who have spent more than 200 games. But do not think this is strongly influenced by 200 or 1000.

 

WN6 range is bigger because I believe it more fairly evaluates player skill, giving less points to those that were just stealing cap points at end of game and artificially inflated their efficiency. The same happens at the high end.

 In fact at the high end WN6 range is about the same as EFF. For example, the number of players rated above 1800 EFF is 712, 1800 WN6 - 783, 1610..1800 EFF - 1808, 1610..1800 WN6 - 1787. The difference is small. (all players with 200+ games in analysis 161124)

 

changing WN scores to be more like efficiency is not a good idea

why?

 

Just change the color scale to be more similar to efficiency % of server color scale if you wish.

People are so used to the old colors and the old reference points that you will not be able to convey to them that 900 wn6 is better than 1000 eff. They will think, yeah: "I have become less, a new ranking shows that I was stupid". And in fact, if 1000 is changed to 900 - this uplift in the rankings. I just did wn6''' to save PERCENTAGE, over how many players this rating is exceeded. 1000 "eff" - it's better than 70% of the players, 1000 at wn6 - it's better than 80% of the players, 1000 at wn6''' is better than 70% of the players. And just as with any other value rating.

 

I think it makes much more sense to simply change the coloring scale. As I proposed in a post, coloring for WN6 would be changed to:

too many colors. I think the developers in the configuration by default will keep 6 colors. According to the statistics, we can do any grading on percent of the excess. The main thing to think this gradation. But what could be more natural and more intuitive than the old familiar graduation?

 

 

The only way to convey to the user that the value has changed the meaning of the numbers, change their appearance. For example, do not scale of 4 digits, like "eff", and of the three: 0 .. 999 (I think it is a good idea, but they will agree to it the developers?). To bring the scale of -500 .. 2500 (the "wn6" it is about this) to 0 .. 900, it is necessary to do so: wn6* = (wn6+500)*0.3 or simply wn6* = wn6*0.3 if you want to keep negative values. Thus we will show the people, "the new scale, get used to it".

And if we keep 4 significant figures, it should be done wn6''', as I described in order to keep the usual percent of the excess.

wn6''' differs little from wn6 and keeps its internal structure, a little adjusting values:

But we will solve all the problems with the difficulty of the perception of numbers of the new rating.

 

 

 

 

Maybe limits could be better calculated with this larger sample

 

Yes, I can find any reference points. But we first have to solve the higher questions to understand in what form will appear wn6 in XVM.

Edited February 6, 2013 by seriych

[sirmax 5,499]

People are so used to the old colors and the old reference points that you will not be able to convey to them that 900 wn6 is better than 1000 eff. They will think, yeah: "I have become less, a new ranking shows that I was stupid". And in fact, if 1000 is changed to 900 - this uplift in the rankings. I just did wn6''' to save PERCENTAGE, over how many players this rating is exceeded. 1000 "eff" - it's better than 70% of the players, 1000 at wn6 - it's better than 80% of the players, 1000 at wn6''' is better than 70% of the players. And just as with any other value rating.

I agree, that ranges and percentage of distibution of different formulas must be the same, to avoid confusing.

 

too many colors. I think the developers in the configuration by default will keep 6 colors. According to the statistics, we can do any grading on percent of the excess. The main thing to think this gradation. But what could be more natural and more intuitive than the old familiar graduation?

Yes, we decide to use 6 colors in the default config.

 

But we first have to solve the higher questions to understand in what form will appear wn6 in XVM.

This is the main question, it must be solved before next release.

Edited February 6, 2013 by sirmax

[Praetor77 20]

One of the advantages of WN6 is that it is much more linear than Eff. With eff, you could not tell if a 800 eff player was better than a 600 eff player. With WN6 you can.

 

I don´t see the problem with having a slightly lower server average score (according to wotlabs.net the average eff is 990 and the average WN is 825). A big reason for that drop in score is becuase many, MANY people focus on capping at end of game, and don´t care about trying to play better and do more damage and get more kills. This was a big influence of Eff on player mentality which is sad. It lead people to trying to stay alive (even if they didnt do damage or get kills) just to cap at end of game and their eff went up even though they were absolutely no help at all to their team during the game.

 

People will get used to the new numbers, and once they learn WN does not reward cap, but damage, they will have no choice but to try to play better, instead of cap whoring.

 

 

Modifying WN6 to WN6´ to be more like Eff for low score players is completely unfair to the average and good players. I don´t think its a good idea to modify a metric which we all agree is a better measure of player skill than Eff, which we are trying to replace, and then try to make it more like the old one just so people will have bigger numbers on their screens.

 

If you suck, you suck. Who cares if the number is 700 or 500, it´s still terrible.

 

However, I DO think color matters. People care more about the color than the number, so changing the color scale is a much better alternative I think to changing WN6 values. People want the number to be the same as their signature and on all other stat sites. Changing the XVM number will just be confusing for everyone.

[seriych 2,178]

Modifying WN6 to WN6´ to be more like Eff for low score players is completely unfair to the average and good players. I don´t think its a good idea to modify a metric which we all agree is a better measure of player skill than Eff, which we are trying to replace, and then try to make it more like the old one just so people will have bigger numbers on their screens.  

 

Directly eff has nothing to do with it. We adjusted to the same percentage of superiority: 600 should be better than 17.8% of the players, as it were, the number of red remain. 900 is better than 58.1% - the number of preserved orange, etc. .. There will be no red-armies and armies of any other colors. And not a word about the eff.

 

wn6 in its current form is not suitable to replace the default, just as an alternative. We want to make it the default setting, but we need to change something.

 

Alternatively, we can give up four-digit scale and make it a two-digit or three-digit: 0-999 or 0-99 simple multiplication: wn6*0.045, or wn6*0.45. We are currently discussing this in another thread (in russian). So we only lose the ability to compare wn6 to eff, but to stretch or compress the scale will not. However, there is a proposal to adjust the scale to the integral function of the normal distribution (cumulative distribution function).

 

 

 

People care more about the color than the number

I think that just the opposite. If you ask about the rating, do not you say what color it, you call the number.

 

People want the number to be the same as their signature and on all other stat sites.

 Therefore we must adjust all the formulas to the same percentage of superiority, otherwise the comparison is meaningless.

 

Changing the XVM number will just be confusing for everyone.

 And again i think that just the opposite. If the appearance of the same, the results imply the same. And If the appearance has changed, then people will understand that the meaning has changed.

Edited February 6, 2013 by seriych

[FromShadow 24]

Автор формулы верно говорит, решает цвет, а не число.

 

Directly eff has nothing to do with it. We adjusted to the same percentage of superiority: 600 should be better than 17.8% of the players, as it were, the number of red remain. 900 is better than 58.1% - the number of preserved orange, etc. .. There will be no red-armies and armies of any other colors. And not a word about the eff.

 

Но давай пойдем по другому. Почему именно 600 должно быть больше 17,8%? Почему не 500, не 100, не 1000 ?

[nemoW 84]

Потому что красным цветом по проценту побед XVM помечает ~17% игроков.

И ~17% игроков имеют РЭ <600.

Edited February 6, 2013 by nemoW

[FromShadow 24]

Потому что красным цветом по проценту побед XVM помечает ~17% игроков.

И ~17% игроков имеют РЭ <600.

 

Это совсем другая формула, мы не о ней говорим.

В этом и вопрос, почему собранное процентное соотношение по старой формуле применяется к новой.

Edited February 6, 2013 by FromShadow

[seriych 2,178]

В этом и вопрос, почему собранное процентное соотношение по старой формуле применяется к новой.

Да сколько раз повторять можно: не к eff подгоняется, а к проценту превышения! 600 должно быть, да, потому что было 600 по eff, но смысл это совершенно не имеет отношения к eff. Смысл в том, чтобы тоже самое количество игроков, которые раньше были красными, осталось красными. Это будут ДРУГИЕ игроки, но количество будет то же.

Потому что красным цветом по проценту побед XVM помечает ~17% игроков.

Нет, это не так. То есть это так, но так случайно получилось. Цвета по процентам по идее тоже менять надо

[FromShadow 24]

Смысл в том, чтобы тоже самое количество игроков, которые раньше были красными, осталось красными. Это будут ДРУГИЕ игроки, но количество будет то же.

 

Да сколько раз повторять можно: количество красных людей не поменяется (их большая половина сервера, это и так понятно), поменяется просто число, которое характеризует, что они красные.

[seriych 2,178]

(их большая половина сервера, это и так понятно

А как поменяются количества остальных тебе тоже и так понятно?

поменяется просто число, которое характеризует, что они красные.

Это в случае, если мы сами возьмем и поменяем это число. Но тут мы опять возвращаемся к тому, что мы взяли и поменяли число, которое обозначает данный процент превышения, никому об этом не сказав. Человек-то рейтингом оперирует, а не цветом.