World of Tanks

[Mambo Dave]

http://noobmeter.com/clan/na/fyyff

I don't understand what I'm seeing, but there are only a few of you listed in the clan.

[janeuner]

I'm amazed that it scores my UK account, with ~300 battles, almost exactly the same as it scores my USSR/US account, with 7k battles.

Very impressive.

[AKjeff]

"Note - this page only lists players currently in the NoobMeter.com database, as per their last retrieved values.
To arrange for players to be added or updated, simply search for them. The update will not happen immediately (usually within ~1 hr)."

Copied from the bottom of the noobmeter page.

That page tells me things I already know:

Performance Rating:	934 (Bad)
Efficiency Rating:	647 (Below average)
WN6 Rating:	319 (Bad)
WN4 Rating:	465 (Bad)

What comes after "Bad"?

[papalobster]

Originally Posted by AKjeff

What comes after "Bad"?

papalobster

[OLDNX]

Originally Posted by AKjeff

"Note - this page only lists players currently in the NoobMeter.com database, as per their last retrieved values.
To arrange for players to be added or updated, simply search for them. The update will not happen immediately (usually within ~1 hr)."

Copied from the bottom of the noobmeter page.

That page tells me things I already know:


What comes after "Bad"?

OLDNX

[Geek]

I've never been called "average" so much in my life

Performance Rating: 1,326 (Average)
Efficiency Rating: 1,197 (Average)
WN6 Rating: 1,028 (Average)
WN4 Rating: 1,041 (Average)

[timk519]

Had a nice run of games today - think I've collected between 5 and 8 "Steel walls" so far tonight...

[Big Bird 928]

Originally Posted by Geek

I've never been called "average" so much in my life

Performance Rating: 1,326 (Average)
Efficiency Rating: 1,197 (Average)
WN6 Rating: 1,028 (Average)
WN4 Rating: 1,041 (Average)

Performance Rating:	1,358 (Average)
Efficiency Rating:	909 (Average)
WN6 Rating:	869 (Average)
WN4 Rating:	990 (Average)

The only time I have been called average more was a girl I picked up at a bar in Norfolk.... but that was the proverbial hallway...

[vwboomer]

I looked. Now I'm sad

Performance Rating:	1,113 (Bad)
Efficiency Rating:	861 (Below average)
WN6 Rating:	781 (Average)
WN4 Rating:	805 (Average)
Battles:	4,584

and wotlabs shows 67 battles in the last 24 hours

[papalobster]

Performance Rating:1,254 (Average)
Efficiency Rating: 978 (Average)
WN6 Rating: 868 (Average)
WN4 Rating: 947 (Average)

Nice to know I don't suck as bad as I think I do

Sold the Tiger P last night and picked up the 4502. Unfortunately, I have the stock gun 88/L56 so I am a non damage dealing bullet magnet If you angle it just right shots bounce off left and right, and even the ones it takes get absorbed.

Now that the Stug moneyfest is done I'll end up playing this to get the xp for upgrades.

[papalobster]

Originally Posted by vwboomer

and wotlabs shows 67 battles in the last 24 hours
>

And you wonder why it's taking so long to get yer brew room done

[Wheedle]

Good round with the Wildcat this morning, 3011 dmg 15 of 16 shots pen'd

Victory!
Battle: Arctic Region Monday, February 18, 2013 9:51:15 AM
Vehicle: M18 Hellcat
Experience received: 3,314 (x2 for the first victory each day)
Credits received: 41,332
Battle Achievements: Sniper

[vwboomer]

Originally Posted by papalobster

And you wonder why it's taking so long to get yer brew room done

yeah. bear in mind, though, that Saturday night I was up til 530am and had played/watched movies off n on since about 5pm.


I can say now for certain that the AT Gun T53 is not the same as when mounted on the T28 proto. I'm a few battles in now, and don't think I have hit anything for over 400 yet, whereas with the T28 Proto that was the norm. Accuracy also seems down. It's a bunch of crap that the same gun against the same tiers will not do the same damage.

[Mambo Dave]

Here's a guess as to the WN6 and new XVM efficiency ratings...

Some guys just like shooting stuff, and the proponents of such are the ones who have been pushing the agenda to change the efficiency rating. I can't claim it's a bad idea, but the problem with the old one was that there was no way to tell the algorithm if you capped by the skin of your team's teeth, salvaging victory from a loss, or if you capped during a sure-win situation. For some reason the strongest arguments, based on TS conversations or in-game comments, always seemed to come from those who hunted down remaining enemies even during sure-wins.

My old efficiency was based off of far too many 'saves' where I got on the enemy's base to cap it out for a win we otherwise would not have achieved - often with balances like 5 left on our side vs. 8 to 12 on their side (of the imbalanced wins... not that winning imbalanced games is frequent for me - but they were frequent enough that I thought I was achieving wins and well-deserved efficiency scores). I kind of felt the older efficiency rating was fair for the efforts I had made in more games than I'd like to count. I was never in it to achieve a better efficiency rating, but I do admit to repeating the phrase I've heard in a number of my clans "Ooh yeah, gonna get me some purple points!" when I was rolling on to cap. It wasn't ever a primary goal, but hey... if it's there...

My best guess is that, now, if some of you want to improve your efficiency scores or WN6 (which is just another efficiency algorithm - and from what I've read, the actual efficiency scoring that Europe uses, AND one that was developed by an actual statistician(?)) scores, either hang around near your own base (not on it... a goal wouldn't be to prevent enemies from getting on it, but instead to gain defense points by shooting them once they are on it), or make sure you 'clean up' remaining enemies from sure-wins as opposed to just capping it out (if you can get to them... I guess some cap points are better than chasing enemies that you'd never catch and causing no damage to them).

So... that's the way I see that the proponents of the new efficiencies want to see the game played. BUT... this is all based off of what others have written about the ways the new scoring applies. I am no mathematician, and haven't actually played with the numbers to assure myself that this is correct. Nonetheless, of the 'Unicum' players I've had the opportunity to platoon and do clan wars with, there is no doubt that the amounts of damage they do is nearly always very high (how? they keep their tanks safer, longer, to stay in the battle to do more damage over time), and damage amounts are what is valued by many good clans now.

I'm going to keep on doing what I have been doing... maybe... unless I see how any changes in my play-style would improve my win rates. I'm not in the game for damage, I'm in it for wins.

To some degree this really could help make random pub matches better with Encounter battles since it may deter some... or maybe just a few... of those guys who always race for the center base to cap it from the start, then die an agonizing death because they were trying to hold an unstable platform. In encounter battles, killing the enemy, first, seems to work for winning more than trying to cap, first, then fighting a losing battle from little or no cover.

I would highly value comments from the guys who are playing well, and who have higher efficiencies / WN6's, as well as comments from any math gurus who want to tell us what we're looking at, as well as from anyone breathing who is reading this.

[Geek]

Originally Posted by Mambo Dave

To some degree this really could help make random pub matches better with Encounter battles since it may deter some... or maybe just a few... of those guys who always race for the center base to cap it from the start, then die an agonizing death because they were trying to hold an unstable platform. In encounter battles, killing the enemy, first, seems to work for winning more than trying to cap, first, then fighting a losing battle from little or no cover.

I would offer that those who race for the center base to cap it from the start don't even know what an efficiency rating is.