What If? S1E3

[Saltface]

What if one more statistical record was kept?

 

Placement in your team at the scoreboard (victory, defeat and aggregate);

Percentage of team XP earned at the scoreboard (victory, defeat and aggregate);

 

I think it would be beneficial.

What do you think?

 

Regards

Saltface

[Tyrendian89]

couldn't hurt I'd say.

or at the very least, they could finally fix "average XP" so it's not utterly useless anymore...

[Yamato942]

Agree, it should be added something like average position in team by exp.

[Saltface]

@Tyrendian89

 

Dear Friend,

 

the point is that the WR is marginally reflective of the quality of a player.

Or let me put it in a different way, it doesn't reflect many qualitative aspects of ones play.

 

Let's assume that we have a player that ends up in the scoreboard consistently in the top 5 places. How good is he?

Or how much he usually contributes to his teams play?

 

Try to think how you would interpret the following numbers

 

Player #1

49% WR

Victories Average Placement 3.8

Defeats Average Placement 2.6

Aggregate Placement 3.2

 

Player #2

51% WR

Victories Average Placement 6.2

Defeats Average Placement 4.5

Aggregate Placement 5.4

 

I will not give you yet my opinion so as not to bias you.

 

Regards

Salface

 

 

 

[CptMinia]

Doesn't sound bad.

[Yamato942]

The problem is ofc that will be position in team by exp and as we all know exp=dmg as spotting, tanking, any other assist like dmg modules, forced dcp, etc. is not awarded with enough exp. First make bettet exp distribution then this average position in team.

[Saltface]

1 minute ago, CptMinia said:

Doesn't sound bad.

how about this taskbar?

[Tyrendian89]

11 minutes ago, Saltface said:

Try to think how you would interpret the following numbers

 

Player #1

49% WR

Victories Average Placement 3.8

Defeats Average Placement 2.6

Aggregate Placement 3.2

 

Player #2

51% WR

Victories Average Placement 6.2

Defeats Average Placement 4.5

Aggregate Placement 5.4

I mean, clearly, Player #1 is a damagefarming scrub that mostly plays Conqueror and the like - ships that do a lot of damage and can stay alive for a long time to do it, but don't have much impact, while Player #2 obviously isnt afraid of sacrificing his own life for the objective, and plays a lot of cap contesting DDs and cruisers, which means he tends to get less XP but is a lot more relevant for the victory.

 

Or, clearly, Player #2 is pretty bad and just gets carried hard by his divmates all the time, hence the winrate. Meanwhile, Player #1 has in a past life offended the great gods of WG and is now being punished by the matchmaker despite actually being quite decent at the game, hence the winrate.

 

Or, clearly, any number of alternative interpretations - I'm sure Player #1 and Player #2 would have quite different opinion on the matter...

 

Ahem... mostly kidding of course. I do agree that what you propose would be a fine and useful addition to the available statistics that would add more context to what we already have.

 

Oh also, I'm curious - which interpretation did you have in mind when you set up the scenario @Saltface?

[Miessa3]

15 minutes ago, Saltface said:

@Tyrendian89

 

Dear Friend,

 

the point is that the WR is marginally reflective of the quality of a player.

Or let me put it in a different way, it doesn't reflect many qualitative aspects of ones play.

 

Let's assume that we have a player that ends up in the scoreboard consistently in the top 5 places. How good is he?

Or how much he usually contributes to his teams play?

 

Try to think how you would interpret the following numbers

 

Player #1

49% WR

Victories Average Placement 3.8

Defeats Average Placement 2.6

Aggregate Placement 3.2

 

Player #2

51% WR

Victories Average Placement 6.2

Defeats Average Placement 4.5

Aggregate Placement 5.4

 

I will not give you yet my opinion so as not to bias you.

 

Regards

Salface

 

 

 

Player #1 Is farming xp (read in the current xp distribution = damage) but less playing for the win.

Player #2 Is more win orientated and will even do things that help winning but will give little to no xp. (that Sims player staying behind to smoke cruisers and then spot for enemys and torps in front of that smokescrren but not actualy doing much damage)

 

The problem with this system is that it can get really scewed as the difference for example between position 5 and position 6 can be a mere 3 xp...

[CptMinia]

11 minutes ago, Saltface said:

how about this taskbar?

Not sure really, but I'd be guessing windows 8? But doesn't quite match up imo. Nor does 10, 7 or vista... I'd assume it's a style I don't know about or maybe modified?

[Ubertron_X]

The only figure I am only vaguely interested in would be a counter for % damage dealt because it would be a measuring tool versus the total average damage. For example in a T10 game where a Harekaze farmed 150k of an enemy Kurfürst  (~100%) wheras a Gearing might have cap contested and fought multiple enemy DDs for a total of only 50K (but 250%).

 

Edith: % damage dealt is already used for XP and credit calculations, we just need it displayed in order to better gauge player effectiveness.

[wilkatis_LV]

11 minutes ago, Ubertron_X said:

The only figure I am only vaguely interested in would be a counter for % damage dealt

This, so much

 

There is a mod that sort-of does this, but it's so limited it's uselessly incorrect most of the time

[Saltface]

6 minutes ago, Tyrendian89 said:

Oh also, I'm curious - which interpretation did you have in mind when you set up the scenario

Dear Friend,

 

It would depend on what ship each one is playing.  If both players are playing Destroyers (or any type of ship for that matter - we can only compare similar things right?) I would have higher esteem for Player #1. It seems they are more productive. 

 

All possible scenarios are open, but if one looks at the qualitative statistics of a player, as well as all other data and statistics, one can have a more clear picture. As an example I will share a bit of my stats:

 

I belong to a Clan. 30 members. I have a very low win rate (45.70% ranking 18th in my clan in 1,649 battles) but I rank 3rd in Exp. per battle following one player with  52% in 4,133 battles. Here is a small abnormality to the stats. And I raise one more question. Should we compare players with such a difference between battles played? Maybe not. Because someone with a small number of battles includes his learning period results.

 

Statistics is for Sadistics one once said. I agree. I also agree with the tenet that you can prove anything you want with statistics.

 

But I guess how high you rank in your team's scoreboard reflects a bit more, and, if added to the other statistics that are kept we might be able to have more clear image of our progress.

 

Regards

Saltface

 

 

[Saltface]

18 minutes ago, CptMinia said:

Not sure really, but I'd be guessing windows 8? But doesn't quite match up imo. Nor does 10, 7 or vista... I'd assume it's a style I don't know about or maybe modified?

No mods.

Windows 8

[CptMinia]

Just now, Saltface said:

No mods.

Windows 8

Aye I thought so. Never used 8. Anyway, that's enough derailing. Back to being on topic.

[Tyrendian89]

3 minutes ago, Saltface said:

Here is a small abnormality to the stats.

potentially one with a veeeeery simple explanation - are you by any chance one of relatively few players in your clan that is regularly running a premium account? Because yes, for some reason that factors into the average XP stat, which makes it utterly useless (which is what I was referring to in my original reply up there).

[Saltface]

3 minutes ago, Tyrendian89 said:

potentially one with a veeeeery simple explanation - are you by any chance one of relatively few players in your clan that is regularly running a premium account? Because yes, for some reason that factors into the average XP stat, which makes it utterly useless (which is what I was referring to in my original reply up there).

I run a Premium Account, I don't know how many others do. 

But I think your answer is very plausible. (emphasis on very)

It seems it is not base XP from the number.

I ll try to check it if I can find the data.

[RenamedUser_92906789]

WG gonna put this on their todo list. Page 564, eta November 2365.

[Saltface]

1 minute ago, nambr9 said:

WG gonna put this on their todo list. Page 564, eta November 2365.

I hope I don't have arthritis by then and I cant use well the keyboard

 

[Linkaex]

Cool idea 

[Blixies]

I love* this.
How can I promote it?

*disclaimer: manly love

 

@Juanx disliked but have not commented. How unmanly of him.

[Saltface]

Just now, Blixies said:

How can I promote it?

Spread the word !!

 

[Tyrendian89]

29 minutes ago, Blixies said:

I love* this.
How can I promote it?

 

good old fashioned @MrConway @Crysantos should be a decent start, maybe they'll be so kind as to push it up the chain to StPete

[MrConway]

13 hours ago, Tyrendian89 said:

good old fashioned @MrConway @Crysantos should be a decent start, maybe they'll be so kind as to push it up the chain to StPete

 

I am honestly not convinced and think the current stats should already contain enough detail about how a player performs on average.

[Juanx]

14 hours ago, Blixies said:

Spoiler

 

I love* this.
How can I promote it?

*disclaimer: manly love

 

@Juanx disliked but have not commented. How unmanly of him.

 

Ah the beauties of the internet, where you dont even need to post to trigger the special ones...

 

To the OP, why would we think when you did nothing of the sorts? Will take conways side on this one.