Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
Dragnorak

Understanding Stats

11 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
534 posts
6,412 battles

Can someone explain please how this is calculated. How can 80207 be plus 116 but 86507 is only plus 37

 

I don't understand it :)

Stats.PNG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BLAST]
[BLAST]
Players
570 posts
9,483 battles

I think the +NNN part is your overall increase in average damage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
534 posts
6,412 battles
Just now, Armorin said:

I think the +NNN part is your overall increase in average damage.

 

Yes that's what I thought but then surely the larger damage average of 86 would have yielded a larger increase yes? But it only gave 37 which i found odd and then I thought I don't understand that at all..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HABIT]
Beta Tester
1,568 posts

Care to give a little bit more detail? Like what which column stands for? I guess it is the average damage within certain time intervals?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BLAST]
[BLAST]
Players
570 posts
9,483 battles
Just now, Dragnorak said:

 

Yes that's what I thought but then surely the larger damage average of 86 would have yielded a larger increase yes? But it only gave 37 which i found odd and then I thought I don't understand that at all..

 

I don't know the stat site you are using, if it is ship dependent or how many games have been played. But yes, some stat sites do seem to have some poorly thought out calculations. Like my bad BB play managed to yield an even worse overall bad rating for the day than I had performed in any of the ships individually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
14,701 posts
10,879 battles
4 minutes ago, Dragnorak said:

 

Yes that's what I thought but then surely the larger damage average of 86 would have yielded a larger increase yes? But it only gave 37 which i found odd and then I thought I don't understand that at all..

No.

There is a difference between having an increased average in 5 games and having the same average for 500 games.

Same average, but different average increase if your overall average is lower than these numbers.

More games have more weight.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOXIC]
[TOXIC]
Players
3,772 posts
10,685 battles
4 hours ago, Dragnorak said:

That's pretty easy.

Look:

11 battles with average damage 80k

3 battles with average damage 86k

 

Let's imagine you only played one battle before that and got detonated in it, dealing 0 damage. If you then got 11 battles with 80k damage, your average damage over all 12 battles would be (80*11+0)/12=73,3k (over 73 000 average increase)

But with just 3 battles, even 86k damage ones, what you get is (86*3+0)/4=64,5k (less than 65 000 average increase)

 

Or think about win% - a single won battle is 100% winrate, but a good day where you played a lot (say, 20 battles), winning "just" 85% of them will probably increase your overall win% much more than winning one battle and calling it a day, despite the fact that in one case we're talking a perfect 100% winrate and in the other - much less impressive 85%. Of course, things would look quite different if you were already around 85% global winrate, but assuming you are nowhere near that... you get the picture.

 

It's the same for damage. In a single battle a higher damage value obviously adds more to your general average - but if we're NOT talking a single battle, then the average damage impact of these battles is obviously weighted with the number of them. And 11 matches is a lot more than 3 :Smile-_tongue:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
534 posts
6,412 battles

I need to work on my average damage :)

 

 

Seriously yes I see what you're saying now and that makes sense..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×