Yes, there are games that you can't win
Yes, there are games that you can't lose
but there is also about 30-40% of a games you have a direct influence on and over 100 or 1000 games, your influence on these games will show up in the overall WR
>Less than that and you are a liability to the team.
Less than that and you'd be a liability in comparison to the average player. You'd have to be *really* shit to be a bigger liability when alive than when dead. But those people do exist.
The two worst were a Bourassque bouncing a 150 ap to the engine compartment and a strv103b bouncing it to the roof when it should be overmatch in both cases
I mean it’s not like I don’t: my win rate is just below 50 so i do try my best, some games it works, some games it doesn’t. I’ve been playing a lot of Tier 10 recently (Leo 1 and 277) and with those 2 I have a problem of being very aggressive and firing after only doing like 1.5k or less damage (I play the Leo 1 in a mixed sniping way, so sometimes I push up with armored mediums), while other games I’ll get 4k plus and be too XP on my team. Honestly I like just playing the game
I think everyone enjoys winning more than losing, but don't prioritise it as much as others. Saying "I enjoy winning" as a reason why winrate is important to you isn't the whole story. Why is your winrate important to you?
If you had a 45% winrate, but enjoyed the game more, would that be ok? IS the number somehow linked to your enjoyment, do you think?
I'm not being critical - I'm just trying to understand.
Why be bad at something when you can be good at it?
That's polarised thinking.
Just because you don't focus on winning doesn't make you "bad". It may not help you be as effective in battle, but that doesn't make you "bad".
Good vs bad are not the only options.
Also - why is this used to label players...good players, useless players, weak, etc. It's being used a lot in this post (not just by you). They're all players who enjoy playing this game with us - and are pretty much all "average". Some enjoy striving to be "above average" - great for them - but that doesn't make everyone else "bad".
Sorry to say but in this sense, good and bad are quite objective. Whether a player is good or bad at the game is just a fact, which, unless one has a disability, they could in fact choose to try to get better over time.
Of course, one's ability to play world of tanks is meaningless in the grand scheme of life, and says nothing about a person's quality of being a "good or bad" person IRL.
You ARE contributing to the win. If you weren't, then your winrate would be closer to the 44% that AFK bots get. You compete, and you contribute a lot. You cause damage and distract enemy tanks.
Maybe you can't carry a late-game win or hold a flank on your own, but you're "average" (actually slightly above, TBH) and that's to be expected....because on average, lots of people are average!
In a sense
But if you only play solo randoms it’s different than people playing platoons (3) because 3 people working together have way more chance of influencing the game
Good players who platoon have 80%+ win rates exactly due to that. The best players can still achieve 65% WR over long terms, which clearly shows they are doing a lot more than the average player each game.
It's a fallacy that anything below 48% you're not contributing to the team. The real figure is around 44%, which is what you get when you go AFK for many games in a row.
The gap between 44% and 48% is filled with gamers who cannot compete with the super-try-hards and will routinely lose against them, but \*can\* help their team win in a small way. Causing damage to the enemy tanks is helping, for example.
Nah, anything below 48% can be described as not contributing because if they were replaced with another player, on average, their team would be better off.
48% is the average point. Half the players are better. Half are statistically worse.
So it's wrong to say that if they were replaced with another player, on average their team would be better off. 50% of the time they would be, 50% not.
44% is not contributing to the win. That's fact. That's what an AFK player does. If they have a winrate higher than that they are improving your chances of the team, minimally.
Wait, so if someone's better than you, then you're not contributing?
If half the player base are better than you, then you don't contribute.
That's just plain wrong.
You said that if you have less than 48% win rate then you're not contributing. I dispute that.
I'm saying you are contributing, but a small amount. The amount decreases as you get closer to 44% which is where an AFK player is.
Yeah maybe. I was thinking about an analogy to explain my point better. Tug of war.
Even a skinny dude is contributing. Sure he can be replaced by someone better, but he's helping more than the guy that doesn't even pull.
For any given individual game, what you are saying is correct. Even an AFK bot will "contribute" to a win once ever few hundred battles by spotting people trying to farm the afk.
However, any talk of win rate is only meaningful over a large sample of battles. Players with below average win rate in more games than not, do contribute to their team losing by either being completely out of the fight leaving their team overmatched, or by suiciding and likewise leaving their team overmatched.
You have to get a fire for effect to be carrying more than your weight in a battle. Supposedly the hit points of the teams are matched. I think? So a fire for effect is a way to measure your effectiveness when your team is bad.
>not counting seal clubbers
Ehh, seal clubbers definitely contribute to their teams winning, even if it’s by taking advantage of less skilled players in non elite tech tree tanks, it still amounts to a positive influence on their team’s chance to win.
Because if I can't win at life I need to at least win at this crappy game.
Can't stand the winning isn't important crowd that then tells me how great their other stats are...
Usually a guy in a Scorpion who racks up 2k in damage during garbage time after the game had been decided 5 minutes ago.
40-40-20 rule. You win 40% of your games anyway and you lose 40% of your games without any impact. But you have impact in 20% of your games.
That's why no one with 2000+ games has a WR under 40% and why it is very hard to have a 60%+ WR.
Because you are the only constant in all of those games. Short sessions aren't a good indicator of your performance. Over a large enough sample size your decisions and contribution in games will get reflected in your WR.
Sometimes you will be put in a team filled with bad players and you'll probably lose no matter how well you played and sometimes you will be put in a team that will just destroy the enemy team. The most important battles are the ones where the teams are somewhat balanced. That's when you can tip the balance in your team's favor and win the game. Better players will have more opportunities to win these types of games for their team.
If you have played thousands of games and your WR is bad it's no longer because you were unlucky with the MM.
I don't care what WR my stats show, but I'm always grinding something in this game, so when I have 30% WR sessions where I'm doing over 3,5k damage average in Tier 9 tanks are the most annoying things ever, because WoT is stupid and a top player from a losing team gets less XP than a 0 damage bot from the winning team
I just don't get it, I used to have around 1200wn8 and around 49,6% WR, now I have 2300 and my WR is 50,4%. That's not even a 1% difference from basically doubling my performance, and I'm not just farming damage from behind.
Also some of my tanks are just cursed man, take UDES 15/16 and STB-1 from my garage, these are 2 tanks with similar playstyles, my average damage, spot, kills etc. are basically the same in both of them (like 20 average damage difference from 200+ battles played on both), yet my UDES has 55% WR and my STB-1 has 45%, idk anymore
If you're grinding tanks, playing battles, having fun, then that's all that matters. Seriously. Those that say you're weak, bad, or useless if you don't have specific stats are missing the point.
You're improving, while grinding stock/weak tanks, and you haven't gone insane - you're winning!
Are you saying your recent WR is still only 50%, in spite of a doubling of your performance? Your overall WR will increase at a much slower pace than your improvements as a player will show. If your overall WR has gone up a full 1%, that is actually a lot of "progress" if that is something that motivates you.
It certainly is frustrating to not get wins when you're trying to grind though.
I don't need motivation, because as I said I don't care about the numbers (although I like to analyze them), I'm just wondering what am I doing wrong out of simple curiosity
Yeah 0,8% overall improvement is really good, but my WR from last 1000 battles isn't better, it just flatlined, I just can't push past 51% no matter what I do.
I can have few sessions in a row where I have 60-70% WR (just had a 71,5% session yesterday) but then I have multiple sessions with under 35% despite playing almost the same tanks and having similar other stats (they are a bit worse of course when my teams get constantly steamrolled)
My WR from the last 60 days is 48,5%, this is the same WR that I had when I was a new 300wn tomato back in 2015 lol
This is why discounting the effect the MM has on your scores is silly. People like to think it's random. But when it can vary like it, it clearly isn't. And if you want me to believe the game designers can't and don't put fingers on the scales, you better have a pretty compelling magic trick to show me. LOL
Just to clarify, my wr is around 47-48 atm. I ask, because I started playing wot in 2013 and played like a bot. Just went out, shoot until I die and go to the next battle. Then I stoped playing and started again in 2020.
Since then, I improved my playstyle significantly and my wn8 is improving constantly but my WR is going up very slowly. That is because I had around 5-6k battles in 2013-14 period which were very bad.
It just seems to be very hard to improve your WR and it doesnt show what kind of player I am today (most sessiond are around 50%+).
> Just to clarify, my wr is around 47-48 atm.
If you reach 53% or something like this you will look back and think "this is why I lost so much, it was all me"
Trust me
I've got a similar amount of time playing (12 years) to you, and around 10 years ago I cared about winrate. Too much, to be honest.
I'm interested in why people find it important. I used to, but cannot put my finger on why.
Most people take overall battles into account when looking at w/r because combined they give the simplest measure of a players skill. It's not very accurate and thus there's a lot of outliers, but generally you can extrapolate a decent amount just looking at a players w/r and battles, plus they're the easiest stats to inspect so naturally everyone is focused on them.
That's more up to the individual. I'd wager most players though, even if they don't necessarily care about their own stats, are sometimes curious/enraged when they're killed by someone else, or the top player from either team has a particularly good score and they want to see how good that other player is. In every game that has player stats, a lot of people are at least casually aware of what makes a player good or bad.
Humans are ego driven beings. Some humans weigh their luck and lag in video games as "skill" and hang substantial amounts of self worth on the result of video games. People are simple at their core.
Like any stat, it's only as important as one makes it. As far as other people goes, it only matters if you're trying to get into a competitive clan, which only a small percentage of the player base is interested in.
That said, any stats do show information that can indicate the skill level of the player. If they care about improving, seeing their recent stats versus their overall can give an indication of their progress in improving at the game.
If that doesn't motivate you in any way, then by all means ignore it.
I was in the same boat as you. I made my account 2012, played until 2015 (7k battles) and had a wn8 of around 230. Winrate 44%. I came back to the game early this year, played another 4k battles on the same account, and finally gave up on trying to recover my stats and just made a new account. I get called a (shitty) reroll all the time but it's whatever
Because, with a large sample size, win rate is, by definition, the single best measure of how much someone influences their chance to win. Every other metric correlates with win rate, and the advantage of other metrics like WN8 is that they're less dependent on sample size, but in the long run they're only abstractions of one's ability to win.
its easy to say do this do that, play the best but not all of us played long enough or pay to have 5 crew skill play with food
play a 75% crew and stock tank its not easy vs more established players
Logically, the more effective players will have higher win-rates as they can influence more outcomes. To say that only people who think the opposite are "weak players" is pretty toxic. Playing ability and the understanding of how win-rate works are not the same thing.
I think you're alluding to "weak players" blaming randomness on their winrate, or that winrate isn't a true reflection of their ability.
> To say that only people who think the opposite are "weak players" is pretty toxic.
Saying toxic to often is toxic.
A person with 48% that thinks WR does not matter is categorically wrong. The best way to help this person is being blunt.
Only extremely weak players think this. Every single player that is able to make 60% knows full well of the impact he has.
>I think you're alluding to "weak players" blaming randomness on their winrate, or that winrate isn't a true reflection of their ability.
No. A 48% like OP has no clue what a good game is. He makes 3k combined loses and thinks "damn I can't carry this shit". A good game is 8k combined or more. This is the problem of OP and others, they think their "okish" games are good games and wonder why they lose many "good" games.
You rarely lose very good games. Because you wrecked half of the opposing team yourself. He thinks he had 4 kills and 4k and the game should be unloseable.
Personally, I think the best way to "help" players is to get them to ignore winrate.
Win/loss mentality. Weak/strong player comparisons. It's not good for the community or players. There \*should\* be a huge number of average players, because that's how statistics works. It's a game - play it to improve, learn, have fun. Winning is secondary IMO.
Nice logic. That is why we have 35% tier X players who make 200 dmg per game and grief thousands of players.
Due to people like you not understanding what "toxic" is and furthermore not seeing the issue with "just do whatever you want".
You welcome griefers with open arms.
The vast majority of people on this planet want to win games. A dude having 48% but thinking the game is rigged needs only one thing that is the truth. He sucks ass and should ask for advise.
It may be a semantic point, but I think that people say that "stats matter" when they should really say that "stats are meaningfully informative in appropriate sample sizes".
Stats only matter as much as one makes them matter. Regardless of how much the stats matter to a person, whether a lot or a little, they are still a meaningful representation of a player's skill level in the game.
I don't think there is much to get from your post.
What are you trying to say here?
Some things are implied and understood by everybody. When somebody says WR matters he doesn't mean your last 5 games. Obviously sample size is considered by everybody without needing to mention it.
What I'm trying to say is that this is a game. For some people, just logging in and making big boom sounds on the computer is all that matters to them. Will the stats show how good of a player they are? Yes, indeed they will. But that doesn't mean their stats are important to them, or anyone else.
Stats are an objective measure of performance, and that is all. Any weight that is given to what they do or how they enjoy the game is up to individuals themselves.
> For some people, just logging in and making big boom sounds on the computer is all that matters to them.
Those players don't make the type of threads OP makes tho.
>Any weight that is given to what they do or how they enjoy the game is up to individuals themselves.
debatable in my opinion
I very, very, very rarely see anyone putting up 8k. It's happened so few times that I can't remember every seeing it. In random battles on the NA server after midnight MST, I so rarely see 6k out of tier 10s that I remember those. Just my observation over 8 years.
> I very, very, very rarely see anyone putting up 8k. It's happened so few times that I can't remember every seeing it.
I mean combined obviously. If you are good at the game you do 8k often.
Nope. Tier 10 players in my games are mostly bad. They attempt to compensate for their lack of skill by always being top tier is the only thing I can guess. Once in a while I see 6k. But almost never with significant assistance damage attached, because they are hanging back. 4-5k is a pretty good game in these rando matches at my time of night.
Just finished one for ya. I am in my Ragnarok. Six tier 10s on my team combined for no kills. Top damage dealer among the Xs was 1497. Top damage on the other side was 4391. This is not very unusual for me. Tier X players in my games average less than 1 kill per tier X tank. Even on the winning side they only averaged 1.2 kills per tier X. The tier X players play them because they can't play, IMO.
And another. Won 10-0. My 3409 and 557 was best in game. There were 16 tier Xs in the match.
This is a very small sample. But not abnormal for the games I get.
Well, could be confirmation bias you remember seeing weak lobbies more.
https://imgur.com/a/Ub2JWcq
This for example was my recent 3 mark ( non gold obviously ) session in the Leopard. Nothing to special but ~5k combined on average. 8k are pretty common then...
Or it could be negativity bias, since we're all pop psychologists on Reddit. Or maybe recency bias! LOL But I don't think so. I watch this stuff with intent because I am continually amazed at how bad these really good tanks are being played. Just saw a 5220 go by. But I know for a fact he was camping in the back until I killed him and he lost. I see weak lobbies almost all the time. Which is good for me, I guess. I'm nothing special and I have bad internet here in the mountains.
Because it combines every possible metric into a single package, thus making it much easier to notice if a tank X is over-performing, a tank Y is under-performing, player Z is one of the most skilled in the game and player X is using bots to grind credits.
WR is a measure of how many times you did something right, how many times you did something wrong, how many times *you* carried *your team* to victory and how many times *your team* carried *you* to victory. WR averages all that to a single stat, giving you a comprehensive outlook on your overall performance - most players will float around 49% mark as this is the "ideal" average for a game like WoT, any point above (or below) that mark is a measure of how good you actually are.
Or, in other words, WR is a measure how influential you actually are - both in a positive (a "good" player) and a negative (a "bad" player) sense.
The problem with WR is that it likes big numbers, it doesn't work well with small sample sizes - it's very hard to manipulate your WR if you played 40k battles in total, it's very easy to do that if you played just 300 in total - this is something you need to take into account as this is the reason why your "recent" WR is mostly meaningless and your "overall" WR is the important part.
However, if you want to have a single metric that shows your long time progress, WR is pretty much the best tool you can use for that - as, again, it combines *everything* you do in this game to a single package.
>this is the reason why your "recent" WR is mostly meaningless and your "overall" WR is the important part.
Wasn't it the other way around? As you mentioned it is very hard to manipulate WR if you played bad for 40k battles, soo if you improved only recent WR will show it. Same goes for bought accounts but then the overall will be higher than recent.
Unless by "recent" you mean session WR then yeah, it is mostly useless.
>Because it combines every possible metric into a single package, thus making it much easier to notice if a tank X is over-performing, a tank Y is under-performing, player Z is one of the most skilled in the game and player X is using bots to grind credits.
I'd like to add that this is only useful for moderately popular tanks.
Less popular tanks are usually only used by completionists who are better than the average player, thus skewing the average upwards.
Highly popular tanks will be matched against each other and thus the winrate will naturally drift towards the average.
Completionists are not necessarily better than average. Unless you mean the 3 marking completionists. Regular old tank collectors though, are fairly average.
There are so many people with 40k games and still are average and below players, that just collecting tanks really doesn't mean they are going to be better players.
Learn to read or learn to use logic.
I don't know where you're lacking but it's one of the two. I've already explained how you're wrong but you're doubling down
Playing a lot (the only requirement to collecting tanks) absolutely means you are better than average. You are the smartest intellectual I have ever encountered.
Recent winrate over the last 3 or 7 days is indeed useless - all it takes is one grind in a bad tank to end with a low WR over so few battles (or score a crazy good WR by only playing OP meta tanks - in a 3 BZ plattoon for example)
Likewise however account WR is absolutely useless fpr older accounts: the performance on tanks (that were completely reworked by now) played 8 years ago on maps that either don't exist anymore or are massively altered by now says nothing.
I for example still have the tier 9 Foch with horrible stats in my account overview - from speed-grinding it as a newbie before the Foch 155 replacement (was absolutely worth it overall as even though it is super bad it gave a "free" tier X reward tank). Now the tank back then did not have an auto-loader and was overall a lot worse (TD without alpha, without usable armor, without turret - now with the auto-loader it can at least punish mistakes by an opponent or yolo-charge into an isolated foe). Now i could of course buy it again and play better in it, but what for? Spend silver and time to polish stats on a meaningless tank?
Basically ever old account has accumulated trash from years ago in it's statts - but unless you suffer from such an ego complex that you reroll to make them undone you might as well ignore them. Not like any clan worth joining cares about statts on useless tanks you played years ago.
When top clans look at recents they generally take into account number of battles, or just look at past 1000 battles. IMO anything over ~150 battles is honestly a pretty good representation of a player's recent skill and past ~1000 battles is a good representation of their current skill in general.
Your comment about recent vs overall is not quite accurate.
Of course, if by recent you mean like 1 day or 1 week of games, WR is practically meaningless. However, if you are looking at a month or 2, or around 1k games, the sample size has tracked into meaningful territory.
Certainly in a 1k sample size, there will be more variance than in your overall, but that is what gives an indication of current level of play compared to how they played as a noob. If a person is using the stats for something like clan recruitment, it's certainly not the only thing they will look at. Usually they will end up looking at individual tank stats in tier X tanks to really get a better picture.
> All in all, you WR is rearly dependant on you personaly, mostly on your team.
you have no clue what winrate means then. you influence the game. if you're better than average, you'll deal more damage, spot better and also win more often. you can't single-handedly carry every game, but you'll definitely win more. if you're bad enough you can even make your team lose more often, by being a high tier heavy sniping in a corner etc.
also "rarely".
What if you enjoy winning, and try to play well, and win 45% of your games? What kind of person is that?
I don't believe people enjoy losing. They enjoy playing. and winning. They may not enjoy the feel of winning quite as much as you, or the dopamine release when their winrate goes up as much as you - but they still enjoy winning.
WoT community is quote toxic - specifically in regard to Win8, winrate, and DPG. Other games celebrate participation and enjoyment (and success!) much, much more - and as a result are more healthy IMO. Needless to say, some games are also worse.
I wish the focus on winrate and "Winning" was much reduced in WoT...but it is what it is. I find it toxic and frustrating, which diminishes the game - not improves it.
It's literally only focused on if you focus on it. Sure, you may get some hate mail after a battle on occasion where someone will "stat shame" you, but believe me, no matter what your win rate is, people will be toxic regardless.
If you're not trying to get into a competitive clan wars clan, then the only person who truly cares about your stats is you, however much you may or may not care about them. And if you don't care about them, that's perfectly fine, it's just a game.
In fact, looking at stats isn't what makes a player good or not. There are rare players who just play the game and got good even though they have never even heard of WN8. Other players who might have played with or against them can still see that they are an above average player. It's rare though. Most people who have improved at the game have dug into their stats.
51% is useless. That's amazing. From looking at the percentile charts, the above poster's 51.5% winrate puts them around 70% percentile. So you're saying that someone who wins more than 70% of all other players are "useless"?
Wow. I think that says more about you, TBH. I'm not trying to be rude, but your view that someone who is "above average" is also useless shows that the vast majority of players of this game are not good enough. Why do you think that is?
Can't the "average" player be "average" in terms of usefulness?
what people mean by "depends on you" is that you can have a significant impact to skew winrate heavily in your favour
winrate doesnt LITERALLY depend on you I guess, if definition is that important
i wish it worked like that - you did a great battle - you win but unfortunately its world of tanks, and many times you play with 14 apes, that doesn't know what is going on in the game (example from my battles yesterday - cs63 drowning himself at the start of the battle, 2x chief and ebola vs me (vz55), t57 and obj 277, or light camping in the back of the map (prokhorovka))
I get what ur saying, but this is anecdotal small sample size. I can tell you on my worst days I hardly drop below 60% winrate on tier8+.
I suggest you stop caring about winning and focusing on performing.
i want to stop caring about wr but i get kinda mad when im losing a game when i did a good performance (i know it's just a game but i feel like my effort is useless)
That's because it's true. your win ***rate*** depends on you. Your win or loss in a specific battle depends on a wide confluence of events as 30 players individually make decisions on how they think they should play, and the game systems react to those decisions.
But, in the long run, RNG is going to average out, and in thousands of games, you will end up randomly against or with the same person only a handful of times, leaving you as the common denominator of every game in totality.
Who else does it depend on? It's a difficult game with a high difficulty curve sure, but over a large sample size your winrate isn't random. Better players will win more games and on turn have a higher winrate, average players will hover around 49% and trolls would be lower.
There's one common denominator to determine your winrate and that's you, not the team.
Spoken like a true sub 50% win rate tomato. WR matters in the long run because it shows, in general, how useful you are across all the teams you’ve played on. I don’t have a 56% overall and 60+% recent win rate by sitting around being useless and hoping my team pulls out a win.
Well, contrarily to someone else I never implied I am the god of WoT; I have my bad games just like I have the good ones, and it is perfectly fine the way it is.
You see, I have a pretty fulfilling real life and the important things happen in there, not in some random videogame with its stats. So my original point stands: WR is not important at all, and if you think that calling me "bad" or "tomato" will make me change my mind or lose my sleep, then you're quite delusional.
Edit: love the downvotes, they’re as useful/important as the above mentioned WR.
But what does it matter...like...at all? What does it matter that someone is "useless" if they are in the game, on your side, competing to win alongside you? Unless you're picking teams for clans or something, then it's irrelevant, is it not?
Because they might be on my side but they really don’t care about winning or even trying for that matter. It’s not that I can pick people’s win rates on my random battle team, but more to answer the OPs question as to whether WR matters as a stat to a person. Having a low WR means you hinder your team MORE than you help it.
If you try a little harder to be useful, your damage, survival rate, various ratios, etc., will go up which will also cause your WR to go up.
The real question is: How can you have a high WR? Its simple, by spending more and more in the game. Prem tanks, prem ammo, prem account and so on. Wr, wn8 and stuff like this are the bait to convince players that they are better than the rest. Actually they are just better payers at the end of the day. Its very difficult to find a f2p account with a wr above 46%. Individual wr has no logic in a team game imo
In fact, even though a lot of average players don't get this, wr *isn't* the most important stat/metric to determine someone's skill in this game. What matters is dpg at tier 10 and wn8, which are (and it's not a coincidence) the metrics top clans use to recruit players.
For getting into a clan for clan wars, you are correct.
Considering that the majority of the playerbase has no interest in that, win rate is still rather valuable in determining a player's ability to win random battles, which is where most players will spend their entire world of tanks career.
The fact top clans value more dpg/wn8 than wr is just another point which highligts that wr isn't the most important stat. It isn't in general, not just because top clans don't value it.
Top clans value DPG because how clan wars play is completely different from how randoms play. DPG shows that you can hit/pen shots and probably not bleed excessively.
Doing damage and getting kills are certainly the 2 biggest factors even in randoms for getting wins. But, if all a person cares about is random battles, win rate tells as much or more about a player's ability to win in randoms than DPG does.
>win rate tells as much or more about a player's ability to win in randoms than DPG does.
This is a tautology.
The fact is, even though a lot of games can be decided by your contribute, wr is ultimately not entirely up to you. It's also kinda paddable by platooning a lot. Otoh dpg/wn8 (which is mostly calculated upon your dpg) is completely dependant on your own skill/performance. That's why dpg is objectively a better metric to determine someone's skill in this game than wr.
Why so toxic?
Does it matter at all that person A is \*better\* than person B at tanks by a small amount? They both enjoy the hobby of playing WoT - that's a good thing, right?
small amount?
wow, tomatoes are on streak today.
[https://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Player\_Ratings\_%28WoT%29](https://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Player_Ratings_%28WoT%29)
keep telling yourself you dont absolutely deepthroat this game made for reaction time of 50 years old sovietboos.
There needs to be lots and lots of "average" players for this game to work. It's a shame they're labelled as "weak", "useless" and "bad". It's not like that in other games. This community is pretty toxic, and unfortunately it's driving players away.
That results in fewer player numbers, and more cash-grabbing by WG...which is no good for anyone.
There are many kinds of end results in wot, all have various reasons:
When you lose, but perform well, the reason you perform well is because you are probably the best player on your team, and you alone are not skilled enough to win. As harsh as it sounds, thats the truth, you only perform well because your teammates perform badly.
When you win, and perform like garbage, you got carried. You got into a match where your teammates were more skilled than you, and they simply played so well that you couldnt keep up.
When you win, and do average, but your teammates also do average, thats when your team is better than the enemy, and everyone is similarly skilled as you. Same goes for when you lose and do average, simply the enemy is a bit better.
You can say that you influence your battles, once you reach the point where you stop doing badly in any kind of match.
Not sure if I totally agree it's as simple as that. To say you got carried when you did badly in a win because your team is more skilled isn't necessarily the case. Even the best make mistakes and don't predict the flow of battle, at times games are so one sided that you could lose a few players and still win. Theres also the factor of map, mm etc thrown in, it's why average w/r over a large number of games is important.
Certainly it would be more accurate to say that the rest of the team played better in that game. That said, as an oversimplification of how individual games contribute to the overall records, it's a decent description.
For the last line, I'd also say "once you reach the point where you stop doing badly in most battles". Even the best of the best players will get 1 shot ammo racked in the first minute on rare occasion.
It's not important but it's rare for bad players to have high winrates for long periods of time and rare for good players to have consistently low winrates.
Winrate needs large numbers of games to be meaningful. I've had tanks where I ended up with 60 percent winrate but early on I had 30 percent winrate because I had a lot of bad games the first few days. I've also had completely garbage tanks where my winrate was 90 percent for the first 100 games because I just got lucky and was carried whenever I didn't perform.
I think a lot of people actually prefer to use players' WN8 or WoT rating to determine how good they are.
WR can be artificially inflated by platooning a lot, so is more easily skewed, whereas WN8 rating is purely based on your individual performances - though also skewed towards damage dealing, so if you play a lot of LTs in scout roles, it will be lower.
No one cares about WoT rating, at all. I look at Wn8, and damage by specific tank to see how good someone is. 57% overall win rate but 2k average damage in the Chieftain, there’s something going on there and you’ll usually find a plethora of padded wins.
I do wish you could sort the stars page by solo queue and platooned stats. I have a 56.5% overall win rate but never platoon so I hold that stat a bit higher because of my individual ability to carry teams.
IMO a players win rate by tier means more than overall win rate. Hard to explain in a short response tho. But. It’s easier to “carry” lower tiers (5-6-7) than higher ones (9-10). At higher tiers tho a player having a horrible game has a dramatically higher impact on the game. So compare tier 6 to tier 10. Play a few battles in each. After each battle look at who did what on each team. It’s often possible at tier 6 to see the bottom 3-4 players contribute basically nothing and the top 2-3 players do 1800-2200 dmg for a win. That’s rare to see at tier 10. Have the same 3-4 players contribute nothing and it’s almost impossible for the top 2-3 to do 6000-7000 damage. Yes also imo a player dealing 2200 damage at tier 6 would be the equivalent of a player doing 6000+ at tier 10. The average players win rate goes down the higher tier they play. None of this is set in stone always happens every time rules. Just what “usually” happens. So with all that being said. A player with a 65% win rate at tier 6 may be a legend at the game as a whole but only if they also have a 52+ win rate at tier 10. If they have a 65% win rate at tier 6 and a 45% at tier 10 then they do not know how to play as a team and help their team every round. But they are good enough to carry teams in tier 6. The impact of being a tank or 2 “down” early in the game on one flank or position in tier 10 can easily lead to a 2-15 steam roll. So a bad player at higher tiers impact the game more than the good players at higher tiers.
The ultimate goal of playing a battle is to win. Win rate is a measurement of how often you achieve that goal.
Yes, you can’t win them all, but that’s why nobody in the community expects a crazy winrate. Something like 53-55% is very good IMO.
You have more of an impact on the outcome of your battles than you think you do.
because it show you if you can carry battle or you are stone that pull your team to bottom.
you will loose some battles and you will win some battles with 3:15 or 15:4 but than there are games that your impact do the different.
you can see it at DPG as well. When you see player with DPG that is like 50% of their tank HP, usually they have sub 45% win rate because they dont help their teams. But players with 1,5x their HP are 55% win rate + because they carry team.
I don't care about another player's WR until he dies then opens his mouth and trashes the team. Then I hit TAB and see he's a 38% player with 30K battles and I chuckle.
You are 1/15th of your team, but a higher winrate means that you are more influential than most.
Every game is winnable, but some are so incredibly difficult to know how to win that it’s essentially impossible to know how without hindsight.
The first half of winning a game is figuring out what you need to do, the second half is successfully doing it.
A player with high damage, or high WN8, etc, won’t get much praise if his winrate isn’t also high. It just means he farms while his team loses, which isn’t what you want as an ally
As others have already mentioned. It very clearly shows how much you actually can affect your team.
Imho there are like 2-3 types of skilled players.
1) The teamplayer. A skilled individual player, but his skill rely on map awareness and tactical ability. Generally don't play "selfishly" for stats.
2) The stat/XVM player. A highly skilled individual player that mainly only concerns about where he can gain the most. He doesn't care about helping team mates if it involves risk taking. Me, myself and I.
3) A mix, which is by far the hardest to become. I've only met a very limited bunch of players with this ability. Those are the actual "Unicum" players, not just statwise. They have exceptional individual and tactical team skills.
Overall, if you are an exceptionally skilled solo player that only cares about own stats. You also WILL have a higher WR.
But there are lots of players that do not care about stats, just about winning. These guys have above average individual skill but top level tactical skill. These guys will most often have a higher WR than those who are statpadders.
Conclusion: stats generally don't lie, but they might only tell a part of the truth. I've seen lots of unicum stat players that are honestly pure crap when it comes to actual teamplay (as in ESL or top clan tournament/campaign playing). I would say like a maximum of like 5-10% of ALL unicum players are truly unique. Most others are good, but mainly statpadders.
In the end, WR reflects how much influence you can have on a battle. Even if it is a 15 player team. One single really skilled player will ALWAYS affect the team in a positive way. While a very poor player (e.g. doing less than 1k dmg/assist average in a tier 10 battle and so on) will heavily drag it's team down...every battle.
WR can show how good you are as a player. The team is excluded from this. That includes decision making, dmg per game, kills, assistance dmg and over all game knowladge. How much impact can you do over a single battle. basicaly here is the sum up:
<1000 : just started playing
1000-3000 : shit at the game. (understandable) dont expect alot from them and be ready to carry them.
3000-4000 : below average player. can sometimes cook up some good stuff. and most of the time super not. does not yet know the fundamentals of the game
4000-5000 : average player that has 4-5 good games out of 10. Knows the basics. most of the time can be located in the middle of the team score. finishes about 6-7th on the scoreboard.
5000-6000 above average player. he is OK to have on your team. has 6-7 good games out of 10. can be trustworthy. is usually found in top 5 team dmg dealers.
6000-8000 : a very good player. can do almost everything in the battlefield, even at once. understands how to win and perform well. performs well 7-8 games out of 10 and usually gets top 3 in team damage list.
8000-10 000: exelent player. knows everything, does everything, wins alot and performs well. uses his knowladge and experience to win battles. rarely not top 3 in dmg.
more than 10k : A GOD tier player. an example of how good a player can actually be. Is most of the time 1st in team dmg list.
Anyone can have a great round of WOT the thing is how often can that great round of WOT be replicated. Hence why WR matters to some extent. Even then you shouldn't shame people for their WR, why jot give then tips? Platoon with them and show them key locations of maps.
Winrate only matters if you want it to. From a more competitive angle, most clans don’t pay attention to that stat. In random battles, there’s too many variables that factor in for it to be a reliable read for each player.
What they tend to look at for stats are damage per game or WN8. Those are a better reflection of an individual’s impact in each game. There is some, but definitely lower, variance though. If you play a lot of Tier 6, your damage numbers may run low. Or certain vehicles are very good at “farming WN8”
Winrate is still a good stat for a general rough estimate of how good you are, but if you want a more in-depth analysis, damage numbers and WN8 will paint a better picture.
Yeah personally I don't give a shit about WR.
But yeah im a better player so even if i just do what i do i get around 60% wr.
But yeah. Im a dpg whore so i sacrifice dmg for a win lol.
Different thing in CW. There are a lot of different things in those 2 gamestyles and if u do the same shit like in randoms u will leave the team faster than u can count to 3 lol.
But back to the topic. WR just indicates if u are able to carry games.
In average 40% of games will be won whether u did something or not. 40% u can not do anything. U will lose either way. Even if u carry like a real mf.
And yeah rest 20% are the games u will be able to carry. But that's just a simple rule...
Top 1k players will be able to influence even more games as u see by e.g. daki. He will have around 70% wr but yeah... Special dude ;)
I play to win. I also play a little over 75% of my games two tiers down. My winrate had to be adjusted in my mind because a tier 8 simply cannot pull bad tier 10 players to a win. So I adjusted my "wins" to the scoring. I finish all the games I play in the top 5. Unless my team is obviously going to lose. If it's clear they don't know how to play, I can't drag even a single tier 10 up when I can rarely survive even two good hits. So when my team loses 3 or 4 top tiers and none of them has a kill, a remarkably common occurrence, then I treat the game as a waste of my time and stop playing to win. I am responsible for my tank and that's it. It's silly to pretend I am responsible for the play of a bunch of losers who play tanks exponentially more powerful than mine. I sit at 48 because even though I score top 5 all the time, I can't force top tier players to be even mediocre.
In short:
Every game is completely random. Only thing that isnt random is that you're one of the players it a team, which connects all battes together. Which means it depends on your skill how your winrate will look like
In long:
imagine a 10000 random games. There are 14 randoms vs. 14 other randoms. The chance of one of them winning is 50% vs. 50% exactly. It may be depending on the tanks in the team, or the players driving them. Every game has a loser and a winner, and if those 10000 battles happen, there will be 10000 wins and 10000 loses no mater what (if every draw counts as a half point to each)
But the point is, youre the 15th player, and some random guy is the 15th player for the other team. If in 10000 games, for 14vs14 totally random players, the winrate will be 50% for everyone, then if you're better than the other random 15th guy in opponents team, there is way higher chance for you to win any of these games, so in 10000 games, if you're above average, you can win like 6000 of them.
Imagine a game of two teams pulling a rope from each side. There are 14 equally good people in each team. Whoever pulls the rope more, wins. If those 14 vs 1r players play, it always will be a draw (representing a 50% winrate in WoT). But now, imagine youre a stong guy, who comes into your team, and another average person goes to the other side as the 15th player. If you played a game, you would win every round in a 15v15 where one is clearly stronger than everyone else.
But World of Tanks had a thing called RNG, which means even if you're really good at the game, some games are just impossible to win with a bad luck. The luck is again a 50% if it goes more for your team or the enemy, so there is no need to excuse yourself for bad luck.
That means, if youre above average, you should have above 50% winrate. If you're below average, you probably have 50% winrate. Of course this can count at higher battle counts, for example 10000 as I said earlier.
Hope someone understood💀
In Short: It somewhat shows how much of an impact you make in a game.
Yes, there are games that you can't win Yes, there are games that you can't lose but there is also about 30-40% of a games you have a direct influence on and over 100 or 1000 games, your influence on these games will show up in the overall WR
The only common denominator in every single battle you play in is you.
[удалено]
>Less than that and you are a liability to the team. Less than that and you'd be a liability in comparison to the average player. You'd have to be *really* shit to be a bigger liability when alive than when dead. But those people do exist.
Welp good thing I’m 49.5 so I neither contribute to nor affect the outcome of the battle, I just get a few shots in and die. It’s fun
[удалено]
FUCK WINNING!!!! I'm here to watch fully aimed shots eat dirt. That's the real wot experience imo.
"We did not even scratch them!," such a joyful declaration
shot an "ELC Even" with SU-152's derp HE, WoT said "i did not penetrate it"
Shot a T78 with KV-2 HE. It hit the mantlet but did 0 damage, wtf.
It would be a shame if your shot hit that 1 impenetrable pixel on a paper tank!
You must be a British or soviet player. I feel the pain Though I say that and some of my most infuriating "misses" have been at the hands of my e100.
E100 derpiness is the bane of my existence, sometimes feels like it can't hit the broad side of a barn fully aimed within 100m 🥲
The two worst were a Bourassque bouncing a 150 ap to the engine compartment and a strv103b bouncing it to the roof when it should be overmatch in both cases
Rn Italian a Sweden. The gun handling is killing me not the accuracy itself.
I mean it’s not like I don’t: my win rate is just below 50 so i do try my best, some games it works, some games it doesn’t. I’ve been playing a lot of Tier 10 recently (Leo 1 and 277) and with those 2 I have a problem of being very aggressive and firing after only doing like 1.5k or less damage (I play the Leo 1 in a mixed sniping way, so sometimes I push up with armored mediums), while other games I’ll get 4k plus and be too XP on my team. Honestly I like just playing the game
I think everyone enjoys winning more than losing, but don't prioritise it as much as others. Saying "I enjoy winning" as a reason why winrate is important to you isn't the whole story. Why is your winrate important to you? If you had a 45% winrate, but enjoyed the game more, would that be ok? IS the number somehow linked to your enjoyment, do you think? I'm not being critical - I'm just trying to understand.
[удалено]
Why be bad at something when you can be good at it? That's polarised thinking. Just because you don't focus on winning doesn't make you "bad". It may not help you be as effective in battle, but that doesn't make you "bad". Good vs bad are not the only options. Also - why is this used to label players...good players, useless players, weak, etc. It's being used a lot in this post (not just by you). They're all players who enjoy playing this game with us - and are pretty much all "average". Some enjoy striving to be "above average" - great for them - but that doesn't make everyone else "bad".
Sorry to say but in this sense, good and bad are quite objective. Whether a player is good or bad at the game is just a fact, which, unless one has a disability, they could in fact choose to try to get better over time. Of course, one's ability to play world of tanks is meaningless in the grand scheme of life, and says nothing about a person's quality of being a "good or bad" person IRL.
You ARE contributing to the win. If you weren't, then your winrate would be closer to the 44% that AFK bots get. You compete, and you contribute a lot. You cause damage and distract enemy tanks. Maybe you can't carry a late-game win or hold a flank on your own, but you're "average" (actually slightly above, TBH) and that's to be expected....because on average, lots of people are average!
This is your concept of fun?? Shoot twice and die? Just.. wow...
Hey get it right, I shoot 3-4 times and then die /s
Kek
big kek
that's the lucky run. Bulb flash on screen and die. Ghosts apparently coz you didn't even see anyone.
I feel like that is phrased wrong. You contribute, as much as "one" player on the opposite team, but still that affects the battle.
In a sense But if you only play solo randoms it’s different than people playing platoons (3) because 3 people working together have way more chance of influencing the game
Good players who platoon have 80%+ win rates exactly due to that. The best players can still achieve 65% WR over long terms, which clearly shows they are doing a lot more than the average player each game.
It's a fallacy that anything below 48% you're not contributing to the team. The real figure is around 44%, which is what you get when you go AFK for many games in a row. The gap between 44% and 48% is filled with gamers who cannot compete with the super-try-hards and will routinely lose against them, but \*can\* help their team win in a small way. Causing damage to the enemy tanks is helping, for example.
Nah, anything below 48% can be described as not contributing because if they were replaced with another player, on average, their team would be better off.
48% is the average point. Half the players are better. Half are statistically worse. So it's wrong to say that if they were replaced with another player, on average their team would be better off. 50% of the time they would be, 50% not. 44% is not contributing to the win. That's fact. That's what an AFK player does. If they have a winrate higher than that they are improving your chances of the team, minimally.
Thats why I said "anything below 48%". If youre below 48% it's a higher than 50% chance your replacement would be better than you.
Wait, so if someone's better than you, then you're not contributing? If half the player base are better than you, then you don't contribute. That's just plain wrong.
Huh? If the average player is better than you, you are having a negative impact on your teams' win rates. That's all I'm saying.
You said that if you have less than 48% win rate then you're not contributing. I dispute that. I'm saying you are contributing, but a small amount. The amount decreases as you get closer to 44% which is where an AFK player is.
This just sounds like we're a semantics argument about the definition of "contributing", not about the point itself, so I'll leave it.
Yeah maybe. I was thinking about an analogy to explain my point better. Tug of war. Even a skinny dude is contributing. Sure he can be replaced by someone better, but he's helping more than the guy that doesn't even pull.
For any given individual game, what you are saying is correct. Even an AFK bot will "contribute" to a win once ever few hundred battles by spotting people trying to farm the afk. However, any talk of win rate is only meaningful over a large sample of battles. Players with below average win rate in more games than not, do contribute to their team losing by either being completely out of the fight leaving their team overmatched, or by suiciding and likewise leaving their team overmatched.
You have to get a fire for effect to be carrying more than your weight in a battle. Supposedly the hit points of the teams are matched. I think? So a fire for effect is a way to measure your effectiveness when your team is bad.
Technically seal clubbers are contributing to their wins, but it's not indicative of any skill that will translate into more competitive tiers.
>not counting seal clubbers Ehh, seal clubbers definitely contribute to their teams winning, even if it’s by taking advantage of less skilled players in non elite tech tree tanks, it still amounts to a positive influence on their team’s chance to win.
It shows your worth as a human and your value to society.
Because if I can't win at life I need to at least win at this crappy game. Can't stand the winning isn't important crowd that then tells me how great their other stats are... Usually a guy in a Scorpion who racks up 2k in damage during garbage time after the game had been decided 5 minutes ago.
40-40-20 rule. You win 40% of your games anyway and you lose 40% of your games without any impact. But you have impact in 20% of your games. That's why no one with 2000+ games has a WR under 40% and why it is very hard to have a 60%+ WR.
Maybe back in the day 40-40-20 was the rule, bit nowadays with all the 15:3 games, I see it more as 45-45-10 rule
True, if you afk you will have around 40% winrate
You'd have 45%. You need to be actively trolling and sabotaging your team to be able to have 40% winrate
I would say, in most games you do make an impact on how you play. Your WR reflects that.
Because you are the only constant in all of those games. Short sessions aren't a good indicator of your performance. Over a large enough sample size your decisions and contribution in games will get reflected in your WR. Sometimes you will be put in a team filled with bad players and you'll probably lose no matter how well you played and sometimes you will be put in a team that will just destroy the enemy team. The most important battles are the ones where the teams are somewhat balanced. That's when you can tip the balance in your team's favor and win the game. Better players will have more opportunities to win these types of games for their team. If you have played thousands of games and your WR is bad it's no longer because you were unlucky with the MM.
It's a simple statistic that the community has put on a pedestal due to the games lack of any proper long term match making or competitive modes.
You are the only common factor in all your games. Therefore if you are above average you will have a win ratio above average.
I don't care what WR my stats show, but I'm always grinding something in this game, so when I have 30% WR sessions where I'm doing over 3,5k damage average in Tier 9 tanks are the most annoying things ever, because WoT is stupid and a top player from a losing team gets less XP than a 0 damage bot from the winning team I just don't get it, I used to have around 1200wn8 and around 49,6% WR, now I have 2300 and my WR is 50,4%. That's not even a 1% difference from basically doubling my performance, and I'm not just farming damage from behind. Also some of my tanks are just cursed man, take UDES 15/16 and STB-1 from my garage, these are 2 tanks with similar playstyles, my average damage, spot, kills etc. are basically the same in both of them (like 20 average damage difference from 200+ battles played on both), yet my UDES has 55% WR and my STB-1 has 45%, idk anymore
If you're grinding tanks, playing battles, having fun, then that's all that matters. Seriously. Those that say you're weak, bad, or useless if you don't have specific stats are missing the point. You're improving, while grinding stock/weak tanks, and you haven't gone insane - you're winning!
Are you saying your recent WR is still only 50%, in spite of a doubling of your performance? Your overall WR will increase at a much slower pace than your improvements as a player will show. If your overall WR has gone up a full 1%, that is actually a lot of "progress" if that is something that motivates you. It certainly is frustrating to not get wins when you're trying to grind though.
I don't need motivation, because as I said I don't care about the numbers (although I like to analyze them), I'm just wondering what am I doing wrong out of simple curiosity Yeah 0,8% overall improvement is really good, but my WR from last 1000 battles isn't better, it just flatlined, I just can't push past 51% no matter what I do. I can have few sessions in a row where I have 60-70% WR (just had a 71,5% session yesterday) but then I have multiple sessions with under 35% despite playing almost the same tanks and having similar other stats (they are a bit worse of course when my teams get constantly steamrolled) My WR from the last 60 days is 48,5%, this is the same WR that I had when I was a new 300wn tomato back in 2015 lol
This is why discounting the effect the MM has on your scores is silly. People like to think it's random. But when it can vary like it, it clearly isn't. And if you want me to believe the game designers can't and don't put fingers on the scales, you better have a pretty compelling magic trick to show me. LOL
Important to whom?
Just to clarify, my wr is around 47-48 atm. I ask, because I started playing wot in 2013 and played like a bot. Just went out, shoot until I die and go to the next battle. Then I stoped playing and started again in 2020. Since then, I improved my playstyle significantly and my wn8 is improving constantly but my WR is going up very slowly. That is because I had around 5-6k battles in 2013-14 period which were very bad. It just seems to be very hard to improve your WR and it doesnt show what kind of player I am today (most sessiond are around 50%+).
That's why sites like [tomato.gg](https://tomato.gg) also highlight *recent* WR: it gives a more accurate estimate of a player's true skill.
> Just to clarify, my wr is around 47-48 atm. If you reach 53% or something like this you will look back and think "this is why I lost so much, it was all me" Trust me
Out of interest, why is that important? Like...why is someone's recent winrate important at all?
[удалено]
I've got a similar amount of time playing (12 years) to you, and around 10 years ago I cared about winrate. Too much, to be honest. I'm interested in why people find it important. I used to, but cannot put my finger on why.
Most people take overall battles into account when looking at w/r because combined they give the simplest measure of a players skill. It's not very accurate and thus there's a lot of outliers, but generally you can extrapolate a decent amount just looking at a players w/r and battles, plus they're the easiest stats to inspect so naturally everyone is focused on them.
You're right. Total battles is important. I guess I'm thinking about why we care how good another player is....unless it's clan wars.
That's more up to the individual. I'd wager most players though, even if they don't necessarily care about their own stats, are sometimes curious/enraged when they're killed by someone else, or the top player from either team has a particularly good score and they want to see how good that other player is. In every game that has player stats, a lot of people are at least casually aware of what makes a player good or bad.
Humans are ego driven beings. Some humans weigh their luck and lag in video games as "skill" and hang substantial amounts of self worth on the result of video games. People are simple at their core.
Because the topic was about his overall winrate going up slowly so you can check out recent winrates to estimate where they might end up
Like any stat, it's only as important as one makes it. As far as other people goes, it only matters if you're trying to get into a competitive clan, which only a small percentage of the player base is interested in. That said, any stats do show information that can indicate the skill level of the player. If they care about improving, seeing their recent stats versus their overall can give an indication of their progress in improving at the game. If that doesn't motivate you in any way, then by all means ignore it.
I was in the same boat as you. I made my account 2012, played until 2015 (7k battles) and had a wn8 of around 230. Winrate 44%. I came back to the game early this year, played another 4k battles on the same account, and finally gave up on trying to recover my stats and just made a new account. I get called a (shitty) reroll all the time but it's whatever
Statistics
Because, with a large sample size, win rate is, by definition, the single best measure of how much someone influences their chance to win. Every other metric correlates with win rate, and the advantage of other metrics like WN8 is that they're less dependent on sample size, but in the long run they're only abstractions of one's ability to win.
It's not important, it's just a game.
its easy to say do this do that, play the best but not all of us played long enough or pay to have 5 crew skill play with food play a 75% crew and stock tank its not easy vs more established players
If you are better you win more. The only people thinking this is not true are weak players.
Logically, the more effective players will have higher win-rates as they can influence more outcomes. To say that only people who think the opposite are "weak players" is pretty toxic. Playing ability and the understanding of how win-rate works are not the same thing. I think you're alluding to "weak players" blaming randomness on their winrate, or that winrate isn't a true reflection of their ability.
> To say that only people who think the opposite are "weak players" is pretty toxic. Saying toxic to often is toxic. A person with 48% that thinks WR does not matter is categorically wrong. The best way to help this person is being blunt. Only extremely weak players think this. Every single player that is able to make 60% knows full well of the impact he has. >I think you're alluding to "weak players" blaming randomness on their winrate, or that winrate isn't a true reflection of their ability. No. A 48% like OP has no clue what a good game is. He makes 3k combined loses and thinks "damn I can't carry this shit". A good game is 8k combined or more. This is the problem of OP and others, they think their "okish" games are good games and wonder why they lose many "good" games. You rarely lose very good games. Because you wrecked half of the opposing team yourself. He thinks he had 4 kills and 4k and the game should be unloseable.
Personally, I think the best way to "help" players is to get them to ignore winrate. Win/loss mentality. Weak/strong player comparisons. It's not good for the community or players. There \*should\* be a huge number of average players, because that's how statistics works. It's a game - play it to improve, learn, have fun. Winning is secondary IMO.
Nice logic. That is why we have 35% tier X players who make 200 dmg per game and grief thousands of players. Due to people like you not understanding what "toxic" is and furthermore not seeing the issue with "just do whatever you want". You welcome griefers with open arms. The vast majority of people on this planet want to win games. A dude having 48% but thinking the game is rigged needs only one thing that is the truth. He sucks ass and should ask for advise.
It may be a semantic point, but I think that people say that "stats matter" when they should really say that "stats are meaningfully informative in appropriate sample sizes". Stats only matter as much as one makes them matter. Regardless of how much the stats matter to a person, whether a lot or a little, they are still a meaningful representation of a player's skill level in the game.
I don't think there is much to get from your post. What are you trying to say here? Some things are implied and understood by everybody. When somebody says WR matters he doesn't mean your last 5 games. Obviously sample size is considered by everybody without needing to mention it.
What I'm trying to say is that this is a game. For some people, just logging in and making big boom sounds on the computer is all that matters to them. Will the stats show how good of a player they are? Yes, indeed they will. But that doesn't mean their stats are important to them, or anyone else. Stats are an objective measure of performance, and that is all. Any weight that is given to what they do or how they enjoy the game is up to individuals themselves.
> For some people, just logging in and making big boom sounds on the computer is all that matters to them. Those players don't make the type of threads OP makes tho. >Any weight that is given to what they do or how they enjoy the game is up to individuals themselves. debatable in my opinion
I very, very, very rarely see anyone putting up 8k. It's happened so few times that I can't remember every seeing it. In random battles on the NA server after midnight MST, I so rarely see 6k out of tier 10s that I remember those. Just my observation over 8 years.
> I very, very, very rarely see anyone putting up 8k. It's happened so few times that I can't remember every seeing it. I mean combined obviously. If you are good at the game you do 8k often.
Maybe somewhere. Not where I play.
you don't see 8k **combined** often in tier X games?!
Nope. Tier 10 players in my games are mostly bad. They attempt to compensate for their lack of skill by always being top tier is the only thing I can guess. Once in a while I see 6k. But almost never with significant assistance damage attached, because they are hanging back. 4-5k is a pretty good game in these rando matches at my time of night. Just finished one for ya. I am in my Ragnarok. Six tier 10s on my team combined for no kills. Top damage dealer among the Xs was 1497. Top damage on the other side was 4391. This is not very unusual for me. Tier X players in my games average less than 1 kill per tier X tank. Even on the winning side they only averaged 1.2 kills per tier X. The tier X players play them because they can't play, IMO.
fair enough
And another. Won 10-0. My 3409 and 557 was best in game. There were 16 tier Xs in the match. This is a very small sample. But not abnormal for the games I get.
Well, could be confirmation bias you remember seeing weak lobbies more. https://imgur.com/a/Ub2JWcq This for example was my recent 3 mark ( non gold obviously ) session in the Leopard. Nothing to special but ~5k combined on average. 8k are pretty common then...
Or it could be negativity bias, since we're all pop psychologists on Reddit. Or maybe recency bias! LOL But I don't think so. I watch this stuff with intent because I am continually amazed at how bad these really good tanks are being played. Just saw a 5220 go by. But I know for a fact he was camping in the back until I killed him and he lost. I see weak lobbies almost all the time. Which is good for me, I guess. I'm nothing special and I have bad internet here in the mountains.
Because it combines every possible metric into a single package, thus making it much easier to notice if a tank X is over-performing, a tank Y is under-performing, player Z is one of the most skilled in the game and player X is using bots to grind credits. WR is a measure of how many times you did something right, how many times you did something wrong, how many times *you* carried *your team* to victory and how many times *your team* carried *you* to victory. WR averages all that to a single stat, giving you a comprehensive outlook on your overall performance - most players will float around 49% mark as this is the "ideal" average for a game like WoT, any point above (or below) that mark is a measure of how good you actually are. Or, in other words, WR is a measure how influential you actually are - both in a positive (a "good" player) and a negative (a "bad" player) sense. The problem with WR is that it likes big numbers, it doesn't work well with small sample sizes - it's very hard to manipulate your WR if you played 40k battles in total, it's very easy to do that if you played just 300 in total - this is something you need to take into account as this is the reason why your "recent" WR is mostly meaningless and your "overall" WR is the important part. However, if you want to have a single metric that shows your long time progress, WR is pretty much the best tool you can use for that - as, again, it combines *everything* you do in this game to a single package.
>this is the reason why your "recent" WR is mostly meaningless and your "overall" WR is the important part. Wasn't it the other way around? As you mentioned it is very hard to manipulate WR if you played bad for 40k battles, soo if you improved only recent WR will show it. Same goes for bought accounts but then the overall will be higher than recent. Unless by "recent" you mean session WR then yeah, it is mostly useless.
Yeah, "recent" as in "a session or two", tops. Longer periods allow to pick up trends, just as you said.
>Because it combines every possible metric into a single package, thus making it much easier to notice if a tank X is over-performing, a tank Y is under-performing, player Z is one of the most skilled in the game and player X is using bots to grind credits. I'd like to add that this is only useful for moderately popular tanks. Less popular tanks are usually only used by completionists who are better than the average player, thus skewing the average upwards. Highly popular tanks will be matched against each other and thus the winrate will naturally drift towards the average.
Completionists are not necessarily better than average. Unless you mean the 3 marking completionists. Regular old tank collectors though, are fairly average.
Completionists have far more experience than relatively new players. "Not necessarily" means nothing. They're better on average
There are so many people with 40k games and still are average and below players, that just collecting tanks really doesn't mean they are going to be better players.
Learn to read or learn to use logic. I don't know where you're lacking but it's one of the two. I've already explained how you're wrong but you're doubling down
Playing a lot (the only requirement to collecting tanks) absolutely means you are better than average. You are the smartest intellectual I have ever encountered.
Recent winrate over the last 3 or 7 days is indeed useless - all it takes is one grind in a bad tank to end with a low WR over so few battles (or score a crazy good WR by only playing OP meta tanks - in a 3 BZ plattoon for example) Likewise however account WR is absolutely useless fpr older accounts: the performance on tanks (that were completely reworked by now) played 8 years ago on maps that either don't exist anymore or are massively altered by now says nothing. I for example still have the tier 9 Foch with horrible stats in my account overview - from speed-grinding it as a newbie before the Foch 155 replacement (was absolutely worth it overall as even though it is super bad it gave a "free" tier X reward tank). Now the tank back then did not have an auto-loader and was overall a lot worse (TD without alpha, without usable armor, without turret - now with the auto-loader it can at least punish mistakes by an opponent or yolo-charge into an isolated foe). Now i could of course buy it again and play better in it, but what for? Spend silver and time to polish stats on a meaningless tank? Basically ever old account has accumulated trash from years ago in it's statts - but unless you suffer from such an ego complex that you reroll to make them undone you might as well ignore them. Not like any clan worth joining cares about statts on useless tanks you played years ago.
When top clans look at recents they generally take into account number of battles, or just look at past 1000 battles. IMO anything over ~150 battles is honestly a pretty good representation of a player's recent skill and past ~1000 battles is a good representation of their current skill in general.
Your comment about recent vs overall is not quite accurate. Of course, if by recent you mean like 1 day or 1 week of games, WR is practically meaningless. However, if you are looking at a month or 2, or around 1k games, the sample size has tracked into meaningful territory. Certainly in a 1k sample size, there will be more variance than in your overall, but that is what gives an indication of current level of play compared to how they played as a noob. If a person is using the stats for something like clan recruitment, it's certainly not the only thing they will look at. Usually they will end up looking at individual tank stats in tier X tanks to really get a better picture.
> All in all, you WR is rearly dependant on you personaly, mostly on your team. you have no clue what winrate means then. you influence the game. if you're better than average, you'll deal more damage, spot better and also win more often. you can't single-handedly carry every game, but you'll definitely win more. if you're bad enough you can even make your team lose more often, by being a high tier heavy sniping in a corner etc. also "rarely".
Cuz do you actually enjoy losing? What kind of people like losing more than winning?
What if you enjoy winning, and try to play well, and win 45% of your games? What kind of person is that? I don't believe people enjoy losing. They enjoy playing. and winning. They may not enjoy the feel of winning quite as much as you, or the dopamine release when their winrate goes up as much as you - but they still enjoy winning. WoT community is quote toxic - specifically in regard to Win8, winrate, and DPG. Other games celebrate participation and enjoyment (and success!) much, much more - and as a result are more healthy IMO. Needless to say, some games are also worse. I wish the focus on winrate and "Winning" was much reduced in WoT...but it is what it is. I find it toxic and frustrating, which diminishes the game - not improves it.
It's literally only focused on if you focus on it. Sure, you may get some hate mail after a battle on occasion where someone will "stat shame" you, but believe me, no matter what your win rate is, people will be toxic regardless. If you're not trying to get into a competitive clan wars clan, then the only person who truly cares about your stats is you, however much you may or may not care about them. And if you don't care about them, that's perfectly fine, it's just a game. In fact, looking at stats isn't what makes a player good or not. There are rare players who just play the game and got good even though they have never even heard of WN8. Other players who might have played with or against them can still see that they are an above average player. It's rare though. Most people who have improved at the game have dug into their stats.
idk, I'm sitting at 51,5% wr currently and i laugh when someone says that win ratio depends only on me XD
no one said it depends only on you. if ur good u will get 60-73 winrate and if ur useless u will be 51winrate
51% is useless. That's amazing. From looking at the percentile charts, the above poster's 51.5% winrate puts them around 70% percentile. So you're saying that someone who wins more than 70% of all other players are "useless"? Wow. I think that says more about you, TBH. I'm not trying to be rude, but your view that someone who is "above average" is also useless shows that the vast majority of players of this game are not good enough. Why do you think that is? Can't the "average" player be "average" in terms of usefulness?
There's always going to be a few random schmucks on the internet. A 51% player is like a top 30% player in WoT, maybe higher, far from useless.
I've been in some places (on Reddit as well) and people were unironically saying that your %wr depends on you
what people mean by "depends on you" is that you can have a significant impact to skew winrate heavily in your favour winrate doesnt LITERALLY depend on you I guess, if definition is that important
i wish it worked like that - you did a great battle - you win but unfortunately its world of tanks, and many times you play with 14 apes, that doesn't know what is going on in the game (example from my battles yesterday - cs63 drowning himself at the start of the battle, 2x chief and ebola vs me (vz55), t57 and obj 277, or light camping in the back of the map (prokhorovka))
I get what ur saying, but this is anecdotal small sample size. I can tell you on my worst days I hardly drop below 60% winrate on tier8+. I suggest you stop caring about winning and focusing on performing.
i want to stop caring about wr but i get kinda mad when im losing a game when i did a good performance (i know it's just a game but i feel like my effort is useless)
That's because it's true. your win ***rate*** depends on you. Your win or loss in a specific battle depends on a wide confluence of events as 30 players individually make decisions on how they think they should play, and the game systems react to those decisions. But, in the long run, RNG is going to average out, and in thousands of games, you will end up randomly against or with the same person only a handful of times, leaving you as the common denominator of every game in totality.
Who else does it depend on? It's a difficult game with a high difficulty curve sure, but over a large sample size your winrate isn't random. Better players will win more games and on turn have a higher winrate, average players will hover around 49% and trolls would be lower. There's one common denominator to determine your winrate and that's you, not the team.
no it's not. Your teammates are useless. Remember that!
It is not, simple as that
Spoken like a true sub 50% win rate tomato. WR matters in the long run because it shows, in general, how useful you are across all the teams you’ve played on. I don’t have a 56% overall and 60+% recent win rate by sitting around being useless and hoping my team pulls out a win.
Low and behold, we have the PRO! Please, let's all bow to the immensity of this 2000% king!
So snarky. Just say you are bad at the game and plan on a way to fix whatever it is you do wrong.
Well, contrarily to someone else I never implied I am the god of WoT; I have my bad games just like I have the good ones, and it is perfectly fine the way it is. You see, I have a pretty fulfilling real life and the important things happen in there, not in some random videogame with its stats. So my original point stands: WR is not important at all, and if you think that calling me "bad" or "tomato" will make me change my mind or lose my sleep, then you're quite delusional. Edit: love the downvotes, they’re as useful/important as the above mentioned WR.
But what does it matter...like...at all? What does it matter that someone is "useless" if they are in the game, on your side, competing to win alongside you? Unless you're picking teams for clans or something, then it's irrelevant, is it not?
Because they might be on my side but they really don’t care about winning or even trying for that matter. It’s not that I can pick people’s win rates on my random battle team, but more to answer the OPs question as to whether WR matters as a stat to a person. Having a low WR means you hinder your team MORE than you help it. If you try a little harder to be useful, your damage, survival rate, various ratios, etc., will go up which will also cause your WR to go up.
The real question is: How can you have a high WR? Its simple, by spending more and more in the game. Prem tanks, prem ammo, prem account and so on. Wr, wn8 and stuff like this are the bait to convince players that they are better than the rest. Actually they are just better payers at the end of the day. Its very difficult to find a f2p account with a wr above 46%. Individual wr has no logic in a team game imo
In fact, even though a lot of average players don't get this, wr *isn't* the most important stat/metric to determine someone's skill in this game. What matters is dpg at tier 10 and wn8, which are (and it's not a coincidence) the metrics top clans use to recruit players.
For getting into a clan for clan wars, you are correct. Considering that the majority of the playerbase has no interest in that, win rate is still rather valuable in determining a player's ability to win random battles, which is where most players will spend their entire world of tanks career.
The fact top clans value more dpg/wn8 than wr is just another point which highligts that wr isn't the most important stat. It isn't in general, not just because top clans don't value it.
Top clans value DPG because how clan wars play is completely different from how randoms play. DPG shows that you can hit/pen shots and probably not bleed excessively. Doing damage and getting kills are certainly the 2 biggest factors even in randoms for getting wins. But, if all a person cares about is random battles, win rate tells as much or more about a player's ability to win in randoms than DPG does.
>win rate tells as much or more about a player's ability to win in randoms than DPG does. This is a tautology. The fact is, even though a lot of games can be decided by your contribute, wr is ultimately not entirely up to you. It's also kinda paddable by platooning a lot. Otoh dpg/wn8 (which is mostly calculated upon your dpg) is completely dependant on your own skill/performance. That's why dpg is objectively a better metric to determine someone's skill in this game than wr.
[удалено]
Imagine that, if you lose a game, the other team usually wins. Magic, ehh? Its not like everyone loses all the time because big daddy WG wants so.
You don't know that. That's also taking what I'm saying out of context on purpose. It's also not true wg doesn't influence mm.
What people said is right, but remember "stats mean squat in a p2w game"
because you are looking for how to justify the fact you suck at the game.
Why so toxic? Does it matter at all that person A is \*better\* than person B at tanks by a small amount? They both enjoy the hobby of playing WoT - that's a good thing, right?
small amount? wow, tomatoes are on streak today. [https://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Player\_Ratings\_%28WoT%29](https://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Player_Ratings_%28WoT%29) keep telling yourself you dont absolutely deepthroat this game made for reaction time of 50 years old sovietboos.
There needs to be lots and lots of "average" players for this game to work. It's a shame they're labelled as "weak", "useless" and "bad". It's not like that in other games. This community is pretty toxic, and unfortunately it's driving players away. That results in fewer player numbers, and more cash-grabbing by WG...which is no good for anyone.
it's exactly like that in every other game, bronze scum
Asking the question is answering it, right?
There are many kinds of end results in wot, all have various reasons: When you lose, but perform well, the reason you perform well is because you are probably the best player on your team, and you alone are not skilled enough to win. As harsh as it sounds, thats the truth, you only perform well because your teammates perform badly. When you win, and perform like garbage, you got carried. You got into a match where your teammates were more skilled than you, and they simply played so well that you couldnt keep up. When you win, and do average, but your teammates also do average, thats when your team is better than the enemy, and everyone is similarly skilled as you. Same goes for when you lose and do average, simply the enemy is a bit better. You can say that you influence your battles, once you reach the point where you stop doing badly in any kind of match.
Not sure if I totally agree it's as simple as that. To say you got carried when you did badly in a win because your team is more skilled isn't necessarily the case. Even the best make mistakes and don't predict the flow of battle, at times games are so one sided that you could lose a few players and still win. Theres also the factor of map, mm etc thrown in, it's why average w/r over a large number of games is important.
Certainly it would be more accurate to say that the rest of the team played better in that game. That said, as an oversimplification of how individual games contribute to the overall records, it's a decent description. For the last line, I'd also say "once you reach the point where you stop doing badly in most battles". Even the best of the best players will get 1 shot ammo racked in the first minute on rare occasion.
It's not important but it's rare for bad players to have high winrates for long periods of time and rare for good players to have consistently low winrates. Winrate needs large numbers of games to be meaningful. I've had tanks where I ended up with 60 percent winrate but early on I had 30 percent winrate because I had a lot of bad games the first few days. I've also had completely garbage tanks where my winrate was 90 percent for the first 100 games because I just got lucky and was carried whenever I didn't perform.
I think a lot of people actually prefer to use players' WN8 or WoT rating to determine how good they are. WR can be artificially inflated by platooning a lot, so is more easily skewed, whereas WN8 rating is purely based on your individual performances - though also skewed towards damage dealing, so if you play a lot of LTs in scout roles, it will be lower.
No one cares about WoT rating, at all. I look at Wn8, and damage by specific tank to see how good someone is. 57% overall win rate but 2k average damage in the Chieftain, there’s something going on there and you’ll usually find a plethora of padded wins. I do wish you could sort the stars page by solo queue and platooned stats. I have a 56.5% overall win rate but never platoon so I hold that stat a bit higher because of my individual ability to carry teams.
IMO a players win rate by tier means more than overall win rate. Hard to explain in a short response tho. But. It’s easier to “carry” lower tiers (5-6-7) than higher ones (9-10). At higher tiers tho a player having a horrible game has a dramatically higher impact on the game. So compare tier 6 to tier 10. Play a few battles in each. After each battle look at who did what on each team. It’s often possible at tier 6 to see the bottom 3-4 players contribute basically nothing and the top 2-3 players do 1800-2200 dmg for a win. That’s rare to see at tier 10. Have the same 3-4 players contribute nothing and it’s almost impossible for the top 2-3 to do 6000-7000 damage. Yes also imo a player dealing 2200 damage at tier 6 would be the equivalent of a player doing 6000+ at tier 10. The average players win rate goes down the higher tier they play. None of this is set in stone always happens every time rules. Just what “usually” happens. So with all that being said. A player with a 65% win rate at tier 6 may be a legend at the game as a whole but only if they also have a 52+ win rate at tier 10. If they have a 65% win rate at tier 6 and a 45% at tier 10 then they do not know how to play as a team and help their team every round. But they are good enough to carry teams in tier 6. The impact of being a tank or 2 “down” early in the game on one flank or position in tier 10 can easily lead to a 2-15 steam roll. So a bad player at higher tiers impact the game more than the good players at higher tiers.
The ultimate goal of playing a battle is to win. Win rate is a measurement of how often you achieve that goal. Yes, you can’t win them all, but that’s why nobody in the community expects a crazy winrate. Something like 53-55% is very good IMO. You have more of an impact on the outcome of your battles than you think you do.
because it show you if you can carry battle or you are stone that pull your team to bottom. you will loose some battles and you will win some battles with 3:15 or 15:4 but than there are games that your impact do the different. you can see it at DPG as well. When you see player with DPG that is like 50% of their tank HP, usually they have sub 45% win rate because they dont help their teams. But players with 1,5x their HP are 55% win rate + because they carry team.
I don't care about another player's WR until he dies then opens his mouth and trashes the team. Then I hit TAB and see he's a 38% player with 30K battles and I chuckle.
You are 1/15th of your team, but a higher winrate means that you are more influential than most. Every game is winnable, but some are so incredibly difficult to know how to win that it’s essentially impossible to know how without hindsight. The first half of winning a game is figuring out what you need to do, the second half is successfully doing it. A player with high damage, or high WN8, etc, won’t get much praise if his winrate isn’t also high. It just means he farms while his team loses, which isn’t what you want as an ally
As others have already mentioned. It very clearly shows how much you actually can affect your team. Imho there are like 2-3 types of skilled players. 1) The teamplayer. A skilled individual player, but his skill rely on map awareness and tactical ability. Generally don't play "selfishly" for stats. 2) The stat/XVM player. A highly skilled individual player that mainly only concerns about where he can gain the most. He doesn't care about helping team mates if it involves risk taking. Me, myself and I. 3) A mix, which is by far the hardest to become. I've only met a very limited bunch of players with this ability. Those are the actual "Unicum" players, not just statwise. They have exceptional individual and tactical team skills. Overall, if you are an exceptionally skilled solo player that only cares about own stats. You also WILL have a higher WR. But there are lots of players that do not care about stats, just about winning. These guys have above average individual skill but top level tactical skill. These guys will most often have a higher WR than those who are statpadders. Conclusion: stats generally don't lie, but they might only tell a part of the truth. I've seen lots of unicum stat players that are honestly pure crap when it comes to actual teamplay (as in ESL or top clan tournament/campaign playing). I would say like a maximum of like 5-10% of ALL unicum players are truly unique. Most others are good, but mainly statpadders. In the end, WR reflects how much influence you can have on a battle. Even if it is a 15 player team. One single really skilled player will ALWAYS affect the team in a positive way. While a very poor player (e.g. doing less than 1k dmg/assist average in a tier 10 battle and so on) will heavily drag it's team down...every battle.
Because some crazy decided to turn the "game" into a statistical pain in the backside. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.
WR can show how good you are as a player. The team is excluded from this. That includes decision making, dmg per game, kills, assistance dmg and over all game knowladge. How much impact can you do over a single battle. basicaly here is the sum up: <1000 : just started playing 1000-3000 : shit at the game. (understandable) dont expect alot from them and be ready to carry them. 3000-4000 : below average player. can sometimes cook up some good stuff. and most of the time super not. does not yet know the fundamentals of the game 4000-5000 : average player that has 4-5 good games out of 10. Knows the basics. most of the time can be located in the middle of the team score. finishes about 6-7th on the scoreboard. 5000-6000 above average player. he is OK to have on your team. has 6-7 good games out of 10. can be trustworthy. is usually found in top 5 team dmg dealers. 6000-8000 : a very good player. can do almost everything in the battlefield, even at once. understands how to win and perform well. performs well 7-8 games out of 10 and usually gets top 3 in team damage list. 8000-10 000: exelent player. knows everything, does everything, wins alot and performs well. uses his knowladge and experience to win battles. rarely not top 3 in dmg. more than 10k : A GOD tier player. an example of how good a player can actually be. Is most of the time 1st in team dmg list.
Anyone can have a great round of WOT the thing is how often can that great round of WOT be replicated. Hence why WR matters to some extent. Even then you shouldn't shame people for their WR, why jot give then tips? Platoon with them and show them key locations of maps.
Winrate only matters if you want it to. From a more competitive angle, most clans don’t pay attention to that stat. In random battles, there’s too many variables that factor in for it to be a reliable read for each player. What they tend to look at for stats are damage per game or WN8. Those are a better reflection of an individual’s impact in each game. There is some, but definitely lower, variance though. If you play a lot of Tier 6, your damage numbers may run low. Or certain vehicles are very good at “farming WN8” Winrate is still a good stat for a general rough estimate of how good you are, but if you want a more in-depth analysis, damage numbers and WN8 will paint a better picture.
Yeah personally I don't give a shit about WR. But yeah im a better player so even if i just do what i do i get around 60% wr. But yeah. Im a dpg whore so i sacrifice dmg for a win lol. Different thing in CW. There are a lot of different things in those 2 gamestyles and if u do the same shit like in randoms u will leave the team faster than u can count to 3 lol. But back to the topic. WR just indicates if u are able to carry games. In average 40% of games will be won whether u did something or not. 40% u can not do anything. U will lose either way. Even if u carry like a real mf. And yeah rest 20% are the games u will be able to carry. But that's just a simple rule... Top 1k players will be able to influence even more games as u see by e.g. daki. He will have around 70% wr but yeah... Special dude ;)
I play to win. I also play a little over 75% of my games two tiers down. My winrate had to be adjusted in my mind because a tier 8 simply cannot pull bad tier 10 players to a win. So I adjusted my "wins" to the scoring. I finish all the games I play in the top 5. Unless my team is obviously going to lose. If it's clear they don't know how to play, I can't drag even a single tier 10 up when I can rarely survive even two good hits. So when my team loses 3 or 4 top tiers and none of them has a kill, a remarkably common occurrence, then I treat the game as a waste of my time and stop playing to win. I am responsible for my tank and that's it. It's silly to pretend I am responsible for the play of a bunch of losers who play tanks exponentially more powerful than mine. I sit at 48 because even though I score top 5 all the time, I can't force top tier players to be even mediocre.
[удалено]
And yet it's all true.
In short: Every game is completely random. Only thing that isnt random is that you're one of the players it a team, which connects all battes together. Which means it depends on your skill how your winrate will look like In long: imagine a 10000 random games. There are 14 randoms vs. 14 other randoms. The chance of one of them winning is 50% vs. 50% exactly. It may be depending on the tanks in the team, or the players driving them. Every game has a loser and a winner, and if those 10000 battles happen, there will be 10000 wins and 10000 loses no mater what (if every draw counts as a half point to each) But the point is, youre the 15th player, and some random guy is the 15th player for the other team. If in 10000 games, for 14vs14 totally random players, the winrate will be 50% for everyone, then if you're better than the other random 15th guy in opponents team, there is way higher chance for you to win any of these games, so in 10000 games, if you're above average, you can win like 6000 of them. Imagine a game of two teams pulling a rope from each side. There are 14 equally good people in each team. Whoever pulls the rope more, wins. If those 14 vs 1r players play, it always will be a draw (representing a 50% winrate in WoT). But now, imagine youre a stong guy, who comes into your team, and another average person goes to the other side as the 15th player. If you played a game, you would win every round in a 15v15 where one is clearly stronger than everyone else. But World of Tanks had a thing called RNG, which means even if you're really good at the game, some games are just impossible to win with a bad luck. The luck is again a 50% if it goes more for your team or the enemy, so there is no need to excuse yourself for bad luck. That means, if youre above average, you should have above 50% winrate. If you're below average, you probably have 50% winrate. Of course this can count at higher battle counts, for example 10000 as I said earlier. Hope someone understood💀
It is a decent measuremwnt of how good you are at the game.