Top 1000 Playeres
Дата: 16.11.2010 14:46:45
EchelonIII, on 16 November 2010 - 02:31 PM, said: By that line, we have a (dis)proof by contradiction that win ratio
is the only thing that matters. The only situation winratio is
effective is when you compare players of the same tank at that
tank, no cross tank comparison.LiannaSilverwind: I agree with that statement, I was not precise enough in my post,
as Baine already mentioned.
We all know teams that are able to lose 10+ of their numbers during first two minutes of battles, including timecounting. Yes, it's nearly impossible to win with such a team, but we all get such teams. Therefore player who has many battles and is STILL able to have superior win/lose ratio is better than player who has similar number of battles and has low win/lose ratio.
We definitely must take into account number of battles. Making good record in 100 battles is possible. Retaining good record over 500 battles is nigh impossible, if player is not good.
Player with generally good win/loss ratio is generally good player capable of driving many vehicles. If player has over 1000 battles with overall 60+% rating, I definitely accept him as very good player in general. Another player may be certain tank specialist, for example superHeavy driver or superScout. That means that in general he/she may have very poor general rating, but be absolute god/-dess in his/her specialist class/tank.
Still win/lose ratio is important for many people - epeen issues, rating issues, clan/platoon recruitment issues etc.
When I seek member for platoon, I'm more interested in his/her win/lose ratio on particular vehicle, amount of battles on it and general win/lose ratio - these things make person good individual player on his/her vehicle and good teamplayer, compared to his/her damage ratio or number of frags. Camping and finishing already damaged targets provide very easy source of such statistics. General experience and amount of battles is grindable/farmable amount, not necessarily providing data upon real skill.
I'd rather take someone with 500 battles on T-44 with 65% win ratio and 250 kills than someone with 2000 battles on T-44 with 45% win ratio and 4500 kills. That's my personal preference.
We all know teams that are able to lose 10+ of their numbers during first two minutes of battles, including timecounting. Yes, it's nearly impossible to win with such a team, but we all get such teams. Therefore player who has many battles and is STILL able to have superior win/lose ratio is better than player who has similar number of battles and has low win/lose ratio.
We definitely must take into account number of battles. Making good record in 100 battles is possible. Retaining good record over 500 battles is nigh impossible, if player is not good.
Player with generally good win/loss ratio is generally good player capable of driving many vehicles. If player has over 1000 battles with overall 60+% rating, I definitely accept him as very good player in general. Another player may be certain tank specialist, for example superHeavy driver or superScout. That means that in general he/she may have very poor general rating, but be absolute god/-dess in his/her specialist class/tank.
Still win/lose ratio is important for many people - epeen issues, rating issues, clan/platoon recruitment issues etc.
When I seek member for platoon, I'm more interested in his/her win/lose ratio on particular vehicle, amount of battles on it and general win/lose ratio - these things make person good individual player on his/her vehicle and good teamplayer, compared to his/her damage ratio or number of frags. Camping and finishing already damaged targets provide very easy source of such statistics. General experience and amount of battles is grindable/farmable amount, not necessarily providing data upon real skill.
I'd rather take someone with 500 battles on T-44 with 65% win ratio and 250 kills than someone with 2000 battles on T-44 with 45% win ratio and 4500 kills. That's my personal preference.
Archives\Beta\Top 1000 Playeres