You did a great work and I thank you for the time you spent. It just proved what I already knew since the first events like these, especially when I keep reading some saying how easy and fast the event was for them. Gaijin completely ruined events for the average Ground AB player.
1 Like
The real question is, how the devs determined these multipliers? I’m sure they didn’t just set them randomly, there had to be data to back it up.
It’s very strange these multipliers never changed. Especially in the last 2 years we had many score changes that mainly affected Arcade battles.
We had an update that decreased the kill and assist score up to 90% depending from the BR difference between you and the enemy (this mainly affected Air Arcade, where many players use lower BR planes to complete lineups), base bombing score lowered, score for destroying pillboxes lowered, number of assists in Ground modes decreased. And surely more things I just don’t remember anymore.
But nothing changed with the multipliers. They set them once and never recalculated them. Maybe that’s the problem? Unfortunately, there is no way to contact the devs, so we will never know why the multipliers are set this way, we can only speculate.
Air Realistic is the weakest point of these calculations. Usually after 5 minutes half the team is already outside of the battle, because you have just 1 life in this game mode.
During the last WINTER event I actually started playing Air Realistic. As a complete newbie, who never played Air Realistic, I could still complete the event quicker in this game mode than in Air Arcade, which says a lot imo. I used strike aircraft with bombs, bomb bases, use missiles, force head-ons, die, change battle, repeat. It’s so effective score-wise (and especially RP-wise), I was seriously shocked.
2 Likes
Capturing points got their score reduced by a lot if you are not the one getting there first, and even if you are the first one you can get less than 300 score points. They also changed how assists work, not talking about the same you just did, but I remember that they changed which damaged modules would get you an assist if that tank got destroyed.
Agreed. Those stats were from length of game, so they’d always be the maximum in that sense. I think everyone agrees Air games on average are shorter than Ground. Naval, as you and I discussed I think the numbers we had for this two years ago from server replays were skewed by a lot of low-tier, very fast matches (the ones that are 90% bots with two real players), and we didn’t have any data for RB. If someone wants to try and come up with a better method I’d love to recalculate. Best estimate we have so far? Yes.
The fact the multipliers have not changed I think goes to proving a point I’ve made elsewhere. The BR multipliers could still have a factor of controlling for different score amounts (per hour or per game). I won’t say they’re entirely meant to be incentivization to get people to try new things. But I’ve come to believe the mode multipliers are ENTIRELY about incentivization, to get players to move out of the most popular modes into less popular ones, nothing more than that. There is no justification in any of the samples, like this one, to suggest otherwise. They WANT a tilted playing field, luring people to RB from AB; else they would have untilted it, or at least fine tuned it more than they have.
1 Like
During one of those crafting events I tried to do a couple of matches it in Naval AB without playing it since we only had a single naval tree, so before having bluewater and coastal fleets. On my first match without having a clue of what I was doing I got 2 chests of materials due to the big multipliers, while in Ground AB I would have to play 2-3 matches to get the same while being in top of my team.
Yes, but you also have to remember, Naval Arcade battles are much longer than Air Arcade or Ground Arcade. In my experience, depending from the BR, Naval Arcade battles takes about 15-20 minutes at average. Air and Ground Arcade battles are much shorter (usually below 10 minutes).
But yeah, it’s much easier to gain the score in Naval battles. You rarely die from one mistake (unless you are unlucky with ammo explosion), and the game pace is much slower. You basically do less and gain more. That’s why I always preferred to play Naval than other game modes (eg. during the Crafting events). I honestly think the 1.9 multiplier in Naval Arcade actually makes sense. But of course I’m not denying that Naval is the easiest mode to grind events.
PS. I play Arcade game mode and I put my better battles on YouTube channel, so if someone wants, there is a possibility to check battle times and scores on my channel (at the end of the battle I include battle summary screens from the last 2 years):
1 Like
I remember watching your Naval videos and I’m pretty sure you were the reason why I tried Naval AB in that event. I used to watch a couple of your videos but YT algorithm probably never suggested me another for a while now, I thought I got you subscribed on YT, I have now.
1 Like
You got it the wrong way round.
In War Thunder any experienced player can jump into lower BR vehicles and play against newer players without any possibility for them to avoid it. An event vehicle of higher BR would only allow but not force a newer player to willingly play against expectedly more experienced players.
I don’t think they want to lure Arcade players into Realistic. They don’t really need to do that, especially the RP in Realistic is much better (your progress is quicker there). But they probably don’t want Realistic players to switch to Arcade during events, so slightly higher multipliers in Realistic game mode would definitely make sense.
But right now the difference is too big, so I understand where your theory comes from. I can’t explain this difference, but I don’t know which data they used to determine these multipliers. You surely remember in late 2021 the way score works was changed completely. I still have old battles, where I gained over 8k score in Air Arcade playing a bomber. Maybe data they used included such results as well, even if such results are impossible after the changes?
I’m just trying to say, there could be different reasons for the current situation. We just don’t know, it’s all speculation. I’m not saying you are wrong, but your guess is as good as mine.
Thank you, but I’m not trying to advertise my channel here. Just saying, there is an option to quickly check Arcade battle result screens if needed.
1 Like
No, it just means they flew out in a Nesher or a Shahak and that was their top tier for that game.
There’s no way you could filter for users and produce data of any value. Every user would be counted 1-4 times depending on how many uptiers and downtiers they got. The only way to do this from a server replay scrape is battles.
Your determination to con people into uptiering and becoming your food for these events, and to keep your personal coupon price as high as possible for future events as well, certainly seems consistent. It also seems pretty reprehensible, tbh. But like I said, I’m not your judge. But I will continue to point out, using the available data, when you’re factually wrong about what average players score and what you score.
Nicely done. I’d say this tracks with my experience. I’d call myself above average and while I don’t time it I usually fall somewhere between 1-2 hours per day to hit the quota depending on how good of a night it is (in GRB with a top tier lineup).
Then its already a flawed statistic as its including Aircraft into what was suppose to be a data set for Ground… even if said aircraft is in said ground lineup
So thanks for confirming why that data set is flawed and is practically worthless, unless they filter out the duplicate user accounts within the same BR ranges then its utterly pointless “claiming” 260k players in top tier when that 260k could easily have “x amount” of duplicate users because they fall in the same range as other BR statistics in that data set :D
I got the point he was making but surely he should have seen the issue with a claim like that considering 260k at top tier makes no sense when gaijins own online player count has never peaked above 260k… the most its has been is 240-250k yet we all know other BRs are populated too. just yet again proving the inaccuracies of that data set (if it was player count and not battles) which my guess is the data set was battles as it ties in very closely to the Data project I linked.
how does conning people benefit me… the only ones who are conning anyone are you who want a coupon for less than 2 hours of leg work and more than likely expect a quick sale to use on the store which devalues it for anyone who actually wants to sell it for large chunk on the market.
As I pointed out in the other thread some events I never took part in because surprise… didnt interest me, if I was so interested in “coupons” and making a profit why do have VMF-232 in my lineup which is worth 80GJN and was worth substantially more prior, or the C2A1 which is worth 99GJN or the QN for China :D
You make a claim and its instantly made false because of this fact alone, if I was so out for profit why would I use coupons from said events that monetary value wise are already worth more and would easily net several premiums in return if I sold them to begin with.
I said in the other thread that any below a score of 1000 is below average, someone else did the math and there average score in the match was around 1200 give or take and when accounting for longer match times ended up being around 1000 :D what you proved was nothing, it simply proved what I said and that was if your doing less than 1000 score on average as a player it means you as a player are not contributing much to a match so your grind is going to be harder and no event should be balanced around that metric because you might as well not even bother with events.
Gaijin wont change this metric further as its been changed to a good state, its going to be funny when the Air event rolls around and watch people complain even further with that one
Then its already a flawed statistic as its including Aircraft into what was suppose to be a data set for Ground… even if said aircraft is in said ground lineup
10.3 is an SPAA.
the data set was battles
I don’t know why you keep claiming its battles when its clearly stated it’s based on a 100k replays so that’s cant be a million+ battles.
In what was literally a “10.0 bracket” and the 10.3 had an entirely different set of figures… please read what I put to your initial stat posting…
Israel shouldnt even have “any” value in the 10.0 BR bracket on that graph by the youtuber if its player count because they DO NOT have a 10.0 lineup, its either 9.3 or 10.3 with one 9.7 and one 10.3. hence I rebuttaled that statistic as being battles not player count.
There is a reason a lot of statistics use a “range” of 1.0 from low to high in all BRs because it removes this confusion when posting statistics.
100000 replays that have at least 16v16 so 32 players in total, thats 3.2 million players and considering the BR ranges will intersect, do you know how many of those so called “player count” is exlcuding duplicate users because again gaijins own peak concurrent player count has never even gone above 260k :D so you claiming 260k factually isnt possible at this point.
And your still ignoring the WT Data Project battles graph which if you bothered to look closer at it, has an almost identical pattern in its graphing to the one by this youtuber who I might add NEVER claimed it was player count, he never made the claim or how hes filtered out the figures.
Not saying his stats are wrong, I’m saying it has issues because he doesnt clarify much of anything, what it is, did he filter out anything to ensure the data sat didnt include duplicates, was it 100,000 random replays from random accounts or based on the top 100,000 players or etc. or did he pull multiple replays from multiple accounts at once and crossreference the data.
If you wanna post graghs and claim numbers you better make sure its concrete because the moment I saw the gragh it already had issues in its formatting
To put it a better way, Ill use the Israel BR 10.0 graph having “7”
If we assume that is player count right, how did the youtube seperate the values.
Because lets say those 7 accounts have the Mk2D and a Nesher in there lineup, so on paper its 10.0 but has a 9.7 Tank, did he exclude that metric from 9.7 if it got downtiered? or does he still place that player count metric in the 10.0 cell.
Now do you see why this graph more than likely cannot be player count and if it was there are bound to multiple entries in multiple BRs that will surely intersect one another based on the BR of that lineup if its up or down tiered
Gaijins own peak concurrent player count has never even gone above 260k :D so you claiming 260k factually isnt possible at this point.
What does any of this have to do with peak player count? It’s counted over several days as well.
this youtuber who I might add NEVER claimed it was player count, he never made the claim or how hes filtered out the figures.
From the replays he clearly has all the information about the players, their score, their nation, their vehicles being used, so it’s not just battles.
it 100,000 random replays from random accounts or based on the top 100,000 players or etc. or did he pull multiple replays from multiple accounts at once and cross reference the data.
From all the replays from several days as they come by.
Because lets say those 7 accounts have the Mk2D and a Nesher in there lineup, so on paper its 10.0 but has a 9.7 Tank, did he exclude that metric from 9.7 if it got downtiered? or does he still place that player count metric in the 10.0 cell.
There’s always going to issues with determining up and downtiers because it is determined by the highest BR vehicles and people can have a top BR vehicle in a lineup but not use it, and it can end up being listed as an uptier.
Either way with a sample size this large I have no concerns about anomalies, which is exactly what those ‘7’ could be.
Care to put a bet on that.
Spoiler
https://www.reddit.com/r/Warthunder/comments/197zkly/analyzing_unofficial_server_statistics_uptiers/ this is where the image you posted came from.
this is the github code he used to compile the graphs and if you bothered to do some digging in that code you would find the mega link to the .csv data that was used to compile it.
Interestingly it has over 1.2 million replay entries/battle entries and ironically 3.4 million player entries which seems to fall right in line with what I said about if its 100,000 replays with 32 player match lobbies then the total player data set is about 3.2 million which means your bound to have intersecting player names within BR ranges.
So if you think this data set is accurate when I think ive done the bare minimum to prove that its bound to have multiple same entries within intersecting BRs then im done explaining how your claim couldnt be anymore inaccurate based on this set of results because unless the user filtered out duplicate entries which going of the code used I dont see anyway or how he/she has done this then your claim literally is unconfirmable
I dont doubt the stats the user has compiled, but unless his code is making use of code to exclude “same accounts” when it comes to specific BR entries then its simply not possible to confirm the player count let alone confirm its player count or battles
It’s interesting that according to my calculations and observations, the average score (from the last month) you see in your profile is very consistent with the time needed to complete the event. So Bruce’s calculations actually make a lot of sense.
I usually spade vehicles or play strange vehicles that barely anyone uses and my average score in Ground Arcade is only 1162 from the last month (1257 overall).
During this event I decided to not change my plans and just play Strv-103-0, which is a terrible vehicle if you need good average scores.
The first star took me 41 battles and almost 7 hours. This is consistent with my observations about one Ground Arcade battle takes about 10 minutes at average. You can also do easy math here and considering I played at rank 5 (multiplier 1.0) and Ground Arcade (0.93), my average score per battle was 1180. Which is actually very consistent with my regular average score. If you used the method Bruce used, you could get these numbers from pure calculations, and that’s pretty impressive actually!
The problem with this method is, it works very well only if the player stay in battles from the beginning until the end.
The second star I grinded differently. Because I wanted to compare leaving battles early to staying in battles, I again played Strv-103-0, but I played more aggressively, leave the battle after first death and it took me 63 battles, but less than 6 hours. So my average score per battle was only 768, but doing this I “manipulated” the time value.
I know this all sounds weird, but it’s very consistent with my previous observations. If you think about this, when the battle starts, you know exactly where the enemies will be, so you can just go straight to some good position and get a few quick kills (whole enemy team is alive, there will basically always be some targets for you). But when you die, you respawn at the spawn zone and the situation on the map is completely different. Your team is occupying the best positions already, there are less enemies and you have to play much more defensively, because you don’t know which positions enemies took on the map.
It’s not really a question if it’s better (from the score perspective) to leave battles early, because it’s obvious it is better. The real question is: is it better to leave battle early and wait in queues and watch loading screens more often or stay until the end of every battle? This is what I wanted to test, and according to my test, score-wise it’s still much better to leave battles after 1 death (even if you consider loading screens and queue times).
If someone still don’t understand my way of thinking. During the first star grind, I had the battle that shows exactly why it’s better to be aggressive at the beginning and then just leave that battle:
Spoiler
In this battle, I started very aggressively, and after 3 minutes and 40 seconds I already had 2252 score! But it was my first star, so I respawned. With my second life, after additional 5 minutes and 52 seconds I only gained 1038 score. Scoring wise, it was totally not worth respawning.
I did similar test in the past at rank 1, and the results were the same. You could gain more score by playing aggressively at the beginning and then changing the battle.
It could work slightly differently in Ground Realistic. I don’t play there, but I assume if you are a good CAS player, it would make most sense to spawn one tank, play aggressively, die, spawn a plane or a helicopter, use all bombs/missiles, die, change the battle. I’m pretty sure this would give you the best score per minute.
PS: I’m not saying everyone should become one-death-leaver during events. I’m only saying it’s definitely a quicker way to complete the event, especially if you know maps well.
BTW: Don’t use Strv-103-0 to grind the event, it’s a terrible vehicle. Maybe it’s pretty durable, but you lose a lot of time repairing. It’s a much better idea to just use META vehicles.
Well if you want, you can log in excel time when you start battle, time when you leave battle and the score you had in the moment of leaving
Then you can send that to me, I will put it into excel table i made and showed in the other thread, and we will have something to compare.
Just a suggestion.
If you count the time from pressing “To battle!” to seeing a battle summary screen, then it can be misleading. And you don’t really need to do this.
Imagine different players having a different computers at different locations. For example, I have a fast computer and I play on EU/RU servers, which is pretty much the best case scenario. It almost always takes me below 10 seconds to find a battle during events. When someone from e.g. Africa wants to grind the event, he could have a completely different experience with waiting times in the queue.
The important statistics is the time you played in the battle. Loading screens and queue waiting times can be determined separately and will be personal. For example, my queue times take usually below 10 seconds, my map loading screens take 20 seconds, my battle summary screens take 5 seconds to appear. You also have to include 25 seconds waiting time before the battle starts. So in total I can count my time “between battles” as 1 minute. And this time is actually very consistent for me. For other players this time can be different.
But if you want do the proper math, you don’t want to include players computers performance or players locations (that affects waiting times). From the math point of view, this adds more variables that are misleading, if you want to figure out the time that is required to grind the event using different methods. Just base your calculations on the time played, the score and (when needed) add some specific “time between battles” to your calculations, which could be something like 1.5 minutes. This is the only proper way to have a comparable results between different players.