Queue times, stretching just talking with friends and bathroom breaks, those i count under “time between battles” and i count them as time between game loading back into menu and loading into next game.
Why not? It shows the average time between battles, that can be used with average match length to make estimates as to how many games you can play in a hour, or how long does it take to grind 22.5k daily/45k total.
Average time between battles i recorded was 2mins30 seconds. Total extra time spent doing things like stretching, toilet etc. was 41 minutes. That time needs to be added to time you actually spend playing.
Ok, so basically your “round start” and “round end” is: the time played + loading screens time + battle start waiting time (it’s 25 sec if your map loading screen is very short, less if it’s longer). Why not just look at the time played or battle time and ignore loading screens? It’s much simpler this way, you only note one value.
I’m just saying you lose a lot of accuracy this way. All personal things like breaks, waiting times etc. should be excluded from calculations. Why? Because they will be different for every single person. More than that, they will be different even for you every time you complete a star! So these additional factors are not even consistent for one player.
Of course this can be showed more like an interesting fact that is very personal and not important from the calculations point of view. But it definitely shouldn’t be compared between different players.
Let’s say someone will add his data to your topic. He will write his “round start” and “round end” and you will do calculations based on these values. But how that person would understand these values? The “round start” can be understood as pressing “To battle!” button, first loading screen, the moment battle loaded, first vehicle spawn and whatever someone understands as “round start”. The same goes for the “round end”. I actually understood your “round start” as the first spawn of the vehicle and your “round end” as the moment the round ends and you see your total score for the battle. So I thought it’s the mission duration - 25 seconds (or the time played if you didn’t die in the battle).
I would arrive at the (almost) same result, but I might use those values in a way i have yet not thought of. Better to have that data than not i guess.
Solution to this wouldnt be to exclude them at all but rather increase sample size from one person (me) to more players to get the average value.
Moreso, I know which server i play on, and what rank/br/nation, and i dont switch lineups/countries when im recording.
so I can calculate the average dependant on those conditions (ie. whats the average X for 5.7 for example).
This can be rectified by simple explanation i will add later to the original topic, and moreso can be explained to person who would volunteer to add his data.
I may just be understanding this wrong. You are saying it takes six hours of play to get a rank 7 in the tech tree? And that this is the same time it takes in events? So to get an event vehicle, it is supposed to take about 6 hours?
It’s better for the reasons you just said, and especially cause queue times are basically non existent in Ground AB .
I play very agressively at the start and get a lot of score very fast in most of my matches, I also play to survive the entire match but there are matches where I die. What I usually do is either I leave to get another match fast if the batlle is already lost or I respawn a SPAA cause that will give you a lot of targets faster than driving a tank from spawn to the middle of the map. I also use the fighters to kill the enemy planes as the air strike begins before I jump back to the SPAA to finish the rest, if I just sat on the SPAA I would risk other players using the fighters getting them first and end with no targets to kill. If you have a good SPAA on your lineup, just try it. ;)
Also from experience, it doesn’t matter to keep getting kills cause they seem to give you less score the more you get, so instead of going just for ground kills try to diversify what gives you the score, like get a cap, kill a plane, get an assist. My biggest scoring matches are usually not the ones where I get more kills but the ones where I do a bit of everything.
So just an addendum to this, as I think it might be getting misinterpreted a bit in other threads.
The score vs placement comparison only works within the same mode (like ground AB). Obviously, an 80 per cent (top-fifth) player in one mode might not be the same level in another.
What you can infer from it is that Gaijin is luring the better ground AB players to try more RB with this kind of score gradient they’ve established from events. A top-third player in AB will get the same score as a top half player in RB. So if they can keep their relative position, they will make more score and do the event faster.
You can also infer from this that Gaijin feels the ground AB player base is less skilled overall than the RB one, which has (arguably) some more complex mechanics and probably a more experienced player base on average. I don’t think this should come as a real surprise to anyone.
What the data also shows though, is why the reverse strat, jumping from RB to AB for an event for an artificial skill boost, likely won’t work, because the best players in AB really don’t have that much more score to get, with raw average game scores of 2100 for the AB top player as opposed to 2000 for RB. The amount you’d gain for even a just somewhat above-average RB player would get, even assuming their average game placement would improve as much as Gaijin assumes, still wouldn’t be worth it.
Note also that ground and air have comparable skill gap based multipliers (about a 40% differential for both ground and air) as opposed to 15% for naval, suggesting Gaijin, at least, thinks the skill delta in that mode between AB and RB players is significantly less than in ground (the two air modes are so different in structure that there could be a few other obvious reasons for a bigger gap than the other modes too, of course.)
Would it be possible from the data you have at hand to make out some comparison, like whats the average score, winrate and K/D, for example on rank III vehicle or vehicles, for both arcade and realistic?
Ordinarily yes, but this is ordinal data, not quantitative.
“80%” here means “my average score and game position is greater than 80% of all the other players in matches with me (and less than the other 20%).”
There’s definitely still going to be some belling (because as the number approaches 100 it gets harder and harder to keep up) but it’s harder for me to say what the shape of that curve would be.
Just looking at the distribution of points on the graphs also suggests a greater concentration of points in the middle and less at the ends. Larger player samples would give a better idea what the distribution is. I’m the sample I used there were only 2 dots above 80 in ground AB and none in ground RB.
Working on something like that at the moment actually, when the grind permits…
In the meantime, another interesting inference one could draw from the data is, if people accept the lines on the scatterplots are a reasonable first guess (yes, more data would be better, granted), then plotting your own dot on the graphs provided (from your ARP and score on your service record) says something about the natural efficiency of your play as opposed to what it should be for events. It helps that a lot of this last month was also an event, in this regard, so if you played it that could be useful to know.
The biggest factor in that, especially if you’re below the line, is going to be BR, but if you’re above there’s likely also an element of doing things that allow you to really run up absurd scores in those few games when it all comes together for you too.
In the sample used there wasn’t a lot of up and down variation for the ground modes, suggesting there aren’t a lot of killer BRs in ground with those kinds of “natural” efficiencies. There’s still the artificial disincentivization Gaijin is applying against playing lower ranks, though.
In air that’s different: a person who does the “Ar-2 arbitrage” strat for events will likely place well above the line and have an easier time of it (as one example).
And if you’re under that line and planning to do an event in that mode, yeah, either switch BRs or identify those “run the table” kinds of strats. Note this is separate from strats that just make you a better player generally, which would just move you up and down the line, not vertically offset from it. If you’re above the line by a lot you’re doing something right that only clicks in when you’re at the top of the team (or as I suspect with naval, but also air to an extent, there’s actually a couple of performance lines in the data for the different BR ranges, not just one, and you’re on the “good” line).
The data you used to get the average scores was from normal gameplay or from playing the event? I’m just asking cause I took the time to calculate the average score on my matches while doing the 3rd mark and I’m getting a slightly higher average score than you but that could be explained for the fact that during events some players play “harder” or optimize score.
I’d say there is little point in using normal gameplay data if you want to estimate event duration. I most certainly play score optimized when doing events, unless I don’t need to worry about time. And I don’t think I am alone with this.
So your service record gives you your average score and average relative position by mode for the last 30 days (as well as lifetime), if you’ve played 100 games or more in that mode. That’s all I was using for this sample of players. As far as we know, it’s good data, although the amount of lag on it is unclear.
People are going to optimize, sure. In this case, “last 30 days” includes a lot of the previous event, so that helps. There are also limits on how much optimizing you can actually achieve when everyone else is also optimizing against you. The flip side of this is the 1200 point player saying they can “turn it on” and become a 2000 point player for events if they feel like it. My experience is that, generally, they can’t and they have a very inaccurate idea how long this event will take them, and others.
The graphs actually show this for ground. If you could just “turn it on and off” statistically there would be more vertical variation. You could make that case here on the data for air and naval, I think. But if all the dots are all in a line, as it is with ground with this sample, that means score and ARP are more tightly tied and all you can do to get more RAW score per hour faster, really is:
A) reduce average match time by quitting faster, as has been suggested already, or
B) do better than you do on average position in your team than you do normally.
Which, again, is going to be non-trivial if the rest of your team is doing the same thing as you. If you’re a top-third player, and you go to a lower BR and an optimized lineup, you still have to actually BECOME a top-quartile player by doing so to actually see event performance gains.
Your point also raises the question, now that the format has changed and there’s always an event, if there’s ever any non-optimized time again.
Yes, I believe in you but what I was saying is that players usually optimize playing during events, just like Dodo_Dud also mentioned, so it’s likely that the average scores will be a little higher than with normal gameplay.
The average score I got during the event is slightly higher than the one in your table which could be explained by just that. But the value is pretty close.
I mean if you’re generally the only player on your team who cares about the event (which could be more likely in AB than RB), then your driving hard to the hoop is going to tend to improve your relative position. If everyone else is also trying to finish the event early, it’ll tend to cancel out.
What we don’t really have a good sense of is how much of the player base gives a toss about any of this. Forum participants are going to be more invested in this stuff than the average player, I suspect, but we don’t know by how much, so we can’t really account for it as a variable.
That’s not how a gaussian works and they are talking about percentiles anyways. An 80% player is within 1 sigma as the ± 1 sigma band contains approximately 68% of the population (0 sigma would be the median player, i.e. a 50% player). So a player at exactly +1 sigma would be an 84% player. Top 0.1% is about 4.5 sigma.
UPDATE: Okay, some people have brought up what percentage of people we’re talking about in each of the categories above. We can crunch the sample we have (N=208) through a standard deviation calculator, assuming the distribution is normal for these purposes and the sample representative, and see what percent of players are better or worse than a given average relative position on their service record. The standard deviation on the sample is 12.502, on a mean of 51.827, if you want to follow along at home. What it comes to is:
50% player (by average relative position) in the sample: Better than 44.2% of all players.
67% player: Better than 88.8% of all players
75% player: Better than 96.8% of all players
80% player: Better than 98.8% of all players.
You can run the same math in reverse, too. Assuming all the many many assumptions above, for an average score of 1500 in ground RB, which is equivalent to the 61% percentile of game results, you can infer that 76.7% of ground RB players will not be able to achieve that score.
For future reference, here’s a breakdown of average relative position values (%ARP) and population of active gamers who can equal or beat them (%POP), assuming representative sample, normal distribution, and sigma and mean as given above:
This is a very good post but it cannot be, i cannot possibly be better than 98.8% of all players in ground arcade battles. I can do 40k mission score in 2.30h MAXIMUM if i play rankVII, even less if i play something broken like the italian sherman lineup at rank3 (7k avg.mission score per battle, 6 battles per hour).
