Your Win to Loss ratio in EOL

gimp · Post by **gimp** » 14 Feb 2012, 23:05

Was discussing this with some people in EOL and i thought it'd make for a cool topic.

Some notable players in no particular order:

Zweq - 1600(battles played) - 600(battles won)
600/1600 = .375 = 37.5% of Zweq's balles end in him being first, one could further say that Zweq has a 37.5% chance of winning in any given average battle at this given moment.

Markku - 2100 - 650 - 31%

Jeppe - 950 - 400 - 42.2% (highest?)

Kazan - 2150 - 760 - 35.3%

Zero - 4300 - 820 - 19.1%

Moonjelly - 500 - 4 - 0.8%

gimp - 1000 - 180 - 18%

I realize there are a lot of variables that come into play. Maybe some people come into balles late, quit balles, maybe Jeppe plays a lot of balles with very little players in them. They don't determine the skill level in any order obviously, but it's no surprise the best kuskis still have the highest ratios. Whats yours?

Post by **SveinR** » 14 Feb 2012, 23:23

Where do you get the battles played stats?

Orcc · Post by **Orcc** » 14 Feb 2012, 23:24

The new hopefully soon-to-be-published EOL site also shows win percentage in ranking. I think in that beta page there are a little fewer battles in database (some older missing pasibly), but Zweq has 51% ratio there which is the highest.

SveinR: I think he's taking rough number from the ranking graph.

Post by **SveinR** » 14 Feb 2012, 23:33

Exact ratios for those listed using only battles from 2011 (with the exception of Nov-Dec):

Zweq: 49.83%
Markku: 58.58%
Jeppe: 49.19%
Kazan: 52.91%
Zero: 33.31%
gimp: 22.41%

SveinR: 12.35%

These stats are provided by Kopaka (for GAA jury).

anpdad · Post by **anpdad** » 14 Feb 2012, 23:39

lol i have almost the same exact numbers as Kazan according to these graphs, the differences are so marginal it's scary.
This an interesting stat to look at, but pretty inconsistent and it doesn't really tell anything. Well, except for player's attitude - if the percentage goes down over time, the kuski most probably doesn't try as hard to show good results as he used to, etc etc. Will be cool to have this number publicly shown on eolsite though.

Pab · Post by **Pab** » 15 Feb 2012, 03:08

i would like to know my ration since competed and got top5 battler in 2011

gimp · Post by **gimp** » 15 Feb 2012, 04:24

Yeah i was using a rough estimate of the graph numbers. That's cool though all of their percentages this year are better than their overall. Assuming we are all getting better the more we play, does that mean Markku, Kazan, Zweq, and Jeppe are getting better quicker than others are getting better? anyways if they win 50% of all their balles they need to go against each other more.

Bjenn · Post by **Bjenn** » 15 Feb 2012, 10:22

I would say these stats are very inaccurate, almost half of the battles I join I don't even play, after seeing how bad they are.
My 23% winrate in eol stats would probably go as high as 40% probably, when knowing how many battles I skip after just entered them.

Grace · Post by **Grace** » 15 Feb 2012, 10:36

Bjenn wrote:I would say these stats are very inaccurate, almost half of the battles I join I don't even play, after seeing how bad they are.
My 23% winrate in eol stats would probably go as high as 40% probably, when knowing how many battles I skip after just entered them.

The stats are accurate, it's very simple.

If you choose to not play the entire battle or not to set a good time, then you lose the battle. Just because you decide not to play does not mean you are no longer part of the battle.

In 2011, your win ratio was 31.42%.

pawq · Post by **pawq** » 15 Feb 2012, 15:00

I'd LOVE the graph of particular positions back :(((( Maybe it could be updated weekly or so, not to eat the server up? :(

Bjenn · Post by **Bjenn** » 15 Feb 2012, 15:47

Haruhi wrote:
Bjenn wrote:I would say these stats are very inaccurate, almost half of the battles I join I don't even play, after seeing how bad they are.
My 23% winrate in eol stats would probably go as high as 40% probably, when knowing how many battles I skip after just entered them.
The stats are accurate, it's very simple.

If you choose to not play the entire battle or not to set a good time, then you lose the battle. Just because you decide not to play does not mean you are no longer part of the battle.

Now how can you say that this is accurate stats? When I have not proven how good time i could of driven on specific level?
If stats were to be accurate at all I would have to F1+enter every battle, see how good it is and then decide whether to play it or not, then the stats would only count the battles I actually played.
<Haruhi> Logic = ?

pawq · Post by **pawq** » 15 Feb 2012, 15:49

Bjorn jesus fucking christ -.- your logic = women level
any stats are accurate compared to actual events, in this case actual events are results of actual battles, and those stats were presented, being as accurate as possible
what you're talking about is accuracy relative to your SKILLS, and what fucking kind of stats is that?! How can you ever obtain such stats in any case?? are you braindead? :L

abruzzi · Post by **abruzzi** » 15 Feb 2012, 15:53

Bjenn get a Brejn

jonsykkel · Post by **jonsykkel** » 15 Feb 2012, 16:04

seems youre misunderstanding bjarne, wat hes trying to say is that these stats are a bad measure of actual skill since many people join a balle do 2 tries and orka and end up with 0 aples, that doesnt mean their skill is equivalent of someone who cant even get an apel

Bjenn · Post by **Bjenn** » 15 Feb 2012, 16:10

I don't even ;D

Lousku · Post by **Lousku** » 15 Feb 2012, 16:24

Yeu bad wording. Stats are accurate but not a good measure of skill in every case.

niN · Post by **niN** » 15 Feb 2012, 16:24

Well imo, some ppl stick it out and play sucky balles for good stats, and some don't. Just because you perform bad for whatever reason, does not mean it should not be counted in your stats.

pawq · Post by **pawq** » 15 Feb 2012, 16:27

Lousku wrote:Yeu bad wording. Stats are accurate but not a good measure of skill in every case.

exactly

Chris · Post by **Chris** » 15 Feb 2012, 16:28

Bjenn

Igge · Post by **Igge** » 15 Feb 2012, 16:36

niN wrote:Well imo, some ppl stick it out and play sucky balles for good stats, and some don't. Just because you perform bad for whatever reason, does not mean it should not be counted in your stats.

And what they're saying is that these statistics are not good indicators of skill, because they aren't. "Sticking it out" just to get better stats has got nothing to do with skills.

niN · Post by **niN** » 15 Feb 2012, 17:21

Igge wrote:
niN wrote:Well imo, some ppl stick it out and play sucky balles for good stats, and some don't. Just because you perform bad for whatever reason, does not mean it should not be counted in your stats.
And what they're saying is that these statistics are not good indicators of skill, because they aren't. "Sticking it out" just to get better stats has got nothing to do with skills.

Well actually then, what is skills? In playing elma a lot of things come to play, patience is one of them.

I think so anyway. But I guess if you want to put it down to the bone elasto mania skills, then it would be damn near impossible to get accurate stats since levs are so diffrent.

pawq · Post by **pawq** » 15 Feb 2012, 17:34

anyway, stats never relate to as subjective things as skills ._.

Chris · Post by **Chris** » 15 Feb 2012, 17:40

Pawq wrote:anyway, stats never relate to as subjective things as skills ._.

Never is wrong word. There are many amazing sportsman that have amazing stats, so there is sometimes obvious relation.

pawq · Post by **pawq** » 15 Feb 2012, 18:37

Not directly at least. And when they do they are rather not accurate.

Chris · Post by **Chris** » 15 Feb 2012, 19:13

Pawq wrote:Not directly at least. And when they do they are rather not accurate.

You can't objectively measure skills, so you can't say anything about accuracy. What I mean that sometimes player or anyone seems to be talented, but stats don't reflect that, but often they do. I don't think you can say that Markku, Zweq or Kazan are bad players. You said that stats never relate to skills, what is wrong.

pawq · Post by **pawq** » 15 Feb 2012, 19:14

not directly, i corrected myself

Chris · Post by **Chris** » 15 Feb 2012, 19:15

What do you mean by directly anyway?

Kopaka · Post by **Kopaka** » 15 Feb 2012, 19:25

Bjenn wrote:If stats were to be accurate at all I would have to F1+enter every battle, see how good it is and then decide whether to play it or not, then the stats would only count the battles I actually played.

I usually do that, and I think everyone should. Closest thing we've got to an "opt-in" option for battles. As has been said it's simply impossible to filter out those battles where you don't give your full effort when doing any sort of stats. Even if you don't care about stats a bad result still affects other players (ie. if you're a high rated player other players get a lot of points for beating you).

J-sim · Post by **J-sim** » 15 Feb 2012, 20:01

An idea, which of course means coding and is unlikely but nevertheless, could be something like you're allowed to play 10% of the battle duration and then choose to opt out. This would probably be best if it was a manual decision by the player, so that if for example someone like Kazan chooses to play the last 9% of a battle and wins it he can obviously choose not to disregard his result.
This could bring problems of people taking the decision to opt out too lightly and not go for the remaining 90% of the battle if they feel it's not going well. I would imagine this wouldn't really be a problem though since people should be in eol to actually play elma.

Lukazz · Post by **Lukazz** » 15 Feb 2012, 20:50

Kopaka wrote:
Bjenn wrote:If stats were to be accurate at all I would have to F1+enter every battle, see how good it is and then decide whether to play it or not, then the stats would only count the battles I actually played.
I usually do that, and I think everyone should. Closest thing we've got to an "opt-in" option for battles. As has been said it's simply impossible to filter out those battles where you don't give your full effort when doing any sort of stats. Even if you don't care about stats a bad result still affects other players (ie. if you're a high rated player other players get a lot of points for beating you).

EOL is serious business, yo.

Grace · Post by **Grace** » 15 Feb 2012, 21:43

Bjenn: If you decide to orka play anymore, it is YOU that is ruining the stats, not EOL. Ez to simply F1 + Enter like most do.

ville_j · Post by **ville_j** » 15 Feb 2012, 22:17

One time I thought like "I will now start playing all the balles I enter properly!", but most of the levels are just so shit that I have to quit because I don't want to torture myself, not even for teh stats!

Igge · Post by **Igge** » 16 Feb 2012, 06:46

Haruhi wrote:Bjenn: If you decide to orka play anymore, it is YOU that is ruining the stats, not EOL. Ez to simply F1 + Enter like most do.

I didn't even know you could. o,o

abruzzi · Post by **abruzzi** » 16 Feb 2012, 06:49

maybe bans for 0-applerers in easy battles? jappe2 will be delighted to execute 'em

Bjenn · Post by **Bjenn** » 16 Feb 2012, 08:45

Haruhi wrote:Bjenn: If you decide to orka play anymore, it is YOU that is ruining the stats, not EOL. Ez to simply F1 + Enter like most do.

I don't even care about the stats, I just made a point after I saw this topic that those stats of winrate is inaccurate.
And what you just wrote is exactly the same as I wrote. I never said I dont orka play anymore, what's ur deal anyway.

Lousku · Post by **Lousku** » 16 Feb 2012, 08:48

Bjenn wrote:stats of winrate is inaccurate.

Seriously? Ok, I'm out. =D

Zweq · Post by **Zweq** » 16 Feb 2012, 09:24

I'm pretty(100%) sure there are some errors in the numbers, for example special battles being included in the battles played but not battles won. Only that can explain markku 31%, who has had 50% or higher throughout the game's history. You can safely ignore the numbers on elmaonline.net and wait for the new site.

gimp · Post by **gimp** » 16 Feb 2012, 22:33

Bjenn not sure if you read my post but pretty much stated everything you already said. I also said it is no surprise that the top players also have the best win ratios. So although maybe these stats didn't work for you in general they give a rough idea at least for SOME people. Yeah zweq I thought markkus was a bit low for him too. Don't know.

pawq · Post by **pawq** » 16 Feb 2012, 23:47

Zweq wrote:I'm pretty(100%) sure there are some errors in the numbers, for example special battles being included in the battles played but not battles won. Only that can explain markku 31%, who has had 50% or higher throughout the game's history. You can safely ignore the numbers on elmaonline.net and wait for the new site.

in what ways is it going to be better?

Bismuth · Post by **Bismuth** » 17 Feb 2012, 01:17

I must be like 0.1% lol

culinko · Post by **culinko** » 17 Feb 2012, 02:43

i played like 5-10 battles and ofc didn't win yet. so my number is najs, 0% =)

Grace · Post by **Grace** » 17 Feb 2012, 06:00

SveinR wrote:Exact ratios for those listed using only battles from 2011 (with the exception of Nov-Dec):
Markku: 58.58%
These stats are provided by Kopaka (for GAA jury).

Zweq?

Post by **SveinR** » 17 Feb 2012, 13:38

Hm? I wrote Zweq's ratio as well?

Grace · Post by **Grace** » 18 Feb 2012, 06:21

SveinR wrote:Hm? I wrote Zweq's ratio as well?

nono, was referring to Zweq's statement that Markku's ratio was 30%, i quoted your post as evidence

A.K.B. · Post by **A.K.B.** » 8 Apr 2012, 15:39

This seems like intellectual masturbation to me.

Besides, Zweq only doesn't have 100% winrate because he played 1000 battles against me.