Worst WL Ratio?

[Porkstorm]

Well im going to hit 400 games now and havent won again so...... haha

I've played 2800 and only won 190 :/

 

[jcbat]

I've played 2800 and only won 190 :/

I hope after a 1000 i get better hahaha

 

[Billa]

It's actually 'TheSoulCairn' have a look.

I've played 2800 and only won 190 :/

I've played that many games but I have over 800 wins..

 

[ShaunDepro]

The lowest is 0... owned by everyone who haven't won a game.

 

[Porkstorm]

It's actually 'TheSoulCairn' have a look.


I've played that many games but I have over 800 wins..

I am pretty terrible

 

[mikag35]

Mine is 0.191254597 which sucks :/
But my first 600 games or something were on a 5 FPS computer and I won none of them so gimme a break.

 

[SixZoSeven]

Back in Summer of 2012, anyone who had a 0.33 W/L ratio was considered good. I can remember having friendly competitions with people to see who could get the best W/L ratio and the high peaks were right around 0.38.

Nowadays, the standards have really changed. You need at least an active 0.4 w/l ratio to still be considered highly competent. When I say 'active' I am talking about more recent personal statistics and not accumulative W/L ratio. For example, I have an accumulative W/L ratio of roughly 0.36. Nothing special at all. More recently, I have started to gain interest in getting wins as well as generally being one of the better players out there. I scrolled to a random portion of my game history (though it was still within the past month) and based off of the section, I have won 20 games and played 16 giving me a W/L ratio of roughly 0.56

Even looking at my most recent 37 games (the amount of games that fit in on my screen at one time, I have still won over half of my games despite participating in some events like nate's livestreams where I played for fun and ended up losing 5 ames in a row.

I am surely not the only one who has proven this. There are a countless amount of people that have seen a change very similar to this one with the exception to the degree of change.

To conclude, W/L ratio standards have increased over time. (Not to my surprise)

 

[iDufferz]

Back in Summer of 2012, anyone who had a 0.33 W/L ratio was considered good. I can remember having friendly competitions with people to see who could get the best W/L ratio and the high peaks were right around 0.38.

Nowadays, the standards have really changed. You need at least an active 0.4 w/l ratio to still be considered highly competent. When I say 'active' I am talking about more recent personal statistics and not accumulative W/L ratio. For example, I have an accumulative W/L ratio of roughly 0.36. Nothing special at all. More recently, I have started to gain interest in getting wins as well as generally being one of the better players out there. I scrolled to a random portion of my game history (though it was still within the past month) and based off of the section, I have won 20 games and played 16 giving me a W/L ratio of roughly 0.56

Even looking at my most recent 37 games (the amount of games that fit in on my screen at one time, I have still won over half of my games despite participating in some events like nate's livestreams where I played for fun and ended up losing 5 ames in a row.

I am surely not the only one who has proven this. There are a countless amount of people that have seen a change very similar to this one with the exception to the degree of change.

To conclude, W/L ratio standards have increased over time. (Not to my surprise)

I know you probably won't know who this guy is since you play on us, but Mindahl #1 in eu in July,August had an amazing ratio of 53% and he stopped playing around September.

 

[SixZoSeven]

I know you probably won't know who this guy is since you play on us, but Mindahl #1 in eu in July,August had an amazing ratio of 53% and he stopped playing around September.

Yes, I remember that name. A 0.53 ratio was indeed quite impressive back then. Even today, you hardly see that.

 

[Billa]

Back in Summer of 2012, anyone who had a 0.33 W/L ratio was considered good. I can remember having friendly competitions with people to see who could get the best W/L ratio and the high peaks were right around 0.38.

Nowadays, the standards have really changed. You need at least an active 0.4 w/l ratio to still be considered highly competent. When I say 'active' I am talking about more recent personal statistics and not accumulative W/L ratio. For example, I have an accumulative W/L ratio of roughly 0.36. Nothing special at all. More recently, I have started to gain interest in getting wins as well as generally being one of the better players out there. I scrolled to a random portion of my game history (though it was still within the past month) and based off of the section, I have won 20 games and played 16 giving me a W/L ratio of roughly 0.56

Even looking at my most recent 37 games (the amount of games that fit in on my screen at one time, I have still won over half of my games despite participating in some events like nate's livestreams where I played for fun and ended up losing 5 ames in a row.

I am surely not the only one who has proven this. There are a countless amount of people that have seen a change very similar to this one with the exception to the degree of change.

To conclude, W/L ratio standards have increased over time. (Not to my surprise)

To be honest here, I don't find that W/L ratio shows to much of what a players potential can actually be.

I've noticed some people's PvP are much greater than what their W/L shows, because say Darkrai for example. He played AU servers that were hosted in Singapore for a good 6-7 months on 1000 ping, practically ruining his ratio, making it around an 0.18 %. Since the AU servers were moved to Australia and a great connection increase he has managed to pull of around a 0.4 and kept that since the move. Making his W/L around 0.3.

More astounding is actually Kytria (sorry I'm basing these on people you may not know but they're excellent PvPers) he was on around a 0.3 W/L before the move, he has managed pull 0.6 W/L ratio since the servers have moved which has now average out his regular W/L to a 0.45.

Would just like to inform you on that.

 

[Porkstorm]

Y

To be honest here, I don't find that W/L ratio shows to much of what a players potential can actually be.

I've noticed some people's PvP are much greater than what their W/L shows, because say Darkrai for example. He played AU servers that were hosted in Singapore for a good 6-7 months on 1000 ping, practically ruining his ratio, making it around an 0.18 %. Since the AU servers were moved to Australia and a great connection increase he has managed to pull of around a 0.4 and kept that since the move. Making his W/L around 0.3.

More astounding is actually Kytria (sorry I'm basing these on people you may not know but they're excellent PvPers) he was on around a 0.3 W/L before the move, he has managed pull 0.6 W/L ratio since the servers have moved which has now average out his regular W/L to a 0.45.

Would just like to inform you on that.

Ik thAt is me

 

[SixZoSeven]

To be honest here, I don't find that W/L ratio shows to much of what a players potential can actually be.

I've noticed some people's PvP are much greater than what their W/L shows, because say Darkrai for example. He played AU servers that were hosted in Singapore for a good 6-7 months on 1000 ping, practically ruining his ratio, making it around an 0.18 %. Since the AU servers were moved to Australia and a great connection increase he has managed to pull of around a 0.4 and kept that since the move. Making his W/L around 0.3.

More astounding is actually Kytria (sorry I'm basing these on people you may not know but they're excellent PvPers) he was on around a 0.3 W/L before the move, he has managed pull 0.6 W/L ratio since the servers have moved which has now average out his regular W/L to a 0.45.

Would just like to inform you on that.

I respect and appreciate your post, but I was not informed about anything. To be honest, my previous post indirectly supports the idea you are trying to convey towards me.

Ever since 2013, I have been getting unexplainable lag to the US servers. Ever since I switched to the US servers, I have gotten around a 0.20 increase in W/L ratio.

You mentioned how Kytria has gotten a higher W/L ratio...but why? You said W/L ratio does not show a players potential yet you are trying to use W/L ratio to prove to me whether or not a couple of players are good or not. I wrote this about a half hour ago and I feel it would now be appropriate to post here.

"It is impossible to determine pure skill off of a game like this...especially when using numerical statistics to do so.

Let me explain:
The Survival Games is a game of both skill and chance. Although it is not hard to come upon a general consensus on who is 'good' and 'bad', it is hard to pinpoint the best player(s). For example, let us say I am playing a game of Survival Games. I have full leather armor and a wooden sword. As for food, I only have uncooked porkchops. I end up running into a team of four people that all have higher tier gear... (chain/iron - stone/iron/diamond wep - flint n' steel - bow & arrow(s)) Chances are, I am going to die given that my opposition have an IQ that allows them to operate and function as your average human being. (You have to think about it, if they have gear as good as that, they must be somewhat decent at the game) On the other hand, I might be the one in full iron+diamond sword and I am faced with a team of four that have a few leather items and wooden axes.

Based off of these hypothetical but completely possible scenarios, we can deduce that there are a wide variety of variables in the game thus rendering it impossible to truly determine skill off of numerical statistics. Take Gravey4rd for example. Looking at his statistics, we can see periods where he is on streaks of both winning and losing. Of course we can all agree that he is a skilled player, but I would not doubt that during his streaks of winning, he was fortunate in many of those games with good chests as well as not having to deal with an enormous amount of teams. On the other hand, during his streaks of losing he probably had unfortunate occurrences such as bad chests, being chased from corn by armed tributes, or something along the lines of the first scenario listed above.

In the end, the Survival Games are not an accurate way to determine pure skill. In more basic terms, there is no 'best' player. A more accurate way of determining skill, especially in terms of PvP, would be to pit two players you want to compare against each other and give them identical gear. Then, have them fight on the same exact terrain about 100,000 times. But, to be more fair, switch their starting locations at the 50,000 halfway mark. Unfortunately, I don't expect anyone to ever do this as it is quite the task."