I have been one of the most mislynchable player. So please start to give me freepasses. I am good guy, you do not just undertand me yet.

Apparently I have the lowest Lynched % of anybody in the database. The one thing I'm good at!

I know who I'm spite lynching next game!

I wanted to mention this too...
Lol at Joey to be vanilla villager ;o)

Wolves have won eight of the last ten games.

get it together village!

People who made this tool - YOU ARE ALL LEGENDS!!!


I am a pro villager....


.... Filtering to minimum 90 games, I not only have the Lowest death percentage, I also have the highest average survival rate. I'm like never nightkilled and when I'm seer, I live FOREVER!!!!!


I'm not actually sure if thats indicative of how pro I am, or how much I am considered an awful player amongst the games elite!

this is cool, nj

Awesome stuff guys. Thanks for all the work.

Is there any way to report errors? This game got recorded as a vanilla+ when it should have been a slow game vanilla:

http://www.checkmywwstats.com/index....Lost%20Reports

I also think some of the wolf bro/village bro stats are off.

Hope I don't sound nit picky, this is quite a resource. If you need some help w/ either manual data entry stuff or some coding/design, let me know and I might be able to pitch in.

Lost Reports is right. It can't be classified as a normal slow game, seeing as it's extremely slow + you had to submit one post per day to the mod. That makes it a different concept game = vanilla+.

I think I also saw Krayz saying that the "bro stats" seemed off yesterday. If it indeed is, we'll fix it

Lettuce see how well the Power Rankings line up with the $tats.

Wolves:
1. well named: 53% win rate
2. TL: 44%
3. Luckay: 47%
4. CPHoya: 55%
5. wahoo: 57%
6. atakdog:48%
7. Sun Tzu: 28%
8. bsball: 45%
9. derwipok: 53%
10. mets: 39%

Villagers:
1. Chips: 49%
2. CPHoya: 48%
3. Luckay: 53%
4. atakdog: 56%
5. Swiitch: 50%
6. Sun Tzu: 49%
7. well named: 50%
8. wahoo: 54%
9. TL: 43%
10. mets: 49%

I would say my impression is that win rates are fairly randomly distributed

except for soah

I would say that people overestimate the ability of players who they have been exposed to and like as well as who others have "confirmed" as being good while underestimating others who they dont like or dont agree with like IMP.

i absolutely agree with you there

I've been insisting I'm mediocre for years and I think the stats bear me out

This is obviously pretty clearly the case, especially wrt villa win rates. Shorty may very well be the best player, but he is only one man and as such has a limited influence on game, especially given that good play will get him nk'ed early. Team aspect and nk balancing makes win rates almost rand.

I can confirm that wn is medicore at best.

Nooo I'm Pretty sure IMP is who you want on your if you want to win. her Win rate is through the roof man, she gets it done

I think win rate is a fine stat for how good of a player someone is. But it takes far more than 100 game sample size to get an accurate representation.

Had no idea there were power rankings. I'll vote if it happens again.

I think we'll probably never reach a sample size large enough where you can say with any degree of confidence "player x is better than player y because his win% is higher."

I think a very huge sample in vanilla games would make for a useful win rate, yeah. Like shorty may get nk'ed early a lot in vanillas and therefore not be able to control outcome of game very much, but his small influence on early day lynches and most of the time providing cover for seer will show over a very large sample.

If you want to see mediocre just check my stats, i am about 50% in anything.

that's true of any other good player though, but somehow soah still wins 63% of his villa games. also, if you are a spk, that means that the wolves forewent a seer hunt, so it still helps your team.

If i am reading the stats right i am lynched 2.5 times as offend as a villager then as a wolf.

Apparently i am a lot more villagery as a wolf then as a villager according to you guys.

If I were writing moneyball for WW, win% would be the gaudy RBI/pitcher W/L stat and the OBP and sabermetric stats would be like % of times one avoids lynch in any role, % of NKs drawn as a vanillager (particularly while a seer is alive), and longevity as seer. Off the top of my head at least.

I think even the best player over an infinite sample size would probably not win much more than 50% of the time because of all the other factors in a game. I think even if we had lots of players with 100 game sample sizes, they'd all be around 40-60% and the difference between their results would be mostly luck. The results would be distributed pretty similarly to what you'd get if you flipped a bunch of coins a hundred times, is my guess.

I'd gladly take 3:2 odds on anyone w/ a better than 60% win rate that they'd lose their next game of 17+ people (betting play money of course since real betting is not allowed).

Yeah, no, that's what I'm saying. I think with soah it is partly luck (I agree that he'd have a good positive win rate over a huge sample, but it's partly luck/rand that he happens to have one with such a small sample) and partly that I think soah mostly plays vanillas where his skill has a bigger influence on game.

Also thinking that it's more likely to have a significantly better than 50% win rate as a wolf than as a villager. Wolves cannot be NKed for being too strong, they make up a larger percentage of the team compared to villagers, and it's possible for one wolf who's having a great game to carry his team. As a villager, you can get killed early, are one of many, and you can't win the game alone.

Edit: Also easier to be significantly under 50% as a wolf.