Jump to content

GE_Capital

Members
  • Content Сount

    1,884
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    6590
  • Clan

    [OO7]

Community Reputation

1,073 Superb

2 Followers

About GE_Capital

  • Rank
    Lieutenant
  • Insignia
    [OO7]

Recent Profile Visitors

1,734 profile views
  1. GE_Capital

    Why are good clans penalized in clan battles?

    Looks to me like there's a huge fax machine in the USS Lexington museum, printing true threads left and right.
  2. 500k is not that hard to do, try 600k now it start to be a challenge . My best is....ah wait, crap.
  3. I love watching all of the players without skill at the game, try to dictate the design direction of the game. You will not get better at the game because of island height. Please stop trying to kill the game we enjoy.
  4. GE_Capital

    Why is MM so bad to BISMARck

    Struck the extra text. There's not shame in being bad. Recognizing that you are bad and working to get better is how you stop being bad. You don't play it. Bad ships, but most especially bad battleships, are not very playable.
  5. GE_Capital

    Why is MM so bad to BISMARck

    Bismarck is bad. Very bad. No, it does not get uptiered more than other T8s. It is just bad. As to your question, "is there anything im doing wrong", the answer is yes, according to this page: https://na.wows-numbers.com/player/1028762232,ItzYaBoyMe/.
  6. GE_Capital

    Update - Min Graphics Card requirement unable to play

    That's a bad idea. Most units on Ali Express are trash cards flashed to appear as a better card. I trust used cards from eBay, Craigslist, and Facebook Marketplace far more than that.
  7. GE_Capital

    Pattern?

    Hello, I am a product designer. Please stop.
  8. GE_Capital

    Pattern?

    Wargaming actually set up Storm Area 51 as a sociopsychological experiment upon the average winrate of the playerbase during times of crises related to extraterrestrials. Fax.
  9. Hit rates are just about the worst stat to track. One can easily achieve nearly 100% hitrate in any ship by yolo'ing and firing their guns only at minimum range. Obviously, this is an extreme example, but it illustrates well that differences in playstyle account for different hit rates at least as much if not more than player skill. One way this can play out in a match is, consider two Henri IV players - one who plays at long range, and one who charges in. The one who charges in will have an average of less than 50,000 damage, but a good hit rate, since he is so close - his dispersion will be less, and doesn't have to lead targets as much. The one at long range will have much higher damage numbers, up to double or even triple, but will have a lower hit rate because of dispersion and longer time-to-target. However, he will have a much higher contribution, not only because of the damage, but because he will dodge more shots, and live to the end game contributing all the while. On the other hand, winrate is the best stat to track, for obvious reasons. So no objection there. In a random match, damage and kills are most certainly the highest contributing stat value towards victory beyond winrate itself. Very few games are 'standard battle' type, and rarely are those outright decided by a base capture (that is, not games where the base is captured after killing almost all of the enemies already). Most games are 'domination' type, and the vast majority of those are decided by kills - only in a minority of games will the team with fewer kills win due to points. For the former, damage and kills are the sole influence on victory. For the latter, they are still contributory (as the winners probably sunk ships threatening capture points). So for almost all matches, damage and kills are either the sole reason for victory, or strong contributors. If one seeks to label a group of people disparagingly, they ought to use the correct spelling - "dilettante". Semantics aside, you seem to be confused thinking that 'most pro Esports players' have mastered only micro, and do not understand macro play. Macro play is not nearly as lifetime-experience-dependent as you seem to believe. That is evident, at the minimum, by your mistaken ideas of what makes a good Warships player. Let me be blunt. Warships does not require great, or even average micro skills. It does not. The most micro you will encounter in Warships today is dodging torpedoes. Even angling your armor for incoming fire is trivial micro. You adjust your keystrokes maybe once every few seconds. In micro-dependent games, you are adjusting frame-by-frame. Real micro is frenetic. The popular game League of Legends gained such popularity by adapting a traditionally micro-heavy game and making it less so. Even so, you are rapidly clicking and tracking frames and timers. The most sedate League characters and playstyles put anything in Warships to shame. That is one of the major draws of World of Warships for older players - there is no little to zero micro requirement. It is all macro. That's right - most of all results in World of Warships are derived from critical thinking, strategy, etc. solely. It is a thinking man's game. There are two trains of thought going on here. The first is that random teams/teammates are unreliable and unpracticed. This is, of course, true. However, you use that to differentiate then between 'team players' and, assumedly, 'non-team players'. Winrate is tracked as explained previously. So you can easily see who is a 'team player'...because the highest contributing players will win the most. The second thought is something about 'leadership' that seems to be off-topic from this discussion of stats. Very few people in random games will listen anyways. I digress. There are several fallacies at play here. The first is that winrate is too dependent on factors outside of your own actions to be reliable. The second is that divisioning also negatively affects the credibility of winrate. For the first, the fallacy is that you are considering winrate on a game-by-game basis. In any one game, yes - victory will often be decided regardless of your own input. However, over thousands of random games, the only constant factor is yourself. Therefore, after thousands of games, winrate can be considered a reliable statistic with a margin of error much in the same way that polling is conducted or other statistics are gathered. Last time I calculated such, I found that the margin of error within standard confidence rates, for an account with 5,000 games and 65% winrate (mine at the time), was something around 1.5-2%. The second fallacy is much simpler. Yes, divisions have an affect on winrate. This is obvious. It is very helpful, then, that Wargaming includes as part of their API whether a game was played in a division or not. So if one wants to discount games played within a division, they need only to filter it as such then run it through the same program. Mine at the time was about 60% with 2,500 games, generating about a 3% margin of error. This is silly, for reasons that are off topic. I digress. Tracking stats over recent periods rather than overall is important. Beyond that point - silly and off topic. I digress. I won Supremacy League's 2nd league once, and achieved 2nd place in the first league. No further comment.
  10. your plane kills are quite poor, therefore your stats are not nearly as impressive as they look. it is simply RNG that the enemy CVs did not target you, otherwise your stats would reflect the server averages
  11. GE_Capital

    Is Yoshino better than Azuma relative to tier?

    As similar as they may appear, it seems to me that they fill two very different niches. The consensus seems to be that Azuma is a mid-range cruiser hunter. Whereas with Yoshino, I have had a ton of success sitting at super long range and raining HE down - like a better Zao. What's more, equip the 20km torpedoes, and just fire them off in the general direction that enemy BBs will travel, and you'll score a few hits a game (these are far more damage padding bonuses than DD-like.) Effectively, you have a 20km Shima strapped to your side with one additional torpedo. I find it to be my favorite T10 cruiser currently, and I really, really like a lot of T10 cruisers.
  12. It angles just fine (its belt is actually quite tough). It cannot "angle" at short range against 15"+ guns. This is the same as the vast majority of heavy cruisers. That is the only historical qualifier for "heavy cruiser". 11.9 detection is not excessive for a T10 CA. The citadel is far less vulnerable than Moskva, Stalingrad, Minotaur, DM, etc. Nah, both are fine. Yes, just like the Alaska is a mini-Iowa, or the Stalingrad is a mini-Kremlin. Neither of those have 400mm belts, either.
  13. Man, oh man, I wonder what nation/class this guy plays a lot. Shock value: 0
  14. You must have forgotten that being alive is a prerequisite to firing your guns. Please refresh your knowledge. Then git gud.
  15. This just in: bad players can't figure out how to correctly play endgame content. currently averaging 134k dmg. This ship is literally just a better zao. Git gud.
×