evilleMonkeigh

What times to play, quitting while you are ahead, playing particular tiers or ships. They all sound like gameplay choices to me. Heck, if you meet a seal clubber in a game, chances are you are meeting him under clubbing conditions i.e. in his 70% win rate Clemson. A feeling of moral superiority doesn't help you beat him. He's still good, in the conditions you are meeting him. It's like playing against a unicum division. You can argue they are not as good solo.... ....but if they never play solo, then your point is moot. Weekend threads are common because confirmation bias is a thing. Arguably, if your opponents AND team mates are bad, then you (if you are good) should be even MORE influential. I.e. if you are a "B" level player and both your team and opponents are "C" level you are less influential than if everyone on both teams are "D"level and you are the only "B." According to the laws of probability, win or loss streaks should be EXPECTED i.e. in 1000 games a streak of 8+ losses (or wins) would be normal. A perfect pattern of win-lose-win-lose for too many consecutive games would be convincing argument FOR a rigged MM. Likewise, due to the nature of the game (i.e. each time your enemy "scores" you also lose a ship) avalanche losses should be common. I mean, imagine a sport where each time you get a goal the other team also loses a player. Would you expect games to be close all the time? Merely sounds like you don't know when to stop when you are on a tilt. Or rather you do realise, but don't stop. Stopping play when tilted is not stat padding, that's very sensibly not playing when frustrated/feeling doomed to fail, which is not conducive to good play or improvement. Stats are merely to help you improve, not feel superior. I merely find it questionable when people who say (in effect) "math says I am a bad player, therefore math is not real." Or deny that you can alter your win rate - i.e. denying a new player can improve. I personally find it hard to improve or self critique when tired or frustrated. That's time to stop and go outside....

Nah, just trying to help as it seemed you don't "get" how it works. I thought it was just basic innumeracy and inability to make logical connections on your behalf, but I somewhat suspect it is willful stupidity. Ah well, at least it might benefit someone who does not understand the topic. *shrugs*

The team. Which you were part of. The only common factor in 1000s of games is YOU. Your win rate is a series of thousands of games. It's not a single game. No one is claiming you can solo win every game. No, a 60% win rate does not guarantee a win. But if you are winning an above average number of games over 1000s of games, you are above average in competence (and the other stats will support this). Anyone who is concerned about a sample size of 12 games compared to 1000s does not have a grasp of basic mathematics. So you agree with the obvious - that players can be more skilled/competent (some measured by stats like kdr, damage etc) than others? Do you also agree that more skilled/competent players might help their team win more often? Or is a bad player equally useful to helping his team win. Because if a good player does more things to help his team, you'd expect him to win more, right? Which would *gasp* give him a higher than average win rate. So competence might correspond to win rate? And this is where we disagree. Maybe address each of these points and explain where you disagree? 1. Is it possible that a player who gets more kills/damage/survives better etc is be helping his team win more than someone some dies early and does not damage? YES the player who gets more kills, caps and does not die is more useful *2. Does this guarantee victory every game? NO this is why it is a 60% win rate, not 100% for a top player. You are, after all, 1 of 12. 3. Are wins connected to damage/kills/survival ie. game-winning conditions? YES a 40% player will have below average stats across the board/a 60% player will have above average stats across the board 4. Will a player who averages 3 kills a game and 150k damage over 1000 games win more than a player who averages 0 kills and 0 damage over 1000 games? YES of course. He is consistently doing things that help his team win. You'd expect him to win MORE (not ALL) but MORE games than the other player. 5. If you perform more game-winning actions (kills, damage, not dying, capping) than average would you expect to win more than average? Yes. Just like I'd expect Michael Jordan to win more random pick up games of basketball than a guy in a wheelchair. A person who rushes in and dies or AFKs has condemned his team to be down 11-12. While his team can still win, you'd expect his team to lose more often than usual (win rate). 6. Are your stats a historical record of your gameplay choices? Yes. 7. Does playing lots of games prove you are a good player/make you a good player. No. Your stats will support this. I can play 10x the games of soccer he does but it does not mean I am better than Messi. Nor does it mean I am improving. *8. Is it possible a unicum will play horribly and a potato will carry the game? Yes, but is consistently (and historically) very unlikely. I think you are fixating on #2 and #8 (which we agree on) while ignoring the fact your individual actions (capping/killing/damage etc) can cause your team to win or lose more than average, over time. Kinda saying "lots of factors cause wins/loses" while refusing to acknowledge the only common factor in 1000s of your wins/loses is yourself. Win rate can help you become self aware, yet win rate means nothing? Wow the mental gymnastics here are impressive. We agree. A sample of 1000 games is very accurate. A sample of 10 games is very unreliable. A single game is useless. So someone with a proven winning record should be discounted? It's like saying "our opponents in the next basketball game have not lost a game and are 30-0 - but you can expect them to make as many errors as the team that we played last game who were 0-30). Logic does not compute. FYI, I am only an average player who is becoming slightly above average due to using my stats to fix mistakes. I'm not attacking you as a person. I just think your arguments are very flawed, both mathematically and logically. I don't want some other person to see what you've written and go "ah, win rates are random, there's nothing I can do to improve myself" I'm trying to understand you, and have broken this post into chunks. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, just saying the message you are giving me (which is not logical).

Of course your presence does not ensure a win. It is your actions that swings wins. To claim your actions (kills, caps, deaths etc) cannot win a game ....is to claim those actions (kills, caps, deaths etc) have no meaning towards winning. Which is hilarious and stupid. If damage/kills don't matter, then you can still win when you have run out of ships. If damage/kills don't matter, the victory meter would not change when you die/an opponent dies. If caps don't matter, then capping will not accrue victory points to your team. Are you seriously arguing that kills, deaths and caps do not "matter" - aka determine if your team wins or loses? Please respond to this. However, IF these actions (kills, deaths, caps) DO matter towards your team winning.... (which they do, FYI) ...AND YOU (personally) can kill, damage, cap or die ....then YOU (personally) can give your team a better chance of winning. Or are you claiming a person who gets 2 caps a game, 5 kills, and 150k a game is not helping their team more than someone who dies in 5min without doing anything? Now, let's say both players do this over 1000 games. Would you honestly expect the guy with 0 damage 1000x in a row likely to win more games than they guy who gets 1000 Krakens with 150k in a row? Are you claiming they are both equally helpful to their team to win? Because if you claim YOU cannot affect your win rate, that is exactly what you are claiming can happen. If win rate is truly random, nothing you can do can affect it. It should be a dice roll. Players with 40% win rate could commonly have 3:1 kdrs, 60% surivival, and double the average damage. Players with 60% win rate could commonly have 1:3 negative kdrs, 10% survival, and half the average damage. But this never happens. Because damage, kills and caps DO win games. Since YOU can do damage, kills and caps, YOU can win games.

A few tips for 07: Sit back off the cap, just wait for a DD vs BB argument to develop fully, over a page or two, then you will just need to tend the thread by occasionally fanning the flames with outrageous claims that are obvious to everyone except the wildly biased. Since some of the regulars are starting to commit, I think you will be able to farm them without them turning their turrets your way, as long as you go dark when your PT meter goes up too much. Your damage and k:d stats should go up as you will trade more efficiently. I'd aim for a 1:5 or better posts/replies ratio.

I always find this interesting about the "weekend team" complaint threads. Technically, if weekend players are worse on both sides, it should make good players even more influential. It's not win rate, but the level of competence the win rate indicates. I agree the game does a terrible job of making players competent. There is lots of hidden information, but no proper tutorials, or regular pop up tips. There's no way players should be able to get to T10 without knowing how to strafe in a CV, or mount premium consumables.

Yeah, but 11 posts to get 17 replies..... .....you wouldn't think that was a good trade ratio in game, would you? In World of Forums, you need to play more cautiously and let your opponents overcommit into the cap, then farm them while kiting away.

Hmm you guys really need to stop stat-padding this thread by divisioning on the forums. If his solo forum trolling can't stand on its own merits..... If you guys do 2/3rds of the posts, it kinda invalidates his achievements.

Actually I changed my mind about this thread. I actually got a chuckle out of it. Do you want me to change my bored emoticon to a smiling or laughing one?

I suppose it does prove some friends. *grudgingly* Meanwhile in discord "Hey guys I'm so funneh in forums, come and comment in it" It just seems like cheating. There's enough folk who'll comment seriously as it is. I mean, it's low quality effort. I'd like to work out the average win rate of all those who reply seriously. EDIT: Now we have a low quality bait gif, how about a "and now we all throw our heads back and laugh" one?

The circlejerking is a bit sad actually. Let a troll thread stand on its own merits.

So do you retire ships once you get to a certain win rate in them? Do you refuse to play ships regarded as OP and sell them so they do not pollute your pure port screen?

Cheers. Remember to bump this thread for the mental health of the OP. The desperate cries for attention make me feel sad. Do some good. Make this last for 6+ pages. Here, I'll help. RADAR SHOULD BE REMOVED, THE GAME ORIGINALLY HAD NO RADAR AND DD WERE STILL THE WORST CLASS IN DAMAGE & SURVIVAL. *tosses away fuel can, walks off without looking back* Huh? How is my username offensive?

Lol did the OP just get forced name change after posting here? Lol.

Can someone post a low quality bait qif?