evilleMonkeigh

I might buy a T8. I hear they are really fun and have great MM....

So you're saying a BB is easier to play/get damage in when driven by scrublords?

I sort of agree. But some stats are more influential in particular ship types. I.e. say it's the YY's radar/smoke and concealment that is the main reason she is powerful. So we take 10% off radar/and or concealment, instead of 30% off dpm (which is silly in a ship which is pretty much identical to a US DD... maybe Pan Asians are shorter and can't load shells as fast...)

One will cost you $50 and one will cost you $1. Q1: Is Le Terrible 50x better than Cossack? (someone find me a Dr Evil "how about noooo" meme) Q2: How often do you need to play a ship to get $1 value out of it?

Is this reliable enough and common enough? I.e. from my personal observation it's about 1 in 10. If it does, demonstrably, cause DD to win more, is it the DD damage causing the win? (see my last post) or spotting; i.e. is WG nerfing the right thing?

I'm curious how DDs can "win the most" Aren't ship classes balanced against each other? "mirror MM" = I.e. for every 2 DD on one team that wins, there are 2 DD on the other team that loses? 1. I understand how WR is relevant for DD vs DD balance (say a Shima has a 45% wr and a Khaba has a 55% WR - that means the side with Khabas on it have an advantage, aka Khaba is a better DD) 2. I don't get how you can reliably use it to balance between classes e.g. BB vs DD (i.e. we don't have many 12 BB vs 12 DD matches) and even games with imbalance in classes (i.e. one side has 3 DD the other has 2) are not so common as to be a large sample size. Further, if extra DD are an advantage and somehow "win more", it would be for their spotting ability not damage; after all, their damage is the lowest of all classes. And a DD getting damage nerfed is the topic of this thread. If the YY was getting its spotting nerfed (via concealment or radar nerfs), it would make sense. It would be like Worcester stealth radar being an issue but instead they reduce gun range by 30%. It's also a big nerf, covering two weapon types, not one. Imagine a BB getting 30% of anything nerfed, let alone dpm.

Search function is your friend.

Skpster, I agree 100% with your post. Both arguments are silly. It's just I see "you can be a good player OR you can play for fun" used a LOT on these forums, as if they are mutually exclusive conditions. Good players are just as likely to be having fun as bad players, in fact they get to do "fun" things more often such as pew pew things, win and not die. Just as it makes no sense to claim bad players can't have fun. Since I see few people making the latter claim, I don't bother to correct them.

1. Most sports do not allow you to remove an opponent every time you score. In fact I can't think of one that does, bar Roman gladiators. I'm pretty sure scoring and gaining a man advantage gets you plenty of momentum. Imagine scoring a touchdown in football and the other team has to play a man down. Wouldn't you be confident of victory if you scored first? The team that scores first in, say, hockey wins 67% of the time. This is WITHOUT getting to remove an opponent. If you got to remove an opponent with each goal, the margins would be even higher... say 75%?? 2. I'm curious how your WoT/WoT guy (even presuming WoWs & WoT has the same devs... which it doesn't) measures RNG for all ships and players in a game, besides very biased personal opinion "RNG is against me and made me lose" which of course appeals to human nature (i.e. blame others) and seems steeped in confirmation bias. EDIT: TL:DR Given common sense and math dictates that the first scorer of a ship kill will win the game the majority of the time, I don't see the need to invent a conspiracy to explain it. It doesn't need secret RNG stuff to make it happen if its baked into the win conditions of the game.

No one player can win/carry every single game, true. Given that the worst players have ~40% solo wr and the best have ~60%, you can conclude that around 40% are unwinnable or unlosable due to your random team mates, and your skill can only make a difference in the outcome ~20% of the time. After all, you can't carry all your team, all the time. It's that 20% variation where you see the ability to carry games. A 40% player tends to influence his team negatively (down 10% on the expected wr). A 60% player tends to influence his team positively, to win 10% more than "expected." Why is it so hard to believe that say Michael Jordan (30pts a game) would win more games than Joe Bloggs (2pts per game) if played on totally random teams, over 1000 games. Over 10 games, it might be possible MJ wins less due to randomly getting "bad teams." But over time, his superior contribution to the game will be seen in more wins. Or are you attempting to say a good player who does 2x the usual damage, kills won't consistently contribute (and thus win) more (over 1000 games) than a player who does 1/2 the usual damage and kills? If you genuinely think win rate does not correlate to skill; please find me a 45% win rate player with 2x average stats in say kills, damage and survival; and then find me a 60% win rate with 1/2 the average stats in kills, damage and survival. This is why we use a large sample size. A single game is not a large sample. I mean, I remember a soccer player scored 3 goals in a game the other day. It was the only goals he has scored in 3 years (i.e. 3 goals in 60 games). If we look at a small sample size, we might erroneously conclude he is a talented scorer. If we look at the big picture, we realise he is a defender who happened to be in the right place, at the right time. Any team can beat any other team on the day. But wooden spooners are consistently bad and champions are consistently good. You can measure this as a percentage. They call it win rate. Without wanting to be provocative (I have not looked at your stats and have no idea what sort of player you are), I tend to find players who make up their own metrics of success tend to be poor at the game, and use their "made up" metrics to justify they are a good player despite conventional metrics showing otherwise. They (conveniently) make much of unmeasured stats like capping and smoking and sacrificing themself for their team, rather than measured ones. It's like a baseball player with a .001 batting average claiming that his ability to catch means he is a great player. However as win rate incorporates hidden "game winning actions" such as these thus win rate must be disregarded if their win rate is bad (which it will be, if not combined with above-average results in other stats). Sadly, agree with their playstyle or not, good players are good and win for a reason - they have found the optimal playstyle (meta) for winning. It's more sensible to copy them and have success yourself, than try to explain why they aren't successful, or why your stats lie or win rate is "wrong." (again, Asym, I'm not attacking you personally but attacking your argument, which is commonly espoused by these types of players)

You don't need sekrit RNG shenanigans to explain this "first goal wins" phenomenon - cos its not a phenomenon, merely a side effect of WoWs "no respawn" policy. A kill in WoWs is like a goal in hockey where you also get to remove a member of the opposing team. Imagine going 1-0 down in hockey and having a player removed so you are permanently disadvantaged 5 v 6. Now what is more likely - a comeback or that they will use their man advantage to go 2-0 and then have a 3 v 6 advantage? As you can see, the first scorer has a massive advantage, which cascades. I'd expect to see a 75% win rate to the first scorer for any sport which used this scoring model. The game model itself means comebacks are hard and far less likely than stomps. In fact, blowout games should be expected.

If cruisers avoid getting deleted by going behind islands, why can't destroyers do the same?

Ummm, isn't that the point? I.e. radar was a counter to smoke, not a counter to islands. Why should a ship be encouraged to island camp? Looking up I see someone beat me to it

Funnily enough, if you have high combat effectiveness, i.e. spotting, damage, kills, base caps, ac shot down etc... ...making you a more valuable team mate than average... ...you win rate will also be above average. Weird, eh? Saying highly effective players also win more... ...is almost like saying players who win more (high win rate) are highly effective...

I absolutely think everyone has the right to play competitively or not. A tired dad at the end of a work day is unlikely to want to give 100% focus, in a game that (sorry unicums) is the e-sports equivalent of pub darts. Bad players exist, and they are on both sides. It's luck of the draw. And without bad players, good players wouldn't look so good either. Stats should only be relevant on forums to check a player's "track record" when they are giving advice, i.e. lack of Tier X experience only matters if you are giving advice on Tier X balance, or Tier X tactics. I just dislike seeing illogical things on forums, you know: "my stats are bad therefore stats and math is wrong" "You cannot influence a match so win rate does not matter; therefore why bother to improve" "good players never have fun and are always toxic basement dwellers/damage farmers/kill stealers" "DD are overpowered and radar is fine, I know this because I've played 10 games in an Isokaze" .....That said, I firmly believe if there is a 50 game streak without an upturn in stats a 45% or lower CV should be confined to co op....