LordBenjamin

Thanks, I appreciate the help.

Any good new sites or methods for tracking stats? I took a long break and it looks like warships.today isn't working anymore and I don't remember the name of the program I had installed that checked out the player list and gave a rundown of their stats in that particular ship. I'd appreciate some help, thanks.

No, it's because the sample size isn't big enough at 12 games with an 8% win rate and it takes time to even out.

This thread is still here?! It's like a year and a half long rehash of the same points! Still interesting though. I will say that I had a discussion with my accountant friend on the "psychology of randomness" (we didn't use these words, I think we were more along the lines of "dumb donkey-holes who think they're clever!). Basically people are super bad at identifying actual randomness vs what they think of as a "more random" number. Like people who fake accounting numbers will almost never submit a fake bill for some landscaping that comes out to 1250.00 or something. It's always $1213.62" or whatever because one number looks "rounded" and the other "random" in our brains. So they can detect accounting fraud by analyzing the numbers and noticing a pattern of them being "random" and nothing is "randomly rounded" looking. Having fewer round numbers in the books than their should be it's one of the biggest signs of fraud. So anyway, it's an interesting bit of psychology/accounting that was brought to the forefront of my mind reading this. The first week I bought my Fletcher I played one day and went 1-11 on it while doing quite well. If I wasn't aware that non-random numbers exist in true randomness it'd be simple to just blame "weekends" or say that the player skill has no influence or whatever. I think my win rate in the Fletcher was still <50% at 120 battles because of a single crappy day and now it's 347 battles in and that early streak has entirely disappeared.

Smoke counter isn't working for me. Tried both the center and bottom left options. Not sure if something is wrong on my end or that mod? Thanks for the hard work on this.

The article is titled "how to control your win rate" and not "how to find success in WOWS". Don't conflate the two.

Heck, I'd chip in a few bucks/doubloons to get someone to redo that mod. It's SO useful to so many people.

When I had the over-target mods to show aircraft ship types it wasnt' allowing me to manually select any air group or ship for secondaries. I disabled it and it worked again. I ran the hotfix last night if that matters at all.... I know it had something to do with manual targeting also so maybe related? FYI, not a complaint just a report.

Awesome, thanks guys! I appreciate the hard work you guys put into this. Any idea on the time frame for the minimap with last positions?

Yep, that was the turning point for me in tanks when someone firmly pointed out that if my strategies, tactics, and teamwork were actually working they'd result in winning more games than I had been. My replies of "No, I have good games when pushing A line in a heavy tank!" or "But I slowed down the whole team for a couple minutes!" type arguments seemed logical in my brain but it NEVER lined up with empirical results once I started paying attention. I changed my approach to the game and won far more battles in the last few thousand than the first few thousand. I don't scout with fighters because I run strike but I'll try to get initial information if nobody else is doing it or in a cap game. Having information of the enemy teams positions helps people make informed tactical decisions about where to go and where not to go. More battlefield awareness wins games. If your Torp bomber gets spotted by enemy BB you know that the enemy will send his fighters in that direction. Retreat behind a cruiser and they don't chase and then strike package on the other side of the map. Works very well... Shooting down planes doesn't matter that much. He has FAR more in reserve than your ships do HP for the ones that slip through. 122 games in your Lexington and well above average planes shot down but you only won 41% of those battles. My guess is that the enemy CV still had enough planes sneak through and overcame your defenses enough to make a difference. At low tiers AS can shoot down enough planes to neutralize enemy carriers and make a difference in the game, as shown by you and I both having AS Bogues with a good win rate. At high tiers you simply can't shoot them down fast enough to swing the battle. Out of the 14 games in my Ranger this week I've shot down an average of 2 planes per game yet won 12 of those 14 games. My last battle today before heading off I was against a superiority Saipan and a balance Ranger. The two carriers combined shot down 46 of my planes but up I never once launched planes into the air that weren't full squadrons. That game was a great example of one player making a difference and because our Pensacola player was brilliant in his late-game play. On our half of the map we had 4 almost full health BBs (NY, NM, 2xNagato) vs my planes and the Pensacola. We owned both caps with enemy BBs spreading out to take them after killing everyone except our Pensacola who had been hanging back doing AA duty as Saipan and Ranger were after me hard. Guys were alive on the opposite side of the map chasing carriers but these two caps were clearly going to determine the winner of the game. Pensacola didn't YOLO forward and die to massive broadsides, he didn't cower behind cover, he got close to the caps enough to do a few resets and slow them down. My planes came in and took 80% off one guy, Pensa finished them. My planes took out the second who'd capped by that point, Pensa got a good angle and retook A cap for us. My planes took big chunks out of both Nagato's and Pensacola finished capping A and defended B while finishing off the few remaining HP on both Nagato. Had he not done that I'd have had to make 3 additional sorties to kill, they'd have kept A and took B, and we'd have lost on points. Had I not took huge chunks of HP out of those 4 BBs then the Pensacola would have tied to focus fire. It's a PRIME example of two players relying on each other and "teamwork" who were able to make a difference through their own contributions. Neither of us won solo but both were absolutely pouring out the firepower and pushing/defending caps. If we used good teamwork but didn't play as well individually it'd have been a loss. That's what it takes to win consistently.

If you and I play 100 battles together and in 50 of those you're able to go off solo and aggressively push a flank while in the other 50 you go off solo and get destroyed by a CV then knowing that in many of the battles you're not likely to be a significant contributing factor towards victory is a pretty important thing to know overall. But if you make excuses about how some games don't count because the enemy has CV instead of changing and adapting your play style to counter the CV you really won't improve much. There are a TON of CV around lately. I've been playing more USN dd with their AA cooldown, picking defensive fire over hydro on cruisers, the North Carolina instead of my Nagato, etc.

It's more of a subjective thing for me. Battleships 10km from any cap in a map won on points who do lots of damage are "bad" (at least in that game) or at least I'll complain about them on teamspeak if I'm feeling grumpy. Players who maybe aren't as good at landing shots for whatever reason but if you say "we need to cap D or we lose" and they help push and miss the DD twice and then get torped.... aiming better and dodging torps comes with time I figure, at least they TRIED to win. That's always my perspective as someone who hates that phase of the battle where one team or another sits passive doing some damage while the team loses on points. Also, are they at XY% and say "stats don't matter, it's all RNG!" or are they a bit worse but say "I really would like to learn ABC more because I feel like I can win more if I do better." There are some "outside the game" type decisions that can influence winning that might make the game less fun. I strive to win and play a smaller variety of ships more often than trying to play 10 different ships with 1 win in each per day. Leads to better captains, more familiarity with the ship, and a better winning record. Played 6 battles all in the Atago this morning while my kid was taking a nap. Did really well and I had lots of fun. Other people might look at 6 in a row in one particular ship as being a horrible grind and not have fun. In Tanks I barely played the same tank after my daily win and it was fun for me in that game but my stats DID suffer for it (and I'd not change anything as it's the way I had fun). I looked though and if you're looking to do better I noticed your survival rate in most of your ships is average/low, damage seem to hover around average or a bit above. My guess just based off those numbers is that you're landing shots properly but dying too early in a match to make a big difference in the outcome on a regular basis. Maybe play less aggressive or watch how you're angling the ship or that you don't sail into a spot where there isn't a good angle to take? Only a hunch based on the numbers.

In one of those sample pools every single game has a player with talents that go along with a 69% solo win rate playing on the friendly team. In the other sample pool every game has a 39% win rate player playing on the friendly team. They don't have to be equal on both sides of the examples because each one is measuring something different. It's two separate pools of data. In professional sports the best player compared to the worst player is much closer to even than in Warships or in rec-league level sports. A good players bad day is worse than a bad players good day therefore enough randomness is involved where the 30/30/40 thing shows more symmetry. Found a guy with 307 battles in his Hakuryu and win rate of 28%. This guy's BEST game doesn't even approach the below average day of the great players. Those are the disparities that result in lopsided numbers on the unwinnable/unlosable scale.

Yeah, and by following Mouse's guide the number of battles you're unable to win per 100 will be reduced.

My only minor suggestion is with the discussion of conserving your HP and figuring how much a certain thing is worth in a HP value. I don't fully disagree I'd have to say sometimes you have to look around at who's near you and say "Which one of us should is it best for our team that the enemy is firing at?" and bully forward a bit if you're the healthy battleship.