Bill1923

What is even worse is the self-defeating knowledge of meaningless stats.

Shows what F.Sherman knows! 17.14 shots/min. X 8 guns = 137 shots per minute -- Marceau 40.00 shots/min. X 3 guns = 120 shots per minute -- Sherman 1,850 maxHE X 137 = 253,450 maxHE DMG -- Marceau 1,800 maxHE X 120 = 216,000 maxHE DMG -- Sherman 2,450 maxAP X 137 = 335,650 maxAP DMG -- Marceau 2,700 maxAP X 120 = 324,000 maxAP DMG -- Sherman

My Marceau has the fastest speed of any T-X DD, but I still don't find running down and depth charging a sub the best way to kill one. Instead, I prefer to maintain distance and use the Marceau's best-of-class DPM to gun down subs.

It doesn't matter whether you give advice or not, you don't make the 20K-post cutoff!

Haha - I ran a service that analyzed statistical models; all I had to know was how to hire PhDs who knew about statistics. But they did give me an honorary pocket protector when I retired.

I am well aware there is no statistical basis involved in what I did and I never claimed there was. I took a look at a tiny bit of easily available information related to something I was curious about.

To avoid the possibility of "naming and shaming" players, I will not specifically identify players in the sample. However, you can get your own sample by picking names from all of the unpinned threads on a page of the General Game Discussion sub-forum. I just went through that exercise and added 9 new names to my previous sample. The results shown below did not change much.

Guilty as charged! And lazy to boot! The 20K-game cutoff was totally arbitrary so I would get some information, but not have to deal with looking up too many players. Pulling names from forum posts was simply expedient. If I was a programmer, I might have created a script to use the API to access raw game data; maybe somebody with appropriate skills will do so. The results I posted are certainly not in any way statistically significant. The thing that originally piqued my curiosity was a thread in which a number of veteran/experienced/long-term players declared that issues in the game had prompted them to play Co-op exclusively or nearly exclusively. My reaction was that the thread had probably attracted a handful of "me too" outliers and many high-volume players could not possibly have retreated to Co-op. My impromptu and unscientific sample potentially suggests otherwise.

I am sure your explanation is accurate and very learned, but it is irrelevant to my observation about where WG has chosen to focus work.

Yes, Grasshopper, but that would involve a much larger sample of players and I am lazy.

That information was not available from the source I used for the data, but it would be very interesting.

The stats include Random, Ranked, Ranked (Legacy), and Co-op from this page. Everyone has their own definition of what is enjoyable.

Some comments a few days ago by and about experienced players largely playing Co-op games piqued my curiosity. I set out to see how very experienced players engage with the game. I arbitrarily chose a minimum of 20,000 games as my standard for very experienced players. For convenience, I went through a page of forum topics searching for such players and found a random sample of 34 names. Below is what I found from reviewing the stats of those 34 players and encompassing nearly a million games. Types of Games Played: 14 players had a majority of Random games, while 20 players had a majority of Co-op games. Ranked Games: 10 players had less than 1% of their games in Ranked and only 4 players had more than 10% of their games in ranked. Types of Games Played by Player Win Rate: The high 17 players, with an average W/R of 54.97%, played 56% Random games and 39% Co-op games. The low 17 players, with an average W/R of 49.09%, played 27% Random games and 68% Co-op games. Both groups played about 4.8% Ranked games. Below are some additional stats by game type. NOTE: clarifications have been added in italics.

2,000 mandatory Co-op games before buying the way to Tier-X? You first.

1) The smaller format is enjoyable, but might be better if it was changed (i.e. 5, 6, or 7 ships) by season, sprint, or league. 2) Progression can be good, but playing to Save-A-Star is counterproductive and should be eliminated. Some (many) players don't want to progress to higher leagues, so make the advancement Qualifier an opt-in. 3) Ranked has its own flavor, which is appropriate. The most important thing Ranked needs is variety to attract players and keep their attention. The all-Tier-X season effectively excluded far too many players. The current 8-9, 8-9, 10 season is a little better, but a 6-7, 8-9, 10 season seems nearly ideal to maximize choice and participation.