Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
BlailBlerg

What happened to Iowa's winrate?

38 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

410
[FAE]
Members
2,121 posts
2,524 battles

So, I like numbers, but recently the numbers for the Iowa have been really baffling.  It got its citadel buffed, and its now in a steady decline.  

Why do people think this is? 

How are North Carolina and Montana doing by the way?  North Carolina seems to be outclassed by the Bismarck and Tirpitz. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
214
[SEALZ]
Members
526 posts
5,230 battles

Because Missouri Exists. All of the good Iowa players transitioned to Missouri because why would you play the same ship without the ridiculous credit gain? NC and Montana are just fine, NC just has to kite the German BB's so she can stay outside secondary range.

  • Cool 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,594
[-K-]
[-K-]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,751 posts
6,734 battles
15 minutes ago, Usedcarjock said:

All of the good Iowa players transitioned to Missouri because why would you play the same ship without the ridiculous credit gain?

 

Yup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,156 posts
4,848 battles

yeah, Missouri is probably part of the reason as already mentioned. most experienced players will play that over the Iowa, and now most people playing the Iowa are simply grinding to the Montana.

 

another reason might be that when a ship gets buffed, it suddenly gets an influx of people playing it. some of those people might continue playing it even though they're not very good at it. just a theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,479
[AHOY_]
Beta Testers
6,420 posts
3,413 battles

Because most have shifted to Missouri instead, and those that didn't are led to a false sense of security that just because the citadel was lowered, they can now broadside with impunity. Which led to a massive increase in broadside-baring Iowas (and some Missouris) rather than the old meta of bow-tanking in Iowa/Missouri and being tough to deal with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,460
[AXANR]
Members
3,357 posts
16,533 battles
Just now, YamatoA150 said:

Because most have shifted to Missouri instead, and those that didn't are led to a false sense of security that just because the citadel was lowered, they can now broadside with impunity. Which led to a massive increase in broadside-baring Iowas (and some Missouris) rather than the old meta of bow-tanking in Iowa/Missouri and being tough to deal with.

 

This. I was wondering if it was just me, but I've seen a lot more really bravedumb Iowa drivers (and some Missouri, but mostly Iowa) show broadside and try to brawl in unfavorable situations since the citadel fix. I'll never understand why so many derpy German BBs try to play as snipers while USN BBs mix it up broadside-on at 4km. 

 

Don't get me wrong; you can absolutely brawl in Mizzou/Iowa; I love doing it. But you have to be really careful about picking your spots  and you can't ever expose your broadside. Seriously. Even CAs can cit you if you give them a shot at your side. Mizzou is a mid-range fighter first and foremost, charging in to brawl when you get the right opportunity and only when you can secure your flanks with terrain,division-mates, and/or minimap awareness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
810
[CUTIE]
Beta Testers
4,265 posts
7,734 battles

To be fair, Iowa had shoddy stats long before the Missouri was a thing, it was only slightly above Izumo back when there were only two battleship lines and it's pretty much on par nowadays, fighting for the bottom spot.

 

The fact the Missouri exists dragged those who were good at it to a ship with better earnings and the FDG is far more noob-friendly even after Iowa had the citadel slightly lowered giving it better average numbers. It doesn't look like the Iowa stats are going anywhere but down. Even if more good Iowa players show up, they'll eventually unlock the Missouri with Free Exp and move on as well, keeping things in this same trend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,053
[OPG]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,872 posts
10,416 battles

The fact that they buffed the ship means that more people are going to want to play it. Because of this, more baddies that may have put the ship away are going to pick it back up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
410
[FAE]
Members
2,121 posts
2,524 battles

... These don't sound convincing... 

 

Isn't missouri the same as Iowa except for the radar?  Thus the gun specs and armor should be just as good. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,013
[OPG]
[OPG]
Beta Testers
1,451 posts
10,249 battles
1 hour ago, Usedcarjock said:

Because Missouri Exists. All of the good Iowa players transitioned to Missouri because why would you play the same ship without the ridiculous credit gain? NC and Montana are just fine, NC just has to kite the German BB's so she can stay outside secondary range.

 

Absolutely. 

 

I almost immediately sold the Iowa after picking up the Missouri. 

 

What reason would one ever play it afterwards... other than nostalgia...?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,705
[YORHA]
Members
3,260 posts

Hey... I just started playing the thing.  Gimme a chance, will yah?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
214
[SEALZ]
Members
526 posts
5,230 battles
Just now, DOCTOR_CITADEL said:

 

Absolutely. 

 

I almost immediately sold the Iowa after picking up the Missouri. 

 

What reason would one ever play it afterwards... other than nostalgia... maybe?

Iowa was my first Tier 9 ship in the game, and the first Museum ship I ever visited, so I keep her in port for exactly that, nostalgia value. But you are right, unless you are a USN enthusiast and you don't want Missouri to be without her sister there is no reason not to sell Iowa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
169
[ECOM]
Members
494 posts
11,051 battles
3 minutes ago, DOCTOR_CITADEL said:

 

Absolutely. 

 

I almost immediately sold the Iowa after picking up the Missouri. 

 

What reason would one ever play it afterwards... other than nostalgia...?

 

I sold my Iowa too after I got the Missouri. She's just a better ship. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
418
[NATO]
Beta Testers
1,767 posts
5,806 battles
33 minutes ago, poeticmotion said:

 

This. I was wondering if it was just me, but I've seen a lot more really bravedumb Iowa drivers (and some Missouri, but mostly Iowa) show broadside and try to brawl in unfavorable situations since the citadel fix. I'll never understand why so many derpy German BBs try to play as snipers while USN BBs mix it up broadside-on at 4km. 

 

Don't get me wrong; you can absolutely brawl in Mizzou/Iowa; I love doing it. But you have to be really careful about picking your spots  and you can't ever expose your broadside. Seriously. Even CAs can cit you if you give them a shot at your side. Mizzou is a mid-range fighter first and foremost, charging in to brawl when you get the right opportunity and only when you can secure your flanks with terrain,division-mates, and/or minimap awareness.

 

This is it right here IMO. The window of opportunity for pushing is often small and can often close in a heartbeat.....and said heartbeat takes less time than a minor rudder adjustment on the rudder-lethargic Iowa. Its a hard ship to drive well and its effectiveness relies heavily on being at the right spot at the right time....and going in the right direction. Unlike the KM BB's which work best if you drive them like you stole them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,248 posts
737 battles

Another reason: the lowered citadel provided a noticeable, but not dramatic improvement in broadside survivability, and remember you really only notice a difference if you go full broadside (and even then the difference wasn't night and day despite the whiners). Most of the time, even with the taller citadel, you can mitigate a lot of the damage by angling or bow on, which largely made the lowered citadel effects irrelevant.

 

TLDR: Lowered citadel improved survivability only in certain circumstances and even then, while it was noticeable, it wasn't drastic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
845
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
3,376 posts
7,971 battles

2 lines of thought could both be true.

 

1. As Usedcarjock said, better players transitioned to Mo.

2. Because of the lower citadel, people went -

 

5918046e9e6d6d8c3f33e101de80621ad407f6a1

And are now getting wrecked for it.

 

Or option 3, combination of both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,612
[E-E]
[E-E]
Members
15,633 posts
14,025 battles

Iowa always had s--t server stats, for as long as I can remember with the game being live.  When German BBs and FDG arrived, FDG immediately became the best of the Tier IX BB Lot, supplanted only by Missouri.  Izumo actually was doing slightly better than Iowa.  The Izumo!

 

When Missouri arrived, wasn't too surprising it did great.  If you liked Iowa and had the resources, then you got Missouri.  If you had the resources to get Missouri, you had a lot of time invested with the game and you weren't some newbie who's highest tiered ship was Tier IV Phoenix trying to buy into high tier with a Premium.  To get Missouri, you couldn't buy as a newbie.  You had to be a veteran player to have accumulated the FreeXPs / Converted ShipXPs=>FreeXPs.

 

This is in sharp contrast to the tech tree ships who you get into and still have to work up the XPs and Credits to unlock modules.  Premium Ships like MO are already fully upgraded.

 

A good example to the newbie that worked his way into Iowa.  Myself.  USN BBs were my first BB line and the highest tier I had achieved at the time was with Iowa.

"YES!  I GOT IOWA!"

Finishes build, takes captain from NC into Iowa.

Hits Random Battle.

Finds a North Carolina.

"I'm going to crush this dumb Tier VIII BB!"

Brawls & Knife Fights NC

NC absolutely crushes Iowa.

First serving of Humility dispensed.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
375
[KOZ]
Beta Testers
1,485 posts
1,186 battles

It's in decline because increased, but lower skilled player base thanks to the buff, while the more skilled players are going to the Mo.
Kind of like how Belfast has a lower Win Rate than the Nikolai.

Win Rate and mass stats in general is a really bad idea for tracking how good a ship is.

This is why you only look at crap that requires skill like Ranked.

 

Another case for that, take a good look at say the ARP Kongo vs Kongo.
The ARP Ships are the exact same, but slightly worse, versions of their respective ships [Kongo, Myoko, and Atago].

ARP Kongo absolutely shreds regular Kongo in terms of stats. Why?
ARP Kongo had an extremely difficult mission to unlock [Crescendo event not withstanding], therefore those who had ARP Kongo and used it were skilled.
Regular Kongo is part of the main line.

Edited by AirshipCanon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
321
[ASHIP]
Members
584 posts
5,218 battles

Perhaps a longer-term explanation might be that, when there are only a limited number of ships in a class, win rates for the ship as a whole have a strong bias towards 50%, because many matches will have an equal number of that ship on both teams, so regardless of who wins the ship gets a 50% win rate out of it. The overall winrate is an average out of all the matches, but since many of the matches compare the Iowa with itself there is a strong tendency towards 50%.

As more battleship lines are added, a greater proportion of matches have an unequal number of Iowas on each team, and therefore compare the Iowa to other BB lines. This creates greater variability in the win rates of all battleships, meaning that the sub-par ones like the Iowa can differentiate themselves more.

This also means that the Iowa might not actually be performing worse, only that it is being compared less with itself.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
410
[FAE]
Members
2,121 posts
2,524 battles

IT also means that the Iowa isn't doing well compared to the other ships in its MM spread. 

 

The mossouri one really doesn't make any sense to me.  we'd need the number of battles of missouri and iowa for that.  Missouri is prohibitively expensive,  you could easily grind to an Iowa but not nearly have enough free exp to make getting Missouri easy.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
586
[SWOB]
Members
2,705 posts
15,544 battles
1 hour ago, Usedcarjock said:

All of the good Iowa players transitioned to Missouri because why would you play the same ship without the ridiculous credit gain?

 

I'm not all that good, but I transitioned to it anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
461
[LOU1]
Members
2,889 posts
8,004 battles
54 minutes ago, BlailBlerg said:

... These don't sound convincing... 

 

Isn't missouri the same as Iowa except for the radar?  Thus the gun specs and armor should be just as good. 

IIRC, Missouri has thicker front bulkhead armor (387 vs 287?), thicker lower hull extremity armor (38 vs 25), slightly better firing angles on the main and secondary guns, and the AA is configured differently (more Bofors and less Oerlikons).  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,460
[AXANR]
Members
3,357 posts
16,533 battles
4 hours ago, ExploratorOne said:

IIRC, Missouri has thicker front bulkhead armor (387 vs 287?), thicker lower hull extremity armor (38 vs 25), slightly better firing angles on the main and secondary guns, and the AA is configured differently (more Bofors and less Oerlikons).  

The extra armor isn't a huge difference maker, though. She still gets penned and overmatched by the same guns. Definitely not enough to explain the difference in performance; I believe the performance difference is player-based, not parameter-based, as others have said. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×