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

Survival Rate, What's Your Opinion?

52 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

2,507
[TBW]
Members
8,132 posts
14,856 battles

First off Let me say, that this in no way reflects my opinion of anyone's survival rate. That being said what do you think?  Does a bad survival rate make me a bad player or a good player? I am always willing to give every hitpoint my ship has for the team. I would think that survival rate isn't as important as win rate.

Edited by Sovereigndawg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
841 posts
4,880 battles

Greatly depends on the situation. If dying means you routed the enemy who then retreats and allows your team to keep a flag that results in several hundred points over the length of a game that gives you the win, then dying was the right choice.

If living means running from the enemy allowing them to secure flags that you never regain resulting in a loss, then living was the wrong choice.

Obviously if you can win and survive that would be best, but most ships don't get that option. Not all, but most of those who live to the end of the game have done so because they hid (allowing the enemy to focus fire on their teammates). Whereas if they had been out in the open, the enemy may have spread the damage around meaning even more friendly ships have the chance to make it to the end of the game (keeping more guns in the fight for longer).

So many times I've seen people brag about how they're still alive near the end of the game (and others have died), while we're down 500 pts, they're at near full health but no where near any objective, and running away. If only they had been in the fight all along, maybe more of our team would still be alive, meaning more guns to fire at the enemy, more ships to threaten flags, meaning greater chance of winning.

So it depends. Dying foolishly isn't the answer, but staying alive in a manner that sabotages your team isn't the answer either.  

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,962
[WOLF1]
Beta Testers
9,036 posts
12,837 battles

I view survival rate as evidence of how stupidly aggressive I am. :Smile_amazed:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,047
[Y0L0]
Members
9,919 posts
14,122 battles

good player will have survivability rate that is slightly lower than their WR.   I try to be at 50%, but seem to close to  my WR over last 90 days.   So, I am trying to be bit more aggressive now. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,371
Members
5,202 posts
9,475 battles

The longer you survive, the longer you're able to tip the balance in your team's favor. You don't get extra points for being an unnecessary martyr. 

Among better players, WR % and Survival % typically correlate. 

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,057
[DAKI]
Privateers, Members
8,786 posts
7,767 battles

I would only look at SR in combination with the WR.

If your SR is high but your WR is low, then you are just camping in the back and are most likely not influencing the game in any positive way.

If your SR is low as well as your WR, then you most likely like to yolo into the enemy.

If your SR is low but your WR is high, then you are aggressive, but in a good way.

If both are high, then you influence the match consistently and are good at it.

Stuff in-between can also exist of course

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,507
[TBW]
Members
8,132 posts
14,856 battles
14 minutes ago, FleetAdmiral_Assassin said:

Greatly depends on the situation. If dying means you routed the enemy who then retreats and allows your team to keep a flag that results in several hundred points over the length of a game that gives you the win, then dying was the right choice.

If living means running from the enemy allowing them to secure flags that you never regain resulting in a loss, then living was the wrong choice.

Obviously if you can win and survive that would be best, but most ships don't get that option. Not all, but most of those who live to the end of the game have done so because they hid (allowing the enemy to focus fire on their teammates). Whereas if they had been out in the open, the enemy may have spread the damage around meaning even more friendly ships have the chance to make it to the end of the game (keeping more guns in the fight for longer).

So many times I've seen people brag about how they're still alive near the end of the game (and others have died), while we're down 500 pts, they're at near full health but no where near any objective, and running away. If only they had been in the fight all along, maybe more of our team would still be alive, meaning more guns to fire at the enemy, more ships to threaten flags, meaning greater chance of winning.

So it depends. Dying foolishly isn't the answer, but staying alive in a manner that sabotages your team isn't the answer either.  

This is how I feel about it pretty much spot on but I didn't want to write to much so people wouldn't read my post.

 

14 minutes ago, centarina said:

good player will have survivability rate that is slightly lower than their WR.   I try to be at 50%, but seem to close to  my WR over last 90 days.   So, I am trying to be bit more aggressive now. 

 

13 minutes ago, Kombat_W0MBAT said:

The longer you survive, the longer you're able to tip the balance in your team's favor. You don't get extra points for being an unnecessary martyr. 

Among better players, WR % and Survival % typically correlate. 

I agree with you guys too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39
[MIA]
Members
181 posts
7,129 battles

Honestly hiding in the back and 'baiting' probably wouldn't even be all that effective at increasing SR - since when your team gets rekt you would probably die soon after...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,693
[RLGN]
Members
11,490 posts
20,429 battles

No wallflower borderflower by any means, but that being said; as a self-described 'average' player, survival is the only thing I'm good at, apparently...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
406
[AP]
Members
1,243 posts
14,262 battles

survival rate too low(say <10%)= yolo idiot

survival rate too high(say >95% for non-CV)= border camping idiot

 

anywhere in between is fine, people can be more/less agressive, as long as they arent at the point of being suicidal/completely avoiding battle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,091 posts
4,681 battles

Some critical thinking would tend to the opinion that there's a correlation between survival rate and win rate. 

1. Your actions have an effect on the outcome of the match

2. The length of time that you play in a match determine how long you have to make that impact

3. Therefore, survival rate should roughly correlate to win rate

QED

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,507
[TBW]
Members
8,132 posts
14,856 battles
18 minutes ago, SireneRacker said:

I would only look at SR in combination with the WR.

If your SR is high but your WR is low, then you are just camping in the back and are most likely not influencing the game in any positive way.

If your SR is low as well as your WR, then you most likely like to yolo into the enemy.

If your SR is low but your WR is high, then you are aggressive, but in a good way.

If both are high, then you influence the match consistently and are good at it.

Stuff in-between can also exist of course

I would suppose if you looked at the kill/death ratio along with SR and WR it would lead you to even more refined conclusions. Good answer. I never quite thought of it like that.

Edited by Sovereigndawg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27,194
[HINON]
Supertester
21,483 posts
15,244 battles
2 minutes ago, DingBat said:

3. Therefore, survival rate should roughly correlate to win rate

Provided you spend your time alive doing something useful. Too many people aren't. A high survival rate can also indicate someone who camps in back and snipes all match.

I'd rather have someone who successfully pushes and sinks leading the charge than someone who hides behind a rock all match playing with his long, hard barrel.

Survival rate is one of the least interesting stats to me.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,507
[TBW]
Members
8,132 posts
14,856 battles
2 minutes ago, Lert said:

Provided you spend your time alive doing something useful. Too many people aren't. A high survival rate can also indicate someone who camps in back and snipes all match.

Brothers comes to mind, it seems I am always on the side trying to hold the other team back with one or two other ships while the rest of the team goes to the other flank. Of course I normally end up sunk in that situation but the team also wins often too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,103
[CHASE]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,946 posts
11,407 battles

Only let yourself die when absolutely necessary. The moment you die you no longer have influence over who wins the game(unless of course you got torps off).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,091 posts
4,681 battles
1 minute ago, Lert said:

Provided you spend your time alive doing something useful. Too many people aren't. A high survival rate can also indicate someone who camps in back and snipes all match.

I'd rather have someone who successfully pushes and sinks leading the charge than someone who hides behind a rock all match playing with his long, hard barrel.

Survival rate is one of the least interesting stats to me.

That's why it says "roughly correlate" and not "strongly mirror". 

People need to stop thinking in binary about things like this. It's great for computers, not so good for things involving humans. 

I have a much different view of survival rate as a stat. Assuming people have a decent grasp of the game, survival rate is a good predictor of success. When I was coaching players in WoT, virtually ALL of the ones who came to me with "I suck. I try but I just can't win any games. I'm about to give up. Please help!" had appallingly bad survival rates. Once we got them thinking about survival first and damage second they all saw huge turnarounds. 

The correlation may be weaker on WoWS since, in WoT, a loss generally meant death. It seems to be easier to survive a loss in WoWS. However, the correlation is still there. When a player comes to me with complaints about winning, survival rate is one of the first things I look at. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
406
[AP]
Members
1,243 posts
14,262 battles
3 minutes ago, Lert said:

Survival rate is one of the least interesting stats to me.

alone it's useless, useful when combined with other stats

gives a clue to whether you are being more passive/aggressive(than optimal), hence  how to change your playstyle to improve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,223
[SBS]
Members
4,596 posts
2,408 battles

Something to note is that it also depends on ship type.  For example, there are DDs with average stats that have really good WR, but fairly low survival rates.  Taking a look at BB WR and survival, they are much closer in percentage.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
85
[PHUA]
Beta Testers
225 posts
3,895 battles

I'm sure my survival rate's somewhere in the 30-35% range, yet I'm at around a 54% win rate.  That should tell you how much value I place on that stat.

Ideally you want to stay alive long enough to contribute to your team through the end of the match, but if you see a situation where you know you'll sink though you can take down a vital part of the enemy's team or offense, sometimes you have to just suck it up and sacrifice yourself.  Had more than a few times where I sank early in the match but still scored on the top of the list just because I spent my ship wisely.

I'm not saying to be blindly aggressive, but don't be afraid to take a hit if you know you'll get the better deal out of the engagement.  It's something you pick up the longer you play, especially if you're agressive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
171
[-AGW-]
Members
869 posts
11,974 battles
15 minutes ago, DingBat said:

2. The length of time that you play in a match determine how long you have to make that impact

Not quite. Survival time may impact the opportunity to make an impact, but it does not predict if the impact is ever made. You may be worth more to your team if you take out two enemy ships in a yolo run rather the ineffectively surviving to the end of the match. In any case, there is no scoring penalty for not surviving the match. You get full points if you help secure the win by whatever means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,507
[TBW]
Members
8,132 posts
14,856 battles
1 minute ago, Wardog_Noir said:

It's something you pick up the longer you play, especially if you're agressive.

I don't know if I am impatient or aggressive, I do love to shoot my ordinance off, on any type of ship, any chance I get.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,091 posts
4,681 battles
1 minute ago, Wardog_Noir said:

I'm sure my survival rate's somewhere in the 30-35% range, yet I'm at around a 54% win rate.  That should tell you how much value I place on that stat.

You're not thinking about it the right way. 

You've won 54% of your games. That means 46% losses. Given that, most of the time, you're going to die in a loss, the theoretical max survival rate you're going to see is 60ish %. Then factor in the times you die and still win....

30-35% survival is what I would consider to be "normal". Only an extreme outlier would have a survival rate > 60%. Mine's over 50% and that's probably too high. I might be playing too cautiously. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,190 posts
4,322 battles
29 minutes ago, Kombat_W0MBAT said:

The longer you survive, the longer you're able to tip the balance in your team's favor. You don't get extra points for being an unnecessary martyr. 

Among better players, WR % and Survival % typically correlate. 

I hate seeing players with win rates significantly lower than their survival rates. 

If you find yourself consistently alive in losses you are probably not playing aggressive enough.

You are correct in that for really good players there is a correlation between wr and survival. Meaning when they are alive they are influncing the match. But there is an old saying "Stats equal stay alive and do damage" and enough damage wins games. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,770
[SYN]
Members
5,275 posts
12,587 battles

The longer you're in the match, the more opportunity you have to have an impact in it, and perhaps even turn things around if things have gone south.  Provided you're making yourself useful, of course!

Survival isn't absolutely necessary, however.  Sometimes, depending on the situation, taking one for the team is the better option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,091 posts
4,681 battles
3 minutes ago, NashW8 said:

Not quite. Survival time may impact the opportunity to make an impact, but it does not predict if the impact is ever made. You may be worth more to your team if you take out two enemy ships in a yolo run rather the ineffectively surviving to the end of the match. In any case, there is no scoring penalty for not surviving the match. You get full points if you help secure the win by whatever means.

Of course. But you can't make the impact if you don't have the opportunity. 

Like I said, whenever this forum has discussions like this everyone scrambles to mention the outliers and contra-cases. Rule #0 is always "Use your head". All of these objections do not, in any way, refute the underlying statement that survival rate correlates to win rate. It virtually HAS to. 

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.

×