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

An argument against damage-as-king

68 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

938
[ARGSY]
Members
1,806 posts
10,837 battles

A never ending argument:  is damage what defines greatness, or is it win rate? Does dealing large damage amounts, game after game, make you a winning player?  In a losing streak, does the damage farmer expect his/her fortunes to turn around because they KNOW that damage dealt is, invariably, games won?

I've long argued that damage is NOT king; that it is certainly a valued contribution, but not the key to victory. Focusing on damage is fool's gold. Over the long dureé, the one stat that accrues credits and XP more than any other, is wins.  The bonuses that come from consistent wins is what drives progress up a line. WINS ARE KING. If you ain't winning, you're losing, and, lol  pal: as amazing as your average damage may be, in the end, if you can't win, who cares?

I've set about, over the last year, to put to rest the idea that dealing damage is a part of consistent winning. I've turned a really bad win rate into an acceptable win rate. Over the last 1000 games or so, I've posted a very good, even great, win rate. I win, more often than not. Lately, I win WAY more often than not. I have turned a corner. I dug a deep hole, and I'v been steadily climbing out. And you know what? I don't do a lot of damage.  In fact I deal a below average amount of damage.

Sure, there are games, here and there, where I crush everything in my way. Ohhhhhhman, they are satisfying, win or lose. But y'know what? LOSING SUCKS. LOSING IS FRUSTRATING. LOSING IS DEMORALIZING. LOSING ALL THE TIME MAKES ONE NOT WANT TO PLAY ANYMORE,

 

I was demoralized. I dind't know what I was doing wrong. DAMNED if I wasn't trying HARD to win. Damned if i didn't do everything I could to deal damage, to cap, to kill; to WIN! Still though, why wasn't I winning?? I was competent in my ships. I understood the game, I had immense experience. I carried games on my back.... and yet I still had a losing record. I focused on team play; on strategy; on understanding game mechanics in detail. And I still lost more often than I won, but now,,,,

...I don't lose so often anymore.

I don't deal loads of damage. But...I don't lose! In fact, there are ships that I can load up in and i know  it's a win.

So what was the difference? Well, for me, it was discovering that there were many ships in this game that were a benefit to their team by being spotted and drawing fire. That being damaged was almost as important as doing damage, That keeping yourself and your teammates alive was a way to deal damage that didn't get recognized in any stat category but WR. In short, I learned that damage was NOT king.

If you hang your hat on the damage you deal, hey, good for you: I'm sure yo're a decent player. If you combine damage and wins, you're great. But dealing damage is not the key; it's not the king. Win. Win. Win. Win. Win. Winning is the king stat, winning is the measure of your skill level. You can't win 'em all, but you sure as hell can set out to.

WIN

WIN

WIN

WIN

WIN

WIN

Set out to win. Set out to find ways that you can MAKE a win; force a win; just plain make a win happen. Your damage, pal, don't matter in a loss.

I found ways to win without dealing massive damage. I will continue to win. In fact, I will win more often than ever. I KNOW that my WR will continue to climb. 

Many players dwarf my damage output but don't win. They are chasing the dragon like a heroin addict. Unlike an addict, I find ways to win.

Guys, if you want to start winning, and you're an average Joe like me, stop chasing the damage dragon. 

When my overall WR gets to 50%, 'll throw a little party. At 55% I'll start a youtube channel, and I promise, I won't only post my high damage games: I'll show you how to really win.

 

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,128
[USCC2]
Members
4,763 posts

Everyone should be able to jump into game at any tier and have an equal chance to:

1. Survive

2. Cause Damage

3. Earn Credits

4. Earn XP

As any other person playing any other ship at the same tier. The ship types play different - that will not change; the objectives and how the different type ships help achieve those objectives (for a 'team' win) will not change.

 

The only thing that would change would be everyone having an equal chance to accomplish the above 4 areas - balance. I await the tears and screams of 'NO!' from those that think having balance in the 4 main areas in this game is a terrible thing :Smile-_tongue: (although I won't have to wonder why they think that way; that will be obvious!). :Smile_honoring:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
938
[ARGSY]
Members
1,806 posts
10,837 battles
22 minutes ago, RipNuN2 said:

:cap_yes:

Thanks for your valuable input.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
938
[ARGSY]
Members
1,806 posts
10,837 battles
3 minutes ago, _WaveRider_ said:

Everyone should be able to jump into game at any tier and have an equal chance to:

1. Survive

2. Cause Damage

3. Earn Credits

4. Earn XP

As any other person playing any other ship at the same tier. The ship types play different - that will not change; the objectives and how the different type ships help achieve those objectives (for a 'team' win) will not change.

 

The only thing that would change would be everyone having an equal chance to accomplish the above 4 areas - balance. I await the tears and screams of 'NO!' from those that think having balance in the 4 main areas in this game is a terrible thing :Smile-_tongue: (although I won't have to wonder why they think that way; that will be obvious!). :Smile_honoring:

 

Uh...Ok, I guess?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,128
[USCC2]
Members
4,763 posts
2 minutes ago, legozer said:

 

Uh...Ok, I guess?

Well, think about it - if everyone has an equal chance to survive and cause damage, then damage is no longer the king - playing well is! :Smile_honoring:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,993
[SALVO]
Members
19,927 posts
19,892 battles

@legozer

There's a flaw in your logic.  Sadly, not everyone that plays this game does so to win. There are a number of players who only play to shoot up stuff and don't care about winning.  

Furthermore, when it comes to winning there are two basic ways to win.  Sink the entire enemy team or win on points.  As a side note, if the battle is enough of a massacre, you can win on points by sinking so many more of the enemy team than your own team and drive the enemy's point total negative, which would be one version of "win on points". But I digress.

The problem with your victory uber alles approach is that not everyone on the team contributes equally to the team's winning efforts.  But how do you measure contributions?  The problem is that many of the things that contribute to a win or even attempting to win, even if you end up losing, are things that are immeasurable.  So you're stuck with whatever *IS* measurable, i.e. the things that are already measured.  That is, damage, kills, bases capped (solo or assisted), bases defended, and so on and so on.  Also remember that damage isn't really measured in a raw manner, but as a percentage of the target ship's total HP.  Thus, a DD can earn excellent XP for killing an enemy DD entirely, even though that DD may only have 10-20k HP, as opposed to that same 10-20k HP on a BB which would represent far less of its HP as a percentage.  Thus, a DD can do extremely well if it applies all its damage done to the enemy  team's DDs, as opposed to spreading that same damage total around over a large number of large ships.  And in the end, doing so will almost certainly have an impact on winning or losing.

Furthermore, I don't really like your victory uber alles approach because without skill based MM, you're often placed on bad teams that have very poor chances of victory.  And I resent the idea that my XP earned should be effectively randomized on the whim of random matchmaking.  When I enter a battle, I cannot control whether my team wins or loses.  I control as much as I can, and that's mostly measured by how much damage I've done, and those other measurable things.  But the reality is that I can have an outstanding game, and it still won't be enough because the rest of the team didn't carry their weight.  You can do 200k, 300k damage in a game and play your very, very best trying to win, but if the rest of the team stinks, it won't matter.  Heck, you can do your very best and not end up doing that much damage because you don't have the time because the rest of your team stunk so much that they got themselves sunk and your team loses in a massacre with a negative points mercy rule loss.

So, I'm sorry, but I don't like your call for victory uber alles when it comes to doling out credits and XP.  It seems to me that all it would do is further punish players who gave it their all to win, but were stuck with a team that didn't carry their weight.

  • Cool 4
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,993
[SALVO]
Members
19,927 posts
19,892 battles
20 minutes ago, _WaveRider_ said:

Well, think about it - if everyone has an equal chance to survive and cause damage, then damage is no longer the king - playing well is! :Smile_honoring:

Exactly why don't you think that everyone already has an equal chance to survive and cause damage?

 

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,128
[USCC2]
Members
4,763 posts
1 minute ago, Crucis said:

Exactly why don't you think that everyone already has an equal chance to survive and cause damage?

 

Just look at the stats available; it's obvious the ability for ships to do those 4 areas is not balanced - unless you see something different in the stats for the NA and EU servers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
942
[O_O]
[O_O]
Members
3,612 posts
14,694 battles
12 minutes ago, Crucis said:

@legozer

There's a flaw in your logic.  Sadly, not everyone that plays this game does so to win. There are a number of players who only play to shoot up stuff and don't care about winning.  

Furthermore, when it comes to winning there are two basic ways to win.  Sink the entire enemy team or win on points.  As a side note, if the battle is enough of a massacre, you can win on points by sinking so many more of the enemy team than your own team and drive the enemy's point total negative, which would be one version of "win on points". But I digress.

The problem with your victory uber alles approach is that not everyone on the team contributes equally to the team's winning efforts.  But how do you measure contributions?  The problem is that many of the things that contribute to a win or even attempting to win, even if you end up losing, are things that are immeasurable.  So you're stuck with whatever *IS* measurable, i.e. the things that are already measured.  That is, damage, kills, bases capped (solo or assisted), bases defended, and so on and so on.  Also remember that damage isn't really measured in a raw manner, but as a percentage of the target ship's total HP.  Thus, a DD can earn excellent XP for killing an enemy DD entirely, even though that DD may only have 10-20k HP, as opposed to that same 10-20k HP on a BB which would represent far less of its HP as a percentage.  Thus, a DD can do extremely well if it applies all its damage done to the enemy  team's DDs, as opposed to spreading that same damage total around over a large number of large ships.  And in the end, doing so will almost certainly have an impact on winning or losing.

Furthermore, I don't really like your victory uber alles approach because without skill based MM, you're often placed on bad teams that have very poor chances of victory.  And I resent the idea that my XP earned should be effectively randomized on the whim of random matchmaking.  When I enter a battle, I cannot control whether my team wins or loses.  I control as much as I can, and that's mostly measured by how much damage I've done, and those other measurable things.  But the reality is that I can have an outstanding game, and it still won't be enough because the rest of the team didn't carry their weight.  You can do 200k, 300k damage in a game and play your very, very best trying to win, but if the rest of the team stinks, it won't matter.  Heck, you can do your very best and not end up doing that much damage because you don't have the time because the rest of your team stunk so much that they got themselves sunk and your team loses in a massacre with a negative points mercy rule loss.

So, I'm sorry, but I don't like your call for victory uber alles when it comes to doling out credits and XP.  It seems to me that all it would do is further punish players who gave it their all to win, but were stuck with a team that didn't carry their weight.

This is the best approach. As much as I like to win there are many other factors that contribute to victory, of which damage is one of them.

IMHO, if you want wins, and damage that matters, work on your accuracy. Slinging rounds causes hits but aiming rounds causes kills. More accuracy in your aim takes more health from your target and, of course, more percentage health of that target. Making your shots count causes damage to add up, and kills, then victories.

Very important - Does anyone know the difference between 'then' and 'than'?  It's "better THAN", not "better then".  "Than" is a comparative word!!! And it's "if this happens, THEN that happens".  "Then" is a temporal word!!! - 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,968
[RLGN]
Members
10,029 posts
19,421 battles

I suppose I could go either way; but in one ship I’m purely victory over damage...

Mutsuki.

One of the most hated destroyers in the game, yet it has good concealment and torpedoes that can just about murder anything it should see.

My average damage in Mutsuki is actually below average; yet my WR in both the old T6 and the current T5 is mid-upper 50%; comfortably above the average, which is around 48%...

I may not be slaughtering enemies right and left and racking up huge damage totals in Mutsuki, but I must be doing something right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,913
[ARGSY]
Members
10,126 posts
6,607 battles

@legozer 

If your approach is already improving your win rate, if what you are doing is clearly working for you, start that YouTube channel now. 

Nobody cares that you're not a Unicum.

It's like buying chess books written by International Masters as opposed to Super Grandmasters or World Champions (the mega-unicums of the chess world). I was never anything more than a low-level club player; any International Master has already achieved a level of play far above what I will ever reach.

And every newcomer to WOWS will be glad of someone better than they are showing them (at least one version of) what to do and how to do it.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,373
[HINON]
Members
10,639 posts

I don't think I've noticed a never ending argument amongst most forum users that damage is more important than winning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
567
[DES23]
Alpha Tester
1,201 posts
4,951 battles

Bookmarked for future discussion. In the shorthand I value damage over wins. Damage can be consistent, wins not so much. I judge a team mates contributions on damage and the ability to hold caps. I judge my effectiveness through damage and can accept losses and walk away from them more or less content with my contribution. Losing is part of the game and I don't have this weird psychological hang up about it. I also tend to hold people in less esteem whose main concern is their win rate, especially if that win rate is accompanied by low damage values. It tells me they are most likely the ones who will try to boost their wr at the expense of the team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
728
[-K-]
Supertester, In AlfaTesters
2,172 posts
10,290 battles

IMO in order of importance: Win then Base XP then % Damage to Ships then Overall Damage then Kills then Objectives Taken/Defended. But that is just me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,991
[-K-]
Supertester
3,131 posts
7,010 battles

I disagree almost completely with the OP.  Damage dealt correlates with winning more than any other measurable statistic.  Yes, there are times when damage isn't the be all and end all of winning.  Sometimes, its better to spot the bad guys and let other people rack up the damage.  Sometimes it's better to delay a larger group of bad guys so that your team get into position to repel them.  In the end, though, if you (or someone else) isn't damaging the reds, the reds aren't dying.  And if they ain't dying, you ain't winning.

Damage isn't more important than winning.  But damage is absolutely necessary to win consistently.

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
567 posts
80 battles
3 hours ago, legozer said:

A never ending argument:

 

It's a never ending argument because so many people lack deductive reasoning skills. 

It's like you spent hours writing that essay and yet you never took an English 101 class that will flunk you if you make claims without backing them up with evidence. 

#1. You're a DD main. 99% of the player base are comprised of BB/cruiser mains. DD's naturally are not the damage dealers, their primary roles are (except for a few DDs you don't play like the Khab/Tashkent) spotting, capping and area denial. Right when I read that essay I said to myself, "I bet he's a DD main." Looked you up on warships-today and bam, DD main. So predictable. 

#2. Win rate is an effect, damage is just one of many causes that produce wins (happens to be the biggest, but not the only one). Wins are a byproduct of damage. You comparing them side by side with an OR frame of mind is absurd. It's like arguing over ice cream or getting fat as to what is more likely to make you fat. Let that sink in because that is how ridiculous your essay is. 

#3. And here's the EVIDENCE you failed to provide in your essay: Go look up your own stats on warships.today and scroll down to the chart section and take a good long look at your win rate and damage charts and come back here and be a man and tell everyone if your avg damage has increased as your win rate has increased.

#4.Then if you still haven't figured it out, go look up any 60% or higher win rate player (including DD mains, but especially BB/cruiser mains because it's even more glaring) and compare their average damage to the average damage of players with win rates in the 30's and 40's (in the same ships and overall). 

We will never end this debate as long as people are either too lazy to do the research or are too cognitively challenged to understand how to PROPERLY analyze data and PROPERLY support their thesis with RELEVANT evidence. 

OP credibility comes from presenting yourself as a subject matter expert in the topic. You can't do that when you provide no evidence and even your own stats refute your argument. And if someone wants to make a weak attempt to discredit my words by pointing to my 75 games played without looking up my main account via my signature, that just speaks volumes about how incapable of reason they are. 

EDIT: And nothing I said is non-factual but I bet I'll still get forum bottom feeders down voting this post but you'll notice they'll do it without providing a sound counterargument. 

 

Edited by A_Crying_Hipster
  • Cool 3
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
567 posts
80 battles

Hey Legozer, I just thought of another approach that might wake you up to reality. From this day forward, see if you can get your average win rate up to 60% without raising your average damage a single point. And if you really want to put your money where your mouth is, don't ever make a post in these forums until you either successfully accomplish that or admit it can't be done. 

  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
366
[BS]
Supertester, Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
1,534 posts
4,059 battles
38 minutes ago, Pope_Shizzle said:

I disagree almost completely with the OP.  Damage dealt correlates with winning more than any other measurable statistic.  Yes, there are times when damage isn't the be all and end all of winning.  Sometimes, its better to spot the bad guys and let other people rack up the damage.  Sometimes it's better to delay a larger group of bad guys so that your team get into position to repel them.  In the end, though, if you (or someone else) isn't damaging the reds, the reds aren't dying.  And if they ain't dying, you ain't winning.

Damage isn't more important than winning.  But damage is absolutely necessary to win consistently.

This... 100000000% this.

 

If damage does not happen then win does not happen.

 

It also depends what ship you are in. If you play a BB most of the time your key metric should be damage. Same for cruisers to an extent. With cruisers though you also have the kite ability. In that case your damage wont be great but you will take at least 1 or 2 red ships out of the fight.

 

A DD can go two ways... If you are stealth and want to torp things then babe, your damage needs to be high. Perhaps you are an AA speced DD. in that case no one cares about your damage they want to see you shoot down 40+ planes. Less red planes directly equals more BB hitpoints which directly equals, dun dun dunnnn.... More damage for your team.

 

Lots of ways to win but damage is key guys and gals.... In the end though it is TEAMWORK that will win you games. And that means knowing what your ships job is. BB's damage stuff... DD's spot stuff, stealth torp and harrass... Cruisers can kite if needed, set fires from a dd's smoke and so on and so forth Ad nauseam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
252 posts
942 battles
3 hours ago, Crucis said:

@legozer

There's a flaw in your logic.  Sadly, not everyone that plays this game does so to win. There are a number of players who only play to shoot up stuff and don't care about winning.  

Furthermore, when it comes to winning there are two basic ways to win.  Sink the entire enemy team or win on points.  As a side note, if the battle is enough of a massacre, you can win on points by sinking so many more of the enemy team than your own team and drive the enemy's point total negative, which would be one version of "win on points". But I digress.

The problem with your victory uber alles approach is that not everyone on the team contributes equally to the team's winning efforts.  But how do you measure contributions?  The problem is that many of the things that contribute to a win or even attempting to win, even if you end up losing, are things that are immeasurable.  So you're stuck with whatever *IS* measurable, i.e. the things that are already measured.  That is, damage, kills, bases capped (solo or assisted), bases defended, and so on and so on.  Also remember that damage isn't really measured in a raw manner, but as a percentage of the target ship's total HP.  Thus, a DD can earn excellent XP for killing an enemy DD entirely, even though that DD may only have 10-20k HP, as opposed to that same 10-20k HP on a BB which would represent far less of its HP as a percentage.  Thus, a DD can do extremely well if it applies all its damage done to the enemy  team's DDs, as opposed to spreading that same damage total around over a large number of large ships.  And in the end, doing so will almost certainly have an impact on winning or losing.

Furthermore, I don't really like your victory uber alles approach because without skill based MM, you're often placed on bad teams that have very poor chances of victory.  And I resent the idea that my XP earned should be effectively randomized on the whim of random matchmaking.  When I enter a battle, I cannot control whether my team wins or loses.  I control as much as I can, and that's mostly measured by how much damage I've done, and those other measurable things.  But the reality is that I can have an outstanding game, and it still won't be enough because the rest of the team didn't carry their weight.  You can do 200k, 300k damage in a game and play your very, very best trying to win, but if the rest of the team stinks, it won't matter.  Heck, you can do your very best and not end up doing that much damage because you don't have the time because the rest of your team stunk so much that they got themselves sunk and your team loses in a massacre with a negative points mercy rule loss.

So, I'm sorry, but I don't like your call for victory uber alles when it comes to doling out credits and XP.  It seems to me that all it would do is further punish players who gave it their all to win, but were stuck with a team that didn't carry their weight.

Admit it. You only wrote this so you could say "victory uber alles" several times. :cap_haloween:

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
706
[INTEL]
Members
1,227 posts
10,810 battles
2 hours ago, Estimated_Prophet said:

I suppose I could go either way; but in one ship I’m purely victory over damage...

Mutsuki.

One of the most hated destroyers in the game, yet it has good concealment and torpedoes that can just about murder anything it should see.

My average damage in Mutsuki is actually below average; yet my WR in both the old T6 and the current T5 is mid-upper 50%; comfortably above the average, which is around 48%...

I may not be slaughtering enemies right and left and racking up huge damage totals in Mutsuki, but I must be doing something right.

I have this situation with the Belfast. Damage well below server avg with a w/r well above. I know why. 

 Rather than park in smoke and spam he at BBs, I actively look for ways to frustrate, damage, and kill DDs. One recent T9 match I pushed behind an island in the middle of B cap. Two Fletchers, a Benson, and an Atlanta died trying to dig me out. A CO finally got me and he died soon after due to having lost all his support. I totalled ~20k damage while finishing in the top 3 in xp. Probably my most satisfying Belfast match.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,993
[SALVO]
Members
19,927 posts
19,892 battles
3 hours ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

@legozer 

If your approach is already improving your win rate, if what you are doing is clearly working for you, start that YouTube channel now. 

Nobody cares that you're not a Unicum.

It's like buying chess books written by International Masters as opposed to Super Grandmasters or World Champions (the mega-unicums of the chess world). I was never anything more than a low-level club player; any International Master has already achieved a level of play far above what I will ever reach.

And every newcomer to WOWS will be glad of someone better than they are showing them (at least one version of) what to do and how to do it.

Nice chess analogy, Cthulhu.  :cap_like:

The only thing that I'd say about chess books written by a "super grandmaster" vs a mere master, is that "super grandmaster" probably has far better name recognition in the chess community than any mere master, and thus probably sells more chess books.  But from the perspective of people like you and I, the quality of the advice would probably be equally good.  And what it might come down to is which chess writer has a talent for making his advice easy to understand for the "chess masses".

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,993
[SALVO]
Members
19,927 posts
19,892 battles
52 minutes ago, ArgosRising said:

Admit it. You only wrote this so you could say "victory uber alles" several times. :cap_haloween:

No, but it is a nice turn of a phrase that rolls off the tongue.  :cap_like:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
142 posts

I've been demeaned by multiple people from OPG, ZR and other clans for holding fire because I prefer to hold the capture points instead of revealing my position and being their cannon fodder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,993
[SALVO]
Members
19,927 posts
19,892 battles
4 hours ago, _WaveRider_ said:

Just look at the stats available; it's obvious the ability for ships to do those 4 areas is not balanced - unless you see something different in the stats for the NA and EU servers?

I'd say that all ship types have equal "ability" to produce damage, but different ship types will not produce damage with equal "ease". One of the highest damage games I've ever seen in a YouTube WoWS replay is of a Gearing that did over (IIRC) 400k damage.  So it has the "ability" to do that level of damage, but it's just not as easy to do it as it might be for someone playing a tier 10 BB, for example.

Furthermore, I see no compelling need for ships of all type to have both equal ability and equal ease to produce equally high levels of damage.  Different ship types, even different ships, have different roles.  And not all roles necessarily include massive damage production.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×