Jump to content
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
Ericson38

20% win rate in 1st 25 games-Helena

23 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
698 posts
10,478 battles

Anyone worse than that ? Even my Dallas is 44%, which was hard to play. If worse than this, or around this win rate, what do you think is wrong ?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
698 posts
10,478 battles

I do have a 35K average damage rating. But only survived 5 battles. Server average is 43K damage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29
[RED]
Members
62 posts
8,906 battles

I love my Helena, I’m not a rock hiding type and I can kite well and shoot on the run with a favorable concealment. Got 59% in 70 games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
148 posts
6,476 battles
On 9/18/2018 at 1:29 PM, Ericson38 said:

Anyone worse than that ? Even my Dallas is 44%, which was hard to play. If worse than this, or around this win rate, what do you think is wrong ?

 

Without knowing how you're playing it, it's tough to say. I do know it's tempting to show a lot of broadside to bring all 15 guns to bear so that's something you definitely need to make sure you don't do often.  I've got a 53% win rate and average 60k+ damage in her and I'm not anywhere near being a unicum type player.  I could probably get that win rate up but I tend to play her a bit too aggressively.  

I love the Helena, she's probably my favorite ship.  I see her primary role as being a DD hunter, having 15 guns with a high ROF and Hydro enables you to quickly delete DDs while being able to avoid their torps. She's also an excellent kiter, and it's pretty easy to burn down any same tier or lower tier BBs, given the fact that most of them are much slower than you and you can dictate the range and fairly easily disengage if you need to.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
277
[CVA16]
Members
2,266 posts
9,839 battles
On 9/18/2018 at 10:29 AM, Ericson38 said:

Anyone worse than that ? Even my Dallas is 44%, which was hard to play. If worse than this, or around this win rate, what do you think is wrong ?

I have had worse in WR other ships but I've done OK in Helena and Dallas (not great or unicum).  I had heard that the WR for being AFK was around 40% (any a-holes actually tested this?) so wondered how I could be so far below that in ships that were supposed to be good. One question would be how YOU did in these loses? You can do great but still be on the losing side so that would be a MM problem (MM hates you). Conversely you can do poorly and be carried by better players (MM loves you). I have had games where I thought I did poorly but when the team screen comes up I find myself near the top of the rankings, meaning the rest of the team sucked worse than I did so it was me AND MM.   It can be a deep hole to climb out of to get back to a decent WR. Check some videos to see if you are using the ships to their strengths.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
698 posts
10,478 battles
1 hour ago, Sabot_100 said:

I have had worse in WR other ships but I've done OK in Helena and Dallas (not great or unicum).  I had heard that the WR for being AFK was around 40% (any a-holes actually tested this?) so wondered how I could be so far below that in ships that were supposed to be good. One question would be how YOU did in these loses? You can do great but still be on the losing side so that would be a MM problem (MM hates you). Conversely you can do poorly and be carried by better players (MM loves you). I have had games where I thought I did poorly but when the team screen comes up I find myself near the top of the rankings, meaning the rest of the team sucked worse than I did so it was me AND MM.   It can be a deep hole to climb out of to get back to a decent WR. Check some videos to see if you are using the ships to their strengths.

I know that the MM algorithms, which drive all of game play experiences, aren't known by the player base, only the results of it running each time players are grouped.

What we do know is that there are ship tier considerations, and ship type considerations within each tier that make up the team, and that's about all. At face value these look balanced when the match starts. Radar equipped ships on both sides get a lot of attention also.

What is not known is each player's win rate for that specific ship they launched into battle (except for each player, if they keep track of such things like I do).

What I think MM does is group low or close to average WR players onto one team, and average to above average players onto the other, which is why there are so many lopsided outcomes. If an AFK of one player takes the overall WRs down to 40%, that seems at least a plausible outcome, considering that MM did not know this non-play ahead of time, and this makes up about 10% of team, depending on what ship and tier and WR they had when they attempted to get into battle (but lost the internet connection).  

There is no random statistical zero mean explanation even close to possible for my very low WRs in both Helena and Dallas. If it was a statistical random chance, then the next day (at least) these losses would have turned into wins. But 40 games is over 4 to 5 days. With over 900 Cleveland games, I do know how to play these ships (or did).

With 54 cruisers played, there are no 'other side of the coin' stories to relate, where the WR is in the 60s, or even high 50s.

Edited by Ericson38

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
277
[CVA16]
Members
2,266 posts
9,839 battles
1 hour ago, Ericson38 said:

There is no random statistical zero mean explanation even close to possible for my very low WRs in both Helena and Dallas. If it was a statistical random chance, then the next day (at least) these losses would have turned into wins. But 40 games is over 4 to 5 days.

All I can say is my WR on my worst WR ships (Texas was one) did eventually come up to the low 40s. Still poor, but not abysmal.  If MM treats you normal from here on out (no long win streaks) it will take a while to get up to a semi respectable WR.

I do wish MM would at least make a nod to balancing player quality (unless it is WG's wish to have the battles over quick). Once MM has selected the team by tier and type, divided the radars, then, when possible, shift some of the  really good (and really bad) players around to make a better balance.  Sometimes I think it actually works in the opposite direction to get the games over quicker.

What is your WR in the Cleveland

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,064
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
16,170 posts
11,691 battles

You're probably not playing the ship the way it needs to be played.  Helena is not very forgiving when it starts getting shot at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Supertester
3,004 posts
10,057 battles
On 9/20/2018 at 10:06 AM, Ericson38 said:

I know that the MM algorithms, which drive all of game play experiences, aren't known by the player base, only the results of it running each time players are grouped.

What we do know is that there are ship tier considerations, and ship type considerations within each tier that make up the team, and that's about all. At face value these look balanced when the match starts. Radar equipped ships on both sides get a lot of attention also.

What is not known is each player's win rate for that specific ship they launched into battle (except for each player, if they keep track of such things like I do).

What I think MM does is group low or close to average WR players onto one team, and average to above average players onto the other, which is why there are so many lopsided outcomes. If an AFK of one player takes the overall WRs down to 40%, that seems at least a plausible outcome, considering that MM did not know this non-play ahead of time, and this makes up about 10% of team, depending on what ship and tier and WR they had when they attempted to get into battle (but lost the internet connection).  

There is no random statistical zero mean explanation even close to possible for my very low WRs in both Helena and Dallas. If it was a statistical random chance, then the next day (at least) these losses would have turned into wins. But 40 games is over 4 to 5 days. With over 900 Cleveland games, I do know how to play these ships (or did).

With 54 cruisers played, there are no 'other side of the coin' stories to relate, where the WR is in the 60s, or even high 50s.

To the bold, this is not how statistics work. If that were the case, a 1 in 10 chance to win lottery, you could in theory buy 10 lottery tickets and have guaranteed win, but that is not the case unless the situation is one where the possibilities are closed off. Meaning there are "only" 10 possible outcomes and there are "only" 10 tries at them.

However, if you flip a coin 10 times and it comes up heads the first time, what's the chance that the next flip will be tails? From what I am gathering from what I am gathering you are asserting is that because there are only two probabilities, it must be tails or after "X" amount of flips "it HAS to be tails". Well, no, it really doesn't. The chance to be both heads and tails is close to 50% and here is a fun little visual to help with that. If you scroll down past the table, you will see a working random "coin flip" and a corresponding  (T for Tails) and (H for heads) as well as a count for number of flips, number of times Heads came up, number of times Tails came up and a track record for the likely hood Head or Tails will come up on the next flip.

I flipped 500 simulated coins during this posted. There were times when the coin flip did indeed go back and forth. Other times there were small streaks of 3-5 Heads or Tails, but then it balanced back out. And yet, there were even greater streaks where I would hit over 15 in a row of either Heads or Tails and only get 3-5 in return of the other, only to have it balance later.

As a result of my 500 flips, this was the result:

5ba6206f99097_coinflip.thumb.JPG.5c45a12f46992fd914a82841e16ae432.JPG

 

In regards to the Match Maker, it has been said numerous times that Match Maker only takes into consideration what "ship tiers" are in queue and recently, tries to mirror each team. MM assigns each ship a numerical value based on said tier and some restrictions, etc...

 

Well here, here is an "older" explanation from the devs themselves. Source was the RU server even and I snagged this from the EU forums, none the less it gives a great explanation of what the Match Maker used to be even though they have improved on it and are continuing to do so. What you don't see, though I hope you still don't think there is some Illuminati scandal to keep people from improving, is just that, a proverbial wall that keeps sub 50% players where they are and empowers +50%'ers to excel (just throwing numbers out). Honestly, that is ridiculous and would be counter productive, even from a business perspective.

After all, who would spend money on a game they:

1) Know they are being intentionally held back compared to the other half of the player base

2) Had zero chance of being able to improve due to #1

 

WG is a business, I would think their optimal guideline would be to maximize profits while keeping as many people as possible. I can't see that happening if half or more of the population knows that they are being intentionally held back or knows that the game is that tilted.

 

Edited by BURN_Miner
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
698 posts
10,478 battles

I appreciate your response.

In these matches and attendant player WR statistics for a ship-player situation there is a very high standard deviation about the mean in wins and loss outcomes. Meaning a significant series of wins and a equal sequence of losses are not unlikely, defining the width (std dev) and the extreme tails of the distribution (upside down bell shape). These strings of wins/losses are less likely the further out into the tails one goes, compared to the central part of the distribution (one win followed by one loss). We are assuming here that average WR is a valid thing to define in the 1st place, and that there are no correlations between single player performance and other functions that could effect the outcomes (WR) such as low performance players get paired with other low performance players. These would result in a skewed distribution of outcomes, and basically show that the results were effected by things not of pure chance before the match started.

Before one can get a feel for a player's performance, assuming they are also learning the ship (not so much in my case since I have 930 games in old Cleveland), a # of games need to be played. Some think 100 matches is a fairly good # before they either continue to play the ship or set it aside for lack of success. I figured 20-30 in this case, due to the prior (T6) Cleveland play. The higher the measured std dev, the higher the confidence internal (# of matches) has to be to draw conclusions, such as a statement that the player really is this bad or this good. The 95% confidence level would require several hundred games possibly, since there are concurrent processes that effect the players performance.

These include who is playing at any time (on both teams), team ship makeup, internet ping delay, alertness of player, randomness due to general gameplay hits and misses of flying shells and torps, did I go with the correct carrier loadout,  I forgot camo or a flag, etc.

When I had played 40 games and saw a very low win rate, and the red team constantly taking out my team early and often, and no close matches, I started to wonder if the MM had steered the outcome by combing lower players on one side, versus what you would like to think it might do, which is not consider player performance. I also had, within the 1st three matches, a 80K damage game and a 3 ship kill game, and wondered just what I saw. Those came initially, not in the middle or late stages.

If I had been AFK for those 40 matches, I still say, assuming no teams have better WR averages than other as they are formed for a match, since I was a lightly armored CL without radar, and made up only 8% of the team, that it would not have brought each team I had tried to join (AFK) down to a loss 75% of the time I AFKd. Remember an AFK player still draws resources from the other team which is trying to sink it.

Basically what I saw 75% of the time is that the players I was paired with were going to loose the match. And I did contribute and was never AFK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
264
[SHOOT]
Beta Testers
1,678 posts
8,116 battles
On 9/18/2018 at 1:29 PM, Ericson38 said:

Anyone worse than that ? Even my Dallas is 44%, which was hard to play. If worse than this, or around this win rate, what do you think is wrong ?

 

Its not an mm issue, with armor and pen values as they are, if you dont have IFHE on your t6-10 usn CLs your going to struggle to contribute to your team regardless of tier or composition.

IFHE is so important that its worth taking over Concealment Expert; especially with Dallas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53
[WOLF9]
Members
265 posts
3,881 battles

Love Helena, fun little ship.  IFHE is required to do damage though.  Through my first 21 games with her, I am at a 66.67% WR and averaging 63k damage.  Took her out for one game tonight and got 4 kills in a tier 9 match on Shatter.  Salty enemy BB I burned down told his teammates to find a way to deny me a Kraken lol. 

WRT the OP:  Without seeing replays, hard to say why you are having so little success.  Keep at it though, once you have both CE and IFHE, Helena is a blast to play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
698 posts
10,478 battles

Dallas and Helena (and new Cleveland) all have the same HE shell makeup and velocity characteristics. Dallas has to penetrate less amour than Helena, so I'm running IFHE on Helena and CE on Dallas. Actually, my K/D ratio on Dallas is slightly better than on Helena. Both ships have 15 pt captains. Win rates are in the 40% range on both now, with Dallas having the better #s, when considering the tier. I'm not close to the server average on either ship, but they are playable. Neither as playable as the old Cleveland. WoW is a habit in my spare time, but it used to be way more fun.

Edited by Ericson38

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
698 posts
10,478 battles
5 minutes ago, Uncle_Lou said:

Love Helena, fun little ship.  IFHE is required to do damage though.  Through my first 21 games with her, I am at a 66.67% WR and averaging 63k damage.  Took her out for one game tonight and got 4 kills in a tier 9 match on Shatter.  Salty enemy BB I burned down told his teammates to find a way to deny me a Kraken lol. 

WRT the OP:  Without seeing replays, hard to say why you are having so little success.  Keep at it though, once you have both CE and IFHE, Helena is a blast to play.

I'm still getting overmatched by Dallas players against my Helena, so one of those was probably me LoL.

Edited by Ericson38

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
435
[VW]
Members
1,930 posts
12,495 battles
On 9/18/2018 at 7:29 PM, Ericson38 said:

Anyone worse than that ? Even my Dallas is 44%, which was hard to play. If worse than this, or around this win rate, what do you think is wrong ?

 

do you have ifhe on the captain? concealment expert? the former is mandatory on the cl line, the latter is almost as much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
698 posts
10,478 battles
24 minutes ago, monpetitloup said:

do you have ifhe on the captain? concealment expert? the former is mandatory on the cl line, the latter is almost as much.

Dallas and Helena (and new Cleveland) all have the same HE shell makeup and velocity characteristics. Dallas has to penetrate less amour than Helena, so I'm running IFHE on Helena and CE on Dallas. Actually, my K/D ratio on Dallas is slightly better than on Helena. Both ships have 15 pt captains.

Kept playing it through and got the permanent camo.

World of Warships 9_23_2018 11_24_49 AM.png

Edited by Ericson38

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
435
[VW]
Members
1,930 posts
12,495 battles
48 minutes ago, Ericson38 said:

Dallas and Helena (and new Cleveland) all have the same HE shell makeup and velocity characteristics. Dallas has to penetrate less amour than Helena, so I'm running IFHE on Helena and CE on Dallas. Actually, my K/D ratio on Dallas is slightly better than on Helena. Both ships have 15 pt captains.

Kept playing it through and got the permanent camo.

World of Warships 9_23_2018 11_24_49 AM.png

sounds right. then the question is probably one of staying alive log enough to do damage, of course those cl are so underpowered that you are at the mercy of the rest of your team. if they derp you probably cant carry them. i guess try and focus dds, get behind islands and lob he...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45
Beta Testers
218 posts
On 9/18/2018 at 10:29 AM, Ericson38 said:

Anyone worse than that ? Even my Dallas is 44%, which was hard to play. If worse than this, or around this win rate, what do you think is wrong ?

 

You didn't worship the RNGesus. Try praying while in queue. Sometimes you need to sacrifice a beer or two.

 

No one can sustain a 20% win rate by playing normally. A single random battle player can only affect win rate by approx. 10%, or 20% for a unicorn. You are probably a better player than this number suggests.

 

If you team-kill, and you do it very destructively, then I suppose 20% win rate is sustainable, although I doubt anyone can successfully do this without getting his account banned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
698 posts
10,478 battles

No team kill, that's why normal statistics don't work here. MM has a bias built in, where your effectiveness on a ship (damage or WR or what ever formula of a set of parameters they decide to use is) is used to place you on a team. I'm now at 42% (and 44% for Dallas). Not as bad, but then there was a large stretch of time where after I got the permanent camo I stayed in T6-8 battles (about 20 battles in a row). That brought things up.  I also thought that was stranger than strange, as before the perm camo was awarded, I was knocked out of T7-9 battles all the time. I would just play the stupid thing anyway, loosing some money (but not T8 money) each time, until the camo came along, which I read up on afterwards.

Edited by Ericson38

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
277
[CVA16]
Members
2,266 posts
9,839 battles
On 9/25/2018 at 5:39 PM, Ericson38 said:

MM has a bias built in, where your effectiveness on a ship (damage or WR or what ever formula of a set of parameters they decide to use is) is used to place you on a team.

SUPPOSEDLY, MM does not use any player stats in making its matches.  Just tier, ship type and radar. When you are on a losing streak where you keep getting on the potato team, it may not seem this way. Personally think it should in order balance matches better.

Edited by Sabot_100

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×