140 [0456] y_vonne Members 391 posts 8,395 battles Report post #1 Posted January 12 after 20 battles, 50....100, etc? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
392 [ADOPT] JollyRoger6969 Supertester, Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters 1,594 posts 4,196 battles Report post #2 Posted January 12 Never. Damage and Damage and XP is what you should care about. Then after you look at those two you can look at WR. WR should always be the last stat you look at. And to answer... I like 500 battles for a good image. 2 1 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
27,255 [HINON] Lert Supertester 21,521 posts 15,283 battles Report post #3 Posted January 12 When you start caring about it. Honestly though, at ~1000 matches per-match RNG is down to almost nonexistant and your WR reflects your own performance. Whether that means it matters is open for debate. 6 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
2,321 [PHASE] Waxing_Gibbous Members 4,953 posts 16,663 battles Report post #4 Posted January 12 when you need to win an argument, even when you are wrong.... In reality I check a lot of players wr's.. sometime I hear or read something that I feel is complete trash, look the guy up and find out he probably knows what he is talking about...Its hard to win early especially if you don't have the ship and captain maxed out. Focus on damage, surviving.... and most of all fun. 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1,193 [WOLF1] Kirov_Six Members 4,327 posts 1,975 battles Report post #5 Posted January 12 20 minutes ago, Lert said: When you start caring about it. Honestly though, at ~1000 matches per-match RNG is down to almost nonexistant and your WR reflects your own performance. Whether that means it matters is open for debate. I think this is the best answer. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
202 [DANKY] Eugenie_101 Members 728 posts 2,066 battles Report post #6 Posted January 12 Everyone but rerolls goes through a rough first 500-1000 matches where they learn the different mechanics, ship types, maps etc etc. For people with >3k matches the number is a pretty good estimate of how likely that player will help you win or lose a match. Less than that, look at their trajectory if you can and see whether they’re clawing their way out of a n00b slump. Also keep in mind that some folks drive one boat like a killer and can’t make another boat work. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
2,785 [PN] CAPTMUDDXX [PN] Beta Testers 7,596 posts 18,058 battles Report post #7 Posted January 12 The only thing a higher win rate means is that you were on a few more teams with really good players or very lucky players vs teams of not so good nor lucky players. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
140 [0456] y_vonne Members 391 posts 8,395 battles Report post #8 Posted January 12 44 minutes ago, Lert said: When you start caring about it. Honestly though, at ~1000 matches per-match RNG is down to almost nonexistant and your WR reflects your own performance. Whether that means it matters is open for debate. so true tnx much guys. helpful Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1,635 [GWG] AVR_Project [GWG] Members 6,326 posts Report post #9 Posted January 12 1 hour ago, y_vonne said: after 20 battles, 50....100, etc? If you are applying for a job.. maybe it's best you don't mention you are involved in on-line gaming. When does it matter to your family? Only if another member of your family knows what you are talking about, and also playing the same game would be a plus. When does it matter to anyone of consequence here in the forums?? Only those you likely can't relate to. If WR is important, then something else is less. More important than WR... Food, conversation with loved ones, going to weddings, anything social in nature, work, workmanship, and (of course) sex. Less important than WR... conversations with idiots that don't like me anyway, cleaning out trash cans, filing taxes early, waiting for the traffic light to turn green. 3 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
4,196 [PVE] Kizarvexis Members 16,244 posts 10,782 battles Report post #10 Posted January 12 1 hour ago, Lert said: When you start caring about it. Honestly though, at ~1000 matches per-match RNG is down to almost nonexistant and your WR reflects your own performance. Whether that means it matters is open for debate. This Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1,824 [A-D-F] Doombeagle Members 1,850 posts Report post #11 Posted January 12 When you have no life and depend upon a video game to validate your sense of self-worth. 2 1 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1,026 JustAdapt Members 1,727 posts 12,449 battles Report post #12 Posted January 12 WR only matters if you care about it but even if you care about it, it really doesn’t mean much... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1,044 [WOLF5] AJTP89 Members 2,627 posts 3,062 battles Report post #13 Posted January 12 When is it an accurate representation of how you play? Certainly not until 1000 or so battles in. Personally, unless your WR is below 45 or above 55, I'm going to say you're average. That high or that low is saying something. In between, I don't care. But some don't care at all, and others judge you only by WR. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
2,844 [CNO] Soshi_Sone Members 5,021 posts 15,814 battles Report post #14 Posted January 12 In a nutshell, WR is not about where you ARE....but about where you are GOING! And until you've got at least 1000 games under your belt, it really isn't much of a metric. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1,560 [SSG] WanderingGhost Alpha Tester 4,425 posts 10,208 battles Report post #15 Posted January 12 As Lert said - when you start caring. Only "matter's" , and I use that term very loosely, on the forums, to some, as reason to try and fully invalidate the claims or opinions of others they disagree with on various topics because they either don't want to, or can't, argue against information that player may have and present, if not out right facts, evidence, or math, or simply opinion that they don't like. I run in to it constantly because it's easier to argue I'm a bad player who knows nothing, then acknowledge maybe I know what I'm talking about, even if I don't fully apply it because focusing on all the little details and all that I can use to get 60-70% winrates just isn't as fun or at times challenging as "I'mma charge that republic with my Baltimore" - which I've won that fight multiple times I may add, albeit with heavy damage. There is exactly 2 numbers if I even bother at looking at stats that I actually give a damn about when someone starts on "this is OP, that is OP, buff this, etc" - number of battles, and tier. Doubly so for CV's because there are too many people who formed opinions based on playing tier 4, where a CV can easily do well because of how things are set up and can easily be argued as OP, as opposed to mid tiers and higher when AA is actually a factor. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
2,463 [NGAGE] enderland07 Members 3,687 posts 8,784 battles Report post #16 Posted January 12 WR matters if you care about getting better. Many players don't care about this and just play to enjoy the game. Some enjoy playing at a high level and like improving. Which of those categories you fall into determines how much you ought to care about winrate. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
385 [KSC] XpliCT_ Members 1,051 posts 4,598 battles Report post #17 Posted January 12 1 hour ago, CAPTMUDDXX said: The only thing a higher win rate means is that you were on a few more teams with really good players or very lucky players vs teams of not so good nor lucky players. So the players with higher winrates just have better teams huh? How does that work out after a sample size of 10,000? Having a 60% winrate over that many battles must mean someone is really damn lucky. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
2 [PPF] eslavik1 [PPF] Members 8 posts 15,635 battles Report post #18 Posted January 12 I don't know. It's hard to use something like win rate to determine effectiveness in a zero sum game. At the same time a win rate of 75% compared to someone at 40% definitely shows who the better player is. However I see playera with 53% win rates trash talking 49% win rates and scratch my head at how they can they assume they are better when their rate isn't even one standard deviation from the mean. Bragging about winning 4 extra battles out of every 100 seems ridiculously stupid and hight lights the total fail on the education system in regards to mathematics and statistics. 🤷♂️ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
2,463 [NGAGE] enderland07 Members 3,687 posts 8,784 battles Report post #19 Posted January 12 Just now, eslavik1 said: I don't know. It's hard to use something like win rate to determine effectiveness in a zero sum game. At the same time a win rate of 75% compared to someone at 40% definitely shows who the better player is. However I see playera with 53% win rates trash talking 49% win rates and scratch my head at how they can they assume they are better when their rate isn't even one standard deviation from the mean. Bragging about winning 4 extra battles out of every 100 seems ridiculously stupid and hight lights the total fail on the education system in regards to mathematics and statistics. 🤷♂️ It's entirely possible with the distribution of player winrates that a 53% player is a standard deviation higher than a 49% player. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
2 [PPF] eslavik1 [PPF] Members 8 posts 15,635 battles Report post #20 Posted January 12 I would agree except the game decision making is based purely on RNG. Over time this produces a normal bell curve distribution in which 4% would not cover the spread of a stand dev Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
385 [KSC] XpliCT_ Members 1,051 posts 4,598 battles Report post #21 Posted January 12 10 minutes ago, enderland07 said: It's entirely possible with the distribution of player winrates that a 53% player is a standard deviation higher than a 49% player. One could argue that due to the sheer size of the sample, and the relative lack of variance in the set, winrates have very little of a standard deviation. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
2,463 [NGAGE] enderland07 Members 3,687 posts 8,784 battles Report post #22 Posted January 12 Just now, XpliCT_ said: One could argue that due to the sheer size of the sample, and the relative lack of variance in the set, winrates have very little of a standard deviation. A standard deviation is also only relevant if the data is a certain shape (which it probably isn't). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
385 [KSC] XpliCT_ Members 1,051 posts 4,598 battles Report post #23 Posted January 12 5 minutes ago, enderland07 said: A standard deviation is also only relevant if the data is a certain shape (which it probably isn't). True, although I would figure the winrate in WoWs to be on what resembles a bell curve. Somewhat at least. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
7,561 [WOLF3] HazeGrayUnderway Members 21,733 posts 19,966 battles Report post #24 Posted January 12 Win Rate starts to matter the moment you start inquiring about it. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
223 [PSV] lipiru Members 332 posts 8,528 battles Report post #25 Posted January 12 1 minute ago, HazeGrayUnderway said: Win Rate starts to matter the moment you start inquiring about it. Exactly Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
