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

when does WR start to matter...?

48 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

40
[M_INC]
Members
104 posts
6,682 battles

after 20 battles, 50....100, etc?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
322
[NGA]
Supertester, Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
1,337 posts
3,747 battles

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.

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 1
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23,624
[HINON]
Supertester
19,636 posts
13,211 battles

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.

  • Cool 6
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,001
[DUDE_]
Members
3,095 posts
13,152 battles

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.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
846
[WOLF1]
Members
3,376 posts
1,465 battles
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.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
164
[DANKY]
Members
591 posts
1,800 battles

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. 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
693
[OPRAH]
Beta Testers
4,144 posts
13,513 battles

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.

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40
[M_INC]
Members
104 posts
6,682 battles
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
1,332
[GWG]
[GWG]
Members
5,594 posts
10,056 battles
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.

 

  • Cool 3
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,562
[PVE]
Members
10,843 posts
7,979 battles
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 :Smile_great:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
669
[CAFE]
Members
1,397 posts
10,859 battles

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
464
[WOLF5]
Members
1,675 posts
2,358 battles

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.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,003
[CNO]
[CNO]
Members
3,968 posts
13,211 battles

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.

    

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,003
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
3,640 posts
8,499 battles

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. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
971
[TSPC]
Members
2,377 posts
7,255 battles

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.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
307
[SUCIT]
Members
914 posts
3,863 battles
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.

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
0
[AKN]
Members
4 posts
12,717 battles

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
971
[TSPC]
Members
2,377 posts
7,255 battles
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
0
[AKN]
Members
4 posts
12,717 battles

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
307
[SUCIT]
Members
914 posts
3,863 battles
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
971
[TSPC]
Members
2,377 posts
7,255 battles
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
307
[SUCIT]
Members
914 posts
3,863 battles
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
38
[PSV]
[PSV]
Members
160 posts
8,036 battles
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
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×