Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
_Marines

Opinion: Battleship server average damage stats are a good representation of the skill floor

7 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

262
[APES]
Members
993 posts
6,326 battles

Battleships' average damage/match stats rank very differently with server average vs in the port of the same player. Take Tier 8 for example:

1.thumb.png.0b2933fd17da01d9923db04263a91c62.png

(^North American server average as of April 2020)

2.thumb.png.86e853e9fd744d6f0377c0a6159a1dc2.png

(^Using YouTube microcelebrity CitizenS9's profile, who streams a variety of battleships in rotation)

Here, ships like Vlad is ranked #3 in NA server, but #13 with CitizenS9; while Gascogne ranked #10 in NA server, but #4 with CitizenS9.

Why?

People often talk about the concept of "skill ceilings" and "skill floors." I think they are sort of misnomers, and could be understood as "performance ceilings" and "performance floors." That is, in the hands of a seasoned player, how high the ship's performance can hit a "ceiling;" and in the hands of a noobish player, how low the ship's performance can hit a "floor."

For battleships, the average damage/match is arguably the best indicator of the ship's strength. (Other indicators include average frags and win rate.)

The average player in World of Warships don't play the game often and may not read the forums. It's safe to assume they are not keenly aware of each ship's strengths and not able to play to these strengths. As they play randomly to their comfort, the one or two seasoned players of the 12 enemies will be able to find their weakness and exploit it. For example, Smolensk (Minotaur, Belfast, and the likes) is squishy and should stay behind an island, smoke, or at least teammates. The average Smolensk player is not keenly aware of that, and tend to charge at suboptimal moments, moving too close to the enemies. Most enemies, assuming average, may also not be keenly aware of that (especially if a low health target is nearby), but the one or two seasoned players are, and will swiftly punish the said average player.

This might be the reason that the average player seems to play to each ship's weaknesses, and that the server average stats reflect the skill floors. That is my theory.

So what?

Skill floors are important, and most of us are not as strong as we think we are. Skill floors also indicate what a bad match could be, which will always happen once in a while. Ships with a solid skill floor may have less downward risk and less really bad matches. They may also be less stressful to play.

Previously I have heard theories that server average damage stats do not represent the skill floors, or that they do but it's because people don't care and people play to their ship's weaknesses. I have thought about this and I think a better explanation is what I said here: people play to their comfort, and the few seasoned players in the enemy team find their weaknesses.

That's just my opinion. Let me know what you think.

Edited by _Marines

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,263
[WOLF5]
Supertester
4,131 posts
4,088 battles

I think you're right. BBs are the easiest to be somewhat effective in. Park up somewhere and lob shells at the enemy. They're big enough that precise aiming is not required, and a decent chance of big damage. Screw up and you have HP and armor to get out of it alive. Screw up in a cruiser or DD and you're history.

 

But I think BBs are most often criminally underplayed. As most of you know, the big benefit of a BB is as an anchor. Position so that the reds can't go somewhere important for fear of being deleted, and you're pretty hard to dislodge with any kind of support. Most players don't get this, they either YOLO in and die, or sit back dead to the enemy so as to present little threat to a push. Bonus points if you actually take your BB somewhere with no gunfire line to the reds (looking at you North). But angle up on a flank, overlooking a cap with a good shooting lane and a protected flank? You are now the anchor for your team, keeping off their cruisers so your DDs can cap and spot, allowing your team to hit their ships. So while the skill floor is low, the cap is pretty damn high. Just look at any battle. The team with their BBs centrally positioned is almost always the one that wins. (I don't mean in the middle of B, I mean controlling the middle). Someone here once posted that you can usually tell the outcome of a match two minutes in from the position of your team. I thought that was a bit much at the time, but now I agree. Once you see where the BBs are, most often you can predict the outcome. 

Learn how to position people, it's the single most important thing in WOWS.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
262
[APES]
Members
993 posts
6,326 battles
1 hour ago, AJTP89 said:

Someone here once posted that you can usually tell the outcome of a match two minutes in from the position of your team. I thought that was a bit much at the time, but now I agree. Once you see where the BBs are, most often you can predict the outcome. 

Learn how to position people, it's the single most important thing in WOWS.

I can't agree more: Opinion: 90% of a player's performance is explained by positioning of the ship :fish_happy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,982 posts
36,778 battles

A picture is worth a thousand words, but it never tells the story or context.

If any player assumed they are going to lose a match based on a ship's performance, then they are caught in a self fulfilling prophecy.

Assume it's bad without context and you walk right in to the door of ignorance.

It's like when you buy dinner or something and you forget about it over a few months and

when you finally look at the CC statement online and find out the waitress charged a larger tip but did not report the error because the restaurant manager figured they could pocket the money instead of giving the money to the restaurant owner. Because if the owner found out, the manager and the waitress could get in big trouble.

But you know the waitress because you go there often and you don't want her to get fired for it. And you don't tell the owner because it ruins lives. You keep it to yourself.

OP, don't always believe stats. Talk to your teammates and work with them to play the match.

You will find communication is the key to better understanding.

Even the highest must be made humble by the lowest. And on any given match, any player can be the one that turns the tide of battle.

Those numbers are pretty to look at, but what has that player or ship type done lately.

Players change and WG always adjusts ships for balance.

Evolution, it is evident at times. W BB player may suddenly be good at CVs. A CV player might suddenly be epic good at BBs.

There is always something or someone more clever than yourself.

And some even pretend to be not clever at all and may do this to fit in.

😎😇

 

 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,653
[WOLF3]
Members
27,086 posts
23,857 battles
3 hours ago, AJTP89 said:

I think you're right. BBs are the easiest to be somewhat effective in. Park up somewhere and lob shells at the enemy. They're big enough that precise aiming is not required, and a decent chance of big damage. Screw up and you have HP and armor to get out of it alive. Screw up in a cruiser or DD and you're history.

 

But I think BBs are most often criminally underplayed. As most of you know, the big benefit of a BB is as an anchor. Position so that the reds can't go somewhere important for fear of being deleted, and you're pretty hard to dislodge with any kind of support. Most players don't get this, they either YOLO in and die, or sit back dead to the enemy so as to present little threat to a push. Bonus points if you actually take your BB somewhere with no gunfire line to the reds (looking at you North). But angle up on a flank, overlooking a cap with a good shooting lane and a protected flank? You are now the anchor for your team, keeping off their cruisers so your DDs can cap and spot, allowing your team to hit their ships. So while the skill floor is low, the cap is pretty damn high. Just look at any battle. The team with their BBs centrally positioned is almost always the one that wins. (I don't mean in the middle of B, I mean controlling the middle). Someone here once posted that you can usually tell the outcome of a match two minutes in from the position of your team. I thought that was a bit much at the time, but now I agree. Once you see where the BBs are, most often you can predict the outcome. 

Learn how to position people, it's the single most important thing in WOWS.

As a Cruiser Main, most especially with good time in Des Moines, what the enemy BBs are doing determines how aggressively I can play the caps.  If they're playing off where their shells take a while to arrive, I may play bolder.  But if they're playing too close, I can help the DDs in taking HP off them, especially to compliment their torpedoes.

But it's the BBs that are close enough to get better hit % attacks against me, but still far enough that the DDs can't drive them away or kill them with torpedoes... Those are the ones that concern me the most.  I could poke briefly out to Radar the cap, but such BBs are close enough that if they fire, it doesn't take long for the shells to arrive.

Even the times where I've played a DD, if the Battleships are too far back, they're not an effective presence.  They can't hit sh*t if they're too far away, i.e. those Bismarck's sitting back at 18km.  When your team's BBs are sitting too far back, you can see how much more aggressive enemy DDs are.  The worst are enemy Radar Cruisers, they'll get bolder if they know the opposing Battleships are too far to reliably hit them.

There's only so much torpedo spam that can be used to discourage a push, especially if you're the only DD in the area.  They see your torps go by ineffectively, they see the opposing BB is far back, the reds WILL push, and there's nothing your DD can do to stop them once your torps are reloading.

 

In numerous threads in the past around here, when a BB player asks about a replay critique to get better, most of the time it's improper positioning with their BB.  Honestly, the average BB player isn't bad in their aim.  If I show broadside to an average BB with my Cruiser, I expect to be punished.  A bunch of the typical BB players have a fundamental understanding to protect their broadsides.  But what separates the bad, or average BB player from the good and Unicum ones, is position.  Being close enough to be effective with main batteries to put the Fear of God into people, while far enough that torpedoes aren't going to reach them.  It's a delicate balance and the range differs from BB to BB.

 

The Battleship provides the alpha striking, deletion power.  Just as importantly, it provides staying power.  Cruisers can deal DPM damage real well, but staying power, no, they don't really have it in general.  It's easy to silence Cruisers, shoot at them a while and when the shells start landing on or around them, they'll retreat or withhold gunfire and go back into stealth, if they didn't get rekt.  When I played a DD, I appreciated the BB players that understood what they brought to the table and supported what I was doing up front.  The Battleship 18, 19km behind, those were useless.  They may as well have exited to port and AFK'd the rest of the match.

2 hours ago, _Marines said:

It's very easy to see right away at the start of the match.  See how far back everyone on the team is, where they're at.  You know if it's going to be a loss.  When I played a DD and see my team is sitting too far back, no position to reliably support me, I became a lot more reluctant to aggressively push and find targets or play the caps.  What support can you expect as a DD if the Cruisers and Battleships are too far away behind you?

The answer is none.  They may fire but their shots are too long ranged that they'll miss too much, especially against DDs you find.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,808
[WORX]
Members
10,710 posts
18,582 battles
4 hours ago, _Marines said:

People often talk about the concept of "skill ceilings" and "skill floors." I think they are sort of misnomers, and could be understood as "performance ceilings" and "performance floors." That is, in the hands of a seasoned player, how high the ship's performance can hit a "ceiling;" and in the hands of a noobish player, how low the ship's performance can hit a "floor."

For battleships, the average damage/match is arguably the best indicator of the ship's strength. (Other indicators include average frags and win rate.)

If you're trying to identify a floor or ceiling  performance of a ship, I disagree in using the avg DMG to determine that..

Simply put, if we try to use your idea on other ship types,  say a cruiser or a DD... The only conclusion I would interpret with using AVG DMG stat would be,  the individual player's aim/target selection is better defined.

In doing so, you actually determined if the player's aim is at a noob level or should I pay more attention to sink him first... Not the performance floor or ceiling of a given ship with a capt..

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
383 posts
4,146 battles
On 4/2/2020 at 9:33 PM, _Marines said:

Battleships' average damage/match stats rank very differently with server average vs in the port of the same player. Take Tier 8 for example:

1.thumb.png.0b2933fd17da01d9923db04263a91c62.png

(^North American server average as of April 2020)

2.thumb.png.86e853e9fd744d6f0377c0a6159a1dc2.png

(^Using YouTube microcelebrity CitizenS9's profile, who streams a variety of battleships in rotation)

Here, ships like Vlad is ranked #3 in NA server, but #13 with CitizenS9; while Gascogne ranked #10 in NA server, but #4 with CitizenS9.

Why?

People often talk about the concept of "skill ceilings" and "skill floors." I think they are sort of misnomers, and could be understood as "performance ceilings" and "performance floors." That is, in the hands of a seasoned player, how high the ship's performance can hit a "ceiling;" and in the hands of a noobish player, how low the ship's performance can hit a "floor."

For battleships, the average damage/match is arguably the best indicator of the ship's strength. (Other indicators include average frags and win rate.)

The average player in World of Warships don't play the game often and may not read the forums. It's safe to assume they are not keenly aware of each ship's strengths and not able to play to these strengths. As they play randomly to their comfort, the one or two seasoned players of the 12 enemies will be able to find their weakness and exploit it. For example, Smolensk (Minotaur, Belfast, and the likes) is squishy and should stay behind an island, smoke, or at least teammates. The average Smolensk player is not keenly aware of that, and tend to charge at suboptimal moments, moving too close to the enemies. Most enemies, assuming average, may also not be keenly aware of that (especially if a low health target is nearby), but the one or two seasoned players are, and will swiftly punish the said average player.

This might be the reason that the average player seems to play to each ship's weaknesses, and that the server average stats reflect the skill floors. That is my theory.

So what?

Skill floors are important, and most of us are not as strong as we think we are. Skill floors also indicate what a bad match could be, which will always happen once in a while. Ships with a solid skill floor may have less downward risk and less really bad matches. They may also be less stressful to play.

Previously I have heard theories that server average damage stats do not represent the skill floors, or that they do but it's because people don't care and people play to their ship's weaknesses. I have thought about this and I think a better explanation is what I said here: people play to their comfort, and the few seasoned players in the enemy team find their weaknesses.

That's just my opinion. Let me know what you think.

I agree with the reasoning, but not the evidence. I don't think taking a single skilled players stats, and the server's average is the best statistic example due to selection bias. I can make almost any argument using the same setup and it would look "the same", as long as I pick the correct player. The server average is of a "bad player", or at least one that wont make a significant impact on the game most of the time, as most players wont be able to contribute significantly, or just fail to do so.There's also the consideration of who is driving the ship, as steel ships (which require players to be in a clan) will almost always have better stats then their peers, not because the ship is significantly better, but the players driving it usually are. 

I think its fair to say the server average is the skill floor for most ships, but not all. Any ship that does significantly worse then 50% average of the tier probably has a higher skill ceiling, or just outright sucks. (idk if any ship meets this criteria tho) This doesn't mean that ship will have more bad matches, rather it means more players will have bad matches then the average ship. 

For example, if your bad in a Minotaur you'd get deleted 24/7 because its super unforgiving, where-as if your a god in a Minotaur you basically will never get deleted, and will almost always have a good game. Yes luck can have some effect, but great players make their own luck. 

 

Now I did say I agree with your reasoning, because I also believe battleships are easy to play good, but hard to play well. So they are an easy and forgiving class to play if your not that good of a player, but their skill ceiling is pretty high, which means great players can do vastly better then the average player. 

Like other said above me, positioning is everything. People are afraid of torps and getting burnt down, but no one really thinks about how effective ~12 rounds that can each deal 10K matter, the key is being able to execute those shots, and aiming only goes so far. Lots of mediocre BB players just blame RNG (among other things) for their lack of citidels, but never consider how their fire position can get better. Obviously RNG is a factor, but a good fire position over time will always reward you with better RNG. Good BB players don't magically have better RNG, or aim significantly better against targets, but they do aim for the right targets, at the right time, from the right positions, and keep that up longer then the average player. BBs are also unforgiving when it comes to playing well. Aim for the wrong targets, wrong time or be in the wrong position and you can't do anything for 30 seconds, or be the slowest ship to get to the right position.

If you haven't noticed though, doing well really means impacting the game more then the average, IE dealing more damage, winning more games. Both of these boil down to offensive stats, rather then defensive stats. As such "tanking" in a BB only matters if it means getting better shots off, "tanking" for the sake of tanking (IE slowly getting killed) has minimal effect overall when competed to straight deleting people with firepower.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×