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

Poster child game of why there should be a skill gap check

121 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,831
[D-PN]
Members
2,871 posts
15,454 battles

8%+ account WR difference is nuts.  At 4% it becomes a 100% WR for the higher team.  This is like 5 std. deviations and shouldn't happen.

cBBwKcy.png

  • Cool 8
  • Funny 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
  • Boring 4
  • Meh 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,399
[B2P]
Members
13,459 posts
43,393 battles

Ha, there's a threefold difference in PR between the CVs.

  • Haha 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,374
[WORX]
Members
16,137 posts
21,842 battles

%8 difference in WR is within standard... That is %90 percentile of the WOWS population for all server regions...

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,110
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester
28,633 posts
15,081 battles
41 minutes ago, Taichunger said:

Ha, there's a threefold difference in PR between the CVs.

The extreme difference between the two CV's is probably the biggest factor because there only being one per team.

Edited by BrushWolf
  • Cool 3
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,831
[D-PN]
Members
2,871 posts
15,454 battles
35 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

%8 difference in WR is within standard... That is %90 percentile of the WOWS population for all server regions...

You are being sarcastic, right?

Sorry, my sarcasm detector is in the shop right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,993
[SOFOP]
Members
2,647 posts
16,644 battles

I've seen a 45 beat a 60 before.  Probably super rare but it can happen and therefore WG will use that sort of information to maintain their theory that skill based matchmaking would be useless.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,374
[WORX]
Members
16,137 posts
21,842 battles
37 minutes ago, YouSatInGum said:

You are being sarcastic, right?

Sorry, my sarcasm detector is in the shop right now.

Nope... An %8 pts difference in WR in a match is the norm because of  the available population in queue...

A difference of %10 is not only normal (or not as uncommon "nuts" as you claim)... Its expected based on the numbers courtesy of Maplesyrup web site...

Now if you start seeing a %15 or over percentage difference... Then you can say this match is messed up... Until then

Its normal, no big deal.

Edited by Navalpride33
  • Cool 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
326
Members
229 posts
71 battles

To me this post reads as:

 

blah blah blah Hide your stats, otherwise someone will find a way to prove you are too good, or too meh.

Edited by Pebcac
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
12,637 posts
14,320 battles
10 hours ago, Old_Baldy_One said:

I've seen a 45 beat a 60 before.  Probably super rare but it can happen and therefore WG will use that sort of information to maintain their theory that skill based matchmaking would be useless.

Depends on the 45% player as back when the MM had turned against me for a few weeks early on and left me with a 45% WR I was able to to beat 60%+ players once my teams stopped being the ones that all melted away on me within 5 minutes and I then proceeded to claw my way back up towards close to 50% overall WR.

I would saw though that in Warships you should have 47%-48% range be considered about 50% in Tanks because of the fact you get larger Warships teams and far more wild RNG that can play havoc with your WR. In Tanks at least you can dig into good sniper points, have good frontal armor,  and if your aim is precise you can pick off enemy tank after enemy tank. Warships also has the matter of pretty much any time you use your guns your in essence sending up a flare to mark your position.

The best judge of a player of WG would to have Ranked 1 vs 1 periodically and have those stats be what a player is judged by because it would fall ultimately onto their skills as a player with MM and their teams being able to be ruled out.

Edited by Admiral_Thrawn_1
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,201
[SYN]
Members
5,882 posts
13,316 battles
3 hours ago, YouSatInGum said:

8%+ account WR difference is nuts.  At 4% it becomes a 100% WR for the higher team.  This is like 5 std. deviations and shouldn't happen.

cBBwKcy.png

 

Gee, I wonder how that match turned out...

 

Forgive me for thinking this is Photoshopped.

I've long since stopped using MM monitors because what I was seeing was depressing, but I've never seen it this bad.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
371
[KAG]
Members
554 posts
27,887 battles

Agree with @YouSatInGum here. Sure there are a couple of red DDs with purple stats here that are not really unicum, but you cannot deny the carry potential of the remaining super unicums. Hell, there is no one who can even match the non-unicum red players on the green team. If you have a replay, please attach it here. Will be useful to show the naysayers how the green team was picked apart like little kids in a pro MMA match. Unicums make mistakes too, but when you are that loaded, it can be unfun for the team that is being clubbed.

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21,628
[ARGSY]
Members
28,332 posts
24,078 battles

Why do you think the Japanese won Tsushima and Savo Island? Because at the time, man for man and ship for ship, they had the best damn navy in the world.

The skill gap is historical.

  • Cool 2
  • Meh 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,149
[WPORT]
Members
15,219 posts
19,116 battles
18 minutes ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

Why do you think the Japanese won Tsushima and Savo Island? Because at the time, man for man and ship for ship, they had the best damn navy in the world.

The skill gap is historical.

:cap_look:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,149
[WPORT]
Members
15,219 posts
19,116 battles

We all started as "newbies" at one time or another.

Even "noobs" can "git gud" with enough time and effort.

Matchmaking based upon win rates is bollux, in my opinion.  People need to get exposure to better players in order to sharpen their skills and level-up their game.

I enjoyed the heck out of the 1 vs. 1 Ranked battles in 2019.  :-)

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
714 posts
4,574 battles

So having this info before a match does...what, exactly? Does it make you a better player? Does it teach you the skills you need to succeed at the game? 

Or does it make your mind up for you about a match, thus affecting how you play?

Because that's what seems to happen most often: people will decide the game is lost before it is even played. It is why using them makes absolutely no sense to me. They are just more fodder for complainers.

  • Cool 4
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Banned
1,678 posts
1,286 battles
1 minute ago, MajorEnglush said:

So having this info before a match does...what, exactly? Does it make you a better player? Does it teach you the skills you need to succeed at the game? 

Or does it make your mind up for you about a match, thus affecting how you play?

Because that's what seems to happen most often: people will decide the game is lost before it is even played. It is why using them makes absolutely no sense to me. They are just more fodder for complainers.

It's useful for determining where you want to position or push. Do I want to sail in the direction with the most reliable teammates or the ones that will collapse?

  • Cool 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1
  • Meh 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,068
[KAPPA]
Members
3,313 posts
10,834 battles
4 hours ago, Pebcac said:

To me this post reads as:

 

blah blah blah Hide your stats, otherwise someone will find a way to prove you are too good, or too meh.

Even that doesn't work. If you hide your stats, people just treat you like they are 30% when they look you up. I'd rather be judged based on fact rather than speculation.

90% of why my sig includes mine. Remaining 10% is pride in going from 45% WR to this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59
[SPARO]
Banned
122 posts
35 minutes ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

Why do you think the Japanese won Tsushima and Savo Island? Because at the time, man for man and ship for ship, they had the best damn navy in the world.

The skill gap is historical.

They weren't "the best damn navy in the world" in 1905, that would be the Royal Navy, they were just better than the Russians on that day.  Reverse and sail the IJN around the world to encounter the Russians waiting for them near Riga.  Now its a great Russian Victory.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
831
[-VT-]
Members
958 posts
40,914 battles
7 hours ago, ITZ_ACE_BABY said:

win rate is not a determining factor in how skilled a player is.

 i can easily look at the purple players on the enemy team and see they have high win rates but very low average damage which indicates they just play in a div alot which is alot easier to manipulate high win rates.

And....

Damage is not an indicator of skill either.  You can have very skilled CV and DD players who might not do a great deal of damage but they consistently help their team win.

Also, there are a TON of BB players with high damage numbers...who flat stink.  Their whole skill set involves charging in, brawling and dying.  Damage numbers are super.  Their teams' win rates?  Pfffft.

And, yes, folks who play in a division most of the time always have inflated numbers so it is hard to tell their skill level.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,320
[TMS]
Members
4,028 posts
40,442 battles
3 hours ago, USS_Taylor_Swift said:

It's useful for determining where you want to position or push. Do I want to sail in the direction with the most reliable teammates or the ones that will collapse?

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,526
[TDRB]
Members
5,772 posts
13,743 battles
2 hours ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

Why do you think the Japanese won Tsushima and Savo Island? Because at the time, man for man and ship for ship, they had the best damn navy in the world.

The skill gap is historical.

Are you referring to the 1905 battle at  Tsushima where a modern Japanese naval force defeated the Russian Navy? Most of the Russian ships were more or less obsolete and poorly maintained. Russia was far from a naval power & it wasn't until after WW2 that would changed.  Not much support there.

Considering the IJN was never able to achieve their strategic goals and Allied naval forces were successful in winning the Guadalcanal  Canal campaign it is difficult to to believe the IJN was the best.

But you're welcome to your opinion.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×