How Good Am I?

[The_GoDDfather]

As a guide creator that recently has come under statistical fire. How good am I?
 

I need this answer so I can actually fight against them. (Stat bashers)

My skills in DD play, considering the fact every DD I played was stock except for the Benson. I need to know how good I really am.

Thank you for your time. Feel free to go through all my stats and such to reach a conclusion.
 

Seriously,

Kriegsmarine BB H44

 

[Cartoonman]

Your Stats.

 

What about them?

[Macabe]

Looking at stats and only stats, in terms of XP you are above average by approx. 60xp(most accurate measurement of XP average per battle puts it at 965 XP per battle). You under-perform in terms of average damage at 22,251 with average server wide being 30,980. 

 

Source for averages: http://warshipstats.com

[_Sarcasticat_]

Your stats are quite poor for your amount of games.

 

Sorry. 

[Kejja]

 

Your stats are average when compared against the server averages: http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/ranking/index.html

 

That has no bearing on the quality of your guide, which I wouldn't hesitate to recommend to a new DD player. 

 

[QuicksilverJPR]

As a guide creator that recently has come under statistical fire. How good am I?

 

I need this answer so I can actually fight against them. (Stat bashers)

My skills in DD play, considering the fact every DD I played was stock except for the Benson. I need to know how good I really am.

Thank you for your time. Feel free to go through all my stats and such to reach a conclusion.

 

Seriously,

Kriegsmarine BB H44

 

 

You could probably do more dmg and stay alive longer to improve your stats.  Hell, even I need to do that....

[Kejja]

Looking at stats and only stats, in terms of XP you are above average by approx. 60xp(most accurate measurement of XP average per battle puts it at 965 XP per battle). You under-perform in terms of average damage at 22,251 with average server wide being 30,980. 

 

Source for averages: http://warshipstats.com

 

It's not really fair to compare a primarily US DD player against the whole server.  By nature US DDs spend time hunting and killing opposing DDs, which negatively affects average damage.

[The_GoDDfather]

Looking at stats and only stats, in terms of XP you are above average by approx. 60xp(most accurate measurement of XP average per battle puts it at 965 XP per battle). You under-perform in terms of average damage at 22,251 with average server wide being 30,980.

 

Source for averages: http://warshipstats.com

 

Give me a NC and it'll jump at least 20k.

[Mesrith]

As a guide creator that recently has come under statistical fire. How good am I?

 

I need this answer so I can actually fight against them. (Stat bashers)

My skills in DD play, considering the fact every DD I played was stock except for the Benson. I need to know how good I really am.

Thank you for your time. Feel free to go through all my stats and such to reach a conclusion.

 

Probably in the bottom part of "average", like a 4 or 5 out of 10 if I'm being honest.  You're good enough that I wouldn't dismiss your feedback, but probably not good enough (read: experienced enough) to give any guide you wrote much weight.  Without knowing what you played in CBT or how you performed in them, you don't have enough battles in enough ships to be writing guides IMO.  For the ships you have played, your numbers are probably in the 40-50th percentile.

 

Some people don't care about win rate, but even if we throw that out, your base capture/defense, kills, damage, and everything else are low.  Your survival rate is low and you only average 0.75 kills per match, which means you're not a net positive for your team in most matches.

[The_GoDDfather]

 

Probably in the bottom part of "average", like a 4 or 5 out of 10 if I'm being honest.  You're good enough that I wouldn't dismiss your feedback, but probably not good enough (read: experienced enough) to give any guide you wrote much weight.  Without knowing what you played in CBT or how you performed in them, you don't have enough battles in enough ships to be writing guides IMO.  For the ships you have played, your numbers are probably in the 40-50th percentile.

 

Some people don't care about win rate, but even if we throw that out, your base capture/defense, kills, damage, and everything else are low.  Your survival rate is low and you only average 0.75 kills per match, which means you're not a net positive for your team in most matches.

 

I had a Gearing and Iowa in CBT with 750+ games in DDs. (When US DDs were actually good)

[Mesrith]

 

I had a Gearing and Iowa in CBT with 750+ games in DDs. (When US DDs were actually good)

 

I hear you, and I'm not trying to be judgemental, but you did ask.  The Gearing was my only tier X in CBT, and I still haven't really adjusted to all the destroyer changes since then.  I love my Gremyashchy but can't be bothered to wait until tier 8 or higher to get another DD that has both good guns and good torps again.

[Willdo61]

I have almost the same as you less xp but more dmg. I only recently got to t5-6, but my numbers are on a steady climb. Best advice ignore stats and play for fun. Game is so much more entertaining that way.

[QuicksilverJPR]

The shell flight time and smoke nerfs have pretty much ruined the way the USN DDs played.  That, coupled with their crappy torps until tier 8 mean they are all but useless in the current game meta...but that's just my opinion.

[BlazerSparta]

Irrelevant. You don't need to be a good player to write good guides.

 

All you need is a good understanding of the game mechanics, and maybe play/watch a few rounds to make sure those mechanics work the same way in the game as they do in your head.

 

You don;t need to be a pro to realise that running into a group of 10 ships alone is a bad idea, you won;t need to be a pro to write a guide saying not to do that.

[Taichunger]

""'Irrelevant. You don't need to be a good player to write good guides."""

It might even be a bad thing to be a good player, since they are often naturals who needn't think too much about how to do things. Average players have to learn and think, and can sometimes make better teachers.

That said, I know warshipstats.com has 3000 people in it from the NA server, including my below-average self, but I wonder how representative it is. This site also has a bunch of stats but although the trends are often the same, the stats are notably different.
 

http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/ranking/20150818a/average_ship.html

Taichunger
 

 

[Higgle]

Guide writer and tadpole shrimp here.

 

As long as your guides make sense and can help people improve, it doesn't really matter what your stats are.

Just know what you're talking about before you post it. 

[suleiman71]

You make great guides, your stats do not matter. Your guides make sense and you know what you are talking about. Stat bashers deserve a permanent forum ban IMO.

[The_GoDDfather]

Guide writer and tadpole shrimp here.

 

As long as your guides make sense and can help people improve, it doesn't really matter what your stats are.

 

Just know what you're talking about before you post it. 

 

And I do, so I shouldn't worry, eh?

[K538]

It's not really fair to compare a primarily US DD player against the whole server.  By nature US DDs spend time hunting and killing opposing DDs, which negatively affects average damage.

 

True, but I would expect such a player who is contributing in non-damage capacities to have a higher than average win rate.  Tying up opponents, capping, spotting enemies before they are in a dangerous position.

 

""'Irrelevant. You don't need to be a good player to write good guides."""

 

It might even be a bad thing to be a good player, since they are often naturals who needn't think too much about how to do things. Average players have to learn and think, and can sometimes make better teachers.

 

But this is the correct answer.

 

Great teachers are often middle or even mediocre at the art they're teaching.  Lots of winning sports coaches and great university professors had no great career before they began to teach.

 

If you're doing a good job and trying to contribute what you've learned, who cares if you can apply it yourself.

 

The best boss I ever had I wouldn't have trusted with a digital calculator let alone a computer or a root account, but he knew how to coach us and helped us spot our mistakes before they came back to bite us.  And this is in a highly technical job where normally you do expect managers to have risen from the ranks.  So in the end the only important question is can you teach people how to play the game better.  Not every good teacher needs to be Quickybaby.

[Mesrith]

That said, I know warshipstats.com has 3000 people in it from the NA server, including my below-average self, but I wonder how representative it is. This site also has a bunch of stats but although the trends are often the same, the stats are notably different.

 

I believe the stats on Warshipstats.com are actually a bit above-average right now, since I believe it only tracks people who have gone to the website, rather than the entire NA population.  Since that's a self-selecting group, it's not unreasonable to assume that most of the people going to that website to look at stats and numbers are going to be those most interested in figuring out where they need to improve; ie, better players.

[mxlm]

The numbers that have been discussed so far do not strike as particularly useful, as they're not granular enough. So let's get granular. On the warshipstats site, the average xp for a Benson is ~1.2k, your average xp in that ship is ~1.1k. The average reported winrate is ~46%, your average winrate is ~42%. Your Mahan's winrate is 37% as opposed to the site's reported 49% average.

 

However, that's from a very small sample of players (42, for the Benson). I assume that's not the total numbers of Bensons on the server, so I assume the average on the site is not representative and is, as mentioned above, skewed high. Nonetheless, it is what we have to work with right now. 

 

I have no opinion on what that means in terms of you being able to write a solid guide or even on whether that means you're a good/average/terrible player. 

[Capt_Rye]

thanks for the website. now i can track my most recent stats and see how im improving 

[gurudennis]

First of all, anyone and everyone can be a source of good solid advice. Take Jingles. His aim makes my teeth ache and I distinctly remember pulling out hair watching him play. However, he's one of my favorite content creators in WoWs simply because the man is highly intelligent and entertaining, though clearly a better theorist than practitioner. OP, when someone tells you that your guides are invalid simply by virtue of your stats being average, do yourself a favor and ignore them.

 

Secondly, the OP is mostly playing USN DDs, the toughest tree in the game by far... His stats will be justifiably below overall server average. That doesn't automatically mean he's a mediocre player.

[MelodyMP]

Also, warshipstats shows combined stats for every ship per player. So it's a bit hard to judge someone's relative skill with, say, a DD... against everyone else...when that set of data is "polluted" by results in other ship classes. A guy who only drives DDs is going to look alot worse than a guy who has alot of battles in high tier CVs mixed in with his DD results.

 

I've suggested class and ship specific leaderboards to the guys at warshipstats,...and they agreed that was a good idea and put it on their list of things to do...so there's that

 

Edit: As noted by the post above this one. ;)

 

Edit edit: Actually, a helpful person reminded me, you can look at a specific player's class and ship specific performance. Though it's a bit of a pain to dig through and find the very best people in each category as a gauge of where you stand, relatively speaking.

[Naughtius_Maximus]

Isn't he performing as expected for a USN DD player? According to server stats it's the most masochistic line in the history of Wargaming.