Jump to content
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
Potoroo

Do people enjoy feeling irrelevant?

75 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Beta Tester
773 posts
796 battles

This is my take on the "what's wrong with the game" theme.  I think the fundamental problem is more subtle than mere stupidity, which is a given in any game.  I think the fundamental problem is that the individual has much less sway over the outcome in WoWS than in, say, WoT (obviously I'm not talking about exceptions such as when you're the last player on your team in a 1v1).  To put it another way, individuals are less relevant to the outcome than the unpredictable result of whatever team MM throws you on and how each player does or does not combine with the other players.  In the spoiler are some of my battle statistics to illustrate my point.

 

 

 

j3qDUUG.jpg

 

 

 

By every objective measure I performed much better in my Wyoming than in my Myogi.  My Wyoming did more average damage, averaged more kills, and shot down more aircraft yet it has an appalling win rate - 37% versus the server average of 48.87%.

 

OTOH, my Myogi has a superb win rate - 60% versus the server average of 44.75% - that, quite frankly, is not deserved.  It's true my average damage in both ships is somewhat higher than the server average but my Myogi's statistics cannot be considered in any way outstanding.  Average damage of 25,375 is not sufficiently higher than the server average (19,099) to explain its win rate.

 

On the contrary, what I see in this contradiction is that I was pretty much irrelevant to the results regardless of whether I played well or poorly - that 96k damage battle in the Wyoming was not a win.  MM simply gave my Wyoming a string of teams that were going to lose come hell or high water whereas it gave my Myogi a string of teams that were going to win despite the fact I was contributing less.  If that doesn't make someone feel irrelevant I don't know what would.  And feeling irrelevant is not fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
523 posts
217 battles

New player syndrome. The individual has less carrying potential in boat than they do in tanks, which tends to leave you at the whim of your teams. Given all the newbies who havent worked out the game yet, you get a lot of teams doing stupid things.

 

Thankfully its a bit less pronounced in the higher tiers.

Edited by karl0ssus1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
2,718 posts
1,988 battles

Interesting.

 

In Warships every single ship is just too slow (even a DD and with all the Scale-Up) to "Outplay" your opponent.

You cannot impact a game as much in Warships no matter how good you are (Except CVs – which is yet another reason why they are imbalanced).

The thing is, you can get to the other side of the map, say in Malinovka in around a minute in a Medium/Light – While it take literally a whole 5 minutes to do that in one of the smallest map in-game, Islands.

 

You can fire further right? Indeed, but can you pull back into cover as quickly and relocate like how you “make plays” in Tanks or even in Planes?

Can you pull off a comeback as easily when your team loses like 7 ships at the first few minutes and you are in a Battleship/DD/CA?

Ships take time to kill - unlike tanks.

 

I played 3 games in my St Louis in PvP before I had enough and Free XP the Phoneix - 0% Win, 100% lose. Yet I did Superbly the three games - getting 3 Confederate medal AND a High Caliber.

I Tried my best to hold "My line" yet my team just would not give a ____ and Crumbled. I can't do much but put up a last stand.

If this is in World of Tanks and I am in a LT, I can "Make plays" like sneaking around using Bushes to pick off some targets, relocate very quickly - WS? None of the above. Too slow and there are little ways you can win/Impact a game when your team crumbled.

 

I guess Warship is a team game Yet I rarely see any "Teamplay" element in this game. I wonder whether I am suited for such a slow pace game at times.

Edited by Alvin1020

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
982 posts

My 29% win rate for my first 75 games after the wipe points to me as being pretty irrelevant LOL. I was the king of bad, bad teams so I know what you are saying. It's evened out in the last 100 games or so. Funny thing is my average damage has gone down by about 150 points since then (I did go through the pain of learning how to play DD's during this time) while my win rate now sits at 45%. I can't make sense of it.

 

:amazed:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
40 posts
2,618 battles

Oh, I wonder where I can find those statics. (Server avg.)

Edited by DrunkenSailor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
773 posts
796 battles

My Kongo has 5 losses out of 6 battles thus far today.  This is the fifth loss.  The team was destroyed so quickly our score dropped below 0.  I was on nearly full health and was happily beating up a Wyoming when the battle ended.  Once again, I was simply irrelevant to the result.

 

8fgxArX.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
2,150 posts
486 battles

And MM that sees you get put bottom tier over and over and over can accentuate this.

 

I've been playing tier 3 St Louis, BB and IJN DD and it's been tier 5 over and over. Two CVs per side nearly every time, too, which is such fun when you've no AA and have to hope they will pick someone else or not know how to manual attack or have RNG favour you with DBs.

 

That and the friend I induced to play (which he did by buying his way in) hasn't been able to play since June 5th. WG has shown absolutely ZERO interest in that fact; they deleted, sorry I mean 'archived', the bug thread on it, haven't responded to the new one I made, nor have any of them answered the (polite) PMs I've sent.

 

Yeah, it's a pile of excrement. And very typical of WG, sadly. Seems all they learned from WoT is that people will not only accept mediocrity, they'll pay to have it.

 

p.s. my win rate is around 62%, LOL, but I can't claim that's due to my brilliance. Luck means some will do better while others worse, with no defining characteristic to differentiate the two results.

Edited by Steeltrap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
773 posts
796 battles

Once again - it's the problem of unable to impact a game.

 

The very next battle we roflstomped the enemy, losing only 3 ships.  Yes, I did my share but it was a case of my being on a team with a hapless enemy lining up to get destroyed rather than hey, I made a major contribution.

 

Playing better helps you win games though.

 

You didn't pay any attention to the OP, did you?  If I play utterly brilliantly but I'm stuck with a team of glue sniffers then it's all for nothing.

 

 

p.s. my win rate is around 62%, LOL, but I can't claim that's due to my brilliance. Luck means some will do better while others worse, with no defining characteristic to differentiate the two results.

 

You've only had 50 battles though.

Edited by Potoroo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
512 posts
308 battles

The issue here is very clearly a small sample size, play those two ships you posted some more and you'll notice the win rate will normalise over time, also people are certainly capable of having more of an impact, so maybe you're just not very good?

 

You didn't pay any attention to the OP, did you?  If I play utterly brilliantly but I'm stuck with a team of glue sniffers then it's all for nothing.

Oh wait, never mind,  you're a stat denier "zomg bad teammates are why my stats are bad, stats r all luck".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
40 posts
2,618 battles

I have played 500+ games and now 63% winrates without a single division game.

I saw some players in division has over 70% winrates. Quite obvious that more effort / contribution for your team will lead you to win.

Edited by DrunkenSailor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator
4,163 posts
1,874 battles

I do agree that it's hard for one player to carry a team, with distances involved in the game. When one flank containing at least half the team simply melts, then there's not really a lot you can do to make up for it on your own flank. That being said, I don't believe carrying a team is impossible - I've done it myself a couple times, charging from one flank to the other to head off enemy fleets.

 

In my opinion, high average damage, while a solid indicator of individual performance, doesn't mean much if you're not managing to get kills or kill assists with it. The kill assists part isn't really well-tracked in the statistics - it shows up more in average exp gained in a match. Like the linked scoreboard for example - Potoroo was happily beating up on an opposing Wyoming...but that means not beating up on the cruisers. Two cruisers ended up on the top of their team's scoreboards, and cruisers accounted for 2/3s of the enemy team's kills. I had a match with him once - him in his Myougi and me in the ArkBeta. He killed me (and I don't think I fired a single shot at him), but he was subsequently killed by the horde of my allied cruisers who could afford to push forward while not being under threat.

 

While a ship may not be able to bolster a flank on the other side of the map, this doesn't mean it's incapable of turning around to defend a base area once one flank falls - to buy time for faster ships to push through and capture. Don't tell me BBs can't do this - USN BBs are slow enough that if an opposing flank falls, they're not far enough that they can't simply turn around to point their guns at the base. By the time enemy ships arrive there, your own  . Pushing forward while ignoring a fallen flank is, in my opinion, the prime reason for losses, while having a delaying force stay behind to distract and defend resulted in victories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
802 posts
2,945 battles

Everyone is right, what I find frustrating is, in WoT you can pull off a "miracle carry" to turn a loss into a win. 

 

In WoWS, sometimes I lose 6 of my team, IN THE TIME IT TAKES TO TURN MY BB AROUND.

 

Once that happens, there is no "miracle carry".

 

Also, your BB guns will STILL BE TURNING into position. So show me a BB that can carry a win vs 3-4 ships at once, with torps, planes and shells coming at you.

 

You either dodge torps, and don't shoot because your guns are off target, or take the torp hits, and try to fight back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
802 posts
2,945 battles

I do agree that it's hard for one player to carry a team, with distances involved in the game. When one flank containing at least half the team simply melts, then there's not really a lot you can do to make up for it on your own flank. That being said, I don't believe carrying a team is impossible - I've done it myself a couple times, charging from one flank to the other to head off enemy fleets.

 

In my opinion, high average damage, while a solid indicator of individual performance, doesn't mean much if you're not managing to get kills or kill assists with it. The kill assists part isn't really well-tracked in the statistics - it shows up more in average exp gained in a match. Like the linked scoreboard for example - Potoroo was happily beating up on an opposing Wyoming...but that means not beating up on the cruisers. Two cruisers ended up on the top of their team's scoreboards, and cruisers accounted for 2/3s of the enemy team's kills. I had a match with him once - him in his Myougi and me in the ArkBeta. He killed me (and I don't think I fired a single shot at him), but he was subsequently killed by the horde of my allied cruisers who could afford to push forward while not being under threat.

 

While a ship may not be able to bolster a flank on the other side of the map, this doesn't mean it's incapable of turning around to defend a base area once one flank falls - to buy time for faster ships to push through and capture. Don't tell me BBs can't do this - USN BBs are slow enough that if an opposing flank falls, they're not far enough that they can't simply turn around to point their guns at the base. By the time enemy ships arrive there, your own  . Pushing forward while ignoring a fallen flank is, in my opinion, the prime reason for losses, while having a delaying force stay behind to distract and defend resulted in victories.

I beleib it takes close to 5 minutes for an Arkansas to travel 2 squares on the map.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
1,063 posts
509 battles

I beleib it takes close to 5 minutes for an Arkansas to travel 2 squares on the map.

 

That ship travels way faster than 2 squares per 5 minutes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
773 posts
796 battles

The issue here is very clearly a small sample size, play those two ships you posted some more and you'll notice the win rate will normalise over time, also people are certainly capable of having more of an impact, so maybe you're just not very good?

 

Oh wait, never mind,  you're a stat denier "zomg bad teammates are why my stats are bad, stats r all luck".

 

Lol, just because I shredded one of your silly arguments in another thread all of a sudden I'm a stat denier?  Has anyone told you how adorable you are when you're mad?

 

I have played 500+ games and now 63% winrates without a single division game.

I saw some players in division has over 70% winrates. Quite obvious that more effort / contribution for your team will lead you to win.

 

And of your 555 battles to date 3 were in BBs.  Is there a trend here, I wonder.

Edited by Potoroo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
2,150 posts
486 battles

USN BBs before the NC are a bit like T-95s or Maus. You have to pick where you're going and go, or end up more or less camping your own cap.

 

One thing you can't do is flex.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
771 posts
1,374 battles

Honestly i do not like tooting my own horn but i tend to have a huge impact in games i play.

If i went AFK at the start of the battle on 90% of my wins i am fairly sure they would be losses. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
512 posts
308 battles

Lol, just because I shredded one of your silly arguments in another thread all of a sudden I'm a stat denier?  Has anyone told you how adorable you are when you're mad?

Haven't seen it, so not sure what you're referring to, but either way it's irrelevant, I'll even highlight the bits which make you a stat denier.

 

You didn't pay any attention to the OP, did you?  If I play utterly brilliantly but I'm stuck with a team of glue sniffers then it's all for nothing.

First bit suggests you seem to think you can play well, or are at least capable, next bit then suggests your teams are bad, and then with the final part you go and suggest that good play is irrelevant as bad teams will ruin any individual performance. That is stat denying, and is what stat deniers have spouted for years on the wot forum, "I play well but bad teams ruin my stats" is essentially what you just wrote, and why you deserve to be laughed at for being a denier. 

 

So does that explain why you are a stat denier? Also a hint, posting results of individual games is statistically irrelevant, so don't know why you seem to think they make good examples of evidence to back up your claims about skill not mattering. And lastly if you could provide a link to this post you made that "shreds" my argument that'd be great, as I literally have no idea what you're referring to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
40 posts
2,618 battles

And of your 555 battles to date 3 were in BBs.  Is there a trend here, I wonder.

What I'm saying is you can't blame your tool(ship) or your game that should've won or the team you've met.

I made a point that more efforts will bring better results.

Well, I've played BB in CBT, my Wyoming had 76k avg DMG. Had higher avg DMG than T7 Colorado tho LOL.

Edited by DrunkenSailor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
773 posts
796 battles

Haven't seen it, so not sure what you're referring to, but either way it's irrelevant, I'll even highlight the bits which make you a stat denier.

 

First bit suggests you seem to think you can play well, or are at least capable, next bit then suggests your teams are bad, and then with the final part you go and suggest that good play is irrelevant as bad teams will ruin any individual performance. That is stat denying, and is what stat deniers have spouted for years on the wot forum, "I play well but bad teams ruin my stats" is essentially what you just wrote, and why you deserve to be laughed at for being a denier. 

 

So does that explain why you are a stat denier? Also a hint, posting results of individual games is statistically irrelevant, so don't know why you seem to think they make good examples of evidence to back up your claims about skill not mattering. And lastly if you could provide a link to this post you made that "shreds" my argument that'd be great, as I literally have no idea what you're referring to.

 

Since it's irrelevant I'm not doing your legwork for you.  But you were being silly about BBs and yes, you know damn well what I'm talking about which is why you decided to have a go at me here.  Now back to business.

 

I'm well aware of the "win rate means nothing" style arguments on WoT.  I've played WoT since 6.3 and I'm a 52% player with 30k battles give or take.  I'm no unicum and never will be but I'm competent and on a good day I can carry a team of glue sniffers provided they don't collapse too quickly (very important proviso that), and yes, I'm reliably better than a 46%er - but I have more control or influence over events in WoT which is my point.

 

Now, my argument cannot be stat denying when it's all about trying to explain an apparent contradiction in my stats: two ships of the same class and tier, I do better in the one with the worse performance stats and worse in the one with the better performance stats.  If you'd stuck to "it's a statistical anomaly" you'd have been fine but you had to be nasty about it (for the reasons given above).  I'll ignore your equally nasty deconstruction of my statement in principal in response to another statement in principal since that would give it credibility it doesn't deserve.  The line about posting individual games is simply gratuitous since it was perfectly obvious it was only an example of the trend I was describing based on the more complete statistics in the OP.  In fact, take away your snide pokes and willful misinterpretations and there's really not much left in your posts.

 

Even so, if the principal that generally playing better will lead to better results is true then anomalies must be explained.  Is it a statistical blip?  Is it something peculiar to BBs?  Is it something else?

 

Just flinging insults at me is not any sort of answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
512 posts
308 battles

Since it's irrelevant I'm not doing your legwork for you.  But you were being silly about BBs and yes, you know damn well what I'm talking about which is why you decided to have a go at me here.  Now back to business.

Honestly no idea what you're talking about, did this happen a long time ago or something? I had a quick look through your post history, nothing on the first or second page remotely describing what you're on about, so either you're imagining it or it happened ages ago, in which case it makes no sense for either of us to bring it up now. I decided to have a go at you because your post was very close to stat denying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×