On the true extent of player ignorance

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

Just now, Kynami said:

Low level captains are pretty much expected down in T6 and below. The problems start to show up in a big way in T7+ if somebody is lazy and keeps the three point wonder on a freshly purchased Yoshino or similar. Though there are indeed some lower tier ships that don't perform to anything close to their actual potential with a commander under 15+ points such as Aigle or Agincourt.

And yes, the economy the game has is absolutely murderous for new players rushing to "end game" tiers. Without premium time running it is so much easier to make 300k+ credits profit a match with a decent T7 premium with nothing higher than a grey booster. Tech tree ships without the premium ship advantages in credits gained and reduced service fees are a massive boat anchor towards account progression for the insufficiently experienced up at T9 and T10.

There is a reason I have stuff like the Sims, Toulon, and Duke of York down at T7. Its a break from the supership spam at higher tiers and when my free premium time runs out they are the consistent credit makers when the matchmaking is giving me monkeys that make trying to play my T9 and T10 premiums more challenging than its worth in frustration.

Amen.

I have a personal rule never to play a ship without a captain that has the tier x2 skill points available.

This means my ship grind is A LOT longer than most people expect...but it also means when I get to the higher tiers, I am ready to be successful.

[HMS_Kilinowski]

10 hours ago, Andrewbassg said:

if I may. I know him, he is not a troll. Maybe he didn't convey his point to be understood, but he is defo not a troll.

Nice, thanks. Maybe you can find the words to express what I may have failed to convey in all honest effort.

10 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

I refer you to posts I've written, back in August.  🙂 

https://www.devstrike.net/topic/40-if-our-captains-could-talk-again/?do=findComment&comment=3782

https://www.devstrike.net/topic/40-if-our-captains-could-talk-again/?do=findComment&comment=3798

 

What you describe sounds like a planning/management issue to me. Ofc if you invest into rental CVs, you will have a lot of CV-modules lying around in your inventory, being dead capital. I foresaw that and did not test the CVs. Same goes for people dumping their credits into Champagne or auctions and other credit sinks. Maybe, if you have no premium account, you earn less. But then there is no need to try and fall over your own feet, advancing through tiers beyond your credit earnings. if you are running out of credits to outfit the next ship in line, that is literally a big red sign saying "Stop rushing, you're getting ahead of yourself. Play what you have."

 

I mean where does this idea come from that if you cannot grind to the end of a line within a week, then the game economy is harsh? What is so unbearable in taking the economy as it is and enjoy the game in whatever tier you can finance to play? All tiers are fun to play. There is no El Dorado waiting at the end of the line. It's just the same. Your ships get stronger, your enemy gets stronger. There is no advantage and no better game experience waiting for anybody up there. Yet, let's race through the tiers without learning curve, without fully outfitted ships, just go for the light like a moth.

I don't understand the idea. I am puzzled by it. I have enjoyed every tier I played, all ship models are equally beautiful and accurate at all tiers. There never was any pressure for me to skip lower tiers. I feel players are obsessed about some irrational notion that higher performing ship give them some kind of advantage over their opponents, and ignore that their advances are nullified by the mirrored matchmaking.

9 hours ago, Arcusaesopi said:

Hmm... ok.

Restating someone's ideas so that one can argue with the restatement (classic straw man) is pretty classic troll behavior... also widely used by mainstream media and political rivals from both parties.   It is also disrespectful and not a conversation at all.

I'll ascribe it to miscommunication then.

I'm not restating. I took the logic of your argument and applied it to other cases like CVs and subs, so the obvious fallacy of your argument would become obvious to you, since it stems from your very own thought process. It's not trolling, but a classic technique to test the robustness of an argument.

 

7 hours ago, Yedwy said:

Among other things yes, and maybe the next ship is the one i WANT to play, why do you think you have the right to tell other people how they should play WOWS and what goals they should have in it?

Where did I say I have the right to do that? Tell me.

Ofc you even have the right to climb Mount Everest with sandals, if you want, at least as far as I'm concerned. The point I was making was about using stock ships being economically unfeasible and illogical from a game experience and game objective point of view.

Also it is not me, telling you the goals. The goals are defined by the game. The game says "win or "defeat", not me. It is you, who reserves the right to violate these goals for whatever egoistic agenda you force upon others in a team game. And ironically, because of the 50% bonus on wins, you will end up achieving your goals slower, selfishly violating the objective.

[Wolfswetpaws]

25 minutes ago, HMS_Kilinowski said:

11 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

I refer you to posts I've written, back in August.  🙂 

https://www.devstrike.net/topic/40-if-our-captains-could-talk-again/?do=findComment&comment=3782

https://www.devstrike.net/topic/40-if-our-captains-could-talk-again/?do=findComment&comment=3798

 

What you describe sounds like a planning/management issue to me. Ofc if you invest into rental CVs, you will have a lot of CV-modules lying around in your inventory, being dead capital. I foresaw that and did not test the CVs. Same goes for people dumping their credits into Champagne or auctions and other credit sinks. Maybe, if you have no premium account, you earn less. But then there is no need to try and fall over your own feet, advancing through tiers beyond your credit earnings. if you are running out of credits to outfit the next ship in line, that is literally a big red sign saying "Stop rushing, you're getting ahead of yourself. Play what you have."

 

I mean where does this idea come from that if you cannot grind to the end of a line within a week, then the game economy is harsh? What is so unbearable in taking the economy as it is and enjoy the game in whatever tier you can finance to play? All tiers are fun to play. There is no El Dorado waiting at the end of the line. It's just the same. Your ships get stronger, your enemy gets stronger. There is no advantage and no better game experience waiting for anybody up there. Yet, let's race through the tiers without learning curve, without fully outfitted ships, just go for the light like a moth.

I don't understand the idea. I am puzzled by it. I have enjoyed every tier I played, all ship models are equally beautiful and accurate at all tiers. There never was any pressure for me to skip lower tiers. I feel players are obsessed about some irrational notion that higher performing ship give them some kind of advantage over their opponents, and ignore that their advances are nullified by the mirrored matchmaking.

Oh yes.  I made some "management decisions".
For what it is worth, I accepted the situation and my role(s) in it.
And, later, used the situation as inspiration for a bit of creative writing in the topic that I provided links for.  🙂 

I didn't get upset about it. 
I was also confident I'd earn more credits over the course of time (and did do so).

I don't know where the idea "...  if you cannot grind to the end of a line within a week ..." comes from.
Merely seems like unrealistic expectations or un-met expecations for World of Warships.
Other games might allow faster progress in comparision.  
My experience with other games is limited, and my closest analog for comparision is Star Trek Online.

I think all tiers of play in World of Warships are fun, and the flavors of fun may vary somewhat.
Lower tiers seem more forgiving of mistakes and higher tiers less forgiving of a mistake (because just one mistake might be enough to get one's self sunk). 


 

[Kynami]

17 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Lower tiers seem more forgiving of mistakes and higher tiers less forgiving of a mistake (because just one mistake might be enough to get one's self sunk). 

You can get blown out in one attack even down at T5 honestly depending on the ship you take out to battle. Something to be said for how squishy Emerald and Omaha are when caught broadside. And that is even just versus their own tier... let alone what happens when they get bottom tiered and some T7s can just say hello rudely.

I can't tell you how many times I've seen some newer player call hacks because they get devstruck in their Omaha because they showed broadside and a decent player in a battleship took note and force fed them their reminder on why you don't do that.

[HMS_Kilinowski]

1 hour ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Oh yes.  I made some "management decisions".
For what it is worth, I accepted the situation and my role(s) in it.
And, later, used the situation as inspiration for a bit of creative writing in the topic that I provided links for.  🙂 

I didn't get upset about it. 
I was also confident I'd earn more credits over the course of time (and did do so).

I don't know where the idea "...  if you cannot grind to the end of a line within a week ..." comes from.
Merely seems like unrealistic expectations or un-met expecations for World of Warships.
Other games might allow faster progress in comparision.  
My experience with other games is limited, and my closest analog for comparision is Star Trek Online.

I think all tiers of play in World of Warships are fun, and the flavors of fun may vary somewhat.
Lower tiers seem more forgiving of mistakes and higher tiers less forgiving of a mistake (because just one mistake might be enough to get one's self sunk). 


 

 

Just to make sure, that second paragraph wasn't a direct response to your earlier post, it was directred at everyone in this topic. Apparently it is such an expression of personal freedom to go against all logic and the pre-defined game goal.

And, as you say, the game is the same at all tiers. By rushing through it, you only make the experience worse, cause you will run into opponents with all modules and highly trained commanders and signals with more likelyhood, the higher you go.

But sadly, nobody here can give me a reasonable answer. Not that I expected anything. I guess people too lazy to outfit ships are also too lazy to reflect their motives and present arguments in a grown-up manner. Anyway, I am glad at least one more person now knows about the recommended build document. I did my job. Maybe I'll follow up some time with a beginner's guide.

Edited November 4, 2023 by HMS_Kilinowski

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

12 minutes ago, HMS_Kilinowski said:

Apparently it is such an expression of personal freedom to go against all logic and the pre-defined game goal.

If you only accept your own logic and reject all others, then this is the only outcome. Of course, it is wrong...AND it makes you angry and bitter.

It won't serve you well, but you do you.

13 minutes ago, HMS_Kilinowski said:

But sadly, nobody here can give me a reasonable answer.

Point of order, you are refusing to ACCEPT reasonable answers. That's different.

13 minutes ago, HMS_Kilinowski said:

I guess people too lazy to outfit ships are also too lazy to reflect their motives and present arguments in a grown-up manner.

This is not the reason for the behavior you see, and you have been told reasons for it that you refuse to accept.

But if you persist in wanting to hate your fellow customers, none of us can stop you from going down that road. Just know that it won't bring you any happiness.

[Aethervox]

On 11/3/2023 at 6:54 AM, HMS_Kilinowski said:

Where did it all go wrong?

Interesting observations you make HMS Kilinowski that many players appear not to be optimizing their ship equipment, modules or Captains. This may be the present meta with newer players. Being a player who began in Alpha/Beta testing or when WoWS was new we older players know to max out a ship & captains. It is likely WG no longer cares (if they ever really did). It is clear by now that all WG has ever cared about is scamming as much money as possible from the ignorant player base. We may all agree that WG had great games in WoT & WoWS in their early years. Do you honestly think either WoT or WoWS are still great games?

[HMS_Kilinowski]

2 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

If you only accept your own logic and reject all others, then this is the only outcome. Of course, it is wrong...AND it makes you angry and bitter.

It won't serve you well, but you do you.

Point of order, you are refusing to ACCEPT reasonable answers. That's different.

This is not the reason for the behavior you see, and you have been told reasons for it that you refuse to accept.

But if you persist in wanting to hate your fellow customers, none of us can stop you from going down that road. Just know that it won't bring you any happiness.

 

I have heard, no modules is economic and I told you the math that contradicts that.

I have heard that WG doesn't care about its game and this is a reason to not care for anything in this game yourself, but still playing it, which is not anybody's logic but simply and plain illogical.

I have heard that people like to spend credits on excess items like rental ships or superships and thus have no credits for the normal tech-tree. That may be a somewhat comprehensible, tho at even a mildly closer look it is not sensible, since superships don't earn money, but lose money for most players.

I am still no way closer to understanding why anything but end of the line is so boring or subpar to play, that you need to skip it asap. And even if somebody wants to play stock ships, as calculated, their results will be so much worse, they skip out on credits that easily finance a good build. Maybe somebody needs to do a tutorial how to grind a line economically, cause what I read is showing a lack of economic thinking.

[Ensign Cthulhu]

10 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Point of order, you are refusing to ACCEPT reasonable answers.

Nobody is obliged to accept answers they consider to be wrong. 

2 hours ago, HMS_Kilinowski said:

And ironically, because of the 50% bonus on wins, you will end up achieving your goals slower, selfishly violating the objective.

This doesn't apply to credits.

Ironically, everyone's credit-crunch problems would be alleviated if they would only leave off XP boosters and LOSE their way through a grind, because they wouldn't be harvesting XP at such a disproportionate rate compared to credits! There are obvious reasons why one shouldn't deliberately set out to do that, but it is what it is. 

[Gillhunter]

Just now, HMS_Kilinowski said:

 

I have heard, no modules is economic and I told you the math that contradicts that.

I have heard that WG doesn't care about its game and this is a reason to not care for anything in this game yourself, but still playing it, which is not anybody's logic but simply and plain illogical.

I have heard that people like to spend credits on excess items like rental ships or superships and thus have no credits for the normal tech-tree. That may be a somewhat comprehensible, tho at even a mildly closer look it is not sensible, since superships don't earn money, but lose money for most players.

I am still no way closer to understanding why anything but end of the line is so boring or subpar to play, that you need to skip it asap. And even if somebody wants to play stock ships, as calculated, their results will be so much worse, they skip out on credits that easily finance a good build. Maybe somebody needs to do a tutorial how to grind a line economically, cause what I read is showing a lack of economic thinking.

After reading all of this I'm trying to figure out whether you are being arrogant or ignorant about this entire subject. People have given you logical answers that you just can't seem to accept.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

2 minutes ago, HMS_Kilinowski said:

 

I have heard, no modules is economic and I told you the math that contradicts that.

I have heard that WG doesn't care about its game and this is a reason to not care for anything in this game yourself, but still playing it, which is not anybody's logic but simply and plain illogical.

I have heard that people like to spend credits on excess items like rental ships or superships and thus have no credits for the normal tech-tree. That may be a somewhat comprehensible, tho at even a mildly closer look it is not sensible, since superships don't earn money, but lose money for most players.

I am still no way closer to understanding why anything but end of the line is so boring or subpar to play, that you need to skip it asap. And even if somebody wants to play stock ships, as calculated, their results will be so much worse, they skip out on credits that easily finance a good build. Maybe somebody needs to do a tutorial how to grind a line economically, cause what I read is showing a lack of economic thinking.

You expect humans to be logical?

LOL

That's your first unreasonable assumption.

WG doesn't market this game to sensible people. If you want more of that, WG needs to change their business model.

So many people just flat out believe the advertising rather than the reality of the game. There is no special joy that comes from reaching tier 10 or 11...it is no better or worse than tier 6.

But...most believe it. Illogical and nonsensical behavior that is encouraged by the business model advertising.

Welcome to World of Warships.

[Ensign Cthulhu]

3 minutes ago, HMS_Kilinowski said:

Maybe somebody needs to do a tutorial how to grind a line economically, cause what I read is showing a lack of economic thinking.

What they need to be taught how to do is how to save toward a goal. I worry that some of them may not have been taught this in real life, which is why they're not applying it here.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

7 minutes ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

Ironically, everyone's credit-crunch problems would be alleviated if they would only leave off XP boosters and LOSE their way through a grind, because they wouldn't be harvesting XP at such a disproportionate rate compared to credits! There are obvious reasons why one shouldn't deliberately set out to do that, but it is what it is. 

This is very true.

I use only grey XP boosters for grind and it is STILL too fast.

It does help me get the dailies done...but still...

[HMS_Kilinowski]

3 minutes ago, Aethervox said:

Interesting observations you make HMS Kilinowski that many players appear not to be optimizing their ship equipment, modules or Captains. This may be the present meta with newer players. Being a player who began in Alpha/Beta testing or when WoWS was new we older players know to max out a ship & captains. It is likely WG no longer cares (if they ever really did). It is clear by now that all WG has ever cared about is scamming as much money as possible from the ignorant player base. We may all agree that WG had great games in WoT & WoWS in their early years. Do you honestly think either WoT or WoWS are still great games?

Then why are you still here? To tell everybody who wants or doesn't want to know, how terrible a game WoWs has become, while you are addicted enough to it to not move on? There is a thousand games out there. Instead of playing them, posting in their forums, optimizing your builds in these other games, where, if I understand you correctly, it would make sense, since their developers still care, you are stuck in this game you despise so much and have nothing good about to say. Now does that say something about the game or about you? Should you maybe seriously question your priorities and motivations?

As you say, you managed to educate yourself about builds, and WG did not give you a nice yellow triangle next to recommended skills and modules. There was no build document. And yet it wasn't rocket science. We asked WG for years to make tutorials, to give hints in the game. And they did it. You cannot say they were only interesated in selling premium content, since these tutorials and ingame hints are no premium content. And now with all the info, all the concessions, people are still driving around in stock ships, cause getting shot to bits and not earning an extra 100k per battle is perceived more economic than paying 2M for modules.

Hell, there were weeks where modules were half price. I outfitted a lot of ships in these weeks for big savings. I demounted them in free demounting weeks, to reuse them on active lines.

4 minutes ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

Nobody is obliged to accept answers they consider to be wrong. 

This doesn't apply to credits.

Ironically, everyone's credit-crunch problems would be alleviated if they would only leave off XP boosters and LOSE their way through a grind, because they wouldn't be harvesting XP at such a disproportionate rate compared to credits! There are obvious reasons why one shouldn't deliberately set out to do that, but it is what it is. 

I get your point. But then, this game has three different currencies, all needed for a decent ship: XP to unlock it, credits to buy it and CXP to train a commander. Just because those different ressources are not perfectly balanced against each other, does that automatically mean, the most generous ressource dictates the speed of the grind? 

[Ensign Cthulhu]

6 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

I use only grey XP boosters for grind and it is STILL too fast.

This is why I take grinds in small chunks, mostly in co-op and interleaving the target ship with other things. When I know I have more than enough credits to get the ship and equip all its modules, and when it's only got 20-30K ship XP to go (for higher tier ships), that's when I schedule the blue boosters and go to randoms. Red boosters get saved for time-critical grinds when there is a lot at stake (e.g. the 10 million credits I farmed in submarines for the Somme event earlier this year).

Just now, HMS_Kilinowski said:

But then, this game has three different currencies, all needed for a decent ship: XP to unlock it, credits to buy it and CXP to train a commander. Just because those different ressources are not perfectly balanced against each other, does that automatically mean, the most generous ressource dictates the speed of the grind? 

No. Principles of critical path analysis suggest that the LEAST generous resource (the slowest pathway) dictates the speed of the grind. See also what I just said above to Daniel. 

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

9 minutes ago, HMS_Kilinowski said:

Then why are you still here? To tell everybody who wants or doesn't want to know, how terrible a game WoWs has become, while you are addicted enough to it to not move on?

If I apply this sentiment to the opening post...what does that say?

If your intent is just to vent, do so and move on.

What purpose does continuing to argue about it serve? What is the logic of this thread? What do you want out of it?

[HMS_Kilinowski]

39 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

If I apply this sentiment to the opening post...what does that say?

If your intent is just to vent, do so and move on.

What purpose does continuing to argue about it serve? What is the logic of this thread? What do you want out of it?

If I want to vent, I can do that in my clan discord. No, I was unaware that so many people ignore best practice and I feel that a discussion about it may help some peopel to question their approach, since, as repleatedly elaborated, it does not make sense, economically, performance-wise and in terms of enjoyment. 

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

3 minutes ago, HMS_Kilinowski said:

If I want to vent, I can do that in my clan discord. No, I was unaware that so many people ignore best practice and I feel that a discussion about it may help some peopel to question their approach, since, as repleatedly elaborated, it does not make sense, economically, performance-wise and in terms of enjoyment. 

My friend, the competitive aspect of this game is a joke.

There is very little reason to min-max our performance in game. Sure, we want to do well...but at the end of the day, this isn't an e-sport for the vast majority of players.

I highly doubt most people would care to listen to you even if you ran a full time clinic on how to play the game better.

That kind of customer isn't who WG wants playing the game.

[HMS_Kilinowski]

5 minutes ago, WildSide said:

But you do you and analyze every single detail of your performance, that's ok too. If you want to treat this game as work, or as something you HAVE to win, you can do that too. No one cares.

I don't have to win, but I play towards the goal, while you kick the ball out of the field and laugh and refuse to acknowledge that winning is the main objective. Every game has an objective. Clubs are founded around games. All you do is make a joke out of it and feel you are entitled to derail the game. 

 

4 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

My friend, the competitive aspect of this game is a joke.

There is very little reason to min-max our performance in game. Sure, we want to do well...but at the end of the day, this isn't an e-sport for the vast majority of players.

I highly doubt most people would care to listen to you even if you ran a full time clinic on how to play the game better.

Nobody was talking e-sport. It's a game that will be deleted with everything you got in your port and inventory some day. You will find you ground your way up there all for nothing, being a punching bag with a stock ship, just so what you try to get so hastily is taken away from you. Is that really worth hurrying through the tiers?

4 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

That kind of customer isn't who WG wants playing the game.

.. so you try to be that customer WG wants, instead? If I was so hostile towards WG as so many here are, I wouldn't want to please WG's perceived expectations so willfully. Is that the argument that WG wants this to be a Micky Mouse game so you all gotta be Micky Mouse?

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

1 minute ago, HMS_Kilinowski said:

Nobody was talking e-sport. It's a game that will be deleted with everything you got in your port and inventory some day. You will find you ground your way up there all for nothing, being a punching bag with a stock ship, just so what you try to get so hastily is taken away from you. Is that really worth hurrying through the tiers?

Preaching to the choir...

...but I know there are plenty of people who believe that the higher tiers are better gameplay, because WG staff said so.

It's a lie the gullible believe...therefore they SPEND MONEY to be a punching bag with a stock ship.

It's the actual business model.

3 minutes ago, HMS_Kilinowski said:

. so you try to be that customer WG wants, instead? If I was so hostile towards WG as so many here are, I wouldn't want to please WG's perceived expectations so willfully. Is that the argument that WG wants this to be a Micky Mouse game so you all gotta be Micky Mouse?

Not sure who you are trying to argue with here...it certainly isn't me, if you knew my history with WG.

[Asym]

4 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

I'm not looking down upon you for having fun.
...
That said, it doesn't change that each person is responsible for their choices.

et al...

I just got back from the rifle range and it seems Uncle Sam's WC680 actually produces quarter sized groups at 25 yards...  (even with gas checked, powder coated lead bullets I cast last year !)  Who would have thunk that....  Next, beyond 25 yds. is next.  And, another bullet choice is available;  while,  an old standard has been discontinued....  Monday, can't come fast enough......  There be deer season in three weeks and wild pigs right after that !!!  Game?  What game? -  for several weeks.

BTW, I was talking rhetorically.  And, I do know a bunch of players that actually do engage in what I was describing....  When I accidentally loaded a Random match several months ago, I played to win and we got massacred in just over 6 minutes and I was the last one standing.....  

Is the group I RO with serious??  Seriously?  No........we just have fun.  Get on Discord and wander in and you'll get the drift of where the "I am serious' starts and ends..."  We are there to win.....make no mistake about that, but.......in a screwy, sometimes obscure and obtuse way. 

[Wolfswetpaws]

3 hours ago, HMS_Kilinowski said:

Just to make sure, that second paragraph wasn't a direct response to your earlier post, it was directred at everyone in this topic.

Thanks for clarifying.

[SunkCostFallacy]

14 hours ago, Asym said:

Yes, we have had this same discussion many, many times....  And, the point about being an "older player" is where I am at right now.  I've been in this games since 2017 and to be honest, it's lost it "appeal" and the changes simply have driven the "drive" out of me and what I enjoy..

It's so bad, as my Random Operations crew now are playing the Halloween crap as a team, I am simply playing a little COOP at best.

The game has left us mate and my goals are simply to enjoy what little is left and do the best I can each and every time........but, I am done messing with this game.  If they change the CPT Skills again, I will not change anything even if I have ships without those skills....  We have players we know that sail "naked ships" with 3 or 6 or 10 point CPT's in them and simply don't care anymore......  The game is "just something to do......"

I've mentioned in a few posts that it seems harder to get a game in COOP where the green team has a significant number of bots ... and that is my preferred matchup.

As a result, I've taken to playing in my afternoon/evening when there are fewer players on, between 2 and 4 thousand ... and I'm still having trouble getting a game that isn't pure feeding frenzy.

The end result of that is that I'm getting less invested in the game.

And perhaps that's the answer to the OPs post ... is the game attracting people who are interested in making the investment in time and effort to min/max their ship modules and captains skills? We know that attention spans are decreasing markedly in younger generations while their ability to multitask increases which might account for it.

 

[torino2dc]

One thing that hasn't been said yet is that to many weaker players, winning or losing appears random. 

They don't have the game knowledge to understand how every one of their actions microscopically yet cumulatively impacts the chance that a match will be won. They don't understand when a play they made was good but the team was bad (loss) or when their play was bad but the team was good (win). It appears like a genuine coin flip. And if they do look up their WR, and find out it's not 50% but 40%, the much easier conclusion to reach is that WG is putting their finger on the scales against the them to make them want to buy more stuff. 

TLDR If an outcome is taken as random, then there is no logical imperative to optimize your own part of the equation i.e. ship build. 

[Yedwy]

1 hour ago, torino2dc said:

One thing that hasn't been said yet is that to many weaker players, winning or losing appears random. 

They don't have the game knowledge to understand how every one of their actions microscopically yet cumulatively impacts the chance that a match will be won. They don't understand when a play they made was good but the team was bad (loss) or when their play was bad but the team was good (win). It appears like a genuine coin flip. And if they do look up their WR, and find out it's not 50% but 40%, the much easier conclusion to reach is that WG is putting their finger on the scales against the them to make them want to buy more stuff. 

TLDR If an outcome is taken as random, then there is no logical imperative to optimize your own part of the equation i.e. ship build. 

Bro, all nice and fine BUT TBH when in a "PvP" game an expert (60% WR) and a potato (40% WR) are one win in ten removed from "flip rhe coin average" ( that would be 50% WR) and you take into account the amount of effort that is needed to keep ones WR consistently around and over the said 60% in the long run its really obvious what kind of a game we are talking about and what exactly individual contribution in 12 vs 12 enviroment is worth…

Edited November 5, 2023 by Yedwy