He is saying what many GOOD players are thinking.

[Type_93]

5 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

You have now refused to listen to what I am actually saying and are debating a strawman.

I have asked you for documentation of the claim that RNG is uniform.

I was interested in this concept since you seemed so sure. It seems now clear based on your rather emotional response that you don't have that documentation...and we are thus left where we were before...which is that we ASSUME matchmaking is uniform across the playerbase...but can't verify this assumption.

That's all I wanted to confirm.

I will trust that you will therefore refrain of denigrating those who make other speculations about matchmaking RNG unless you have documentation to back up your assumption.

Good day.

Again. You provide proof that RNG has been coded in a way to give certain players bad teammates at the discretion of WG. If you can then I will concede that it can be done. But you won’t because it can’t. You’ll just play the victim after trying to be the aggressor.  

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

1 minute ago, Type_93 said:

Again. You provide proof that RNG has been coded in a way to give certain players bad teammates at the discretion of WG. If you can then I will concede that it can be done. But you won’t because it can’t. You’ll just play the victim after trying to be the aggressor.  

I never claimed WG 'gave certain players bad teammates at the discretion of WG'.

Go ahead and ask that question to yourself...as that is the person who appears to have raised the concept.

As far as I'm concerned...the conversation is over. You do not have the documentation I seek.

Thanks for your time.

[pepe_trueno]

the  passive / sniping mentality has more to do with the mechanics that with the players, players just follow the path of least resistance or the easiest way to play.

Lets see the real problems:

1) spotting mechanic: all it takes is 1 player to see you for the entire enemy team to have perfect sight on you, there is no need of investment or do something in particular, if someone can see you everyone can.

2)firepower > defence: even the tankiest ship won't last much under focus fire from couple ships so its not a surprise players don't want to go in first (see problem 1)

3)attacking from range / concealment is both the easiest and safest way to farm damage,just sit back where you don't have to deal with most of the stuff that hurts and wait for someone else to find something to shoot (again see point 1)

4)long range combat does not require any investment, even a full secondary GK can sit at the back and snipe.

5) risk vs reward sucks, fighting from close range represent a huge risk but the game does not give that player much as a compensation

6) outside secondary skills/modules that are limited to a very selected group of ships skills and modules dont encourage close range combat at all.

 

at some point WG has to do an overhaul of the spotting mechanics to make it less easy to abuse. its either that or start adding powerfull skills / modules designed to favour close range combat like  making  BBs super heavy AP: +15% damage, -20% shell speed. 

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

28 minutes ago, pepe_trueno said:

at some point WG has to do an overhaul of the spotting mechanics to make it less easy to abuse. its either that or start adding powerfull skills / modules designed to favour close range combat like  making  BBs super heavy AP: +15% damage, -20% shell speed.

Preach.

The concealment mechanic needs a rework.

[Itwastuesday]

8 hours ago, Jakob Knight said:

 

The irony is that the reason your Destroyers lose is that people aren't putting themselves in positions to support them against the other team, so the other team's DDs gain the advantage when they meet. 

 

No, neither team supports dd. The triangle mafia handles business among members only. 4 minutes in it's likely one team destroyers all dead, killed by more gunboatier gunboat dd while both teams are 15+km from caps.

[thornzero]

Brawls set the teams based on 'randoms' win rate. So if you run a mod say from Aslains called Potato Alert you see exactly what is going on. 

Since my randoms win rate is 46.42% - I am matched with teammates in that vicinity, plus or minus 2 points [or more depending] - but also the opposing team is matched within these statistics.

So my last battle team average was 47.3% and the enemy was 47.5%.

But it also takes into account average damage. 324oo for my team, 359oo for the enemy.

We lost this match. I did just over 1ook damage and was the leader on the standings. We lost much worse than the statistics indicate. They would indicate a close match or a good competition. But this was not to be.

Brawls loading time was very quick even for Tier 1o BB. [I mostly play DD but I was finishing dockyard.] That meant to me there is no shortage of below 5o% players to brawl with. 

But what will amaze you is the players with 1ok matches. 2ok matches. I saw one over 3ok matches at 45%.

But what I didn't see is much over 5o%. Nothing at 51% or 54% or higher. I won't see these players until I improve my win rate further. Which is no small task.

I will be playing more randoms to-morrow so I will see what I can learn about MM with those matches.

The point is, when they say WR above all else and further a solo tier 1o WR are ideal measurements; I am tending to believe that to be true. One excellent player cannot win as often as 2 or 3 excellent players. But if you are improving and can be that extra excellent player, chances are you will win more. This is why I think WR is the best we have. [Keeping in mind 6o% WR still loses 4 out of 1o matches.]

If I look at my ships in port win rate; the ships I am playing more often are around 5o%+. I have some real horrible numbers with cruisers; but DD and BB are indeed getting better.

oh and one last point, the guys that hide their statistics aren't doing themselves a favour because you can see the overall average is in keeping with their bad statistics.

Edited January 27 by thornzero

[Frostbow]

6 hours ago, Type_93 said:

No, you’re trying to blame a bad WR on things other than the player. By your logic, unicum like PQ for example are only good because they only get unicum teammates.  

That is the second time you entirely misunderstood my statement. And it gets worse because this is now the second time you accuse me of something I did not say or even suggest.

You need to understand the entirety, as well as the nuances, of any statement before making such ridiculous and accusatory claims. 

[CaliburxZero]

23 hours ago, Frostbow said:

Win rate is a very poor metric to appraise a player's performance. You can have a 50% win rate, but 80% of the time you were carried by your teammates, that win rate is as good as 40%.

WR is, and always will be the best indicator of a player's overall skill:  While many variables are there in every match, there is one constant variable in all of them... yourself.

As more matches are played, the WR number becomes more and more accurate due to sample size.  One can argue WR isn't a good indicator if there are too few matches played, but there is nothing better.  Damage is usually the stat most players start talking about, but damage in and of itself for example is not a good indicator either:  Is 100K damage on only destroyers more valuable than on a battleship?  I think we can all figure out the answer to that question as an example of how misleading damage can be.

In the end, no matter what metric outside of WR you use, in the end everything you can measure for your play comes out to the bottom line of a win or a loss in a match.  And in a game that is PVP/competitive (in a loose sense given how things are balanced here...), Winning is actually what matters in the end above all else.  I don't think anybody plays a PVP game to lose.

For someone like you or many who are... familiar faces of the original forums, despite making this claim I have yet to see a metric cited that is better than WR.  There's never an argument made and why?  Because there is none.  And for someone to try to argue that, their argument must be logical (and compelling) enough.  I await the day you or someone here to try and make that, we can explore just how "Good" it will be over WR 🙂

[Justin_Simpleton]

34 minutes ago, CaliburxZero said:

As more matches are played, the WR number becomes more and more accurate due to sample size.

This would be a true statement if the same set of ships were played over that time.  There have been hundreds of ships added, not to mention class additions, that make the win rate an indication of how quickly one adapts to the new ships and play meta.

 

44 minutes ago, CaliburxZero said:

WR is, and always will be the best indicator of a player's overall skill:  While many variables are there in every match, there is one constant variable in all of them... yourself.

I remember someone did a statistical breakdown of a player's influence on win rate and it suggested a player has about a 10% influence on winnable battles.  Keeping in mind that I'm the constant variable, and I have a high bad luck ratio, how accurate can that win rate be compared to another player?

Yes, the WR number is the best metric we have but it really shouldn't be relied upon for comparing player skills.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

7 minutes ago, Justin_Simpleton said:

This would be a true statement if the same set of ships were played over that time.  There have been hundreds of ships added, not to mention class additions, that make the win rate an indication of how quickly one adapts to the new ships and play meta.

 

I remember someone did a statistical breakdown of a player's influence on win rate and it suggested a player has about a 10% influence on winnable battles.  Keeping in mind that I'm the constant variable, and I have a high bad luck ratio, how accurate can that win rate be compared to another player?

Yes, the WR number is the best metric we have but it really shouldn't be relied upon for comparing player skills.

Metric can be distinguished from scope of data.

The metric is what we measure against or try to observe.

The selection of data points determines the scope of the observation so it is useful.

WR in co-op isn't as useful as PVP modes.

Old data is less useful than newer data.

Etc.

Scope and metric are different concepts.

[Ensign Cthulhu]

23 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

WOWs does not have an in-game process which duplicates those processes.

Clan Battles is probably the closest thing (with King of the Sea being an extension of that). There are some people who are good at the mechanical part of fighting and others who, even if they might not be so good at that, are better at knowing where to send their team-mates at a particular time. They get the job of caller. If they f*** up enough times and any person who was trying to warn them turns out to have been right, the team changes callers.

In performance-based clans, if you're not good enough you won't be invited in; and if you suck too much after you join, you will be booted out. 

[SolitudeFreak]

13 hours ago, Frostbow said:

nuances

Let's be fair; he might not know what that word means.

[Asym]

2 hours ago, CaliburxZero said:

WR is, and always will be the best indicator of a player's overall skill:  While many variables are there in every match, there is one constant variable in all of them... yourself.

As more matches are played, the WR number becomes more and more accurate due to sample size.  One can argue WR isn't a good indicator if there are too few matches played, but there is nothing better.  Damage is usually the stat most players start talking about, but damage in and of itself for example is not a good indicator either:  Is 100K damage on only destroyers more valuable than on a battleship?  I think we can all figure out the answer to that question as an example of how misleading damage can be.

In the end, no matter what metric outside of WR you use, in the end everything you can measure for your play comes out to the bottom line of a win or a loss in a match.  And in a game that is PVP/competitive (in a loose sense given how things are balanced here...), Winning is actually what matters in the end above all else.  I don't think anybody plays a PVP game to lose.

For someone like you or many who are... familiar faces of the original forums, despite making this claim I have yet to see a metric cited that is better than WR.  There's never an argument made and why?  Because there is none.  And for someone to try to argue that, their argument must be logical (and compelling) enough.  I await the day you or someone here to try and make that, we can explore just how "Good" it will be over WR 🙂

Oh my gosh, what is in BOLD is simply not true....  Right now, this game has the raw data to create a Combat Efficiency (CE) metric that is used, in all sorts of variations, in many SIM's and some games... 

What is Combat Efficiency??  It asks the question:  how "efficient" you were in a win or a loss.... 

In a game dominated by RNG and terrible game mechanics, stuffed full of gimmicks and exploits, what metric could cut through the white noise of "how lucky were you" >>>???   CE does because it's not about winning in a "stacked game"....  It's about how you perform in a conflict.  We have that data and lack the algorithm.  WHY?   Because, this is an First Person, Cooperative, Arcade shooter with enough exploits and game mechanics quirks to choke a pig, designed for eight year olds to use.

So, what is CE?  

Accuracy based on all weapons used. 

Efficiency of Effort (Clausewits) and

Economy of Force (US) - the historical definitions; 

Contribution:  as calculated by using one of the principles of war, Mass to determine, your power to weight rating. 

Effort:  what did you contribute based on the class, captain and skills you provided. 

Maneuver;  because,  there are active modes of fighting and defensive modes of fighting.  Using terrain exploits in a Naval game are counterintuitive.....  Alone or part of a team?

Class Rank.  Class rank is where lower class ships project combat power that is decisive (either way).  That rating is driven by class and tier....

Take for an example a PVP game I played a long time ago in a Fabuki.  I was two tiers down.  Sank 5 ships and had a cap.  We, the entire team, fought well and yet, simply were too extended to carry the win.  I was the last ship and all I had to do was run the clock out.  Against a Carrier and a Radar Cruiser....  I simply could not survive the planes because the Fabuki simply doesn't have heals or AA for a Tier 7 Carrier....  I died with 20 seconds or less to go.   That was a hard loss and in what "you speculate" is a LOSS.....  Was it really a loss if we are attempting to say "skill means something IRT winning????"  

Nope. CE could be programmed right now with the data this game collects.....

So, please......a "weighted effort" vis-a'-vis winning is always a more honest approach to games....  Winning does not equal skilled....

[CaliburxZero]

9 hours ago, Justin_Simpleton said:

This would be a true statement if the same set of ships were played over that time.  There have been hundreds of ships added, not to mention class additions, that make the win rate an indication of how quickly one adapts to the new ships and play meta.

 

I remember someone did a statistical breakdown of a player's influence on win rate and it suggested a player has about a 10% influence on winnable battles.  Keeping in mind that I'm the constant variable, and I have a high bad luck ratio, how accurate can that win rate be compared to another player?

Yes, the WR number is the best metric we have but it really shouldn't be relied upon for comparing player skills.

The first half of your post here literally I would define as "skill".  I'll rephase what you just said:  "WR is an indication of how quickly someone is able to assimilate concepts to be the most efficient and use the strongest strategy in a game".

You can argue WR isn't a great metric, but it is still the best one.  And even if the "Best" isn't good, its still number one... therefore there's nothing better to measure.  And if there isn't, then as the old saying goes...

It is what it is.

[CaliburxZero]

7 hours ago, Asym said:

Oh my gosh, what is in BOLD is simply not true....  Right now, this game has the raw data to create a Combat Efficiency (CE) metric that is used, in all sorts of variations, in many SIM's and some games... 

What is Combat Efficiency??  It asks the question:  how "efficient" you were in a win or a loss.... 

In a game dominated by RNG and terrible game mechanics, stuffed full of gimmicks and exploits, what metric could cut through the white noise of "how lucky were you" >>>???   CE does because it's not about winning in a "stacked game"....  It's about how you perform in a conflict.  We have that data and lack the algorithm.  WHY?   Because, this is an First Person, Cooperative, Arcade shooter with enough exploits and game mechanics quirks to choke a pig, designed for eight year olds to use.

So, what is CE?  

Accuracy based on all weapons used. 

Efficiency of Effort (Clausewits) and

Economy of Force (US) - the historical definitions; 

Contribution:  as calculated by using one of the principles of war, Mass to determine, your power to weight rating. 

Effort:  what did you contribute based on the class, captain and skills you provided. 

Maneuver;  because,  there are active modes of fighting and defensive modes of fighting.  Using terrain exploits in a Naval game are counterintuitive.....  Alone or part of a team?

Class Rank.  Class rank is where lower class ships project combat power that is decisive (either way).  That rating is driven by class and tier....

Take for an example a PVP game I played a long time ago in a Fabuki.  I was two tiers down.  Sank 5 ships and had a cap.  We, the entire team, fought well and yet, simply were too extended to carry the win.  I was the last ship and all I had to do was run the clock out.  Against a Carrier and a Radar Cruiser....  I simply could not survive the planes because the Fabuki simply doesn't have heals or AA for a Tier 7 Carrier....  I died with 20 seconds or less to go.   That was a hard loss and in what "you speculate" is a LOSS.....  Was it really a loss if we are attempting to say "skill means something IRT winning????"  

Nope. CE could be programmed right now with the data this game collects.....

So, please......a "weighted effort" vis-a'-vis winning is always a more honest approach to games....  Winning does not equal skilled....

I have never even heard of this before.  Even if this is "better", then why is it this is not adopted?  From what you have defined it as... this clearly requires datapoints that I don't even know are tracked in terms of stored data. For example here... You would have to assign tons of values to the "maneuver" part.  Then create a formula for that.  Then have WG track it via its API.

Then FINALLY, put this all together.  So all I got to say is... "You're serious?"  Even if your idea is better (and frankly, there is many ways to interpret how to just see how maneuver works alone, not to mention assigning values to things like combat power for every ship...) This is so much more effort and work, and I hate to tell you but the bottom line is, is that unless you get the top 5% of the community to adopt and use this and/or WG themselves, your idea will never happen.

[Asym]

20 minutes ago, CaliburxZero said:

I have never even heard of this before.  Even if this is "better", then why is it this is not adopted?  From what you have defined it as... this clearly requires datapoints that I don't even know are tracked in terms of stored data. For example here... You would have to assign tons of values to the "maneuver" part.  Then create a formula for that.  Then have WG track it via its API.

Then FINALLY, put this all together.  So all I got to say is... "You're serious?"  Even if your idea is better (and frankly, there is many ways to interpret how to just see how maneuver works alone, not to mention assigning values to things like combat power for every ship...) This is so much more effort and work, and I hate to tell you but the bottom line is, is that unless you get the top 5% of the community to adopt and use this and/or WG themselves, your idea will never happen.

It wasn't a question if they, our host, would implement a new tool to replace win rate as an effectiveness metric...  It was that someone said "no one has ever presented an alternative..."  I have several times in great specificity...

To answer you:  think for a second.  This entire game exists inside of a cube of space that the game Engine tracks everything, real time and in great detail.  Remember, ships have geometry to their armor, their weapons and movement.  The computer knows, to the n^th inch where your shells are fired from and exactly where they land.

Movement is simple because the Game Engine knows exactly where you are and with whom....!!!  To the inch.  So, if you are a lone wolf sniping, the computer knows that AND, that may be supporting your team mates BUT, in terms of Maneuver, that isn't how Naval tactics work NOR, is it a team behavior to hide.... 

Each ship could calculate an Effectiveness Metric for that ship in that match.  What CPT, how are they sourced, what flags, the history of previous games, any and all of your choices.....

All of this and a lot more data is in every match....  I've got to run so I'm cutting this short....

[pepe_trueno]

knowing if a player is good or bad ultimately solves nothing, The problem are the mechanics that teach players the wrong things and whats worst force everyone to depend on someone we have no control over.

rock, paper,scissor balance works great until you need scissor to kill paper but scissor has no intention of doing it 🙄 

 

 

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

2 minutes ago, pepe_trueno said:

knowing if a player is good or bad ultimately solves nothing, The problem are the mechanics that teach players the wrong things and whats worst force everyone to depend on someone we have no control over.

rock, paper,scissor balance works great until you need scissor to kill paper but scissor has no intention of doing it 🙄 

 

 

Plus, the game isn't balanced to rock, paper, scissors at all...

In fact, the game isn't balanced at all beyond just the vaguest notions of balance.

Plus, the game gives players who pay money advantages...so it's not entirely skill based.

Trying to pretend this game is a competitive e-sport and should have real metrics is absurd.

The game is a meme generator for fun. The competitive scene is a joke.

Don't bother trying to build some complicated metric for player performance. It's not worth it.

[tocqueville8]

13 hours ago, Justin_Simpleton said:

I remember someone did a statistical breakdown of a player's influence on win rate and it suggested a player has about a 10% influence on winnable battles

What kind of "statistical breakdown" would suggest that? There are players whose solo WR is 60-65%, others for whom it is 40-45% (or less) in a similar selection of ships. At the very least, the excursion is 20%, arguably 30% if you include the extremes.