Here's a real 'pearl'

[Aethervox]

OK, I'm average (at best). Sure, I have some ships I do well with (& many not so well with). However, this, mostly T10 random battle is/was another joke Roflstomp.

Here are some 'stats' I gleaned from the after battle report;

My team: 51, 47, P, 46, 55, 49, 45, 59, 51, 48 (me), 64 & 53 WRs (in order of team position).

Their team; 69, 57, 55, 61, 50, 55, 50, 53, P, 53, 47 & 43 WRs (in order of team position)

The end result was a 10 - 4 Roflstomp Win for them.

 Note how they got two significant advantages: 5-2 (55%+ WRs) & 4-2 (<50% WRs). Oh, sure, those two advantages were 'random'.

If you care to watch this travesty, you will see our pink DD died early. Plus, my flank folded, so, I had to run (just to try to survive while drawing fire).

Meanwhile (& when I had a chance to look), the rest of my team was fleeing from the other two caps (even where we may have had an initial numerical advantage).

The other team was joking about my team not capping & not even trying to (appropriate sarcasm).

Note, further, there were two players on my team who actually did worse than me (yet their WRs (supposedly) indicate they are significantly better players.

What a stinking JOKE WG MM &, consequently, a JOKE battle. Have a look at this farce (if you want to, that is) & comment.

20240622_065900_PASB017-Montana-1945_18_NE_ice_islands.wowsreplay

[Frostbow]

25 minutes ago, Aethervox said:

Note, further, there were two players on my team who actually did worse than me (yet their WRs (supposedly) indicate they are significantly better players.

Edited June 22 by Frostbow

[Frostbow]

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

42 minutes ago, Aethervox said:

OK, I'm average (at best). Sure, I have some ships I do well with (& many not so well with). However, this, mostly T10 random battle is/was another joke Roflstomp.

Here are some 'stats' I gleaned from the after battle report;

My team: 51, 47, P, 46, 55, 49, 45, 59, 51, 48 (me), 64 & 53 WRs (in order of team position).

Their team; 69, 57, 55, 61, 50, 55, 50, 53, P, 53, 47 & 43 WRs (in order of team position)

The end result was a 10 - 4 Roflstomp Win for them.

 Note how they got two significant advantages: 5-2 (55%+ WRs) & 4-2 (<50% WRs). Oh, sure, those two advantages were 'random'.

If you care to watch this travesty, you will see our pink DD died early. Plus, my flank folded, so, I had to run (just to try to survive while drawing fire).

Meanwhile (& when I had a chance to look), the rest of my team was fleeing from the other two caps (even where we may have had an initial numerical advantage).

The other team was joking about my team not capping & not even trying to (appropriate sarcasm).

Note, further, there were two players on my team who actually did worse than me (yet their WRs (supposedly) indicate they are significantly better players.

What a stinking JOKE WG MM &, consequently, a JOKE battle. Have a look at this farce (if you want to, that is) & comment.

20240622_065900_PASB017-Montana-1945_18_NE_ice_islands.wowsreplay 1.43 MB · 2 downloads

Sounds like you are getting tilted and should take a break.

What you are seeing is the norm for World of Warships, and WG has no incentive to fix the issues. They are profiting off of them.

[Wulf_Ace]

I am just amazed when all of your team goes one flank against only a few enemy players and they all manage to die, and you stand there and question yourself how?

[thornzero]

The past couple days in randoms have been special to say the least. Many team members with less than 1oo battles overall. I didn't play last summer but I don't remember it quite being this challenging.

I'm getting to the point where I am starting to see the mistakes and the co-ordination of the reds in particular. Sort of.

[Wowzery]

This doesn't make me miss randoms at all.

[Ensign Cthulhu]

Translation: "Keep the noobs off my team, WG."

[Unlooky]

10 hours ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

Translation: "Keep the noobs off my team, WG."

It's legitimately perplexing to me that OP made this post while being one of the lower performing players on his team both statistically and in this match.

 

3rd from the bottom and you're going to complain about the teams? Really?

20 hours ago, Aethervox said:

Note how they got two significant advantages: 5-2 (55%+ WRs) & 4-2 (<50% WRs). Oh, sure, those two advantages were 'random

Yes. This is how randomness works. Try with a sample size of more than 1 next time, please. 

[Ensign Cthulhu]

48 minutes ago, Unlooky said:

It's legitimately perplexing to me that OP made this post while being one of the lower performing players on his team both statistically and in this match.

Oh dear. 

I didn't look at his replay, so thank you for suffering through it to point that out. 

50 minutes ago, Unlooky said:

3rd from the bottom and you're going to complain about the teams? Really?

Ouch!! 🤣

I've heard of "Be the solution you want to see." Is this a case of "Be the problem you see in others"?

[Unlooky]

21 hours ago, Aethervox said:

If you care to watch this travesty, you will see our pink DD died early. Plus, my flank folded, so, I had to run (just to try to survive while drawing fire).

How are you going to talk smack about the DD who died early when he placed above you despite you surviving the entire battle?

 

22 hours ago, Aethervox said:

Note, further, there were two players on my team who actually did worse than me (yet their WRs (supposedly) indicate they are significantly better players.

 

Four months in Guantanamo Bay could not get me to upload a replay where the detailed report looks like this. How are you going to criticize other players who died extremely early for placing below you, when, again, you survived the entire battle????

28 minutes ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

Oh dear. 

I didn't look at his replay, so thank you for suffering through it to point that out. 

Ouch!! 🤣

I've heard of "Be the solution you want to see." Is this a case of "Be the problem you see in others"?

I'll summarize the game for those curious.

Other flank's submarine and Napoli run it down into the cap and die (the two people OP placed above). Not to be outdone, the Sherman also gets himself killed while running straight at a Des Moines. 

With both flanks at a significant spotting disadvantage, OP's team proceeds to sit on the B line for the rest of the game until they get picked off and lose at the 9 minute mark. 

During this game, OP hits approximately three salvos total, on one ship, for under

30k damage. 

[Aethervox]

19 minutes ago, Unlooky said:

Other flank's submarine and Napoli run it down into the cap and die (the two people OP placed above). Not to be outdone, the Sherman also gets himself killed while running straight at a Des Moines. 

You just made my point. Three players basically run out & die on the flank I was on. You should be commending me for not dying like them. Instead, I had to run. You know yourself the rest of my team just ran away without having three players who rushed out & died early (like my flank did). So, I ran to try to survive longer while absorbing some enemy fire. Tell me, again, I should have died like the other three on my flank. I don't mind criticism, 'Unlucky' but your observations are nothing but a personal attack, imo. How about you criticize the other 11 players on my team. I'm sure there's plenty of fodder for you to do that. Most of them ran & never tried to even contest one cap. The battle was a travesty. A joke, a not at all funny one. After your criticism, I can only wish the same result on you. You have three on your flank run out & die and then have the rest of your team turn & run. See how 'you' like 'that'.

Edited June 23 by Aethervox

[Aethervox]

22 hours ago, Aethervox said:

Note how they got two significant advantages: 5-2 (55%+ WRs) & 4-2 (<50% WRs). Oh, sure, those two advantages were 'random'.

Clearly, another of the thousands of WG MM examples of an intentionally skewered WG MM. This is one of their dirty little secrets that many are in denial about.

1 hour ago, Unlooky said:

Yes. This is how randomness works.

Nonsense. 9 - 4 (sum of the two references) is a 2:1 ratio. This is an intentionally skewered arrangement. True Random would be 6-7, 7-6, 5-8 or 8-5 not 9-4. 

[Ensign Cthulhu]

3 minutes ago, Aethervox said:

You should be commending me for not dying like them.

It's all very well to stay alive, but the point Unlooky is making is that in the nine minutes you stayed alive, you accomplished even less than one of your team-mates who died early, and you finished near the bottom of your team.

You took a little under half of your basic hit pool in actual damage; in other words, the damage you absorbed could have been survived without using a single heal, and a quarter of all of that was in fires rather than direct impact. You took direct impact damage less than a third of your starting hit points. You seem to have concentrated primarily on running away and dodging fire, and less on shooting back.

You dealt out less than 75% of the damage you took. 

Your original post is a litany of abuse against the incompetence of your own team, yet you were one of the worst-performing members on it. 

If you had dealt out something north of a hundred thousand damage, made a few kills, maybe come away with a Dreadnought award and topped your team, Unlooky wouldn't be tearing you to shreds on it. You've thoroughly earned this criticism, which is based entirely on your performance in this battle, which you provided the replay for. He's also calling you out for your hypocrisy in calling out your team-mates on their inadequacies while turning in a worse performance that one of the players you pointed the finger at.

Personal attack? He hasn't even started calling you bad names yet. 

6 minutes ago, Aethervox said:

Clearly, another of the thousands of WG MM examples of an intentionally skewered WG MM. This is one of their dirty little secrets that many are in denial about.

Nonsense. 9 - 4 (sum of the two references) is a 2:1 ratio. This is an intentionally skewered arrangement. True Random would be 6-7, 7-6, 5-8 or 8-5 not 9-4. 

When you're already on the back foot, quoting yourself in evidence only makes you look worse. 

Take my advice: don't dig yourself any deeper. Don't make it look any worse than it already is, because right now your self-admitted poor showing is probably giving people the impression that you're perpetually angry with WG to cover up your own inadequacies as a player, however true or not that might be.

[Aethervox]

I'm feeling like I'm being tag teamed by some WWE 💩 'stars'. 😒

[Unlooky]

31 minutes ago, Aethervox said:

You just made my point. three players basically run out & die on the flank I was on. You should be commending me for not dying like them. Instead, I had to run. You know yourself the rest of my team just ran away without having three players who rushed out & died early (like my flank did). So, I ran to try to survive longer while absorbing some enemy fire. Tell me, again, I should have died like the other three on my flank. I don't mind criticism, 'Unlucky' but your observations are nothing but a personal attack, imo. How about you criticze the other 11 players on my team. I'm sure there's plenty of fodder for you to do that.

My point is that even with their exceptionally poor play, you are barely outperforming the players whom you are critiquing. Charging in and dying immediately is stupid, but what do we call running to the A line while hitting 3 shots the entire game? 

 

You did not need to die on that flank, but you very well could have attempted a fighting retreat (that is, retreating at half or quarter speed to retain some semblance of map control, not booking it at at 30 knots to A8.) Damaging more than one ship also would have been helpful to your team. There was a point where you completely ignored the Shimakaze 7km away from you to shoot (and miss) some other target. 

21 minutes ago, Aethervox said:

Nonsense. 9 - 4 (sum of the two references) is a 2:1 ratio. This is an intentionally skewered arrangement. True Random would be 6-7, 7-6, 5-8 or 8-5 not 9-4. 

Skewed sets such as this are expected in a truly random environment. If I flip a coin 12 times and get 11 tails, do I have a rigged coin, or unusual luck? You are confusing "true random" with "most probable" sets. As I said earlier, with your sample size of one, (1) attempting to make any extrapolations is laughable at best. 

Edited June 23 by Unlooky

[Frostbow]

10 minutes ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

Take my advice: don't dig yourself any deeper. Don't make it look any worse than it already is, because right now your self-admitted poor showing is probably giving people the impression that you're perpetually angry with WG to cover up your own inadequacies as a player, however true or not that might be.

Why don't you show @Aethervox how you do it in solo Random Battle? 

[Justin_Simpleton]

It looked to me that the enemy team went for cap control early while the allied team waited to counter.  In this game, you could have done better if you supported the bad decision of the Sherman to push the outside flank; you put yourself behind the mountains.  Second, you should have HE loaded because your initial salvos would be against bow-in targets and possibly a DD and not an enemy ship sailing broadside to get to cover.  

Trying to survive to battle later is not always a winning strategy.  

 

[Wowzery]

Honestly I have never looked at my teammates W/L stats.  I can't control that but I can control how well I play.  Using the stats provided this is how I would think of this game. I look at basically three stats to determine how well I played in a battleship.  Damage per main gun hit, damage taken vs damage dealt and hit percentage of main guns.

First off, my average damage per hit is good, over 3k per hit.

I took 41k of damage, over 1 million of potential damage, meh.  In a T5 yeah, take that and survive, you did well.  T10, not so much.

Less than 30k of damage dealt in a T10 game.  No, that should be at least double especially considering I survived the game.

I don't like it when I deal less damage than I've taken in a game.  Its one of the stats I look at to see if I had a good game or not.  If this had been a T5 game, slightly bad, a T10, this was bad.

8 hits out of 90 shots.  This isn't even half of what I expect for hits with 90 shots.  8 hits I failed as a battleship to do the damage my team is counting on from me.  A normal game I should have 25-30 hits.

Overall, the damage per shot was nice but that was tempered with the fact less than 10% of the shots hit the target.  Add in damage dealt was below damage taken and the only result is I played poorly and didn't contribute to my team.

My takeaway would be damn, I need to work on my aim because it sucks.

[Jakeshuffle]

5 hours ago, Unlooky said:

 

 

During this game, OP hits approximately three salvos total, on one ship, for under

 

 

Looked like American shells weren't taken into consideration for velocity when I watched.

Edited June 23 by Jakeshuffle

[BOBTHEBALL]

6 hours ago, Wowzery said:

Honestly I have never looked at my teammates W/L stats.  I can't control that but I can control how well I play. 

Yeah I have this mentality 100%. I don't focus on others just myself. It lets me make better decisions with less clouded judgement in-game, which also means I get better results.

[torino2dc]

Some things I try keep in mind when dropping into the Random queue:

1. WG doesn't owe me balanced teams.

2. Player performance can deviate wildly from what stats or clan affiliation would suggest.

3. I don't deserve any result that I haven't earned.

[Ensign Cthulhu]

10 hours ago, Frostbow said:

Why don't you show @Aethervox how you do it in solo Random Battle? 

 

 

 

[Lady Anesjka]

On 6/22/2024 at 12:03 PM, Frostbow said:

I wonder how much my account would sell for ?
I have many super rare ship like Pre nerf Missouri, Smolensk, Colbert, Kamikaze... come to think of it, I have alot of the hardest to get ship.


Hmmmmmm

[meatgrindr]

  More advice you may not want to hear, but might help:

   I don't ignore my WR (I think at 52%), but keep it in context.  48/100 is very much on par with 52/100, 4 percentage points is basically negligable.  So, easy to discern about half wins and half losses, like much of the playerbase.  I would go on a limb and say MM is not messing with you.  Does it fail on a regular basis?  I would say yes, I would also say that fail is spread across the playerbase fairly evenly.

   Another thing on WR- div'ing up or not, has an effect.  So does concentrating on ships or lines one plays well, and then there are re-rolls.  So while one can mostly control their own actions in game, you have little to no control over the other 92% of your team.

  I hope I don't come across the wrong way.  A few years ago I was becoming very untrusting of this MM (I was always noticing the greens, blues, and purples were "always" on the other team). so I grabbed my pencil and notepad to prove it.  I assigned number values to the colors of winrates, to prove my hunch through math.  After a few weeks, all I could prove through math was that MM was much more fair that I thought, and proved my hunch false.  Did I have bad games, bad streaks, and even bad days?  Yep.  But my notes proved to me that those were offset with good games, streaks and days.  Maybe take some notes for a decent sample number of games, and check out the results.

  Hey, with your OP, you had to expect some critcal responses- you didn't play well, as a number of players on your team didn't play well, and that snowball effect is no joke.