Is WR even worth trying to improve?

[SureBridge]

10 minutes ago, Verytis said:

Don't let those sub-average players tell you that your efforts don't matter.

Hey. I represent that remark! (the sub average part anyway) 

[Itwastuesday]

Also WR is just a stat. Your skill and your mind is not. You can improve rapidly, but your total winrate won't since you'd need to play a lot unless new account. 

[Verytis]

14 minutes ago, SureBridge said:

Hey. I represent that remark! (the sub average part anyway) 

It's ok if you want to stay on the casual side. Not everyone can or wants to invest so heavily into a game.

I'm just taking a swing at the typical culprits deflecting their questionable plays.

No offence intended to other parties. I'm well aware that performance in a PvP mode is ultimately relative.

Edited July 16 by Verytis

[SureBridge]

Well, I'm an outlier. I ran test ships for years as a forum mod, so my "official" stats show less than 600 random games. Those stats don't show the multiple Clan Battle seasons in Storm. Or the last 3 KoTS tournaments... Playing against people who are MUCH better than you really helps up your game, as you see how they exploit the system (and your mistakes). Randoms you're likely to eat shells or torpedoes badly aimed at some schmuck across the map. Especially problematic are the "new players" who loaded in with 20km Shima torps and are firing from "behind" enemy lines - now that "Friendly fire" effects have been disabled.

Honestly I just don't really like Randoms all that much. I've been having fun with the mode switch, because it has convoy and airship, two modes that I do like, just not when I'm expecting to play a random. Arms race is still a "bleah" for me, but I have better than even odds of not playing it.

Now if only we could get epicenter mode back: while I realize that lots of folks hated it, I had a lot of fun with it, and the 3v4 at T7 brawls with the "Epicenter 2 brothers" map were among my favorite brawls ever.

[Unlooky]

6 hours ago, SureBridge said:

Now if only we could get epicenter mode back: while I realize that lots of folks hated it, I had a lot of fun with it, and the 3v4 at T7 brawls with the "Epicenter 2 brothers" map were among my favorite brawls ever.

Epicenter can be fun, but the current implementation of it's core idea in the arms race format is much better. The issue with Arms Race is that it requires you to play very aggressively from the very beginning, which either results in you getting obliterated in 40 seconds flat or sitting in the cap with an island between you and the enemy team the entire game. The late game addition of the center cap, when half the teams are dead and it's much safer to push, is far better than the original version of epicenter. 

[Frostbow]

18 hours ago, Captain_Rawhide said:

I can't really carry a game, but between the afks, suicides and just really stupid play I don't really know how I can beef up my stats.  So is it even worth it or should I just give up?

1) We are not expected to carry a game 100% of the time.

2) AFKs, poor play, etc., are a fact of life. There's nothing we can do about it.

3) Instead of focusing on stats, why don't we focus on developing and then refining our situational awareness, supporting our destroyers while we use islands to mask our approach, prioritizing targets, getting into choice positions on the map, knowing when to push, knowing when to best stall an enemy's push, etc.? The stats will follow.

[OT2_2]

19 minutes ago, Frostbow said:

There's nothing we can do about it.

You are absolutely right with all you did write, but as a human of flesh and blood it is very hard to watch helplessly. The conclusion you offer is the best possible, I agree on that. 

Edited July 16 by OT2_2

[Aethervox]

My journey in WoWS on my main account was as a casual player who learnt the game the hard way (a typical Noob way, I suppose). With that account, I have a just under 48% WR. Would I like that to be better? Sure, but it probably won't happen due to having played too many battles now. Have I improved? My alt account has a 51% WR so I'd like to think I have learnt a little, play a little better. What I have found & which some others have pointed out already is there are a great many bad or poor players in WoWS no matter the tier played. All it takes to experience more Ws than average is to division with one or two other decent to good players. This is the one open secret to seeing more Ws than average. Do I follow this advice? LOL, I wish I did. I pretty much play Solo Randoms. Another way to pump a WR up is to play one tier exclusively - the prime example of this are the exclusive T1 players (I random the tier I play so I see T1s sometimes & they are still there).  I still want the W (I'm too competitive to want anything else) & I try to do my share or better in the battle so try to not be the bottom of my team at battle's end. The longer one survives the better, usually, so long as you aren't a camping coward 😒.  This is my personal take on WR 😁.

[Verblonde]

20 hours ago, Captain_Rawhide said:

I don't really know how I can beef up my stats.  So is it even worth it or should I just give up?

As others have alluded to, a lot will depend on how you approach the game, and what sorts of things are fun for you. Without saying this is the 'right' thing to do, my personal approach to this stuff is along the following lines:

• I treat each game mode in isolation, although this is probably obvious.
• I use WR as an indicator, rather than a goal in and of itself; the same is true of stats in general - I use them all as a source of information. For example, if my survival rate is cratering, I need to think about why if I'm getting sunk too early to maximise my impact. What sort of damage am I doing? WR is a useful indicator - over a large enough data-set - of whether what you're doing is working overall.
• I absolutely don't worry about WR as a willy-waving thing, but it can be useful in judging how much weight to give to someone's opinion. For instance, if Player A swears blind you should do x, and Player B is similarly vehement that you should do y, then their respective WRs can be useful in assessing which course you should take.
• When you have a large number of battles under your belt, moving your overall WR significantly is a long-term endeavour. In this context, I usually look at smaller data-sets e.g. recents, or a particular ship/class.
• So, to improve your WR, learn the game more deeply and practice (no surprises there); that said, it's not worth getting obsessive about, and if your game count is massive, focus on smaller data-sets if you want to see more measurable improvement.

[Type_93]

Win Rate simply tracks how often you win a match.  If you have more positive battle impact for your team, you will have a higher WR. Make mistakes and don’t contribute much to outcome of the match, you’ll have a lower WR. 
You can raise your WR, but the more games you play, the longer it will take. Just depends on how much work you want to put into it. 

[Pugilistic]

I looked up my stats one day looong ago and realized I was a casual, just under 48% WR on around 7500 games. I decided I needed to play better. I loved the game, but chronic vertigo wasnt helping me in game or in life, and I got treatment. It has gotten better, but I still have problems, most notably with nystagmus. 

Its hard to shift a WR with that many games. I learned about my ships, watched instructional vids by Flamu and a few others, and read on the Forum by LWM and a few outstanding players. Im about to break 52.6%, and its taken playing at about 56% to move it a tenth in a couple months. I am aided by continuing to play some lower tiers, but its also almost strictly solo. Its a modest increase, but the main thing is not my WR, but that I play much better and enjoy the game more.

WR is a metric for evaluation, not your identity. 

[Wulf_Ace]

22 hours ago, Captain_Rawhide said:

I'm a totally average player.  I know the basics of the game and have played long enough to know where I stand.  I trashed my WR several years ago leveling up multiple tier nine ships in Randoms.  I haven't played much Random since.  I have been dipping my toe in recently, but honestly, the level of play is baffling.  I can't really carry a game, but between the afks, suicides and just really stupid play I don't really know how I can beef up my stats.  So is it even worth it or should I just give up?

If you only mean WR, then just play in a divisiom of three to increase your chances, and player 6,7,8 tiers.

if you want to improve your PR then its something diffrent

[ArIskandir]

1 hour ago, Pugilistic said:

WR is a metric for evaluation, not your identity. 

man, this is such a good phrase... 👍

[OldSchoolGaming_Youtube]

On 7/15/2024 at 9:31 PM, Captain_Rawhide said:

I'm a totally average player.  I know the basics of the game and have played long enough to know where I stand.  I trashed my WR several years ago leveling up multiple tier nine ships in Randoms.  I haven't played much Random since.  I have been dipping my toe in recently, but honestly, the level of play is baffling.  I can't really carry a game, but between the afks, suicides and just really stupid play I don't really know how I can beef up my stats.  So is it even worth it or should I just give up?

My 50 cents. "You do You"!                         But also ....... 

After playing this game since Close Beta testing and being pretty steady on 58% WR for the last 6-7 years, and also seeing a ton of high WR (Unicum and Super Unicum) players playing as dog poop and low WR players having great teamplay with me, communication and pulling of Hail Mary tactics mid to late game .... Zero Fooks are given to WR in my mind.

My measuring stick is more ... do I always end up Top 5 or even Top 3 in all games wins or loses? These days most T10 battles seems to be flooded with bots or just clueless T10 players and steamrolls end in 8-9 min .... 100 K HP BBs with 4 heals manage to die in first 4-5 min (how's that even possible?!        ... Seriously ... I wanna know! ! !).

So my advice to you ... try and get better! I still do even after 8 years by analysing my good/bad games, look at videos on players that are better etc. But don't stare blindly at youre WR ... as I said my haven't moved in 6 years ... I get more out of seeing my position in every post battle result and games I post in "What Were Your Greatest Gaming Achievements Today ?" thread. In todays T10 Meta a good player is one that are able to survive the 5 min mark! Thats how low the bar is at T10..... so go figure!

 

When players start talking smack about WR ingame they lose all creditability and respect from me. Those who are most vocal regarding WR are usually that because reasons (not hard to figure out ..... small "equipment") and usually when you shift their profile from "All" to "Alone" you suddenly see them drop 20% in WR (shocker!), also not that hard to "fix" boost you're numbers if you really need that kind of "encouragement".

 

So get better by all means but focus more on personal growth then team based BS stats like WR.

Edited July 16 by OldSchoolGaming_Youtube

[Lord_Slayer]

On 7/15/2024 at 3:31 PM, Captain_Rawhide said:

I'm a totally average player.  I know the basics of the game and have played long enough to know where I stand.  I trashed my WR several years ago leveling up multiple tier nine ships in Randoms.  I haven't played much Random since.  I have been dipping my toe in recently, but honestly, the level of play is baffling.  I can't really carry a game, but between the afks, suicides and just really stupid play I don't really know how I can beef up my stats.  So is it even worth it or should I just give up?

Win Rate really doesn't tell you how you are doing as a player.

Win Rate is essentially how lucky you are when a team is formed.

Not everyone is going to have a battle go your way. You can have years of experience, be  a multi-time Gold Ranked player and still end up with a crap team and a streak of losses.

So what should you look for?

Personally I'd look at your main gun hit ratio, torpedo hit ratio, Avg Spotting Damage, Avg Potential Damage, Avg Damage, Ave Ship destroyed, even the K/D ratio.

I feel those are where your focus should be. Improving those numbers will be a help for both you and your team.

[ArIskandir]

15 minutes ago, Lord_Slayer said:

Personally I'd look at your main gun hit ratio, torpedo hit ratio

I suck badly on those two, I just roll the dice a lot... if you value those good for you, for me it's irrelevant how much ammo I use on a match.

[Lord_Slayer]

44 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

I suck badly on those two, I just roll the dice a lot... if you value those good for you, for me it's irrelevant how much ammo I use on a match.

not so much on the amount of ammo used, but actually hitting the target.

Obviously the HE spammer ships are going to spray all over and there will likely be more misses then hits, but other ships like BBs and CAs with a longer reload time, hitting the target is more important.

The main point of my post was using other metrics to determine how well you are doing vs using just the W/R

[hipcanuck]

On 7/15/2024 at 3:31 PM, Captain_Rawhide said:

I'm a totally average player.  I know the basics of the game and have played long enough to know where I stand.  I trashed my WR several years ago leveling up multiple tier nine ships in Randoms.  I haven't played much Random since.  I have been dipping my toe in recently, but honestly, the level of play is baffling.  I can't really carry a game, but between the afks, suicides and just really stupid play I don't really know how I can beef up my stats.  So is it even worth it or should I just give up?

I consider myself an average player, most ships are within 1-2 % of 50% if Ive played them more than 20 times. Lately, Ive pulled a few 40% ships into the 50 range....it wasnt easy lol.

Typically, much like golf, I play vs myself. I aim to be top 5 in a match, win or lose, unless Im in a CV. If Im not top 5 (and I usually am!), I should have played better. If Im bottom 5 Im usually mad at myself, knowing I really screwed up....unless Im in a DD and then I could have been unlucky lol. Im not the greatest DD player and still struggle with balancing between shooting and spotting. With a CV, I try to be higher in the team standings than the other CV but its not easy as you have nothing to measure yourself against as the match goes on. Damage doesnt seem to mean much, scouting doesnt either, just play hard and hope lol.

[Wolfswetpaws]

39 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

I suck badly on those two, I just roll the dice a lot... if you value those good for you, for me it's irrelevant how much ammo I use on a match.

For a battleship with a 30 second reload, the theoretical number of times they can fire during a match is (20 minutes) x (2 salvos per minute) = 40 salvos.

With the opening moments of most battles taken by sailing to make contact with opponents, the 40 gets reduced by a variable amount, but let's ballpark it at 5 salvos.
This leaves 35 salvos.

Every one of those should count for something.  Like the Rifleman's Creed says, "...  it is the hits that count ...".  
https://marineparents.com/marinecorps/mc-rifle.asp

In my opinion, practicing gunnery to the point where a player can consistently hit with their first salvo aimed at a target is beneficial.
Firing and missing and making corrections could result in a target escaping or a lost opportunity because one's own ship is sunk before having a chance to fire again (among other possibilities).

[Unlooky]

3 hours ago, Lord_Slayer said:

Win Rate is essentially how lucky you are when a team is formed.

Only true for small samples. Over large sample size, you can expect winrate to be a more accurate record of how many times you've positively or negatively affected a battle. 

 

Law of large numbers, anyone?

[clammboy]

1 hour ago, Unlooky said:

Only true for small samples. Over large sample size, you can expect winrate to be a more accurate record of how many times you've positively or negatively affected a battle. 

 

Law of large numbers, anyone?

I used to believe this but I'm not so sure anymore. It's getting bad real bad to actually be able to affect game play anymore good or bad.

 

[Navalpride33]

2 hours ago, Unlooky said:

Over large sample size, you can expect winrate to be a more accurate record of how many times you've positively or negatively affected a battle. 

Negative. Its the opposite.. More battles the less affect you have on battles.

And no, its not More accurate.. I would make the argument WR% is less accurate the more someone's play the game.

• Especially at mid tiers where you can get a bot match and potentially skew the outcome.

Edited July 17 by Navalpride33

[Unlooky]

24 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

Negative. Its the opposite.. More battles the less affect you have on battles.

And no, its not More accurate.. I would make the argument WR% is less accurate the more someone's play the game.

• Especially at mid tiers where you can get a bot match and potentially skew the outcome.

If you're looking at the total overall record of someone who is continually improving, then yes this is true. If you're looking at a player who has plateaued in their skill development, the law of large numbers absolutely still applies. 

Imstead, specific samples such as the last 200 battles played or last 60 days WR offer probably the best form of assessing a player's current skill level at a glance. 

58 minutes ago, clammboy said:

I used to believe this but I'm not so sure anymore. It's getting bad real bad to actually be able to affect game play anymore good or bad

Quite curious to how the game has been developed to render WR inaccurate for a select few unlucky individuals of the player population. 

[torino2dc]

3 hours ago, clammboy said:

I used to believe this but I'm not so sure anymore. It's getting bad real bad to actually be able to affect game play anymore good or bad.

The brain is a really faulty device when it comes to even-handedly recording mixed data.

The bad games stick out because they are painful and the brain wants to protect you from feeling that way in future. By comparison, a competently executed game won't register because the brain considers it routine. 

The result is that looking back there seem to only be bad experiences. 

[Navalpride33]

4 hours ago, Unlooky said:

If you're looking at the total overall record of someone who is continually improving, then yes this is true. If you're looking at a player who has plateaued in their skill development, the law of large numbers absolutely still applies. 

Imstead, specific samples such as the last 200 battles played or last 60 days WR offer probably the best form of assessing a player's current skill level at a glance. 

Quite curious to how the game has been developed to render WR inaccurate for a select few unlucky individuals of the player population. 

WR% is inaccurate because it has a correlation with the Power increase (and/or over capability) progression of the game over time.

In other words. The improvement everyone seeks is muddied over time because, ships are getting more power at the rate (for se) 1.5x's over a given patch.

Which, if some people do not use those OP/over capable ship.. They, have to deal with the +1.5x's power/capability increase.

• This OP/over capable increase can happen after a few patches or up too every 6 months.

As a result, some people stop playing certain ships and you start to see the same OP/over capable ships over and over and over again.

• For example at tier 5 I see an Agricourt BB in every single match because of the use of AI controlled secondaries.
  •  I sure hope  WG makes Secondaries Player Controlled as they stated a few years ago.
• Different example, T-22 with hydro just neuters every torp DD it faces (in its tier range).
• Last example... More and more BBs having 20km torps. Just why... It takes away/diminishes the cruiser role.
• How about one more just to be safe.. The Pasta BB GC, the cruiser exterminator extraordinaire.

Using the examples given... Their WR have a greater chance of improving not because of player improvement. Its correlative/corresponding to WG's not caring of tier performance boundaries.

This is short and long term observation. I know the observation can get more extreme at high tiers.

This is why, for many reasons explained here.. WR% is very inaccurate in evaluating player improvement (short term or long term).

Edited July 17 by Navalpride33