Is WR even worth trying to improve?

[Unlooky]

4 hours ago, Navalpride33 said:

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).

Your 1.5x number is pulled completely out of your ass and your following reasons are similarly illogical. If everyone's "power" is increasing then there shouldn't be any disparity between yourself and the rest of the game. 

It's very simple. The better you are at the game, the more you can carry. Those who can carry have a higher winrate accordingly. 

[clammboy]

7 hours ago, torino2dc said:

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. 

In all honesty I wasn't just talking about losses a lot of times my bad games or low damage games are stomp wins by my team. I feel like I did nothing.

Then the game were I feel like I'm playing good dealing damage sinking ships is a loss.

I don't know I was just voicing my thoughts of what's going on recently for me.

I realize there are firm believers in WR and I do think it is measure to some extent of how good you are. If you have a 57% win rate your a good player your not just lucky.

Just feel frustrated at times with how the games go the MM and my own game play as well as the teams.

 

 

[Type_93]

5 hours ago, Navalpride33 said:

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

Ok. I’m trying to see from your point of view. So you’re saying WR won’t matter because of the progression of the game? I just don’t buy it.  
If you play better, your win rate will increase. We can use my recent stats to prove.  Look at the difference in my overall and my recent stats. 

Sure I have games where I do something dumb and die early, or have bad teams that you can’t carry, but when you look at the larger sample size skill becomes apparent. I use my knowledge of the ship I’m playing combined with my understanding of game mechanics to have more positive battle impact, which ends up making my teams win more. 

[ArIskandir]

1 hour ago, clammboy said:

Just feel frustrated at times with how the games go the MM and my own game play as well as the teams.

Dear Master Clamm, that's just the way it is for most people, the Game is designed that way so your personal contribution is rather limited. Only few people have the foresight and skill required to really impact matches in a consistent way and 'escape' the designed average loop. 

There's a expectation to be 'successful' or else we'll be considered to others and ourselves a failure... This is not only unrealistic but unfair. 'Success' (in this case, to escape the average loop) is beyond the reach of a Lot  of people and there's nothing wrong on them because of that, You are playing a system designed to conform You to a set Standard... It is not a failure to be within the Standard.

[torino2dc]

2 hours ago, clammboy said:

I realize there are firm believers in WR and I do think it is measure to some extent of how good you are. If you have a 57% win rate your a good player your not just lucky.

Just feel frustrated at times with how the games go the MM and my own game play as well as the teams.

I apologize for making it sound like your experiences weren't real; that wasn't my intention. I should have expanded a bit more, the part about the brain is actually part of a wider fault-finding loop. Below is what I do when faced with a greater than usual number of losses, which is to go through several rounds of questions to get an idea of what is happening.

_______________________________

The first step is to analyze my player execution, assuming that the matchmaking and perception are fine. 

- Am I making mechanical errors (eating dodgeable torpedoes, exposing broadside spotted, smoke fire mistakes, poor aim, etc.)?  

- Am I insufficiently anticipating the game flow (guns not pre-aimed correctly, guns are on reload when a high value target appears, receiving unexpected shots/torpedos, not anticipating enemy moves)? 

- Am I making tactical errors (putting my ship in a sub-optimal part of the map, rotating to early/too late, letting the enemy take needless map advantages)?

_______________________________

Next I reflect on the matchmaking, assuming that execution and perception are fine.

- How does my ship interact with the current matchmaking? Is the class that oppresses me particularly numerous? Is the class that my ship preys upon particularly scarce?

- Is the matchmaking for my tier being hollowed out by concurrent events (Ranked, Brawls, Ops, special events)?

- Does my ship require above average teamwork to be successful? Conversely, does it only shine when the enemy is full of skill-limited players? Does it have certain weaknesses (e.g. smoke but no hydro) that can only be consistently covered by a divmate?

- Is it a time of day/month/year when a particular player type (experienced or inexperienced) might be overrepresented?

_______________________________

Finally, if the self-analysis of player execution and matchmaking don't yield obvious red flags, then the last step is to look at perception.

- How is my life outside of WoWS? Am I putting too much pressure on the game to generate feel-good chemicals?

- Is my brain craving particular game scenarios (e.g. devstrikes, citadels, ambushes, outplays) that should not be forced?

- Is my perception being discolored by a particularly unpleasant outcome that blots out other data points? (this is what we were talking about earlier). 

- Are my expectations for results (WR, damage, PR, ribbons etc.) realistic? How were they derived? 

_______________________________

Having engaged in extensive self-evaluation over the years, I don't think there has been a single loss streak that I've had that hasn't been explained by one of the questions above. 

However, all of those questions assume that the player is at or near their skill ceiling. They don't do a great job of modeling how a match could have gone differently had I made a particularly skillful devstrike or launched the best possible torpedoes. But that is a topic for a different thread... or threads...

 

[Wolfswetpaws]

Master Kan : When you can take the pebble from my hand, it will be time for you to leave "carry a game".

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068823/characters/nm0014217?ref_=tt_cl_c_8
 

[Navalpride33]

6 hours ago, Unlooky said:

Your 1.5x number is pulled completely out of your ass and your following reasons are similarly illogical.

Isn't that "(For se)" means in the first place... Its only an example of principle of actual occurrence because as I stated in the post.

WG knows the figures very... While you're correct I gave an example of a number... The power creep and over capability examples are not made up...

[Navalpride33]

6 hours ago, Type_93 said:

Ok. I’m trying to see from your point of view. So you’re saying WR won’t matter because of the progression of the game? I just don’t buy it.  
If you play better, your win rate will increase. We can use my recent stats to prove.  Look at the difference in my overall and my recent stats. 

Sure I have games where I do something dumb and die early, or have bad teams that you can’t carry, but when you look at the larger sample size skill becomes apparent. I use my knowledge of the ship I’m playing combined with my understanding of game mechanics to have more positive battle impact, which ends up making my teams win more. 

Well I guess you missed the mark in context of the post... The observation is in general the correlation over time (short and long) of how power creep has manipulated (by the examples given) WR%... 

Because of that simple manipulation of WR%... Its inaccurate as a marker of improvement.

Now... Im not going over individual stats. Its evident, (like me playing the Kami in today's patch since 0.8.0), not everyone plays Over powered/over capable ships. Don't care about WR%.

This was a general look at how WR% from say before a patch (per se 0.8.0) is different value compared to say current patch (including 6 patches ago and/or 6 patches coming up).

BTW

WR% from a stats POV is govern by other statistics for-which I'm not getting more into detail. Just play the game and it will land in a respectable range.

Now, I went on two different reason why you shouldn't try to improve WR%. 

1. Its manipulation is easy.
2. You're going to end up in a respectable WR% regardless of the quality of player.
3. WR% before this power creep progression, was fairly reasonable to gauge player quality.. Not anymore

-----------------------------------------------------

IMO, if you're looking to improve a stat cool.. My guys know how already and I practice a methodology myself. Never would I, with a straight face.. Any WOWS stat (including WR%) will make them a better player...

AS we all know, there's no stat in WOWS to gauge player quality with any accuracy at all.

 

 

Edited July 17 by Navalpride33

[tangofan]

On 7/16/2024 at 6:56 PM, 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?

Exactly!

All those people who are claiming that win-rate is meaningless, because there is a random factor involved, probably also think that poker is a game of luck, rather than skill, just because the cards are random each hand.

Of course win-rate can be goosed a bit by a few things (playing in divisions, playing lower tiers, playing your favorite OP ship that you got out of a Santa crate), but I agree that win-rate over a large number of games is one of the better measures of skill.