Figment

Because just as it is harder for you to get somewhere in time to attack, so is it harder for someone else to get somewhere in time to defend. It's down to map size and having to draw a line somewhere. Even then, I only have a draw rate between 3% and 4%, whereas it was 2% in WoT, so given the lowered speed and larger maps, that's not exactly bad.

The Danes are in the English forums for different reasons:

TheJezna, on 14 August 2015 - 01:02 AM, said: 70%? 70%ish on BBs. Yeah. EDIT: The comment in question was about BBs not being capable of creating wins. Which is a statement one only makes if one is not aware of how and when to plot a course. It's basically down to lacking insight. :/ No big deal, everyone who starts playing BBs lacks that insight. And only gains it if they experiment. I had over 300 matches in CBT which I extensively used to experiment. I started with 43% winratios on BBs and up to 12% draw rates. Currently I have up to 75% winrates, most around 67% with 20-30% loss rates. For me the turning point was playing the Nagato and taking it to 6km range after mounting secondary extenders.

In another thread, someone tried to ridicule my suggestion that you just have to be in position (as a BB, but goes for all ships in slightly different ways). The guy mistook me saying "stay in position" to mean camping. It is the same as those people in WoT who claim their heavy tank is too slow to "get to the base in time", so they don't even bother. The problem is that the people that say these things act three minutes after they should have acted. They don't watch the map, they don't ask what is going on (are we winning, losing?) and they don't go back to be there before the enemy arrives - they start going back after the enemy arrives and complain about being too slow. So when I talked about staying in position as a BB, I meant (among other things):

Who said anything about camping? I said "don't get out of position", I didn't say "never ever move". Being in position means being in such a place that you are within range of the objectives, not overextended, not on a ram course with an island, at an angle with your opponents if not broadsiding to fire (at just enough angle) or minimising or evading, stay within your optimal or near optimal range or at least going for that place, don't take on too many enemies at once, maintain appropriate distance to potential threats, use islands for cover to minimise enemy angles on you while you take on one selected enemy at a time, start to dodge air in time, ensure you have backup, or can reach backup or can provide backup, communicate with your allies, look at what is happening on the map and if something bad happens which you will have to respond to in five minutes on the other side of the map, be there within three minutes to nip it in the butt. My point is, most BB captains are busy with just one thing: their current target. Nothing else. I do a little bit more and my 60-70% winrates might actually be a consequence of that. You see them chase that target to the end of the world. I break off an engagement as soon as it is needed, as soon as I see our cruisers with me will finish off the target, I move on. Why do you think a lot of bad BB players have high killcounts? They are greedy for the kill, baited out of position without even knowing what a position is. If I can deal 12K damage and my current target has 2K, and I have a couple cruisers with me, I pick that next cruiser while I let greed for kills finish of the weakened target. I also constantly select targets for my allies by marking them. Efficiency! Most BB players take far too long for each target, they keep at it till it is dead. They waste time, reload time and damage potential, they don't use reload time to take in the situation. That is what leads to deaths and draws for a lot of bad BB players, even if they deal more damage than me per match. They don't get their role and they have no idea what their position should be to win.

So underpowered. I can barely win matches with BBs... (And no, don't have premium).

50% cap = stopped timer? (favours attacker) Ship in cap zone reset/hit = stops timer for 20s? (favours defender/attacker)

Omaha... worst... ship? LOL... Just for fun, check out my stats. Doing 65K damage ON AVERAGE with it. Won 11 out of 12 matches so far. Sticking with the B hull, of course.

Honestly, most the time they don't even get to come that close... Four or five salvos of AP usualy does the trick.

If you don't have the speed, don't get out of position. :/ It's not that hard to grasp.

Nope. Why is it so hard to accept I just play well with 'm? :/ Had a thorough training during CBT. Used to have 45% winrates back then till Nagato and Amagi. Learned the importance of close range AP and secondaries (with extension modules) then.

Crack of death? Nah, I pick the side with most enemies. But for it being "situational", I got 70%ish winrates. So... basically every match?

It's that minimap in the right bottom corner of your screen.

Well, I'm carrying with my BBs a lot. I take it into a semi-aggressive defensive role, where I often actually fight from within or at the least the edge of the domination zones, making sure it can't be captured, reseting those capping and simply have to dodge a lot of torps, prevent DDs breaking through etc. Rather than play the long distance thing. Another thing I do is I always make sure that when I'm fighting, I'm sailing towards a capture zone, be it our home base or a domination point. That way, if I need to break off for defense, I can, while getting more chance of allied support from behind me rather than isolating, sailing away from threats, so kiting/baiting and minimising enemy targets. Most the time I see friendly BBs sail in the opposite direction, something I frequently did during CBT, but that tended to force you to sail away from your bases / zones or towards your enemies. Which gets you killed and too far from the objectives. Sailing time shouldn't be an issue if you properly control the regions you feel are under threat. Hard to explain, but my winrates indicate I'm doing something right.

That's a positioning issue. Most BB users allow themselves to be drawn to far corners or keep distance. Not a problem with the ship, but who is driving it. I would personally say: if there is a ship in the cap zone, stop the timer.

That's not exploiting a loophole. Enemy team should have prevented a draw.

You have it wrong, he wasn't rewarded. Your team was punished for not finishing up and capping the base.

Counter 1. Enemy DDs go straight through the middle, cap before your lemming train arrives. Counter 2. Enemy has 3 ships sailing ahead of your lemming train, your front troops get anxious or run ahead of your team, get isolated, die. Or turn back, rest of lemming train shows broadsides, train is stalled. Enemy team sails to your cap zone unprohibited, or flanks and takes your fleet from behind one by one. BAD idea. Especially when a domination mode game is active.

TeamSpeak is an external program, so as a comm tool it works if you team up with someone. If I ping the map, I just type along. Plenty of time to type unless you're in a fire fight, but even then you can type during turns and reloads if you're a quick typist.

You should be playing in small groups of 3-5 ships. That way you're able to respond to threats, group up when needed, alter course, distribute fire, don't get overrun, etc.

Timing of damage is indeed essential. Dealing 35K damage at the end of the match, or 35K near the start of it: which is more important?

I see your petticoat, and raise you moar petticoats: Entire seasons of petticoats! D:

True to an extend, but in time you get the same teams as other people. If your performance is consistent, then chance doesn't influence your winrate enough to become negative. I would guesstimate that, unless you have a unit that's a bit too dominant in a match like some people with CVs, the range between 40% and 70% is the range that accurately reflects your prowess. With about 3-5% reflecting lucky matches and about 20% standard losses, 30% standard wins, those are the ones your team gets for you. The rest you can influence, sometimes not enough, but most of the time enough to make it a win or close defeat if you're good and coordinate with your team. You can't usualy guarantee always winning, but some players definitely can, it's possible. Winrates of 70-90% would otherwise not be possible and cannot be ascribed to pure chance over hundreds of matches. There's a larger body of people that aren't that good or just mediocre, so the scores under the 50% (or about 47% in this game due to the amount of draws) is shared by a larger group of people, making negative impact lower. Being exceptionally good, or at least well above average, enough to influence matches is relatively rare. We're talking about a 20% of the population who take a greater deal of the wins by their exceptionally consistent performance, actions, organisation efforts, defense, scouting, etc. Whatever it is they do well that makes the team gain an advantage as a team. Could be being good at creating an early numerical advantage, could be preventing people from going the wrong way, or isolating themselves, could be warning others, could be being good at hunting enemy DDs. Could be baiting enemies or controlling their movements by drawing attention without providing opportunities to get killed, threatening, stalling, deterring when it's needed so that the rest of the team have time to make a move. Whatever it is that gives your side an edge to exploit, embolden your side. Usualy a combination of things. To say these people's winrates don't mean a thing is rather ridiculous and statistically impossible. Now, I usualy hear the claim that winrate means nothing being said by people who are scoring okayish or average, usualy who are really close to the 50% themselves, OR who parrot it while having really bad statistics. That's just your ego not accepting that you're not good enough to influence more. You're good enough to determine some matches, but not consistent enough to be top 3 virtually all the time. To win, it's not about ONE person having a good performance. It can be decisive, but if the other team has two average performers doing much the same thing, you've been cancelled out. So it's about having MORE good performers than the other team. On average, both teams should have equal chance to have those performers on board. More slightly better performers, or more excellent performers. Whatever compensates enough under the circumstances. The thing is that when you're a good player, in the top 20-25%, you'll be increasing the chances of your team having sufficient good performers to compensate for the performers on the other team. When you're a bad player and only have the occasional excellent match, you're decreasing the chances of your team having sufficient good performers. In principal in random matchmaking, both your and your enemy team will have the same kind of players. Hence you can only sustain a certain amount of wins. But, since you're more likely to have a good team since you as a good performer are in it already, you'll have a larger number of matches with sufficient good players, than someone who's not an excellent player. This is reflected in your winrates. Not per se in low numbers of matches, but over time and with more and more matches your average performance will show itself in your statistics, since unlucky bad streaks become less influential.

Just went from 56% to 58% yesterday: 29 games, 23 wins, 2 draws. Top 3 in all but two lost matches and a draw (in two instances got singled out as a Kongo by IJN torp bombers just as I had to pick up the phone as my dad was calling and made me look up train schedules... Third my Clemson was torped by a friendly Kuma before I could damage anything. >.<' Damnit!)

Sorry, the source I used was talking about the leftover state of Yugoslavia (which we here usualy refered to as Serbia-Montenegro for clarity). I stand corrected.