eliastion

Well, you've put some thought into this necro, so I guess I might respond a bit. The problem with comparing ships based on winrate is that - as you partially acknowledge further into your post - that the playerbase might be different. Kaga is a premium CV - it's not just that she's been out of sale for quite some time but even the very status as a premium CV. People willing to spend money on a CV generally have some dedication to CVs, there's also no grind and - compared to somewhat underwhelming t7 silver CVs - people don't leave Kaga as soon as they get enough XP for the next CV in line. Also, unlike Saipan (OP in her own right) Kaga is a high-impact CV - unless the enemy CV shuts her down, Kaga can really wreak havoc among the enemy fleet. Saipan is much better in the air superiority aspect (small, fast squadrons with no penalty for strafing out of dogfight are scary) but her strike potential is comparatively lacking.

I'm bad at noticing other forumites (even very active ones) on team list but when someone speaks up first, it certainly helps, even if the other side isn't very active Met @The_Finnster just now, me in my Kitakaze, he in his Conqueror. The match went reasonably well and we bagged a victory and two kills each - although neither of us managed to secure the top spot in team

Actually, this argument is backwards. DDs are extremely valuable right now and losing some early on is a great detriment to the team due to their tactical importance (spotting, capping, torp threat) - if this doesn't stop them from dying early on, why would another team-boosting consumable? Your idea would make things worse - because the already very influential class would get even more influence, making it even harder to make up for bad/dead DDs.

I feel like it's a bit TOO arcade-y for the general population... and even if it was to appear, I don't feel like this is something that really suits destroyers. If anything, it sounds like a gimmick for a new BB line (weaker heals but with a bit of emanating effects) or something for cruisers (as the "utility ships" of WoWs).

Well, as a DD main I'm more intimate with this part, so I'll comment on it - while it's regrettable, it's not necessarily the worst situation. A DD incapable of contesting caps without dying right away is certainly a burden on the team - but even such a DD has more value than a dead DD. Even by just trying to farm damage, these DDs involuntarily can provide some spotting and limit the operations of enemy DDs, even significantly more skilled. A DD that "learned" to avoid caps is therefore less of a potato that a DD that gets into caps but does it so badly that it becomes a free kill for the enemy more often than not. Of course it would be better to learn how to contest caps instead of learning not to do it at all - but while the latter is a dead-end when it comes to learning to play DDs (and you'd need to un-learn it to become a decent DD player), it still takes the player in question a bit further than learning nothing at all.

Ok, that's a high grade BBaby with a boost from history interest - I'm almost impressed This is a misconception. A common one, but a misconception nonetheless. At high tier the overall skill level is higher than at middle tiers. However (well, partially because of that) mistakes are punished more harshly. Partially it's due to ships, weapons and consumables that make an appearance or at least are more common up there. Partially it's due to players. Regardless, the result is that a stupid decision that one would get away with at tier 5 is pretty much a suicide at t10 - because enemies have the range to punish you, the skill to actually hit you beyond point-blank range and some of them even enough situational awareness to notice you making a lethal mistake. All that said, high tiers have, of course, plenty absolute potatoes. There's no skill filter preventing them from ascending. But they aren't any more numerous than at middle tiers - there is less of them but they are more noticeable because they stand out (negatively) more. If you don't believe me, look up some of the potatoes (preferably these mild ones, around 45-48% winrate range) and look at their WR across the tiers. You'll see that the higher the tier, the worse their results. It's not because they're regressing and playing worse and worse - it's because they reach tiers where their lack of skill is punished more harshly. And it only gets worse the higher they go (with added impact of always being top tier at t10 and never being in the less consequential -2 MM at t9).

Random things are random, though. People are just too good at noticing patterns - so good that they see them where there are none Not that long ago I got 2 supercontainers in the same day, from two adjacent containers... suffering 3 detonations across just 6 battles is much, much more likely than something like that. And yet - both can happen.

Since there's a serious question, I'll depart from the tone of this thread and provide an appropriately serious answer. To get a coop restriction you need to not be pink but rather orange. It's the next step after being pink - I think you can get that if you plant a spread of torps into an ally while already pink (I'd say "kill someone again" but when you're pink, the damage starts being reflected). If once isn't enough then doing it yet again should do the trick for sure Basically, pink is a warning, orange - an actual penalty for repeated offense.

Ironic how people don't want their legs amputated and how people complain when their legs hurt at the same time ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Well, it depends on the number of battles, my Udaloi has 27,78% over 36 battles, for example, a bit... far from my overall 58,28%. And then there's Yueyang with 0% winrate but picking a ship with one Random battle for such comparisons is cheating Still, while 51-16 difference might be a bit of an exaggeration, that difference between my Fubuki and my Akizuki is a difference between a deep red and a unicum - if that doesn't count as a drastic difference then what does?

I feel the need to contradict you. Take... me. My global winrate for DDs is 59,98% My global winrate for CVs is 51,89% - that's 8,11% gap And then comes the winrate in ships I really like compared to these I never managed to force to work for me... This is harder to show (since if I really can't force a ship to work, I tend to abandon her or freeXP through her without reaching a really high battle count) but if we take the old Fubuki (by many deemed to be a highlight of the old IJN torpboat line) I have a 42,06% winrate from 126 matches. After the split I was REALLY fond of Akizuki (she didn't have special HE penetration back but she did have the stealth that now you need to look for in t9 Kitakaze), securing a 60,86% winrate. That's two t8 IJN DDs and while Akizuki got a global winrate almost 3 percent points higher, that doesn't seem to explain my personal difference of more than 18 - a gap between unicum and tomato so red that it's not even funny. People have good winrate in ships they like and are compatible with. If they aren't compatible - they are going to have results WAY below their typical performance.

No, this is a misconception. All these things affect your chances of victory in any given match but these are things that just average out over time. What DOES affect your winrate is: 1. Obviously your skill (duh) 2. The skill of your division (a non-factor if you play solo, of course) 3. The ships selected by YOU (whether you sealclub in low tiers in your favourite ships OR try to get better in that one f*cking underpowered high tier piece of crap that you just don't seem to be able to make working) 4. How much effort and resources you put into winning (signals, premium consumables, whether your ships and/or commanders are always maxed out, whether you dare to play in less-than-ideal condition) The most irrelevant stat of them all because it takes premium time into account. This stat has no value whatsoever. Not as irrelevant as experience but not much better - it only has any use when compared against others' results for the same ship and even then it depends heavily on the playstyle. Most noticeable for gunboat DDs - if you spot, contest caps, play objective and fight mostly enemy DDs, you'll never match the values harvested by a player that selfishly farms big numbers by trying to burn down enemy BBs without putting himself at risk. Actually better over the longer period than damage but not by much. Like damage, kills can be farmed (to the exclusion of other things you should be doing) and don't get me started on kill-stealing (holding fire to get that last killing salvo instead of getting the enemy dead faster or - for CVs - wasting the whole plane trip to kill an enemy that's being focused down and about to die anyway). ***** No. Balancing skill is a very bad idea. And balancing winrate is additionally a self-defeating concept because when you start balancing WR and people start getting closer and closer to 50% winrate (the point of trying to get roughly equal teams), you find yourself losing the very stat you're using as the basis for your balancing and everything falls apart.

If being top of the team were to be rewarded, it should be the top of the WINNING team so that victory is ALWAYS the primary goal - not to mention that being top loser while not doing your job is much more common than being top winner in the same context - if you're at the top and the team wins, it's guaranteed that you did a really good job (it's of course not uncommon to be top without doing THE BEST job but still, the correlation between your place in team and your usefulness is much stronger for victories than defeats).

No, this is false. These numbers don't take the number of matches into account - and it's really, REALLY hard to go below 30% winrate over a couple hundred matches unless you play in a griefing division. These 11,5% of total players that are below 30% winrate would be almost exclusively people with less than a hundred matches played. Wows-numbers leaderboard (not really a great source of information but still something to take a look at) has exactly 9 players below 30% solo winrate (they have a cut-off at 100 battles). Out of these 9 people 7 are in the 100-200 battles range with only two miracle-makers that managed such low winrate despite having played many hundreds of battles.

Then again, without a cut-off minimal number of battles, the result isn't really representative of the player population because a not-insignificant portion of the results will be people who pretty much just installed to take a look and, not liking what they saw, promptly uninstalled. If you make use of wows-numbers.com and look at what their leaderboard shows (only accounts they have in their database AND that have over 1000 battles) the median actually falls squarely at 50%. If you filter for solo stats (their cut-off number of battles falls to 100 so it's hard to tell how much of the difference is due to divisioning and how much due to lower number of battles allowed) the median winrate is a bit lower, but still well above 49% (49,65% to be precise). So while it's not true that the winrate of an average player must be 50% (this would be only true if everyone played the same number of battles), the actual numbers for actual players (rather than brief visitors) seem to fall close enough to the 50% mark.

You're also the kind of player that believes that if one ship attacks three and gets wrecked then it's because the enemies lack skill and engage in childish "many on one" fight instead of accepting a honorable duel? I'll tell you a secret, sunshine. If someone can attack you in a way that allows them to inflict considerable damage while you're unable to efficiently retaliate - then you've just gotten outplayed.

It's an Operation, not a Ranked Battle, there are no restrictions on how many CVs can be in the enemy team, they are inserted there manually by the devs anyway. In fact, if you look carefully at the previous screenshots, you'll even notice that there's a secondary objective to kill 3 carriers.

Good job listing important roles, bad job creating an arbitrary order that's just wrong in most situations. Also, you somehow managed to completely omit torping, unless you're trying to pass it off as "fire support"... Spotting damage as it works in WoWs is useless and non-representative of anything. It works like this: Shima: spots, say, a Zao Zao: realizes she's spotted. Having nothing to lose, opens fire on a Yamato in the distance Yamato: opens fire on Zao Zao: gets hit by Yamato but the damage doesn't count for Shima's spotting damage because Yamato clearly sees the Zao (since the latter is shooting back all the time). Getting spotting damage is more often than not as much about luck as actually spotting things. This is hilarious. If anything, DDs often tend to pay too little attention to caps... Listing Radar as the least important for ships that have it?... Lolnope. Again, arbitrary order that makes no sense. Any BB that can choose between a cruiser that presents a decent target and a BB that does the same should (unless there is some special situation) focus on the cruiser. A single good salvo from a BB can kill a cruiser or force her to disengage - that's an instant advantage to the team. This is also one of the reason why BB tanking doesn't work nearly as well as advertised. Unless a BB overextends (not a good thing to do), she's usually the least attractive target to shoot at. I'm not saying there is no BB tanking whatsoever but even in a well played BB there's much less of that than you'd expect - unless the enemies are stupid.

You said that they're equally (un)fun. Equally. And they're not. Simple as that. You got caught on claiming something stupid - but instead of admitting that, you try to twist my words around to mean something else than what I said. The point is: regardless of how little fun there is to be found in a one-sided match, the one in your favor is still better than the one where you're the one getting your stern handed to you. But you keep trying to make this simple and obvious truth into me claiming that it's a lot of fun to just breeze through a match without any opposition. Just how intellectually dishonest can you get?

I find one-sided matches in my favor more fun than one-sided matches in favor of the enemy. THAT is the comparison here - so you can take your strawman and stuff it into your rear cargo hold, thank you very much

So, I saw the thread title, came to give advice - but right in the first sentence it seems that you've found the best answer on your own - I'm confused

Sorry, but wtf are you talking about. Anyway, although I'm not sure how exactly you managed to misunderstand my post, I'll try to make myself as clear as I can to resolve this misunderstanding. Here's the quote from you that I was referring to: And this statement of yours is completely, ridiculously false. Steamrolling is much, MUCH more fun (or "less not fun" if you will) than getting steamrolled.

Certainly not. Steamrolling is much less fun than winning after a fulfilling match. Depending on a player, steamrolling might be less fun than losing after a close match, I'll concede even on that point. But steamrolling and being steamrolled being equal fun? This is a really, REALLY ridiculous statement. I guess you could find a player or two who would agree with you, but I can assure you: for the VAST majority of players winning effortlessly and getting your stern kicked without any ability to retaliate aren't even close to equally (un)fun.

...what? What you're saying doesn't make sense. Let me put it this way: imagine conduct a national calligraphy contest. Every participant gets a green pen. 5% of the best receive an award red pen too. Then you conduct more contests where people can use their green pens or (those who have them) red pens. Average scores achieved with red pens are much better than average scores achieved with green pens. So you conclude that red pens are much better for calligraphy. "Hey" - says someone - "but isn''t it just that the red-pen-owners are on average better at calligraphy than the average green-pen-owner"? And your answer is "but top 5% of those writing with red pen are still better than the top 5% of those writing with green!" Well, no sh*t. If you take 5% of whole population and 5% of the best 5% (basically the best 0,25%) - are you surprised that top 0,25% is better than the top 5%? With Stalingrad it's less straightforward, of course. However, when you have two populations of which one is better then it's only natural that 5% of this better population will be better than 5% of the worse one. The only way to properly compare Stalingrad to other cruisers based on stats would be something that only WG can do - take Stalingrad owners and look how their results with Stalingrad compare to their results with other cruisers. No matter how you slice the Zao-users DM-users and Stalingrad-users population, you're not going to get any useful information out of that. If you compare top X% - Stalingrad will always have an advantage. Comparing "top X over the last two weeks" players (X players, not X% players, mind you) would be better but that, on the other hand, discriminates against the less popular ships (with much bigger playerbase you're bound to get more abnormally well performing people) so that doesn't work either. In the end, just looking at stats, we'll NEVER know to what extent OP is Stalingrad. The best you can get is comparing how much better your own results are - but that's anecdotal evidence at best and can be simply the result of specific ship fitting you better or (looking at whole history) a simple effect of playing Stalingrad now, when you're more experienced than for most of your Zao or DM matches. In the end, the only ones who have access to stats allowing to gauge to what extent (un)balanced Stalingrad is would be WG themselves.