eliastion

Well, you might not be necessarily right here. If it was "most players you meet" then you would be mostly correct but it's actually perfectly possible for most players to have sub-50% winrate as well as for the average winrate of a player not being equal to 50% Imagine a super simplified situation, a 1v1 game, 4 different players and they play the following set of matches: A-B (player A wins) A-C (player A wins) A-D (player A wins) The results we get are: Player A: 100% winrate Players B, C, D: 0% winrate each What follows is that: - most players have 0% winrate - the average winrate is 25% (since we have 100%, 0%, 0% and 0% to draw an average from) Although it should be noted that if the trend (player A playing 3 times as much as any of the other ones) and you enter the group to play, your chances of meeting 100% and 0% winrate opponent would be 50-50 - there are more 0% players but they play less so you're less likely to encounter one of them. The same holds true for less artificial situation of WoWs - you can expect your average teammate/opponent to have 50% winrate (on average) but it doesn't necessarily mean that a typical player has 50% winrate - if worse players tend to play less then most players would be below 50% That being said, according to wows-numbers it seems that the median winrate for players over 100 battles actually does fall short of 50%... by less than half a percent point. It's somewhere in the 49,6%-49,7% range. Even if we assume that the site lacks some data and bad players are more likely to hide their stats while the good ones are more likely to look theirs up - I'm pretty sure we could safely assume that the winrate of an average player is over 49%.

Let me put it this way: in any single match team has more impact on the result than the single player. HOWEVER - you're not playing one battle. You're playing hundreds, then thousands, of them - and over such a large number, the impact of good and bad teams mostly evens out. And when it evens out, the winrate stabilizes... and if it stabilizes well below 50%, it means that you consistently drag your team down instead of helping it. Let's put it this way: in roughly 60% of games the result depends on your team and it doesn't really matter what you do. It goes roughly like this: in every statistical 10 battles (as long as you play solo and something that's not a carrier)... 3 battles are won no matter what. You could go AFK and you'll still win. 1 battle is very easy. You need to sail a bit around, shoot at enemies, NOT shoot at allies and, generally speaking, just be there. 1 battle requires a bit of effort. You need to pull your weight, be a threat to the enemy and support your team. Nothing fancy though - just do your part. 1 battle is hard. Just doing your job is not enough - you need to make up for your teammates being bad or enemies being good. You need to carry. 1 battle is insane. You need to carry like crazy and win seemingly on your own. Having an amazing match MIGHT be enough to pull off a victory... or it might not. 3 battles are hopeless. The difference in team quality is so overwhelming that you might be a god of this game and you'll still lose. The majority of matches are beyond your control - but 4/10 depend on you. And these 4 are what differentiates a 30% WR super-potato from 70% WR super-unicum. If you just participate in your matches properly, you can expect about 40% winrate. If you are average and pull your weight - you'll get about 50% winrate. If you can carry a weak team, you'll enjoy a 60% winrate. And if you're really great, you might be able to end up in general proximity of 70% WR mark, signifying that if a team can possibly be carried to victory, you probably WILL carry it.

Wait. So you think you should be able to survive getting focused by, literally, half of the enemy fleet?... 6v1 Shimakazes would probably gun down a Worcester without using any torps or smoke.

Being in a clan (or a division) in no way guarantees good performance. There are clans full of atrociously bad players (no better than newbies despite advantage in experience) and a division mostly serves to make the impact of its members more apparent. A division of good players is a thing to fear but a division of bad players is... well, also something to fear - when it's on your team. And if you try to split players based on how good they are (to get matches to be more even), you end up punishing good players (as "reward" for being good they get worse teams and stronger opponents) - that's not acceptable. It was tested in a certain tank game (Armored Warfare) and the results were terrible, the game in question suffered a lot from it and lost quite a lot of initially interested players before the "skill balancing" got removed. Many speculate that this "experiment" was one of the major reasons why the game in question never managed to hit it as big as it deserved based on how many, many aspects compared to their more established competition (in fact many significant improvements to WoT at the time seem strongly inspired by the things Armored Warfare just did better).

I've had a match today at t9. The enemy had 3 players from the same clan playing CV, CL, DD. They all had winrate below 40% and the whole enemy team got slaughtered without putting up much of a resistance

Mostly "because they said so". Many of the ships present in the game had them, none have them in-game. Also, WG stated that they're not going to add them.

Out of - necroing a 3yo thread to rant about losing Karma for putting your DD out of the match by escorting a carrier while you had already ranted about it in another thread and - putting your DD out of the match by escorting a carrier I'd say that the necro still makes more sense.

No. Playing drunk and f*cking your team over due to that is not doing your best, sorry. For most people in games where you compete against other people winning is more fun than losing. They just want to have fun. And teammates who f*ck them over by playing really bad prevent them from having fun - so they get angry. It's pretty natural to get angry at someone who comes and spoils your fun instead of helping you have it in a team-based game.

Harugumo is already in the game - she's pretty fast for a cruiser, has a rather bad turning circle but good rudder shift for a cruiser and (for a cruiser, again) her concealment is god-tier Although she has only 5x2 100mm.

CraftyVeteran: WR is unimportant, PR is what counts Me: Shows how meaningless PR is compared to WR CraftyVeteran: "you just proved my point" Suuuure. But go ahead, have fun focusing on farming damage rather than helping your team win, while believing that's what makes a good player.

Errrm... when we're talking the role of various classes - DDs are supposed to kill battleships. That's what they are supposed to do. Usually the most effective method is nuking them with torpedoes in 0,5 seconds though rather than burning them down within a minute or two of continuous shelling.

Of course. But it opens door to trading various in-game resources for real money. Imagine a bot account that farms XP, credits and whatever. And then it creates a clan and the owner of such bot account can invite someone to sell them some in-game goodies in the form of these "clan rewards".

I only noticed your post from somebody else replying, so sorry for late answer but... you couldn't be more wrong. Ok, I mean, you could but you're still very wrong. Player rating is irrelevant. It's a stat that means... hardly anything. I'll try to explain on the example of CVs since it's the most influential class of ship in the game. Imagine two CV players that meet a potato CV (as in: "what is a manual attack" potato) enemy so they can have a great game: Player 1: 1. Doesn't really use fighters beyond escorting his strike squadrons to deal with floatplane fighters or in case the potato enemy CV figures out that he could try to intercept 2. Whenever possible, uses strike planes to attack enemy battleships 3. Cycles planes as fast as possible to maximize the number of strikes Player 2: 1. Uses fighters a lot, turning enemy potato's sub-optimal strikes into strikes that never happen 2. Focuses on enemy DDs whenever possible 3. Dive bombers hardly come back to rearm because they're busy spotting enemy torps and DDs (enemy DDs are basically completely shut down and can't do sh*t through the match) How do you think, which of the two is going to get a better rating? And which one is more useful to the team? I'll tell you - a good enemy team can still win against the team that has the player #1 as an opponent. In fact, even the potato CV will probably end up the match with a bunch of XP and maybe a kill - he basically has just as much free reign as the "good" player, only he has no idea how to efficiently make use of this free reign. But having a potato CV and facing the player #2? This match is lost before it begins. You see, the problem is that all these personal ratings are focused on damage and kills A LOT. Capping? Spotting? Exerting pressure to limit enemy movements? These just don't exist. The only advantage ratings have is that they start showing something relatively early. It stabilizes much faster than winrate. Problem is - even with that early stability, it's still pretty useless. Because farming damage - the thing that boosts your ratings the most - just isn't what you should usually be doing. Sure, you won't get a great rating without helping your team and if your rating is absolute crap then you're certainly useless. But still, that's just a correlation and - depending on playstyle - a significantly better player can consistently end up with a significantly worse rating. Winrate is different. Its problem is that it's slow to stabilize. Unlike the rating, however, winrate (or rather solo winrate since divisions can distort the picture significantlly) tells you how much the player in question helps his teams win. Of coourse, if you have a turd team, one great player won't make it a victory - but when we're talking hundreds of matches? Some time ago I came up with a very simplified explanation for how it works. And basically it's mote or less like this: On average out of typical 10 mathches - 3 are won. You could go AFK and it will still be a victory - 1 is extremely easy. Just sail around, shoot at enemies rather than allies and enjoy your victory - 1 requires you to actually play properly. - 1 is hard, your team needs you to carry more than your fair share. - 1 is an extreme challenge, you need to get a f*cking Kraken or something to carry these turds to victory. - 3 are lost no matter how well you play. From the above "typical set" you might notice - your ability can't change the result of 60% of your matches. MORE THAN HALF of all the matches are pretty much beyond your control - either wonor lost no matter what you do. But then there's the remaining 4/10. If you suck but still play - you'll win 1 of these 4 and secure 40% winrate. If you,carry your weight, you'll win 2 of these 4 and you'll reach the "I don't drag teammates down" 50% winrate. If you're good, you can claw your way to the 60% winrate by winning 3 of these 4 matches. And if you're REALLY awesome and grasp every opportunity that presents itself - you'll win all 4 of the 4 potentially-but-only-potentially winnable matches and your winrate might reach the godly 70%. This is, of course, simplified and broken into just 10 matches. Surely not all ships are equal. Some are more influential, some are harder to play and then there are some that are just plain overpowered for one reason or another. The point is, however: yes, the majority of battles don't really hang on your performance as the deciding factor. But there's still about 40% that are within your control, the matches that CAN potentially be won depending on how well you do. And while it's a minority of all matches you play... This mere 40% is what separates a 30% super-potato that would be better off going AFK from a 70% super-unicum.

Actually... no, you're wrong. A player with some experience in WoT, AW, WT (be it planes or ground forces) is likely to be at 50%+ as soon as his stats begin to stabilize (within the first hundred battles). You see, at the start you're playing at the super-low tiers against (mostly) other newbies. As long as the idea of leading a target (in battle) researching and installing modules (in port) and some very basic tactics (better to attack one target with a few friends than the other way around) aren't completely alien to you, you're slightly ahead of the other newbies. If you also watch some videos as you start, you're also going to have some basic understanding of torping and not getting torped. This might sound like not much but when you're a newbie fighting other newbies, that should be enough to break 50%. When I started, I had no idea about angling and stuff like that. With very rudimentary understanding of the VERY basic game mechanics (mostly knowledge from WoT, in fact) the "strategy" that I used for low tier cruisers (these things with guns all around them, basically) was to try and not get outnumbered - and then spin around shooting. Just that - full turn to the side and a continuous barrage of fire. IT was really effective - at low tiers people have problem with leading targets that sail in a straight line, them trying to severely punish a St. Louis that's sailing in a circle? No way. Nowadays it would probably be less effective (less completely new players, more sealclubbers) but I'm pretty sure it should still be enough to break 50% easily. As for videos - they don't make one a good (or even decent player) but they provide you with shortcuts. A player with no external sources of knowledge needs to learn EVERYTHING by experience. Even a simple matter of the most basic method of minimizing torpedo damage: you see torps, you turn towards them and only take a few or even manage to slip through. However - this is not intuitive at all. The first instinct of many new players when torps appear is to turn away from the threat... which just isn't effective or - in fact- can actually cause you to eat MORE torps (especially for airdropped torps - when caught broadside on and turning away, the target can eat torps that normally would miss due to spread width). This is a small thing that can be easily learned from watching videos with newbie-friendly commentary. And it's something that, by just knowing and acting upon that knowledge, makes you a better player than the other newbies. And when you accumulate these small things - it's basically making use of someone else's experience to supplement your own and avoid nasty detours on your learning journey.

Then again, if the best thing you can say about the way somebody is playing is that it's not literally a bannable offense, then I find it hard to harshly judge the teammates that, in the heat of the moment, choose to deliver a rather... emotional feedback.

Damn, how I hate these blind bats that fire torps from behind me and then believe that I should ignore the enemies to dodge theeir retarded teamkilling torp spreads just because they take an extra step of "warning" me that they just torped me Go learn to play and stop being a liability to your team, I assure you your pink incidents will become much, MUCH less frequent.

Most recently/notably? Kitakaze is so fun that while I bought and equipped a Harugumo - and even got a 19-point captain for her - I somehow can't force myself to play that brick of a gunboat instead of Kitakaze

And then there is that match a couple days ago where I sit in my pitiful smoke in my Kitakaze and throw a EDIT stream of fire into the face of approaching Yamato, cursing the fact that he's melting so slowly. And then TRB comes off reload and I have my torps again, but I know that just one or two hits won't be enough. So I cease fire (since he's crossing my shooting-from-smoke range) and watch him approach because I need to torp from around 2km max for that behemoth to die from it. But the torps aren't THAT fast, if I torp from this close, I'll get proximity spotted and I KNOW I'll eat a salvo, no way around it... EDIT thriller, I tell you

What do you want. When a big ship comes at you, it IS EDIT terryfying.

No, BBs are fine. But if we could remove carriers, cruisers (at the very least those with Radar) and also limit DDs to one (ok, maybe two) per team, it would be nice

Hard to say how fun it will be - derping around on PT doesn't say much about how things are going to look on live. Also, what others said about tasks, achievements and missions. ESPECIALLY missions - there are the super-grindy ones for legendary modules AND there are various dailies... especially the latter - playing Arms Race prevents you from completing missions (unless you play enough that you can complete your dailies in other modes and then go for AR), doesn't let you re-stock on flags through earning achievements etc. I really think the mode should either allow achievements or have their own set - and achievements for Scenarios and AR (if these were non-standard) should be assigned signal flag gains... Plus, of course, missions should allow AR with maybe some exceptions for non-compatible missions... although it's still PvP, so most should be compatible.

Spotting delay only really favors the not-so-stealthy DDs when the stealthy ones don't pay enough attention. If you expect enemy DDs, look at the minimap and otherwise are cautious (again, RPF helps A LOT), the spotting delay doesn't really matter. I mean, you can't aim properly at the spotted-but-not-rendered enemy but it's not like you're planning to open fire anyway. In fact, it can arguably help you - if you're at a bad angle and you see the outline of the enemy and he's steaming right towards you, you might not have enough time to avoid detection... HOWEVER you 1. Still see his outline on the map and can start turning away immediately... 2. ...then you get spotted but the enemy also suffers from spotting delay... 3. ...once the spotting delay ends, you're deep in your turn away from the angry spotter - he can finally start shelling you but you're already in a position (or close to it) where you deploying smoke behind your butt is going to hide you. Thus spotting delay coupled with situational awareness and the ability to keep eye on the minimap can actually favor your stealthy DD. Of course if you fail this test of situational awareness (and/or minimap spot check) and do get caught with your pants down, your pats are going to be even harder to pull up, this much is true.

As a DD main - I strongly disagree with this statement. I personally benefit a lot from the concealment advantage Shima has over Gearing. Since Harugumo appeared I don't play much Shima (too much fun in my Kitakaze) but seeing how Harugumo has significantly worse stealth and MUCH worse handling, I'm pretty sure it would be a child's play to abuse Shima stealth against her gunboat "cousin". Of course if you steam full ahead towards an enemy DD that also steams full ahead towards you then the concealment differences don't matter much... but if you WANT to use your stealth and play accordingly (preferably having specced RPF) then it's not very hard. While @Flavio1997's statement that "only" above average players play Harugumo is obviously indefensible, but a weaker statement that the skill level of Harugumo players is ahead of that of the general playerbase - that one is pretty true. There is nothing stopping a bad player from promptly getting a Harugumo, but it requires lots of freeXP (newbie won't have it) or at least an Akizuki with stacked XP (until recently - a ship for connoisseurs, pretty ungrateful and unfun in bad hands, so a poor player is not very likely to enjoy her long enough to stack an "insta-Kamikaze" amount of XP). It's just that much easier and more convenient for better and more experienced players to already have the ship - so the skill level among owners is also, on average, higher.

Well, when it comes to the DDs you're comparing... You see, thing is - Shima is actually Harugumo's worst nightmare. Not in direct combat, of course, but a Shima needs to f*ck up big time to enter a direct fight with Harugumo. Her concealment advantage lets her easily outspot Harugumo without revealing herself. Her speed and maneuverability doesn't let Harugumo easily shake her and disengage. Her wall of skill can sweep Harugumo's smoke clean. The reason why average Shimakaze isn't much of a threat to an average Harugumo player is because average skill level between Shima players is disastrously low (for a couple reasons that I won't be bringing up here) while Harugumo still enjoys the "recently introduced t10 on top of a not-that-popular line" effect. People who play Harugumo are mostly experienced players who enjoyed Akizuki - hardly all unicums, of course, but the general skill level is above average for WoWs standards.

You were unlucky. If your damage - no matter how small - delivers the killing blow to an ally, it gets you pink immediately. However, this is sensible. After all, paying extra attention to low-hp allies hardly sounds unreasonable AND WG can't really afford to give people an option to TK for free if the ally is badly damaged enough... Of course, this opens the path for accidents like yours but then again - pinkness goes away quickly if you do nothing that could prolong it. The only people who really need to worry about pinkness are the people who truly deserve it - normal players who just suffered a stroke of bad luck have very little to fear.