TobiAssho

Stimmt, relativ zu den Accounts in WoW, gibt es wenige, die sich für Turniere interssieren. Bei letzten KotS hatten wir etwas über 1500 Teilnehmer. Falsch, bitte erst recherchieren, dann posten. Schau dir mal die Zuschauerzahlen der letzten Jahre an. Eine unheimlich gehaltvolle Aussage. Ich freue mich, dass Du HS erwähnst. Dieses Spiel als die Spitze des 1vs1 zu zelebrieren ist fanzinierend. Einige Decks in HS hatten eine 60:40 Winrate, abhängig davon, ob sie zuerst am Zug waren oder nicht. Highly competitive... Aber ja, Marketing hat Blizzard drauf! Da liegt der nächste Denkfehler. Rommel4711 spielt in 95% der Fälle gegen Rommel4712, der ähnlich gut wäre, also wären beide happy und würden weiter spielen. Bei entsprechenden Modi kamen die Jungs, die auf "knackige Wettkämpfe" standen voll auf ihre Kosten. CB macht Spaß (ohne CV). Klar, mehr und besser geht immer. Das Spiel belohnt gute Spieler. Ich weiß, bei dir ist bestimmt immer das eigene Team schuld. Random ist Random und kein Wettkampf. Mit 13 CB Gefechten würde ich mir an deiner Stelle kein Urteil anmaßen.

Ich machs nochmal deutlicher: Wenn die Formel 1 1994 mit Bobbycars bestritten worden wäre, wäre Schumi auf Grund seiner Fähigkeiten auch Weltmeister geworden, hätte aber vermutlich nicht so viel Spaß dabei gehabt und die Zuschauer fändens auch nich so geil. Formel 1 ist das perfekte Beispiel um zu sehen, dass die Rahmenbedingungen sehr wichtig für den Erfolg einer Sportart ist. Versagt der Rahmen wird der Sport unattraktiv, sowohl für die Athleten als auch für die Zuschauer. Die Formel 1 arbeitet mehr oder minder erfolgreich seit Jahren daran atraktive Rahmenbedingungen zu schaffen. Das gleiche macht WG mit CB.

Danke. Im Moment planen wir mit WG KotS 11. Uns wurde sowohl aus Prag als auch aus St. Petersburg versichert, dass KotS ein elementarer Bestandteil ist und auch in Zukunft unterstützt wird. Ich finde es schade, dass Shipstorm nicht weiter unterstützt wird, kann aber die Gründe irgendwo nachvollziehen. Wenn Du das gleiche Format 1:1 auch ingame anbietest, dann kann ich verstehen warum WG das nicht zusätzlich unterstützt. Es bringt einfach nichts wirklich Neues. Shipstorm ist so zu sagen Opfer des eigenen Erfolgs geworden. Natürlich ist ein Turnier nicht das Gleiche wie Brawls, aber das Format ist einfach zu ähnlich. Wir haben mit WG überlegt, ob wir KotS an CB angleichen wollen und die Antwort war ein klares Nein. Mit Events möchte WG etwas bieten, dass ihr Spiel nicht bieten kann. Neben KotS wurden/werden gerade auch noch viele weitere Turniere gesponsort: Schlachtfest lief gerade, auf NA gibts ein Masters, ... WG ist schon dabei Initiativen aus der Community zu fördern, wenn sie eine Nische besetzen, die das Spiel nicht hergibt.

Der Support for KotS wird nicht in Frage gestellt. Wir haben keinerlei Anzeichen, dass KotS nicht mehr unterstützt wird. Was sind H-Clans?

Vielleicht ist es ja die Schuld von CST, dass wir 9 Seasons ohne CVs hatten. Wer weiß das schon. Man kann nicht immer gewinnen. Ob ein Boykott etwas bring halte ich zumindest für die kommende Saison für fraglich. Grundsätzlich kann ich WGs Argument "wir haben 5 Klassen und alle sollen spielen können" für nachvollziehbar, es sollte aber wieder die Einsicht einkehren, dass CVs in CBs einfach nicht funktionieren.

Ah danke, die Seite hatte ich vergessen. Demnach haben auf dem EU server 50% ein winrate von 48% oder schlechter und nur 10% von 54% oder besser. Das Minimum für eine eigene Liga würde ich bei ca. einem Drittel ansetzen, das wären dann bei 50%. Ich glaube, dass die 50% Spieler keinen Spaß hätten nur mit und damit auch gegen bessere zu spielen. Random ist random und das ist auch okay so.

Eine gute Frage, wenn jemand Daten findet, bitte teilen, würde mich sehr interessieren. Näherungshalber habe ich Daten von WoT gefunden: http://forum-console.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/30317-win-rate-distribution-chart/ Ich vermute, dass Ships eine ähnliche Verteilung hat, trotzdem kann man die Daten nicht 1:1 übernehmen, sollte aber eine gute Näherung sein. => 54% der Spieler haben eine Winrate kleiner gleich 47% => 1,14% der Spieler haben eine Winrate über 55% Natürlich fallen hier viele Spieler mit wenig Spielen und niedriger Winrate stark ins Gewicht, das verzerrt die Daten vermutlich erheblich https://forum.wotlabs.net/index.php?/topic/22643-warships-today-rating-a-wows-rating-and-warshipstoday/page/11/&tab=comments#comment-698832 Alte Daten von NA Dem zufolge haben ca. 7% der Spieler eine höhere Winrate als 54%. Für eine eigene Liga wäre das deutlich zu wenig. >=50% wären ebenfalls nur ca. 35% der Spieler Diese Daten sind natürlich nicht 1:1 auf die aktuelle Situation übertragbar, könnten aber eine hinreichende Näherung geben. Wenn jemand bessere Daten findent immer her damit!

Ich weiß auch nicht wo es hin führt, aber vlt wird es ja gut? Ein neuer Modus wird endlich mal Zeit. Ich halte die Informationspolitik für eine Katastrophe. Warum man so einen Devblog veröffentlicht ist mir ein Rätsel. Wo wir bei Zitaten waren: si tacuisses philosophus mansisses

An dieser Stelle möchte ich ein mal mehr Dieter Nuhr zitieren: "Wenn man keine Ahnung hat ..." Hast Du irgend eine Idee, was genau geteste wird, oder wohin dies führt? Nein? S.o. Es ist einfach schade, wenn man mangels Urteilsvermögens etwas als Unsinn bezeichnet von dem man nichts versteht und keine Ahnung hat.

I dont get payed anything, I am just annoyed by ppl criticising something because of their own shortcommings. Ranked is not perfect and it could be improved, but it is not wrong per se. Looking at your stats, you killed 0.6 ships per game and did around 20k dmg per game. Calling this pure suiciding sounds very strange to me. If you had just went afk, your winrate would certainly be lower. And again, I have to point at basic statistic. 64 games are not enough to draw any conclusions about your expected winrate. You should learn this in school. "Countless noobs ranking out with 45% winrate and 700 PR"? Show me the countless noobs. I cant find anyone with 45% winrate at rank 1 right now. There are some around 48% and a couple with 50%. I am not sure if thats in the spirit of a competitive mode, but thats up to debate. Your perception is just wrong, there are very few ranking out with sub 50% winrate. It takes a special character to be so persistent and being bad at something at the same time. I completly agree. But if you are part of a team, you win with the team and you lose with the team. If you make a mistake every 7 games (I usually do them more often), in every of your games there will be a mistake by someone on your team. And also mistakes are made by the enemy team, so it evens out. In the long run the one making less mistakes wins more games. It is that simple. There are plenty of situations in life where you relay on your team, and you dont always have an influence on who you work with. Project at your job, group work at your university, team in a sports club, and so on. Of cause its frustrating if its not your fault that something goes wrong, but that happens a lot, due to mistakes of others or unlucky circumstances. Its part of living to know how to deal with this. You have a 57% winrate in ranked, thats pretty good. You are lacking games above rank 5 which usually gets harder, but still good stats. Getting told by someone with 47% winrate, that you just got more lucky over so many games is just wrong. He is fooling himself and I should have come up with the Dunning-Kruger link too.

Can you see that there is no logic in your argument? How do "a lot of players with extremly bad battle performance" win constistantly against better players? That makes no sense at all. If the "better" players lose constistenly to the extremly bad ones, maybe they only think that they are better. Of cause its possible that you did more than a bad winner, but not on a consistant base. In a single battle a lot may happen. When I played ranked in the first weeks there was a good lvl of cooperation and plenty of unicums playing. Maybe thats why others have more difficulty winning, because of less cooperation. I like the idea of divisions in ranked, shared suffering is half suffering :D Yes, I am telling nothing new with the XP. About frustration: Only 50% of the ppl playing PvP can win. If you cant handle losing, dont play. Aviaxis played over 1500 ranked battles. That is enough for a fairly good interpretation about his performance. So yes, you can have a bad season with 200 games below your expected winrate, but overall MM has just a small impact on your overall performance, its your ability to play that shows over enough games, or it does not show.

Flint is the perfect example for an easy to save star. Sit in the smoke, have little impact on the game and do meaningless damage. (Not saying that you did this in this particular battle.) In what world is it fair to gain a star for you and remove one from the winning DDs? This score is a perfect example of why you should not reward XP and that they are in no way reflecting your battle performance. If you reward something else than winning, teams will no longer play to win. Why should anyone risk something to make a winning play if winning is not rewarded? Watch the video about WoT I linked. It is fundamentaly wrong to not reward winning in a team game. WoWs becomes much better if you cooperate. If you have to play against your own team it becomes a complete shitshow. How can anyone not see this? Watch the videos about WoT ranked and you will not only me hear saying this.

First of all: Are XP currently "rating you accoording to your performence in your team"? Probably all of us would answer no. Probably all of us would have a different idea about what needs to be changed. Secondly and more important: Why should a teamplayer be punished? Imagine the poor little DD in a roflstomp 7:0 win. The little DD is spotting for his team, but because all ships get 1 shotted or run away he never hits a torp and finishes last in the "winning" team. But he loses a star. The enemy DD who yoloed in in the first 2 minute hit 2 torps and finished 2nd in his team and gains a star. How could this be less frustrating? If you force competition inside a team, you will eliminate all teamplay. That DD will try to not spot anything what his team can shoot, because if he enables is team to do damage he loses. Watch some videos from Quickybaby about the gameplay and what it did to WoT ranked. This is the worst possible way of doing ranked and I hope this will not get anywhere close to WoWs. Here the link again, he made some more videos about WoT ranked, just listen, what he says makes 100% sense.

You are lacking basic education about statistics. If you win 60% of your games there is a 95% probability that your "skill" expected winrate is between 56.90% und 63.10%. There is a 2.5% chance that you are worse than 56.90% and just got lucky. If you want to be 99.9% sure, the expected winrate is between 54.80% and 65.20%. So one in 2000 players with this statistic is worse than 54.80%. If you determine winning as a skill in Warships. Players with high expected winrate win more often and therefore are better at this game. Winning a single game is lucky, because the chance is just 60%, winning 600 out of 1000 games is called skill. Right now there are 10 players on the EU server ranking out with more than 600 battles. The worst winrate I found among those is slighly higher than 48%. Thats a bad winrate, but not one of an ablsolute terrible player. The ammount of terrible player ranking out is super low. If WG wants to cater those bad players, they would not keep this system. Back teaching you statistic: Last 7 days you played 64 battles with a 58% winrate. This number is way to low for any statistical interpretation. With a 95% certainty your expected winrate is between 45.75% and 70.25%. For you playing is more or less a coinflip, 50% of the time you win, 50% you lose. If you flip a coin often enough you will end up with 58% head and 42% tail in 64 flips. Thats statistic. This has nothing to do with trolling MM it is (no so simple) math. Ranked has flaws, but you not progressing is proving that it is working in its core. Dont embarrasse yourself with your lack of statistic.

Winning 1 games is luck, winning 600 out of 1000 games is not. Are you seriously telling me that I am ranking out faster than you that this is because of luck? Why are always the same ppl lucky? That is the issue of people trying to get data from experiments. With just basic knowlege of statistic you would know that 1 season is not sufficient to get any relayable data from. 25 games give you know clue about your expected winrate. Overall you played 1500 ranked games with a winrate of 48,25%. That is a big enough number to draw some conclusions. With a 95% certainty your expected winrate is between 45,47% and 50,53%. There is a 2,5% chance that you are way better than your statistic suggests. Especially looking at your performance in Belfast which has an average winrate of 55% and damage of 47k makes me believe that you are no able to play the game on a level to say that this is all determined by luck. I guess you mean WoT? Well first of all WoWs had ranked befor WoT had. Second there are multiple videos explaning why the WoT ranked system is completely stupid and leads to a very bad gameplay. Nobody is focusing on winning, it is all about surviving and letting your team die for you. I have not played it myself, so it is a 2nd hand opinion, more explanations here:

Well, the game is about winning, so why not reward winning? How can the better players be on the losing team? That makes no sense at all, because if you are good, you know how to win. If you are an average or bad player and only know how to farm meaningless damage, you are not supposed to progress. If there are 7 bad players in the enemy team and 6 bad players in your team, its all up to you to make the difference. You cant win all games, but if you are average, you win ~50%, if you are good more than 55% and very good over 60%. Over a sufficient number of games MM and luck are no factor. Ranked mode is fair. Sometimes frustrating, but intirely fair. If you are good, you carry your teams to wins. If not, you win 50% and dont progress. First of all explain why ranked is not fair. You are the better team => you win and progress. You are the worse team => you lose and go back. Sounds fair to me. This is not a single player game. Your statement is just wrong on so many levels. Why would bad players profit from an unfair system? Good players are good because they know how to abuse the system. In the case of ranked: They know how to win. Bad players dont know how to win. If you would introduce another system, like dealing max damage regardless of the outcome, good players will quickly learn how to do more damage instead of winning. They will be better at abusing the new system than bad players. So your statement is just wrong. Bad players would only profit, if the game is just a flip of a coin. But the game isnt, you can clearly see it by the sepertion of good players vs bad.

I am glad that it helped you, thanks you for letting me know. Maybe we can improve the level of gameplay and spread this to more ppl.

Why should I play against other Belfast if I pick Belfasts? You get a random team, and if there are 4 cruisers in a match of which 2 are a Belfast, there is a 1/3 chance that they end up in the same team. Otherwiese you get punished for picking the best possible ship by increasing your chance that you have to play with sub optimal ships in your team because the "best" pick, which you also picked is forced in the other team. I completely disagree. Why should someone climb up and progress on a ladder if you win less than 50% of your games? Looks like you dont like being challenged. Climbing in ranks should be something you do because you play well and not because you get a star out of pitty. Especially in the first days the level of gamepaly on rank 1-5 is very good. I enjoyed it immensely. Top ranks shoud be for top players and not be thrown at you for participating. I agree with the save the star mechanic. It supports bad gameplay. You dont need to change ranked to get rid of it. Can you explain why "loss vs reward ratio is the root cause of ranked beeing an absolute shitshow every single season". If you are good, you climb, if you are average, you stay, if you are bad, you fall. Why is this resulting in a shitshow? It seperates the good from the bad.

I completely agree with Belfast. Ships which are no longer obtainable should not be part of competitive. Overall balacing inside T7 is not optimal at best. I poked WG about this and got this answer: Make up your own mind what you read out of Vesserys statement.

AB or BC is a common mistake, AC is the best split, both for randoms and ranked. Try to split as evenly as possible for both flanks, ie not 3 BBs to one cap and 3 DDs to the other. BBs need to create different angles and positions to minimize cruisers hiding potential. When aproaching the dangerouse zones on the A or C side, try to figure out how many enemy ships are on that flank before commiting. If you face a superior number of enemies start kiting them away from the center. If they turn around to deal with the other flank, you come back and take the cap. If you have the stronger force try to push and apply preasure while not losing too much HP. Idealy you manage to flank the enemy ships while your kiting force keeps them busy, then you can collaps on them from 2 sides. For example Riposte BC split vs AC split. The red team did a good split, and can kite them on the east while pushing through mid and west. # You can clearly see that the B force sould not withstand or be able to withdraw to a superior position. The C force would get crushed as soon A managed to fully flank. AC is the best strategy to outflank your opponent and should be executed with an even split to win.

It looks like you are not understanding how likelihood works. I am not telling that you can carry every game if you are the best player. Single games are highly volatile. Looking at those XP numbers I would not be proud to be first. It was a complete stomp without anyone shining.

For me it is enough to kill 1,23 ships and do 119k dmg per game to get 62% winrate, solo, in T10. It is absurd to think that you need to sink 7 ships per game to win. Your stats are hidden, otherwise I am sure, it would be clearly visible that you do way less. The better player ends in the better team because he makes his team better. Stop kidding yourself that winning in WoWs is pure luck. If you are an average player, your chance is 50% to win a game. To lose 2 in a row has a likelyhood of 25% in that case, so if you play 5 games its very likely that you lose 2 in a row. Over 100 or better 1000 games you will see, if you are good or average. That is statistical distribution. Out of 10 games, you will lose 3. 1-2 you will win no matter what you do, even if you are afk. The 5-6 games where you can make the difference are interesting. You cant win them all. Every player will have a lose where you do a big chunk of damage and kills, but still dont win. The question is: Do you do that much in the other 9 games too? If yes, you will win 6 out of 10. If you are an average skilled player, you will win roughly 50% of your games. If you are worse, less and if you are better more. Your perception is simply wrong if you say that you have no chance in 80% of the games. If you win that few, you are clearly doing something wrong. We all play because we enjoy the game. If you dont enjoy the game, stop playing. If you are constantly (I guess you mean more often than 50%) inside the top 5, out of 12 players, then you are 50% of the time 6-12. Thats slightly above average, but you cant expect to have an much higher than average winrate. (There is a whole other debate about the point calculation and doing damage that matters vs empty damage farming, but for the sake of argument lets assume that points reflect performance well.) If you are "costantly" performing above average in points, you will win more games than you lose (if not, you should look into the meaningless damage gameplay). Better player do get better teams, because they make the difference. If you have 12 average player on one team and 11 average on the other team, you, the 12th makes the difference. Not in very game, but in the long run. And if the enemy team constantly has the better players, you are probably not very good.

Stats need interpretation. They mean a lot to those who can read them. What do I interpret from your stats: You do a lot of meaningless damage and kills. Your are not able to carry a team. Of course I can only speculate about the reasons. You could be too passive. You could lemming with your team and take meaningless positions. You could sit too fare back. I would have to see you play multiple games to determine what you are doing wrong. And stop blaming your team. You managed to do 130 ranked games with sub 50% winrate. It is not your teams fault. Yes, Belfast is the stronges ship in T7 for ranked. Yes, it is op and should not be in the game like this. Still, you have to know how to get the most out of it. The average Belfast has 57% winrate, and btw the stronges BB, Sinop, has a 54% winrate. I will not get to rank 1 with 80% winrate, I am ahead of the curve right now. Just as you were with your damage and kills. It dropped significantly today. We played exactly the same braket and with exactly the same players. Be happy if you lose a game with 90-130k, keeping your star. You are an average player, your winrate should be around 50%, so keeping your star will make you progress through the ranks. You cant win all games. I dont. Noboday in ships does. But there are players winning 60% or more and there are players winning less than 50%. And no, thats not because some are more lucky than others. I am not blaming anyone for winning less than 50%, but those should also not blame their team. If you are average, you will win around 50%, if you are good 55% if you are very good 60%. It is just that simple. That does not mean that a player with an expected winrate of 45% cant have a superb game with 250k damage, but that wond be his consistent performance.

I am always happy to help, especially when its about the right mindset. I can understand that frustration, you cant win it all. But 50% of the muppets are better than you and 50% worse. So you are not sticking out. Thanks for the cheers for ranked, its going very well for me. I took a look at your ranked stats and they are pretty close to your random. You are doing okay in your Sinop, at least damage and kill wise. Cant tell you if you have a big impact in the game or not, or position well. All your cruiser games were terrible and you won 5. With an average of 30k dmg in Myoko you have been carried by your team 3 times. So dont tell that "didnt win a single game by just luck and doing nothing." Also you should not win games by doing nothing. Be a big more self reflecting on your performance. In the game we just played against each other you had a good chance to kill me, but didnt hit well. My team was stuck for too long on the C cap. I guess you didnt angle well enough agaist them and lost too much HP while pushing. You could have done more in that game, I think. The DD who played with me on the flank saved my [edited], he did very well. Without him we would not have had a chance there and you would have won. You lost against the better teamplay, happens.

What do you want to tell me? Look at this: https://wows-numbers.com/player/501822591,Ukio/progress/ I am looking at your last 3 days: You had 2 very good games in Ödland today. You had overall good games yesterday and a 60% winrate. Some games you were terrible (Yami and Indi), but mostly good or very good. On the 17th you had some terrible games and some good ones, ending with 55% winrate. So overall a good winrate and mixed results, but the samplesize is low. Looking here at the 170 games played in the last 21 days: https://wows-numbers.com/player/501822591,Ukio/ 50% winrate, Average PR. Some games good, some bad. Overall, your winrate reflects your performance very well. Your performance, not only your teams performance. Yes, it is more difficult to carry being lowtier. You are more dependent on your team. In your case thats not bad, because you dont have the abilities to carry hard. You can clearly see this in your T10 ships. You are not a bad player, but you are, on average, not held back by your team. Accept this fact and try to get better instead of inventing ways to blame your team.