Admiral_noodle

Hopeful too Also being discussed here http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/42792-053/page__pid__816515__st__20#entry816515

More ships is good for a bit of variety. These aren't new new tho. Not really. Still. Not bad.

For me and my friends team mode is very exciting Yes we need more trees too. i don't play enough for it to become stale, and I play what I consider a lot.., and yet some people play it 3-4x as much!!

Or before you weren't aggressive enough and probably were focusing more on surviving the whole battle to be sure you applied damage over the entire match, which even if it's not rewarded by WG (Depending on the class you fight) contribute equally to the effectiveness of some1 on your team... ...Sometimes, if luck smiles, going into a "blaze of glory" is the way to go... ...And, ofc, as with any team activity... Thinking your OWN way to play influences the entire match by itself, is just ignoring what may have happened somewhere far from your side of the match. I think it made me more aggressive, which isn't a bad thing as I'm not YOLO style. I usually start by trying to not lose the game rather than trying to win it. This has yielded results but a bit more "kill" instinct seems to be better. Better not go too far though

Team battle sounds good. Once it's fixed and i I mean the chances of this new functionality working smoothly immediately are slim abd thats not not a dig at WG. This is really hard to get right. No wonder no new ships just yet.

All true plus capping isn't working (in the data) But for a "rough and ready comparative indicator" it's not terrible.

I've been playing more for kills lately than damage because of project R. I've focussed on finishing off low health targets before anything else (unless something more threatening needs dealing with) and I've got 3x krakens, a k/d of 23.00 since playing this way. However I've also got a 90% WR while doing this, and my average damage is UP. Interesting. It seems making sure enemies are finished off is a good plan But then there is a HUGE difference between playing for kills and kill stealing.

Well I have 164. All that's left is win a few games in cruisers (for 5) and then the cv and DD missions - which I might not do. Even then that would only take me to 179. Need more missions!

Can we have a sticky thread titled "where's my ARP ship?" Please!!

I'd like to see easy/hard/insane level PvE missions with uneven sides.

**** You're making me do it again!! It is a mathematical fact that a 55% WR player *has won* a higher percentage than the 45% WR player... It is *likely* that this trend will continue and it is *likely* that the 55% WR player is "better". More likely the higher the number of respective games. Phew

Don't argue with me I agree 100% with you The only thing worth arguing over is "given enough games" My stats show a consistent improvement - and a sharp jump in my stats when I actually learned how to play. It can't go on forever of course, Each incremental improvement of skill is harder than the one before, but I get better games and have more fun now (thanks to Aerroon, Figment, Notser and others )

Yeah PvE could do with some love... But AW were shocked I think by how popular their PvE is. I imagine its on WG's list of to dos but not high up.

Now this is a fact I am such a pedant when it comes to statistics. Sorry.

No, they aren't mathematical *truths* they are statistical *likelihoods* - with probability based expectation values Hence why we argue

Except in random battles, as number of games increases, the number of good and bad teams you get placed in averages out. A bit like the analogy above, except in every game you're playing for a randomly selected football team. After enough games your individual impact on the game shows itself through your winrate. The only question really is how many games are needed to show this. I'd say anything over 500. Even then however, if you consistently play low tiers you are *more likely* to be better than the average player, so likely to be able to influence the game more. The same can be said of individual ships you play. Play a ship over and over and you get better - and have more impact. So a good winrate might be achieved by playing the same ship over and over. Are you good with that ship if you have a 65% WR? Of course you are! But are you a "good player"? That is subjective. I have a 56% WR now - but after 300 games I was still under 50%. Yes I have improved a lot, but I'm still pretty average at higher tiers through lack of experience, and I am so bad in my dd (Derzki) I've only played it in coop so far So global winrate doesn't apply well to specific ships and specific games - so any knowledge of WR - while potentially useful in game, might well lead you to the wrong conclusions and make you underestimate/overestimate the capabilities of your opponent/ally.

Here we are, my screenshot... NO MODS USED

WT does 50% dmg 25% kills 25% win rate. Those three are the most important stats we have the weighting may be a little off. I'd do 30/30/30. It's very simplistic - but I've yet to see a poor player with very good damage. However I have seen the reverse. Hit rate is indicative of nothing. Total hits is very indicative. If we could have that.

I didn't realise cruiser and be sounds were different. CV obviously is. I like the sound too

What Spithas says is spot on. It's nauseating but isn't actually useful to anyone who is any good. But anyway - stop posting links to the damn mod!!

I'll just keep collecting and see what it gets me To be honest I'm rubbish in destroyers - but of course getting one free is always nice im more motivated by the 1m creds for 250

Re: Gremy doing more damage than Gnevy. Well that's no surprise. Gremy stats are skewed by prem players who are really good, playing for creds and fun. Gnevy is skewed by a load of people not knowing what to do with it and only playing it to grind to the next ship. It's not a fair comparison to say it's OP. You can't really compare a premium to a standard ship of the same tier because the player base isn't similar. Anyway. Win rate is just win rate. It's better to have a higher one - it doesn't mean anything much on its own. I would say that warships.today rating isn't bad guide at all, though the "last X days" is better than the overall... If you have a sub 1000 rating on there, and you've played >1000 games - then you have a lot of room for improvement...

Oh no it's not *just the player*. Here you can use global averages. Imperator is doing better than Arkansas. The latter is played by experienced beta players. It ought to do well. Imperator is open to experienced and new players alike and yet does better. Ergo imperator is better than Arkansas and a little OP - just not as OP as her raw stats suggest. I'm "more OP" than average in both ships because I have a lot of bb experience and have watched hundreds of videos on the subject. However if I got an "OP" premium DD, I would suck. In fact if I was "average" in it I would suspect the ship is OP

So I need 2 more weeks missions to get 260+ based on the missions I know I should complete and the 57 available per weekly missions. So on or around 10th Feb.

Well I just had a game in the Imperator. Got the win in a tier V match. It ran to the full 20 mins and only me and an enemy Murmansk were left. I saw him take out a half health NY and a full health Koenigsberg all by himself... I managed 3 kills including half a NY and pretty much all of a stock Kongo, who inexplicably decided to close with me then show full broadside. 100k damage and I only used one heal. It isn't the ship. It's because a tier IV premium is up against players who are still learning (or not!). I assumed I could outplay the stick Kongo because they must be new to that ship. I did politely mention that going broadside at point blank is likely to end badly. But complimented his bravery to get stuck in. So "what's a good win rate?" Is a loaded question.