Earl_of_Northesk

Exactly this. Atlanta will punish potatoes, but it is also easily outplayed.

Good luck trying to kill a not braindead Ballteship with Fiji torpedoes

Good god man, you are clueless, I get that. But please, try to use some logic here. I'm NOT trying to predict your next game by the last 40.000. I can't. I never tried and it's not even the point. I can't predict that because those last 40k games haven't been played by you but by a huge amount of people. That's the whole point of gathering such data. To use your terribly flawed analogy: If I have the wheather data of the last 40 years, I can make a judgement abuot how the weather will likely be in January on average. That has got nothing to with making an accurate judgement about a certain day within that month. But I can say that a January is usually cold an rainy and that statement will be right. Back to Belfast: By looking at the overall stats, I can make a judgement on the performance of the ship but not an accurate prediction on the outcome of my next match with her. The ignorance shown here is really unbelievable. No, a 5% difference is not smaller than the variability caused by those factors. All those factors are evened out by the sheer amount of games played by so many people. If it were like you say, we would see a ton of ships having such anomalities in their winrate. As a matter of fact, there is only one, Belfast. "Do you try to understand at least"...and that coming from someone who apparently has never even tried to understand the way statistics work. Wow.

I'm not, because the sample size from the last 2 weeks is 40.000 games, not 365... Nobody would make any judgement with data from 365 samples. Neither do I in this case. DOn't try to act like you have any idea what you are talking about here. Well, I probably have to accept there is a plank attached to your head.

You really have absolutely zero idea how statistical analysis works. Wow. I'm really quite baffled. Your statistics have none of those variables removed but also have a huge amount of variables added. Let me give you an example: When you try to judge the ship by your performance in it, it is like you were to say you could predict the exact outcome of the next elections in your country by asking 50 members of your family how they will vote next time. You can't seriously believe what you are saying?

I'm sure those people you put on your banlist will be heartbroken.

Exactly the 3 points you have mentioned are exactly the reason why your personal statistics are largely irrelevant. Because of EXACTLY those reason you do not only look at one player, but at the bigger picture, e.g. server statistics. Because if you do that, if your sample size is big enough, those factors will even out. And then, 2 or 3 % are not "a few %". I realise you have no idea how statistical analysis works. But at least try to apply some logic here. As I said, this ship is the only ship in the game surpassing 55% solo winrate while being available to everyone willing to spend time or money. The only one. Out of, what do we have right now, 200? If you were to show that to a statistician, he would look at the raw numbers and say: hey, something is very, very wrong with that. You have to accept that while 2% difference in winrate doesn't mean anything when you only compare your individual ship performances because those are so easily tainted, 2%-3% while looking at a smaple size of 400.000 games is an extremely large difference.

First of all, your personal stats mean crap all in this context. Way too small sample size with heavy selection bias. Second of all: nobody says it can't be killed and will win games on it's own. No ship ever will. It still is the cruiser with the highest winrate in the game apart from two very special ships, Iwaki A and Flint. It is a whopping 3% better in Winrate than the next cruiser, Molotov. It is, apart from König Albert, currently the only ship available in the game for money or credits surpasing 55% in solo winrate. The only one. No matter the ship class, no matter the tier. Those numbers clearly tell you something is wrong. Here as well, it's 2% above the next ship by winrate. And everyone arguing Fiji is the better ship is a fool. Oh my, another one from the "Key vehicle: Belfast"-brigade. I mean, you are playing this ship terribly and even you manage to get a winrate above 50%.

Less than five salvos for a CA is a .. bit ... of a stretch. IFHE is nice on it, but it's still far from a good ship. At range, it still has got no chance against any other cruiser.

To be fair to him, average XP is a pretty bad way to judge anyone, since it's so easily corrupted by premium time. I literally have NO idea why they still do not count base XP and average XP seperately. The stat is pretty much useless without that information.

10/10, would read again.

The Belfast really isn't a "British cruiser" in this game, it has got very little to do with the main line. Seeing the numbers, it almost being the most played T7 cruiser recently, no, its not just good players playing it. Also, this game is in fact at least balanced in such a matter that most ships are within the 48% to 52% winrate bracket. And thats combining solo and division stats. It really is absolutely meaningless to pull anything out of the solo stats of that ship here because that will never give you the full picture . If anything, a 55% solo winrate (which is unique in the game for any T5 and higher ship apart from the ones given out, like Flint) just shows even more how OP it is. I realise you are either unable (due to lack of understanding) or unwilling to admit this (probably both combined), but it's still true. 55% solo winrate is obscene for a ship in this game. Throwing around insults won't help you. I'm also not a stat obsessed nerd. I just happen to have a far better understanding of the underlying mechanics of balance in this game than you have displayed. You are just pathetic at this point. I have seen guys like you too many times. The Khabarovsk lovers, the Minekaze sealclubbers, all making a fool of themselves to defnd their favourite toy because they can't admit it's blatantly OP. Your opinion on how to evaluate skill is also laughable. Yes, playing to the objective is more important than farming damage. However, playing for the objective in an effective way will also allow you to do more damage than just backline camping. I know its a neat little story you are telling to yourself to justify your rather average performance, I was once just like you. But it's still not true. Because in the overwhelming majority of cases, the players with higher avg damage on a ship will also have a higher winrate. Because, contrary to your belief, "farming damage" in this game by backlinecamping and not helping your team is ineffective both as a way to boost your damage and your winrate. It just won't get you higher damage than a good player playing to win with every means necessary. And in the end, sinking the enemy is also a rather important objective in this game...

2 things here: a re-roll account is pretty...unlikely when he is tagged as an Alpha-tester matey. Hes been around for 3 years. Long before this game even left closed beta. Second of all, yes, 60% is average on Belfast, in fact, your 57% is even below that average. It shows even more how hella OP that thing is. Generally, if you see a ship with an average winrate above 55%, you really need to ask questions. Low and mid tier premiums are often played by more experienced, thus, their stats are boosted by that. But for T7 and T8, this levels out more and more. So its not just that very good players are playing here and boosting her stats, like with Flint. The reason Belfast has got the stats it has is that you could probably train a monkey to play that thing and still get near 50% winrate.

They can do that without HEAP anyway...

HEAP especially is completely useless on Montana

Also, free XPing to protect your winrate? What the heck Winrate is generally higher in low tiers if you are a skilled player, you know?

Are you really using your 5 halway decent games from yesterday against my 15 (admittedly subar for my normal perfomance) games from yesterday to prove you are a better player? What the heck. As Marvin was so kind to point out, nobody is saying you are a bad player. You are slightly above average. What is annoying and what I have out to to you is your intentional or unintentional misinterpretation of statistics. Marvin is also right by saying that WTR is a pretty good indication if you understand what it is. It can be padded with certain premium ships and other subpar performers and also in low tiers, but overall and ignoring some blunt cases, it does its job. And a 200 point difference in WTR over 100 games is a preeeetty huge gap in skill. And no, it has got nothing to do with damage faming with HE. Doing that will get you a pretty crapwinrate in a lot of ships. And also not a terribly good damage per game to be honest. I really don't know why you are defending Belfast and in such a terrible way as well. It's OP. Terribly OP. It could be a T8 and would still be one of the best cruisers at that tier.

Mate, the thing and problem is, winrate over 100 games does mean crapall. Way too small sample size, way too easily padded by certain ships (and tiers, 7 for example. Or really everything below T6). K/D, Kills per game, alll of that does mean nothing if not analysed according to the ships and tiers you played. That's what we have WTR for. To compare your average in every ship to the server averages in every ship. And yes, he's better than you, by quite a margin. He brought out the stats thing, but you brought it down to a personal level. That's something I dislike anyway, but at least do it correctly and accept the results. On another note, the difference between a 50% player and a 60% player is quite hige, given both have roughly played the same ships and a sufficient number of games. That's how statistics work. Also, refrain from commenting on a testing process you were neither involved in nor have any idea how it works and has been working in this case.

I don't think Colorado is such a bad choice. It's tanky, it's got good range, good guns and the maps will be rather small (or at least the combat area). You don't have a lot of HP, but a very good heal as well. Also, you will be (just like Gneisenau) a pain for CV's, especially for Saipans due to your shortness and turning circle. Apart from Belfast, T8 is currently pretty balanced. Could be an interesting season.

How the flying [edited]do people manage to make the T3 and T4 German DD look bad stats wise??

Hitting a cruiser in smoke is not that hard to be honest.

Das liegt aber an dir, nicht an den Trägern. Ist mir seit Ewigkeiten nicht passiert, eigentlich nervt es mich nur, weil ich einen Strike verschwenden muss, um ein ansonsten nutzloses Ziel zu attackieren. Das soll nicht heißen das DD attackieren nutzlos ist, es ist sehr wichtig, aber ein DD, der CV jagen geht, ist im allgemeinen nutzlos für sein Team.

Leningrad is a shitty knifefighter, even more so than Kiev. That's its main drawback and the reason it's certainly not OP. People always camping outside of the caps in their Russian DD's farming fire damage might think so, as they can use torps more easily. Doesn't make it true.

What the....