Jump to content
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
Floofz

Enormous difference in winrate between Iowa and Missouri

46 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[GRK3N]
[GRK3N]
Players
1,171 posts
6,286 battles

Can someone tell me why I have an INSANE difference in winrate between Iowa and Missouri, the ships are essentially the same. If you look at my stats my stats in the Iowa overall are much better. More kills and much higher average damage. The average XP is lower simply because it never wins games.

The Iowa simply CANNOT win games, it ends up in losing teams every single game it plays. I can be top of my team and I can do poorly it doesnt matter, it just loses and loses and loses.

Please explain it, cause Im completely at a loss. I like the ship but it attracts bad teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ADRIA]
[ADRIA]
Players
5,061 posts
8,562 battles

My 1st thought (without looking at anything) would be that Missouri with her Radar naturally plays slightly more aggressive than the Iowa with her Spotter Plane does. This leads to you shooting more DDs and CAs instead of BBs -> lower dmg dealt, but that dmg is more impactful. 


Can you give us some of your replays of those 2 ships being played? That would be much easier way to tell the difference than just going through stats. Maybe also stuff like modules & captain skills, if you want any comments on that

 

Also I kinda find it funny that I have basically the same situation - Missouri has 10% better WR than Iowa, but Iowa's leading in dmg done and ships killed :Smile_teethhappy:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[GRK3N]
[GRK3N]
Players
1,171 posts
6,286 battles

It could be a factor, I havent played the Missouri a whole lot lately and I used to play it fairly aggressivly. I did really poorly in the Iowa when I tried to play her the same way because neither ship has very good armor and they both suffer from being very difficult to manouvre. I tend to play the Iowa more like a big cruiser and support from the backline and use my speed and stealth. Its true that might not impact the games as much even thou I deal more damage, because the damage is mostly done to other battleships.

But it is really really frustrating when you keep on losing. Fortunately I dont have all that much left until I get Montana.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
4,447 posts
7,604 battles

Missi's radar is significant, but you've also got to think about the player profile, the kind of player that can afford to spend 750,000 free xp on a ship is going to be a lot more experienced on average than your usual T9 BB potato.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[GRK3N]
[GRK3N]
Players
1,171 posts
6,286 battles
25 minutes ago, Capra76 said:

Missi's radar is significant, but you've also got to think about the player profile, the kind of player that can afford to spend 750,000 free xp on a ship is going to be a lot more experienced on average than your usual T9 BB potato.

 

Yea but Im talking about my own WR in these ships. It should also be noted that I got the Missouri before I got the Iowa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WOTN]
Beta Tester
370 posts
26,926 battles

The difference is the way you play the ship. You're probably trying to make use of the radar and get close. Try playing less aggressive at the start and use the radar towards the end game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[GRK3N]
[GRK3N]
Players
1,171 posts
6,286 battles
13 minutes ago, Shagulon said:

The difference is the way you play the ship. You're probably trying to make use of the radar and get close. Try playing less aggressive at the start and use the radar towards the end game.

 

Yea but I have a 60% winrate with the Missouri so I must be doing something right. I have an absolutely awful winrate in the Iowa yet my stats are better in the Iowa.

My point is how can my stats be better in one ship but the winrate MUCH worse?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
4,709 posts
10,940 battles

60 battles in missouri

42 in iowa

 

at such low amount of battles, each battles in the iowa is worth more than a 2% swing. You could literally have a nice run with 4-5 wins in the iowa and a similar loss streak in the missy and they'd even out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,418 posts
10,953 battles

For me it is pretty similar in dmg, but Missy gets much better win rate and XP.

missou_iowa_20180508.thumb.png.363027f15e451efa2b72e5862dd37b79.png

 

Having radar you try (and can...) to be more useful for the team, also you blap more DD which gives good XP and wins, but not damage.

But interesting that "WTR" is calculated higher for the Iowa, probably because server average is lower and because of moar killz :cap_hmm:

 

Also, Iowa is a silver ship, which for significant part of games is played not fully upgraded. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[IRQ]
Players
2,930 posts
7,510 battles
1 hour ago, AgarwaenME said:

at such low amount of battles, each battles in the iowa is worth more than a 2% swing. You could literally have a nice run with 4-5 wins in the iowa and a similar loss streak in the missy and they'd even out.

Yeah, winrate is the statistic with lowest signal-to-noise ratio. You need up towards a thousand matches to have good statistical significance. A win or loss streak of five to ten games can happen to anyone who in the 40% to 60% winrate bracket. And that streak doesn't have to happen at once; it could just as well be spread out, and it'd still have the same effect.

 

I mean, yesterday I had a horrible winrate below 40% (forgot exact number). Today it was 66%. Amusingly, mostly in Missouri, as I had a rare premium day so I was grinding credits (and bought Gearing). Now, imagine what one of those days do to your overall winrate with a ship. I tend to have horrible luck with my Russian cruisers, usually getting into games that are impossible to carry. But for the amount of games, it doesn't tell the whole story. Crap winrate, but good statistics otherwise. Considering how many different ships you play, some are bound to get a significantly different winrate than the rest of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
26,257 posts
14,159 battles
6 hours ago, AdmiralDing3Ling said:

Can someone tell me why I have an INSANE difference in winrate between Iowa and Missouri, the ships are essentially the same. If you look at my stats my stats in the Iowa overall are much better. More kills and much higher average damage. The average XP is lower simply because it never wins games.

The Iowa simply CANNOT win games, it ends up in losing teams every single game it plays. I can be top of my team and I can do poorly it doesnt matter, it just loses and loses and loses.

Please explain it, cause Im completely at a loss. I like the ship but it attracts bad teams.

How many games do you have in them? If it is less than 100 each, it is bad luck.

Did you play Iowa Stock?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
513 posts
5,039 battles

Can't speak about the Missouri, but I cannot get the Iowa to work. Worst WR ship for me so far. No tactic works. About 90% of shell hits are overpens. You can basically multiply the amount of shell hits by 1k (overpen damage) and get the average damage per battle.

 

It's the ship that made me stop even considering grinding ships to T10. No way I am grinding 400 losses and losing 20 million credits on maintenance just to get to the Montana. Amazing how I am at T9 and miss the consistency of the Colorado, who incidentally has terrible dispersion and is widely considered the weakest T7 BB.

 

The ship struggles to do reliable damage to any tier opponent it faces.

 

Yeah, I know that people will just say it's L2P and all, and they may be right, but if I can make a Colorado work better than an Iowa, facing basically the same opponents (T9 is the norm for T7s) then something must be wrong.

 

Broadside cruisers? Guaranteed 5 overpens at any range. Angled T10 BB at 18Km? Random citadel, 1 zero damage penetration and 2 overpens. Angled cruiser at 15Km? 4 bounces and 1 shatter. DD swerving at 12Km? Devastating strike. Go figure...

 

I even get citadel overpens. Those that some people think it's impossible. No matter what I try, no shell ever arms on any cruiser at any angle and any range. I cannot stand ships that do not reward good aim, and for me this is the ship that killed my motivation to grind. I prefer the Pensacola grind to this, a million times over.

 

P.S.: The Iowa has been in steep decline and is about to become the bottom stat ship in T9 BBs, as she is close to being overtaken by the Izumo.  Funnily enough, she will be overtaken not by a WR increase of the Izumo but instead by decreasing WR faster than the Izumo. She is the T9 BB ship with most battles played in the server, so having the lowest stats on the server shows something is definitely wrong here.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
513 posts
5,039 battles
19 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

Nothing is wrong, you just look at the wrong stats...

Which ones are the correct stats then?

 

Musashi Japan
192 011 56.02 % 0.91 87 470 1 658 0.53 1.94
Missouri U.S.A.
2 233 469 53.94 % 0.81 68 062 1 618 2.61 1.40
Alsace France
304 291 52.81 % 0.91 76 502 1 630 1.71 1.62
Lion U.K.
475 885 51.51 % 0.72 74 302 1 539 1.59 1.58
3 121 475 48.91 % 0.63 56 747 1 279 1.67 1.07
Iowa U.S.A.
3 980 673 48.80 % 0.67 58 762 1 316 2.46 1.18
Izumo Japan
2 538 267 48.54 % 0.62 56 439 1 335 1.30 1.04

 

Is it the fact it's the T9 BB with most lost battles in the EU server? Perhaps it's the fact it has the third worst average damage per battle, or the third worst average XP per battle, or even the third worst kill/death ratio per battle? Maybe it's the fact it's the T9 BB with the third worst average kills per battle? Maybe it's the fact that of all the players that have more than 900 battles on it (16 of them) only 3 have a WR above 50%? Maybe it's the fact that only 34% of the 100 players with most battles on it on the server have a WR that is not below 50%?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
4,389 posts
12,087 battles

Looking @ your stats I'd say you're doing very well in BB's. Your WR numbers overall are special though: either it's very good or very bad. Hardly anything middled out. Other than sheer bad luck I can't explain your WR gap in said ships. M and I can't be that much different.

 

As for the overall stats for T9: IMO those numbers are biased. Iowa and Izumo are the first T9 BB's in the game. The others came much later. In the beginning there were much fewer excellent players, like me as a great example. At least now I have somewhat of a clue on which section of the keyboard I should roll my face in any situation....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
26,257 posts
14,159 battles
34 minutes ago, EgyptOverseer said:

Which ones are the correct stats then?

 

Musashi Japan
192 011 56.02 % 0.91 87 470 1 658 0.53 1.94
Missouri U.S.A.
2 233 469 53.94 % 0.81 68 062 1 618 2.61 1.40
Alsace France
304 291 52.81 % 0.91 76 502 1 630 1.71 1.62
Lion U.K.
475 885 51.51 % 0.72 74 302 1 539 1.59 1.58
3 121 475 48.91 % 0.63 56 747 1 279 1.67 1.07
Iowa U.S.A.
3 980 673 48.80 % 0.67 58 762 1 316 2.46 1.18
Izumo Japan
2 538 267 48.54 % 0.62 56 439 1 335 1.30 1.04

 

Is it the fact it's the T9 BB with most lost battles in the EU server? Perhaps it's the fact it has the third worst average damage per battle, or the third worst average XP per battle, or even the third worst kill/death ratio per battle? Maybe it's the fact it's the T9 BB with the third worst average kills per battle? Maybe it's the fact that of all the players that have more than 900 battles on it (16 of them) only 3 have a WR above 50%? Maybe it's the fact that only 34% of the 100 players with most battles on it on the server have a WR that is not below 50%?

Not these stats that ignore large portions of the playerbase, cannot differentiate between patches and count division games.

I suggest to look at maplesyrup.

http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/ranking/index.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
513 posts
5,039 battles
On 5/8/2018 at 8:23 AM, Ferry_25 said:

Looking @ your stats I'd say you're doing very well in BB's. Your WR numbers overall are special though: either it's very good or very bad. Hardly anything middled out. Other than sheer bad luck I can't explain your WR gap in said ships. M and I can't be that much different.

 

As for the overall stats for T9: IMO those numbers are biased. Iowa and Izumo are the first T9 BB's in the game. The others came much later. In the beginning there were much fewer excellent players, like me as a great example. At least now I have somewhat of a clue on which section of the keyboard I should roll my face in any situation....

I have to disagree. The only BBs where he has low WR are the traditionally bad ones (New York, Texas, Kawachi), with the exception of the Normandie. To see a 30% WR on the Iowa where most other BBs he has 50% or even 60% in my opinion is a significant deviation, especially since it's almost double in the Missouri.

 

As for the stats, longevity explains amount of battles, but that only makes the low averages even more significant as it means it takes a greater deviation to achieve them. As for the Unicorns playing it, the second highest WR player has 85% but an average damage that is half of that of the highest one, yet he has almost 5 times more planes shot down, which shows that a lot of those wins were in a division with a CV...

 

On 5/8/2018 at 8:42 AM, ColonelPete said:

Not these stats that ignore large portions of the playerbase, cannot differentiate between patches and count division games.

I suggest to look at maplesyrup.

http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/ranking/index.html

Cannot use that site. It freezes on mobile and is very hard to compare, apparently.

 

Regardless of data, my view on the Iowa is forever tainted. My experience on it made me despise the ship so much that I actually have to consider the whole grind a waste of my time. The Montana could be a million times better that it would still not be worth grinding 400 battles on the Iowa. Cruisers do more damage per salvo on my superstructure than I do with 2 salvos on their stationary broadside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UNICS]
Beta Tester
4,869 posts
9,434 battles

Win rate doesn't start being accurate until you have a whole lot of battles.

Other stats like damage have a lot less variability so it's more consistent.

 

My Iowa has even more awful win rate, but 96k average damage. :Smile_facepalm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DAVY]
Players
2,743 posts
13,702 battles

yup, it's strange, take my fujin and kamikaze, extactly the same ship both with 125ish battles each, fujin has 73% and kami 62%, but the kami has a higher damage per game...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
3,130 posts
10,624 battles

I'm I the only one but does tier 9 seems to be the ugly ducklings of WOWS.  I mean the only tier 9 ships I have kept to-date is the Tahio and Lion....That's it.  And I will sell that Lion when i get the Conq as the accuracy is so unpredictable and a fire cruiser can do it better.  I am very rarely placed top tier in a tier 9 ship.  More often than not you are in tier 10 battles. Tier 10 ships do it better and so do some tier 8 ones :cap_hmm:

 

Why keep the Roon when the Hindy is a monster?

Why keep the Freddy when you have the Bismarck below and the GK above?

Why Keep the Izu when you have the Yam above and the Amagi Below?

Why Keep the Lion when you have the Conq above and the......Ok the Lion is alot better than the Monarch

Why Keep the Iowa when you have the NC below and the Montana above? 

 

I cant speak for the DD's so maybe you chaps can shed some light on that.

 

The only other 2 ships i would think about keeping is the French Alc and the Fetcher.  I'm crap in DD's so the fletcher is a long way off but alot of clan mates say it better than the gearing pound for pound.

 

So only 3 tier 9 Ships in the whole game i would really want to keep.  Less than any-other tier (apart from 2-3)

 

But I suppose if you personally enjoy a ship and the way it plays then i am sure you will keep it but for me only 3 spring to mind.  Roon was interesting but the Hindy does it better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CORNG]
Players
1,878 posts
15,337 battles
9 hours ago, AdmiralDing3Ling said:

 

Yea but I have a 60% winrate with the Missouri so I must be doing something right. I have an absolutely awful winrate in the Iowa yet my stats are better in the Iowa.

My point is how can my stats be better in one ship but the winrate MUCH worse?

How many of your Iowa matches have been with stock ship our untrained captain?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[GRK3N]
[GRK3N]
Players
1,171 posts
6,286 battles
1 minute ago, FallenOrchid said:

How many of your Iowa matches have been with stock ship our untrained captain?

 

Zero. I never play with stock ships I always free xp upgrades. I used my Missouri captain on the Iowa aswell so he was atleast a 10 pointer when I started, 12 or 13 probably.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[IRQ]
Players
2,930 posts
7,510 battles
3 hours ago, Redcap375 said:

I'm I the only one but does tier 9 seems to be the ugly ducklings of WOWS.  I mean the only tier 9 ships I have kept to-date is the Tahio and Lion....That's it.  And I will sell that Lion when i get the Conq as the accuracy is so unpredictable and a fire cruiser can do it better.  I am very rarely placed top tier in a tier 9 ship.  More often than not you are in tier 10 battles. Tier 10 ships do it better and so do some tier 8 ones :cap_hmm:

I've often said that tier for tier, tier 8 is the best tier in the game. There are a lot of very strong ships there. On tier 10 we have the top of the line, which can only face lower or equal tiers. And tier 9 happens to sit right between those two. There are some exceptions, but on the whole, tier 9 is not in a good place.

 

3 hours ago, Redcap375 said:

I cant speak for the DD's so maybe you chaps can shed some light on that.

 

The only other 2 ships i would think about keeping is the French Alc and the Fetcher.  I'm crap in DD's so the fletcher is a long way off but alot of clan mates say it better than the gearing pound for pound.

Fletcher is an awesome DD. Plays a little differently from Gearing, and some argue it's an overall better ship. While I've only just gotten Gearing (yesterday), I've actually played it quite a lot more than that. Either way, Fletcher is worth keeping.

 

Yuugumo used to have a good edge over Shimakaze in stealth, which was one reason to play the ship. Now it's not quite so different. Yuugumo also has one of the best guns for IJN DDs, but they're still IJN DD guns. It's not as awkwardly placed as many other tier 9 ships. The progression is fairly even (although I think the main line should go Mutsuki -> Hatsuharu -> Shiratsuyu -> Kagero). Personally I quite like Yuugumo.

 

Can't really speak for the other destroyers, but you mostly want to tier 10 if you're at tier 9 anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weekend Tester
997 posts
5,700 battles

My guess is that you push with Missouri (most likely due to the added security by the radar) like a BB should - so you deny more area to the enemy (higher WR), hit more shells (higher damage and hit ratio) and survive much less (lower survive, kdr).

Meanwhile you hang back with Iowa sniping. like a BB shouldn't.

 

Play more agressive, BBs are not there to survive the match but to push people out of objectives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[GRK3N]
[GRK3N]
Players
1,171 posts
6,286 battles
25 minutes ago, Lord_WC said:

My guess is that you push with Missouri (most likely due to the added security by the radar) like a BB should - so you deny more area to the enemy (higher WR), hit more shells (higher damage and hit ratio) and survive much less (lower survive, kdr).

Meanwhile you hang back with Iowa sniping. like a BB shouldn't.

 

Play more agressive, BBs are not there to survive the match but to push people out of objectives.

 

Iowas dont really push, youll die so fast if you do with absolutely nothing achieved in the game. It has absolutely zero armor and takes massive HE damage from cruisers and its really sluggish to manouvre so it eats torps constantly.

Its easier to push with Alabama or NC than it is with an Iowa or Missouri.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×