Whats the most important game statistic to you

[mtm78]

XP takes into account premium time and CAN NOT be used for anything. 

 

edit:

No matter what special snowflakes want.

 

... no matter what YOU want.

 

edit2: xp calculations are not even public, trusting XP over anything public like WTR is retarded. 

[xxNihilanxx]

I am a very competitive person so I play ALL games to win. This means WR is the most important stat to me. I will always do whatever I can to help secure the win for my team, if I get good damage and lots of kills in the process then that is just a bonus. Personal glory is, to me, less important than team play as it is team play that wins games.

 

I get no XP for smoking friendlies that are in trouble to buy them time to escape.

I get very little XP for keeping the enemy Gremyaschy spotted in my Fujin so the team can kill him.

I get very little XP for blocking the enemy from capping on standard in order to buy time for friendly ships to get back and defend.

There isn't particularly a huge XP reward for hitting defensive fire in my AA cruisers, to save a friendly ship from an air drop.

 

These, and actions like them however, help to win games.

I like to win.

 

The most frustrating feeling to be had in this game is when one puts in a good performance but the team loses anyway.

[genai]

XP takes into account premium time and CAN NOT be used for anything. 

 

edit:

 

 

... no matter what YOU want.

 

Like i said... its irrelevant what you and rest of special snowflakes think. Logic says that it is the most important stat we have. Its not perfect and obviously has its flaws(much less than win rate tho), but it is the best... by far. If WG would start quantifying some more things and add them to xp reward, as they should have done long ago, it would be even better than it is now, but as it is, it is at least better than win rate.

By your logic guy sitting next to papedipupi having same win rate as him because of division and pape doing all the work is equally good player, even tho he had roughtly 50% less xp per game than pape? Funny tho... one stat actually shows who did the heavy lifting in that "pairing"... oh yea, its damn xp per game, thats why pape had double xp per game than his CA pet, despite them having same win rate.

Just please... stop. Common sense.

 

Its not that hard to understand, is it? And no, i dont say this because of my "feelings" and what i "prefer". Its the result of games design.

 

[Niaro]

You could be right IF you could see the raw base xp somewhere.. wich i think you cant.

 

Flags, Premtime and Ships all influence the xp to a point where it is pointless to look at.

 

1 DD withouth any of the above caps 2 circles and gets lets say 500 xp.

A Sims with all of the above helps to cap half of a circle and gets 1000 xp.

 

Same with every other action ingame.

How is it logical to pick a stat that can be influenced by your wallet and flags?

[genai]

You could be right IF you could see the raw base xp somewhere.. wich you cant.

 

Flags, Premtime and Ships all influence the xp to a point where it is pointless to look at.

 

1 DD withouth any of the above caps 2 circles and gets lets say 500 xp.

A Sims with all of the above helps to cap half of a circle and gets 1000 xp.

 

Same with every other action ingame.

How is it logical to pick a stat that can be influenced by your wallet and flags?

 

Actually just premium time influences xp per game stat(on stats page that is), rest is just ingame thing not included in stat. And thats why you can only compare performance in same ships.

It would be stupid to say that guy playing only CVs is better player than guy playing only CA because he has better win rate, when CVs have more influence on the outcome of the match. Same with xp per game.

 

But the issue is that win rate is also influenced by many many other things and is a black and white kind of thing. Its irrelevant what you do, you might get high win rate because you division with someone. But effect of that division on xp per game is much smaller, because win rate is just modifier that gives you bonus on your actual performance. That automatically makes xp per game better stat than win rate. Not perfect, but of all stats that WG provides... best by far.

Should they include many other things into it? Yes... but it already has much more in it than win rate has.

 

And like i said... cannot compare different ships, same for win rate, because different ships have different "expected" values as well as different impact on games...

Its not a balanced game, you cant look at it like that. You can only look at solo play, same ship performance to determine differences between players.

XP per game(per ship) is much harder to "manipulate" than win rate(per ship).

[allufewig]

I always want to win the games I play. I find that golden "Victory!" very appealing. Winning also incorporates all that otherwise unmeasurable teamplay-stuff. After a few hundred games or more, luck or bad luck is usually just a decimal place in the winrate and therefore negligible. Because math.

 

Unlike in WoT it can be filtered for solo/division (people always act like they dont know or really downt know this) and therefore be used without needing a lot of other stats for context.

[xxNihilanxx]

 

Like i said... its irrelevant what you and rest of special snowflakes think. Logic says ..

 

 

 

Just wanted to make a slight comment about your "logic" here. The point of "snowflakes" is that each and every one is unique. Therefore it does not follow logically for you to call someone a "snowflake" for saying WR in a thread where the VAST majority of people have said WR is the most important stat. If one were going to apply the term "snowflake" here it would be to you as one of, I think, only two people in the entire thread who have suggested XP as the crucial stat.

 

I have to say, when I see things like this, it makes me wonder if you truly applied any thought to the term you used or have you just used the insult du jour without any regard for whether it is actually applicable in this case?

 

</logic>

[genai]

I always want to win the games I play. I find that golden "Victory!" very appealing. Winning also incorporates all that otherwise unmeasurable teamplay-stuff. After a few hundred games or more, luck or bad luck is usually just a decimal place in the winrate and therefore negligible. Because math.

 

Unlike in WoT it can be filtered for solo/division (people always act like they dont know or really downt know this) and therefore be used without needing a lot of other stats for context.

 

I always want to have fun when i play games, not win. Win is a nice bonus tho... same as in xp per game stat

Plenty of good and fun losses and plenty of terrible and forgettable wins. But then again, i have no desire to beat anyone. I work to have money for my life, not to earn more than someone else, i play to have fun, not to be better at it than someone else, i learn when i want to know something, not that i want to know more than someone else etc. To me win is meaningless if getting to it wasnt enjoyable and fun.

 

I chase fun, so... im not emotionally invested in praising any stat. If i do so, its because its logical. Its not logical to say that best representative stat is win rate when its 1 or 0 kind of stat while influenced by so many things regardless of individual performance.

Stat that takes into account both individual performance and said win rate is automatically better representative, as it both values your performance + outcome of it, as opposed to just outcome. You can play good in defeat and you can play bad in win, and in both cases it will be represented by xp stat. Not in win rate tho. And that makes win rate worse. Its simple logic.

 

Doesnt matter if it can be filtered. Stat that takes into account both personal performance + win rate is always going to be better representative than just win rate in each case other than "in gets you star, loss makes you lose star" kind of deal... Its just that simple.

 

To make a silly analogy... if win and loss are measured by if you are rich or not and you have two rich guys, one inherited everything from his father and other worked his way for it. Both have same "win", but one is obviously much better than the other. Luckily WoWs has stat that measures if you won and how you won at the same time. So guy that worked for it gets a better score in it.

 

Another, less silly, example. Lets say 2 guys have played same ship same number of times and have same win rate. One "carries" every win and does nothing in every loss, other farms damage and what not in every loss, but does nothing in every win. First guy will have better xp per game than the other guy, but with same win rate and same amount of damage per game, kills per game etc. Why? Because win when you perform well in it gives you more bonus than in loss. According to win rate they are equal, but obviously one is better than the other. And xp per game shows it.

[Skyllon]

Number of cheater/haxxor insults I get per week is kind of satysfying stat for me tbh.

 

I have to improve at this game. During my entire 'carreer' I've been accused only twice of cheating and insulted few times at the most...

What's happening to the online gaming! Is there really nothing one can rely upon?!

[allufewig]

 

I always want to have fun when i play games, not win. Win is a nice bonus tho... same as in xp per game stat

 

Doesnt matter if it can be filtered. Stat that takes into account both personal performance + win rate is always going to be better representative than just win rate in each case other than "in gets you star, loss makes you lose star" kind of deal... Its just that simple.

 

To make a silly analogy... if win and loss are measured by if you are rich or not and you have two rich guys, one inherited everything from his father and other worked his way for it. Both have same "win", but one is obviously much better than the other. Luckily WoWs has stat that measures if you won and how you won at the same time. So guy that worked for it gets a better score in it.

 

 

I think I was pretty clear that winning is the most fun for me. So playing to have fun and playing to win is pretty much interchangeable for me. If I would win 1% more at the cost of 75% of my average XP, I would take it any day since Im not a heavy grinder. XP is no fun for me, hearing the victory sound is.

 

No doubt, XP would be the #1 stat for player-comparison everywhere if it didnt include premium, but sadly thats not the case. You dont know how much of the total games of a player or even a single ship were played with premium active. Some buy it in single days, some buy it when they have a week off, some have it active all the time and some never buy a single day. And everything in between.

 

But even if it wasnt that useless for comparison as it is now, I would still play for the win and not for the XP.

[iFax]

I don't mind if I win or lose as long as it's a great game played in good spirits without the salt. I'm here to relax after sitting all day at work taking crap from the public so it's nice to blow up the odd BB now and again.

[mtm78]

its irrelevant what you and rest of special snowflakes think

 

 

You're the special snowflake 'dude'

[Skurfa]

Fun factor is the most important stat

 

All the others can be "boosted" in one way or another.

 

Playing with friends is an easy way to boost WR, or teaming up with good players via clans and so on. So WR may give a pointer, but to be taken with a grain of salt.

[ColonelPete]

 

Goal of the game has never been winning and probably will never be winning.

 

Maybe for you. But in games that you can win, winning is usally the goal.

 

Win rate is inflated by playing OP ships, divisions and babysitting others in OP ships. It has nothing to do with your performance. Its exploiting the terrible balance in this game. So anyone who thinks win rate matter is just delusional.

 

You usually look at solo winrates. Only people who do not know what they are doing look at division WR. If a WR is inflated by so called "OP" ships, then it is quite obvious by looking at the stats. Usally good players play a multitude of ships.

 

Average XP improves by 50% just by spending money. How can this be a performance measure? The quicker you open your wallet, the better you are? Do you really understand what you are writing?

And even when you do not spend money, your average XP increases just by uptiering without playing better. How can this be a performance measure?

Each ship class and each ship has hidden XP multipliers. Playing specific ships results in higher average XP. How can this be a performance measure?

 

[Culiacan_Mexico]

...Average XP improves by 50% just by spending money. How can this be a performance measure?...

 

This.  

 

 

---------------------------------

 

Bismarck - 1,385 (XP All time average)

What percentage of this XP includes premium?  With out that information there is no baseline for comparison.

[allufewig]

 

And even when you do not spend money, your average XP increases just by uptiering without playing better. How can this be a performance measure?

Each ship class and each ship has hidden XP multipliers. Playing specific ships results in higher average XP. How can this be a performance measure?

 

 

These two are not really that much of a problem since you can compare on a ship-per-ship basis. Thats more or less what any semi-knwledgeable person did and does anyway.

 

We cannot look at XP because it is diluted by premium-time influence. Its the single problem that kills this stat completely for any player vs player comparison.

[mtm78]

Its the single problem that kills this stats completely for any player vs player comparison.

 

Bingo. 

[Culiacan_Mexico]

If I may be one of those special snowflakes.  

 

The first and most important stat is...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Langley - Tier IV CV

        WR             Dmg        K/D        Sh☠       Pl☠        WTR ▼
        90.00%    90,492        4.7         1.4        20.6        2,149

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Looks impressive until you find out only 10 battles.  

 

 

 

[Sander93]

We cannot look at XP because it is diluted by premium-time influence. Its the single problem that kills this stat completely for any player vs player comparison.

 

XP gain also varies ship to ship, so even without premium it could only be compared when players have largely the same ships.

 

 

[Shirakami_Kon]

So CV players are best players?

 

Yes

 

Sorry to break your bubble, Ishiro32. You really are an excellent CV player, but that doesn't mean that all CVs are like you. Of course there's a majority of bad players in any class, but even with how much you can notice the amount of bad players in BBs because of the sheer amount of them I'd be glad to find a good CV player once every half month at least. There's a lot more BBs to notice but considering the average CV you find in battles and how it performs it's seems that's even harder to get a good CV player than even a good BB one.

[iJoby]

Not really that bothered about stats, but if I was then:- 1, Win Rate, 2, Damage, 3, K/D.

I try like mad to help the team win in all battles.

ATM I am training in CO-OP Battles on T4-5 CV's, and I like them even though rewards are Shite, but they are fun.

[mtm78]

Sorry to break your bubble

 

I think you took his reply a tad to serious

[allufewig]

 

XP gain also varies ship to ship, so even without premium it could only be compared when players have largely the same ships.

 

 

 

 

Yes, thats what Colonel also said and why I pointed at ship-per-ship comparison. But to be fair to genai, thats not a problem of XP only. You also cannot compare a Yorck player with a Belfast player when looking at winrate, because of the significant power-difference of the ships.

[anonym_mlJIAFnOwMVb]

i just play the game. stats are stats. not really special or important in any way shape or form.  its a video game. although it is fun to trolololol people who whine with terrible stats.

[Calab]

 

Like i said... its irrelevant what you and rest of special snowflakes think. Logic says that it is the most important stat we have. Its not perfect and obviously has its flaws(much less than win rate tho), but it is the best... by far. If WG would start quantifying some more things and add them to xp reward, as they should have done long ago, it would be even better than it is now, but as it is, it is at least better than win rate.

By your logic guy sitting next to papedipupi having same win rate as him because of division and pape doing all the work is equally good player, even tho he had roughtly 50% less xp per game than pape? Funny tho... one stat actually shows who did the heavy lifting in that "pairing"... oh yea, its damn xp per game, thats why pape had double xp per game than his CA pet, despite them having same win rate.

Just please... stop. Common sense.

 

Its not that hard to understand, is it? And no, i dont say this because of my "feelings" and what i "prefer". Its the result of games design.

 

 

i have only the half xp and i am only a pet? 

 

look on my signatur