Whats the most important game statistic to you

[mtm78]

I cant really see how he was selfish? I dont like big T10 heavies sitting in spawn sniping (yes, im looking at you Yamato!) but if hes that good at farming damage on the enemy team that that gives him NR1 spot on the team then he deserves good stats and he has contributed more to the team then probably half the rest of the team that must just have Derped big time that game.

 

Well exactly that. Selfish BB's mostly which don't tank damage for their team and instead farm damage on enemy team while letting his allied cruisers die who are playing the objectives.

 

So no, doesn't mean top XP is a reliable measure. 

 

Then again, every game I lost today with Tashkent except one, I was top XP. And I do think I earned that

[Admiral_noodle]

I would like to see average finishing position in team as a stat. Or % of total team xp average to be more precise. Even then it's flawed.

 

On average though over enough games WR is the only stat that matters. But even then pure WR is often misleading. I have a 61% WR thereabouts. And a 59% solo WR. However dig deeper and you find my WR generally declines with tier. Not by much but it does. At high tier I'm more of a 55% WR person. At tier 4 I am 65%. So this shows while I'm good at seal clubbing I'm not as good when facing experienced players at higher tiers.

 

Personally if I finish top half of the team (usual) I feel I've pulled my weight. Top 3 and I'm happy win or lose.

[OldschoolGaming_YouTube]

I would like to see average finishing position in team as a stat. Or % of total team xp average to be more precise. Even then it's flawed.

 

On average though over enough games WR is the only stat that matters. But even then pure WR is often misleading. I have a 61% WR thereabouts. And a 59% solo WR. However dig deeper and you find my WR generally declines with tier. Not by much but it does. At high tier I'm more of a 55% WR person. At tier 4 I am 65%. So this shows while I'm good at seal clubbing I'm not as good when facing experienced players at higher tiers.

 

Personally if I finish top half of the team (usual) I feel I've pulled my weight. Top 3 and I'm happy win or lose.

This!

 

As i said many times before, im not a stats guy, i have no clue to what my stats are at this moment but i do know that i end up top 3 more then i end up bottom half of the scorescreen and that is across all tiers pretty much, but that said i am usually playing good strong ships like Frederich, Bismarck, Zao, Khaba, Moskva and so on so i cant really take all cred.

 

But im just so sick and tired of bad and stupid players throwing some Winrate stats or some other bullcrap stat in youre face and this happens usually when they FUBAR:ed totally. So im just wondering if they have such great freckin stats and mine is so bad, how come im usually on top and they arent? My feelings are just that poor players are hiding behind stats because its easy to do, or something? 

 

I understand that stats are stats and the stats doesnt lie, but i have either the time or the interest to google up a guy im in a game with to try and compare stats ([edited]size) on the fly. I would just rather see a better stat then we have at the moment, a stat that actually states how much this fool has contributed on his own in all games and just put that stat up beside his name in the game. This would actually work as a good filter for players to know if they should listen to what a guy says in chat aswell.

 

For instanse, if a guy call out a tactic for all team to go mid-channel on two brothers in the start of the game and you see that this guy has a 22% "total contribution stat" on his name you know that its a suicide move to follow or even listen to that guy, and if another guy in a T10 game close to the end writes a tactic in chat and he has a 70% "total contribution stat" (im trademarking this name btw   ) then you would know that this guy is probably at Flamus level or something and you perhaps should consider what he is saying. If we had a better stat then we do i would even probably consider plastering mine in my signature aswell (or probably not ....)

 

Am i totally wrong here?

 

I think my lack of interest in stats are just the way they work at the moment.

[ColonelPete]

If you need stats to tell you that going middle on Two Brothers at the start of battle is a bad idea, then you are doing it wrong.

 

You must be able to judge tactics on their own, no matter what potato or unicum player tells you that tactic.

[walter3kurtz]

You can't just look at any single stat number, you have to combine them to get a real impression.

[Admiral_noodle]

You can't just look at any single stat number, you have to combine them to get a real impression.

 

Very true. My new Kiev and Tashkent stats are garbage. Have I become useless at dds overnight? Well let's look... 

 

Kiev. 75% WR. Low damage. Easy answer. Too few games but generally the games have been stomps and with stock torps opportunities for damage = low. 

 

Tashkent: 33% WR, 42k avg damage. Appalling survival rate. 

Reasons: first this has been my stock grind. Stock Tashkent has bad range and lower hp. So that kind of explains my lack of survival. Lowish damage - well post patch the games have been heavy on dds. Russian dds! So many games have come down to dd face offs between gunboats. If I survive them my damage goes up. If not. I'm dead. And despite trading around 1.5 dds for each death this doesn't reflect well in raw stats. 

 

Damage is misleading. I can kill a udaloi from full health and it's more important than killing a BB. But my WR I am hoping to improve now my Tashkent stock grind is over. 

[OldschoolGaming_YouTube]

If you need stats to tell you that going middle on Two Brothers at the start of battle is a bad idea, then you are doing it wrong.

 

You must be able to judge tactics on their own, no matter what potato or unicum player tells you that tactic.

 

I think you missed my point a bit. Of course the mayority of the playerbase knows that this is a shitty tactic in the start of the battle by now, even tho you still see one or two of those optimists ingame yet. And this was a obvious extreme example.

 

My point was more that if you had a better stat that tells you more what a player actually was worth, instead of talking stats that doesnt really show this you would just be able to dissmiss some directly and the whole [edited]measuring contest would be absolete, since it would be shown to everyone how skilled they really are (and how much crap they are full of).

 

I think im a healthy tactician having served in the military for a couple of years and have learned the mechanics of the game since CBT, but i still think its healthy to question youre decisions when you get reported by some teammembers while carrying a team in a lost game. 

 

I for one cant really see this in the current stats we have.

[anonym_hqO9wrVAEQYQ]

The most important game statistic for me is. IS the game still fun to play? If its not then I will stop playing. Simples