Basic Skill: First THINK, then TALK. Avoiding sketchy arguments (in the wake of Jean Bart release)

[GA_Tirpitz]

I spent some time reading through the various threads about Jean Bart and I would like to get this discussion away from this very ship towards settling some issues before upcoming releases.

 

Preface:

I hope we all can agree that abolishing the notion to "just kill individuals one don't like, because one is stronger" was the mayor step to forming functional mamal societes. The social concept deriving from that is called "Teamplay". Regarding that originating from lions would save us the threat of overpopulation, I personally am still content to originate from the ape tech tree. Although I sometimes am a little monkey ;-).

 

 

1. Tier 9 for sale

At some point wargaming did state that they would not want to issue T9 for cash sale. They changed their mind, time to fuss about it.

(Edit: Dec 2016 upon release of  USS Missouri, however it never was a rigid rule nor a solid promise)

https://worldofwarships.asia/en/news/announcements/ver-05_15_1-patchnotes/

 

• Yes, we should remind Wargaming in their own principles. But in appropriate language, requesting reliability.
• No, I can't effort paying the entire expenses of World of Warships. Unless you can, you should be aware of the limitations a customer has on dictating the provider's business terms.

 

Wargaming stated that they will do a test on this. It is very difficult to calculate the benefit of free players. On the one hand they make the game more attractive on the other they consume infrastructure they dont pay for. So let's just focus on loyal customers that actually pay at least just for premium account. It's obvious to see that loosing a yearly 120$ payer but gaining 10 times single instance 80$ isn't really an economic loss. However they will not want to lose too many long term afiliated gamers, simply because they need reliable customers, too. Nevertheless they will (and for econmics sake should) drop off demants by a economically unsignificant subset of customers. This actaully is a quite hard to grasp scientific task and try and error is a valid test method. So voice your issues appropriately but don't get outraged if your complaints are unsignificant. At least on my opinion the change in sales policy of Tier 9 ships is worth talking about. But keep in mind that Wargaming is not a NPO.

 

 

2. Free XP vs coal/steel

 

Yes, yes, yes, very yes. We shall stress that introducing a new currency should not make another currency obsolete.

 

Possible solutions: Free XP to coal exchange, next release for free XP,....

 

Let's see what they come up with, they do (or at least should) know better how moch Free XP and how much coal is averaged by the community. But keep in mind that Free XP is yet not worthless and won't become totally worthless to the mayority of casual to passionate gamers. However a previous announcement to how new items will be optainable is highly desirable.

 

 

3. Drivers license for high Tier (Random Battles)

 

Quite often the demand of a kind of drivers license for high Tier ships came up. Well there is one: reaching the service record level that makes random battles available.

 

Tirpitz at T8 has been available since the game started so you always could have bought yourself into T10 battles, nothing new, why fuss now?

(Edit:

EU-Server: For sale during beta (several 1000 copies sold, especially in Germany) till full release (but of course stayed ingame), return to store spring 2016

NA-Server: Sale started just upon full release September 2015)

 

Well maybe it was just about time to fuss.

I bought my Tirpitz half a year before I aquired Bismarck through tech tree. At that time I had enough free XP to directly research Freddy including all its modules without needing to play a single battle on Bismarck. But I refused, saving my free XP for something else. I was completely annoyed with my Gneisenau but I didn't even use free XP to jump to Bismarck. I also was not asked to perform any exams in between Nassau and Freddy. So obviously I have the same license for Nassau as for T8 and T9 and probably will not need a new one for T10 either.

 

However I now got acces to T10 battles even without having payed cash for a ship. So: Reality Check

 

Even in T10 tech tree ships one finds captains of questionable capability. So what shall be the basis of such a "drivers license"?

 

Experience: Well, have you been in T10 battles? If not, stop talking about it at all. If yes, before fussing about noobs on Jean Bart, how often have you felt the urge to call somebody in a regular tech tree T10 ship a moron or a noob in the past 100 battles. Any number above 0 renders an experience threshold obviously obsolete.

 

Time: My mum has a drivers license but didn't drive since I was six. (In Germany you don't need a test to extend your drivers license, but she would have done the test, so she would drive like once every 2 years). Marvelously she didn't have caused a car accident for years and so the insurance company rates her top tier reliable. Got the point? If not, keep thinking about it.

 

Number of battles: I cook a daily meal almost every day since 10 years. Still got no michellin star. And sometimes best I can say about the food I produce is "it won't kill you". So for sure you can do something passionately and often without ever reaching expert level. I guess you can say after 10k Battles one either learned how to handle his ship or gave up. Feel free to consult the statistics and see how many people aquiered more then 10k battles in T10 matches. Will be pretty lonely on the map with that threshold.

 

Damage Average: I quite often get replays with "damage records" to my notice. And quite often I also am made aware of high damage games the particular gamer lost and started to freak about his "horrible" team. Analysing those vids one most often finds the high damage gained by egoistic gameplay.

For examle stealing kills deliberately without having payed attention to that target ever before.

Or even worse, deliberately shooting easiest targets first (BB, CA/CL, DD in descending order). Well as "easy target" already alludes this most often comes alongside "least thread" and "tactically irrelevant". So no wonder you made such a high damage in your cruiser, while your BBs were hunting down enemy DDs, that you didn't dare to aim at, because they didn't yield enough damage profit. Meanwhile the enemy ships burned down your very BBs and finally you end up with high damage but total defeat. Sounds familiar? What about that:

The ongoing discussion about CVs deciding the game. Well yes, they do have more impact on the game than a 1/12 of the party. But even air superiority does not grant victory. It's sad to admit that for the time beeing every slightly organised team can outmatch teams with self coronated expert egoists. And more sad to see those experts not understanding their own egoism is more likely to kill changes than bear them.

And sometimes high damage just means that the enemy team was dumb, your team only slightly more gifted and you just a little more lucky then the rest of your peers.

 

Avarage win rate: I have a win rate of just a pint below super unicum in CVs, because I was lucky and stopped playing CVs in random at all. My current win rate in BBs is super unicum. I like BBs, I don't mind even killing DDs if tactically usefull, it's a job to be done, but my average damage is just good. Killing DDs with a Battleship doesn't pay of in damage nor in kills, grinding down Cruisers is in both ways more efficient. But surely taking out that very DD saved us one or the other victory. And of course the other 11 people on my Team didn't contribute at all, so don't call it a lucky series of matchmaking. (That last sentence was advanced skill: sarcasm)

One team has to lose so the other team can win, even with most elite teammate pool your winrate should be (50+/-2)% by random on 1000 batlles. Before you start telling me that you already have 3000 Battles and win rate of 55%. This model does not include tiers nor differnces among different classes of ships among same tier nor different potential of same tier same class vessels and for sure not different maps. So what I really want to say is that even 5000 Monkeys given computers would end up with eventually an avarage win rate of 50% as long as they are similarly unskilled.

Since statistics are hard to grasp a little Gedankenexperiment: Take all Gamers with 5000k battles and an overall win rate over 60% (if you find more than 24). Let them only play with each other in a secluded server and watch their win rates, they will normalise to roughly 50% quite rapidly.

What one should learn is:

High win rates reflect the unskilledness of all the others rather than one owns distinguished service. Or obviously you're not better than ... als long as noone stays worse than you.

 

Individual ranking system: Okay lets assume everybody need to approve who is on his team. Do you really think your desired team mates want you on that team as well? Doesn't it become pretty boring playing always in the same team the same ships every day. Don't even you needed to learn how to handle a Conqueror or a Republique. So even if you played them in coop before going to random. How dare you to assume that you're speed of process should be the minimum standard? And what about the people more skilled then you? Why should those that advance faster than you don't have the right to set the threshold. Especially: Unless you are the best gamer on all servers in all ships, why exactly should the threshold not be just a pint above your skills? After all you can teamup in a division, granting you at least 25% devine gamers on the team. (Sarcasm again, usefull skill)

 

So will you be willing to vote for a drivers licence without later complaining about the requierements? Are you fine with playing in a small elitist environment that eventuelly will dump you off as weakest link?

 

 

4. Competative Gaming (Ranked, Scenarios, Divisions)

 

Unlike T8, a T9 battleship doesn't buy you into "oldstyle" ranked battles! (T8 and T10 requiered up to Rank 2).

 

There are no high tier scenarios. As of today there is only one scenario freely available with T8 Allied cruiser, so nothing changed by a T9 ship and seriusly not by a BB. In fact the Halloween scenarios came with completely new ships, fairly easy to optain by new gamers. Whoever claims to have been a submarine expert in 2017 is no expert at all. On the other hand you can still party up for other than the "scenario of the week".

 

Divisions: One picks his team willingly, one chooses explicitly every individual gamer on the team, so WTF do we need to talk about??????

 

 

5. Why new ships at all? At least it's OP!!

 

Evolution? Coping with boredom and monotony? That might be the easy answers but let us get to the core of this question:

Of course new stuff is exciting but on the other hand it will also change stuff. And most people are afraid of changes that is absolutely natural and there is no need to feel ashamed. But there is no need to make a big fuss about it either. Whenever a new gladiator with new techniques and skills enters the arena, the old bulls will have to adapt their style to it. This takes some time to learn the weak spot of the new warrior and aim for that.

If the new warrior was obviously underpowered, it would get always shredded after spreading the news and noone would set him again. So it's obvious why Wargaming does not deliberately waste design time of unsellable underpowered stuff. I said deliberately - who really does not know any example of "good intentions gone wrong" or "abusing good intentions": Stop doing drugs, dude!

Since most people presenting new ships are either salesman (Wargaming staff) or frequent and experienced players (CCs) it may appear very powerful without beeing overpowered at all. The most popular CCs and youtubers seem overpowered in everything they ride. Upon watching their live streams one notices that they still have bad days or make mistakes. But naturally - unless hillariously insane "ship happens" - none of the "not so bright cruises" makes it into video archives. If those seemingly overpowered ships attract lot's of new customers, be glad. They keep your favourite online game flush with cash and nourish new developments. At least don't complain that a ship is overpowered, buy it and find yourself unable to utilze it sucessfully and comoplain again within an 48h period. (Well, waiting 50h neither makes it any better)

However if the new ship is absolutely overpowered:

• evade it, no ship is unsinkable
• get it yourself and go seal clubbing until you become bored of it
• at least stop complaining about noobs messing around with them, overpowered and unskilled just annihilates each other (at least)
• believe it or not Wargaming will notice when a ship is overpowered but feel free to appropriately adress that issues to make them aware more rapidly.

 

 

6. Nerf it (but not my copy)

 

Wargaming tries to balance gameplay, they try. If the could balance without trying the wouldn't need to update any content once released. If they could anticipate every possible over/abuse of its contents they would gain their money in casinos or stock exchanges. Sometimes it may happen that content is or becomes "unbalanced" the one or the other way. At least honour Wargamings willingness to rebalance, before complaining that the rebalance is reversing the unbalancedness. Yes Wargaming makes errors, astonishingly they still employ fallible human beeings! Address issues in proper language and check first if that issue might originate in not fitting in your preferred playstyle or personal lack of experience. Accept Wargamings estimations, they have the figures and numbers. And once again reflect the past developments, reflect all the moments when Wargaming did entertain you. Reflect those new contents you liked but never stated publically. Reflect all the buffs and nerfs you didn't notice, because you didn't read the uptade records. And finally reflect all the nerfs and buffs you fussed about beforehand but once implemented still didn't affect your overall gaming experience in a negative way.

Of course some buffs or nerfs may  appear drastically, and we should voice our concerns. But bear in mind that you can't just pic the nerfs and buffs to your individual best benefits.

 

 

Conclusions

• Wargaming never claimed to live on hugs and kisses. They are a profit company, if you don't like making profit from you, be drastic, uninstall, case closed.
• Keep track of your position in the customer - provider relationship when you utter demands. Settle for requests and remarks.
• Customer care (like all human staff at Wargaming) is quite elaborate and attentive but of course not devine.
• Remind that Wargaming admitted repeatedly making errors and even apologized. When did you apologize last time for calling someone names ingame?
• Its a game, you don't die if it crashes. Don't believe me? -> Seek therapy, please, you are obsessed.
• Use proper language (not proper spelling. I am German native and even suck at German spelling.) Don't take every comment as a personal insult.
• Don't forget that the mayority of income is generated by mediocre but passionate gamers. Or pay 5000$ for your own special elitist premium ship.
• Give new content and new gamers a fair chance. And don't dare to compare noobs today to noobs back when you started. Game has changed ever since.
• Try to voice your worries with clear and simple analogies the broad cummunity can understand. Don't  abuse other analogies weak spots.
• When criticising, be open to critics yourself.
• When told multiple times, that you are wrong. Either bring in new arguments or clarify misunderstandings. Don't just repeat the exact same mantra again and again.
• Admitt errors, but don't steadily contradict yourself. Community will notice and kill you softly.
• Dont' bring good proposals without reflecting obvious negative side effects. At least don't demand more from Wargaming than you can handle yourself.
• Keep in mind that every single gamer has individual preferences and Wargaming needs to satisfy the mayority.
• Protagoras : "Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not." But not the freaking absolute meassure neither you nor I.

 

 

Postface

 

Experts do not stress their expertise with sketchy  figures. Moreover true experts will always admid that they are still learning and developing. If you feel yourself such an expert that NO further development is feasible, tick it off and get a new hobby.

 

 

 

(Edit: most nauseating misspelling eradicated)

 

 

[LemonadeWarriorITA]

You thought a lot.

[hgbn_dk]

To much wall of text didn't bother reading all of it

[GA_Tirpitz]

Vor 28 Minuten, hgbn_dk sagte:

To much wall of text didn't bother reading all of it

Yeah, was more text than I anticipated. But I wanted to gather a basic overwiev of most common misconceptions. I would like to refine it with participation and input from the community.

 

We can't avoid the recurring same discussions arising with every new issued ingame content. And we all know it will be dozens of similar threads each time. So I thought it might be handy to have a database of arguments to copy and paste from or to referr to, instead of always typing in the same answers again and again.

 

I also don't mind to add in a pros and cons list to subtopics, so people can better understand what is feasible and what comes with side effects.

 

 

 

Sometimes there is just not enough sugar to help the medicine go down.

[hgbn_dk]

You can't reason with people who don't want to reason... So in my book your mission have the best intentions but no real effect.

[DJ_Die]

@GA_Tirpitz: you might want to take classes in statistics. Im sure it would help you case if you actually knew how to work with data. 

 

[GA_Tirpitz]

Vor 2 Stunden, DJ_Die sagte:

@GA_Tirpitz: you might want to take classes in statistics. Im sure it would help you case if you actually knew how to work with data. 

 

Well thanks DJ_Die, let me know about what standard deviation you got for a 1000 instance binomial distribution with p=q=0.5 ?

 

In real mathematics it gives you sqrt(250).

 

So with one sigma window you get 500+/-sigma and according to DIN 1333,  DAkkS-DKD-3 and IS= 31-0:1992 that gives roundet of properly a (50+/-2)%.  I am very well aware of ISO 80000-1 but that is quite ambigous when it comes to uncertainties. GUM will basically deliver the same as DIN 1333 did, at least in this case. But to keep you satisfied extending DIN 1333 to DAkkS-DKD-3 recommendations:

 

(50,0+/-1,6)%.

 

Again in full accordance with GUM, as 0,58/1 is > 0,05 and 0,08/1,58 > 0,05.

 

In case you are US citizen following ASME which basically simplyfies GUM again it should be the same.

 

Taking in account an "almost" even skill distribution among all teammates on can calculate p and q for each of the 1000 games individually. I just don't took the effort to code some python to handle the matrices for it's fundametal that trace is > 0. So with refining the model as metioned, p and q will aquiere ranges, spreading variance, eventually flaten out the distribution as sum over non equivalent Bernoulli Events. Thought there might be a peak shift, too, wich is highly determined by the term "almost". By the way, i just was not in the mood for skew either.

 

So what exactly did you want to tell me?

 

PS:

In case you took statistics classes for engineers, may you should see math deparment for the real deal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[HaachamaShipping]

3 hours ago, GA_Tirpitz said:

Tirpitz at T8 has been available since the game started so you always could have bought yourself into T10 battles, nothing new, why fuss now?

Maybe when you started the game. When I started this game, there was USN vs IJN and the highest tier premium was, I think, Atlanta at T7. Not to say that this isn't high enough already, but Tirpitz certainly has not been there for all game (and I don't think it was the first T8 premium. To my memory, at least Atago precedes it and might have been the first).

[hgbn_dk]

20 minutes ago, Riselotte said:

Maybe when you started the game. When I started this game, there was USN vs IJN and the highest tier premium was, I think, Atlanta at T7. Not to say that this isn't high enough already, but Tirpitz certainly has not been there for all game (and I don't think it was the first T8 premium. To my memory, at least Atago precedes it and might have been the first).

Atago was first

[GA_Tirpitz]

Vor 21 Minuten, Riselotte sagte:

Maybe when you started the game. When I started this game, there was USN vs IJN and the highest tier premium was, I think, Atlanta at T7. Not to say that this isn't high enough already, but Tirpitz certainly has not been there for all game (and I don't think it was the first T8 premium. To my memory, at least Atago precedes it and might have been the first).

Wiki says Tirpitz was first released for sale worldwide on 17 September 2015.  Discussions about it in German speaking forum date back as to August 2015. Since WOWS was released to public on September 17th 2015 too. Thats pretty much forever. It however was probably not always available on the store of all servers since game release. I honestly can't tell during which time it was of the market. But for sure it was on promoted sales spring 2018. I got mine for Christmas 2017. So I guess we can agree that it's been there long enough to say "buy in on T10 matches is nothing new".

[hgbn_dk]

Back then MM was +3-3 so in reality you would end up in T-X battles with the Atlanta at T-VII

[DJ_Die]

2 hours ago, GA_Tirpitz said:

Well thanks DJ_Die, let me know about what standard deviation you got for a 1000 instance binomial distribution with p=q=0.5 ?

 

And what does binominal distribution have to do with WOWs? Not only are there 3 possible outcomes, not two, granted one of the is extremely rare but it still does happen on occasion, but even ignoring draws, its not as simple because depending on the player the incomes dont have the same probability of occuring. Win rate among players follows normal distribution of abilities in population. Its 12 variables vs 11 variables + you as the only constant (discounting divisions). 

 

Its just like you claiming you have superunicum recent win rate, given how few games it is in you case im sure you can easily calculate the deviation from that number. :) You other stats nicely show that its just a fluke, a lucky streak. 

[GA_Tirpitz]

Vor 9 Minuten, DJ_Die sagte:

And what does binominal distribution have to do with WOWs?

Okay sorry got you wrong, of course I made a simplyfication by dropping the tied matches. And so got a simple binomial function.

 

Of course I would need to not just model two 12x12 matrices, I need to go into higher dimensions (for shure not using Lanchesters Law as proposed on other threads) if I would like to analise the game mechanics to the fullest. But maybe you take a look into the exercise as stated. I never intended to predict the detailed outcome of a single match. I don't even want to have an order in the 1000k battles, just en overall expected value. And what most people ask for in a fair game is a fair outcome. So evenly skilled was really ment in taht way that all 24 contributors have the same effect on the actual outcome of the game. Which of course is not true. Because in most simple model your win ratio would be actually 0 and your tied ratio 1. As we scarcely observe I took the freedom to trob that off and just calculate leading order on win/lose-only model. Which by far is fine enough to illustrate that there will be a spread in winrate even if all are equal.

 

Your argument actually just says that the spread will become larger without beeing allowed to blame it on a single players (un)skilledness. And that was all I wanted to illustrate. That it is extremely dangerous to take into account win ratio as the only significant determination a players skill.

 

Vor 6 Stunden, GA_Tirpitz sagte:

Conclusions

 

• Try to voice your worries with clear and simple analogies the broad cummunity can understand. Don't  abuse other analogies weak spots.

 

 

Now seeing that you understand math but didn't understand the task at all, you have probably been with math department. Please see your local high energy physics theory group. (May be you want to get drunk or high before they will be easier to (under)stand that way.)

[GA_Tirpitz]

Vor 43 Minuten, DJ_Die sagte:

 Its 12 variables vs 11 variables + you as the only constant (discounting divisions).  

 

Well actually under the assumption that all players incorporating their very own ship are equally skilled all 24 variables are the same. (leading order)

Giving credit to slight differences you get 24 variables that (almost evenly spread) gives you a genral 50% chance for each one plus/minus an offset (next to leading order).

 

Stripping player and ship off common variable you get a very ugly tensoric input on 2*12 duals, the individual model of the internal structure of the duals is yet to make. Taking in the maps potential you got to add at least two new variables for each player and each ship at least one. Regarding modules, modifications and  you name it let's start with R³ 12*12*12 tensor. I'll do the simulation programming if you do all the mathematic models you want to involve.

 

PS:

As side effect you may write an article about why assumingly neither USA nor CCCP took the pain and funds to develope a model in between Lancester's Law and Salvo Model.

[DJ_Die]

@GA_Tirpitz: but such assumption is incorrect. These models only work for battles where individual skill makes little difference. In the game, however, it doesnt work that way. Higher win rate does mean youre better than the average player as you can sway some battles your way with your skill. Just as low win rate means you let your team down at critical moments. So allowing people who dont know to pull their weight to buy a high tier ship is bad. Especially because majority of players at those tiers is experienced to some extent. 

[GA_Tirpitz]

Vor 12 Minuten, DJ_Die sagte:

@GA_Tirpitz These models only work for battles where individual skill makes little difference.

Weee, once again most people want other gamers to be eyelevel with them. And asking them what they understand as eyelevel it summs up to the idealistic but wrong assumption that all player contribute equally to victories and leads to an avarage win rate of (50+/-2)% .

 

And of course if one cuts off all players below some whatever thrashold the newly formed set will again lead to an avarage of 50% win rate,  just because one can't win battles without other people loosing it. So If you take the most skilled subset of 24 gamers and just let them play against each other the avarage win rate of them will be 50%, taking into accound tied matches it will fall below 50% but the average win rate can't get above 50%... So with only 24 gamers the actual distribution will be even more flat, standard deviation will be larger and correllation will need to be regarded as well.

 

So lets assume a deviation of 5%. To keep it esy to the public. One of of that 24 captains has a measured win rate of 55% on a finite amount of games. So one best can say that his true win rate is somehere betwen 50% and 60% . By no justification you can claim that antoher captain with say 53% win rate is significantly worse than the one with 55%.

 

1. So using the desired but unrealistic model generates an average win rate of 50%. Basically telling people that no matter how fitfully Matchmaking picks his peers you still would lose half of your battles on dreamland servers.
2. Taking that overly simplyfied model a good scientist is able to make predictions on how reality will influence the real idialistic distribution. And thats all we needed.
3. So what people should have learned from this is 
   1. 50% is (maximum) average win rate. 
   2. Statistics say that even under perfect conditions the mayority od gamers will find themself betwen 48% and 52% and not dead on 50%
   3. So don't overrate a win rate of 53% and don't worry a win rate of just 47% (within 2 sigma)
   4. Limiting matches to elitist players will actually not increase your win rate. (at least not significantly, pn for further information on that)
4. Check the Topics name, if it reads: "Statistics on gameplay: Numeric engine implementation for predicting outcomes on given matchmaking", go ahead!

 

So let's start a little new analogy: We both happen to share a 7 year old daughter (if neccessary she's adopted) asking to become mother of a pink elephant.

 

Me: Doesn't work there are no pink elephants. So, No.

You: We can employ genetics ...

Me: Well elephants don't mate with humas. So, No.

You: There is in vitro fertilization ...

Me: Well you are not designed to give birth to an baby elephant. So, No.

You: Maybe we...

Me *calling the cops*

 

Got it now?

[philjd]

Guys - too much stats chat for a Sunday evening - might come back one evening in the week.

 

Nice opening post though OP. Good to see people expressing their views on the game in a expressive and thoughtful way.

[AnotherDuck]

I've taken statistics classes many years ago, so I don't really remember much of it (especially specific calculations), but I think I can usually figure it out well enough to understand roughly how it works.

 

Having higher tier locked off only to better players (however you want to define that) certainly won't increase anyone's winrate. It's just going to draw the overall winrate towards 50%, and since the overall winrate of the better players is above 50%, it's going to get lower. The quality of the gameplay might be better, on the other hand. It'll be more challenging, since you don't have noobs to farm, and more skilled players opposing you (which more often than not is more important than having skilled teammates). I don't think this is what most player who want skill-based MM or something of the sort actually want. I think most of those just want to have better teammates, but don't realise it would also mean better opponents. But that's like, just my opinion.

 

Then there's always the problem of defining what a good player is. The most accurate stat for how good someone is at playing in a way that gives their team victory is winrate, since that's the only stat that directly measures it. However, for any given number of games, it's also the least accurate for a few reasons. Statistics like damage that are a range rather than a binary number tend to normalise their averages faster, and damage done depends less on the team as a whole and more on the local situation in a match (i.e. how well you can outplay the ships you're currently engaging with). But the moment you add any of these to MM, you're going to skew those very statistics, as explained above.

 

In short, having a baseline skill for higher tiers isn't a bad idea. The problems comes with how you define that baseline, and that it's not something everyone would want, even those who'd pass that baseline.

[___V_E_N_O_M___]

14 hours ago, GA_Tirpitz said:

Well thanks DJ_Die, let me know about what standard deviation you got for a 1000 instance binomial distribution with p=q=0.5 ?

 

In real mathematics it gives you sqrt(250).

 

So with one sigma window you get 500+/-sigma and according to DIN 1333,  DAkkS-DKD-3 and IS= 31-0:1992 that gives roundet of properly a (50+/-2)%.  I am very well aware of ISO 80000-1 but that is quite ambigous when it comes to uncertainties. GUM will basically deliver the same as DIN 1333 did, at least in this case. But to keep you satisfied extending DIN 1333 to DAkkS-DKD-3 recommendations:

 

(50,0+/-1,6)%.

 

Again in full accordance with GUM, as 0,58/1 is > 0,05 and 0,08/1,58 > 0,05.

 

In case you are US citizen following ASME which basically simplyfies GUM again it should be the same.

 

Taking in account an "almost" even skill distribution among all teammates on can calculate p and q for each of the 1000 games individually. I just don't took the effort to code some python to handle the matrices for it's fundametal that trace is > 0. So with refining the model as metioned, p and q will aquiere ranges, spreading variance, eventually flaten out the distribution as sum over non equivalent Bernoulli Events. Thought there might be a peak shift, too, wich is highly determined by the term "almost". By the way, i just was not in the mood for skew either.

 

So what exactly did you want to tell me?

 

PS:

In case you took statistics classes for engineers, may you should see math deparment for the real deal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wtf is a daks dkd 3, you lost me at the point you started talking Klingon....

[El2aZeR]

14 hours ago, Riselotte said:

To my memory, at least Atago precedes it and might have been the first

14 hours ago, hgbn_dk said:

Atago was first

 

First premium ship was Iwaki Alpha. 

Quite honestly I don't even remember what the first buyable premium ship was (I think it was Atlanta), but Atago wasn't it. After all Atago replaced the Kitakami when the decision was made to remove the latter.

 

Still, for all intents and purposes Tirpitz has been in this game since practically forever.

[ForlornSailor]

1 hour ago, ___V_E_N_O_M___ said:

Wtf is a daks dkd 3, you lost me at the point you started talking Klingon....

 

He must be german. DIN 1333 and DAkkS-DKD-3 set methods to round numbers. In Germany, this is tought in Kindergarden and first grade, to raise new generations of bureaucrats. (plz dont hate. im just tryin to be funny)

[Sir_Grzegorz]

I do know what discussion is about, but I am not able to figure out why.

You could buy Salem for real cash (around 600$ it was) now the price is less ridiculus for a BB.

When they start to sell OP T10 CV, OP T10 DD, then we will have problem.

I am probably wrong here but it is very seldom that win depends on me driving a BB but very often on enemy DD/CA making mistake(s) when I drive BB.

 

When you go into closed beta you got Gremyaschy, Sims, and something else? (My first premiums).

[hgbn_dk]

3 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

 

First premium ship was Iwaki Alpha. 

Quite honestly I don't even remember what the first buyable premium ship was (I think it was Atlanta), but Atago wasn't it. After all Atago replaced the Kitakami when the decision was made to remove the latter.

 

Still, for all intents and purposes Tirpitz has been in this game since practically forever.

I meant at T-VIII

[Shaka_D]

I do think we overthink things too much in this game trying to analyse too much where it's not necessary. OP's comments, some really valid, but some way off target, can be summarised into a few simple points:

 

Basically, it's a game

• If your overall stats after a fair amount of games are bad, then shut up - You only talk the talk when you can walk the walk
• If you're a good player, be tolerant with others and don't try make the horse drink when you've lead him to water - we know how this plays out
• If you have all these wonderful ideas for WG, just stop it, they do what they want when they want and only on the odd occasion do they mess up so badly it causes mass havoc which forces changes
• If ships are too expensive, don't buy them - stop feeding the troll you name as WG
• Everything happens for a reason with WG (almost) - they do things because they've thought about it first (mostly), and their primary motivation will always be self-interest (mostly)
• Most people's complaints are motivated by self-interest - we want something that benefits us in some way, screw the rest.
• Stop expecting the mm to be fair, stop waiting for the dice to roll in your favour, this is gamblers fallacy.
• No-one is out to get you, well, except WG who want as much money as you can give them.
• Lunch should be eaten at lunch time! Similar for breakfast and dinner, but beer can be drunk anytime (except before and during driving) and hardcore drugs are always bad for you
• All things in moderation

I'm all out of garbage now, thanks for the outlet. Love to all, and peace Bruvs

[HaachamaShipping]

9 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

 

First premium ship was Iwaki Alpha. 

Quite honestly I don't even remember what the first buyable premium ship was (I think it was Atlanta), but Atago wasn't it. After all Atago replaced the Kitakami when the decision was made to remove the latter.

 

Still, for all intents and purposes Tirpitz has been in this game since practically forever.

First buyables, I think, but am not sure, were Sims and Yuubari, as bundles to get access to CBT.