Criteria for Success

[Baylor98]

 

What would people feel was needed for them to consider a battle 'OK' or satisfactory.  Assuming that your team winning is a given, would it be causing more HP damage than you receive? sinking at least 1 ship? 2 ships? avoiding being sunk? what?

[N00Boo7]

For me to not be a land slide win/lose game.

[Captain_KriegWurst]

To crush my enemies, see them driven before me, and to read their salt in chat. 

[DFens_666]

Really depends on the ship and class im playing...

But mostly i rate damage as my personal fun factor (except winning ofc). Ofc a high damage game without a kill feels a bit "meh" but atleast you had good damage. Sometimes, a low damage game can still be satisfactory afterwards, if i managed to have a high place in the XP table. Usually it means, that I still did good compared to my other teammates, because the enemies were just really bad.

 

Its a bit of everything, but if you get good damage, it means you had those "wow moments" (with BBs good RNG devstrike, or DDs with a good torpedo salvo), they increase the fun factor.

[thiextar]

13 minutes ago, Baylor98 said:

 

What would people feel was needed for them to consider a battle 'OK' or satisfactory.  Assuming that your team winning is a given, would it be causing more HP damage than you receive? sinking at least 1 ship? 2 ships? avoiding being sunk? what?

I usually consider a match to be a success if damage is in six digits.

[_Teob_]

In tier 10 DDs, I consider it an acceptable result if I do over 100k dmg, I kill at least one enemy ship and win the game.

It's difficult for me to manage all 3 so I often rate my matches just "meh".

[El2aZeR]

When I've considered my play vital to my team's success. High damage and kills are a bonus but not necessary.

[Yedwy]

Besides winning? Getting top 3 on scoreboard preferably with over 2k base xp

[LemonadeWarriorITA]

For me it is the winning part. As soon as we can't lose it anymore I alt tab to do something else.

[Saltface]

25 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

 

When I've considered my play vital to my team's success. High damage and kills are a bonus but not necessary.

 

I could not say it better.

 

There are games where you don’t score high, you don’t have kills but you know you played a good game. 

 

And by by the way, unless you are delusional you know when you played a really good game. You can’t lie to yourself, or can you?

 

[ImperialAdmiral]

Close game that is either a win or lose and you are one of at least few standing or dying in the very end.

 

Because even a win that is a roflstomp and ends in 7 minutes is garbage and waste of time.

[Europizza]

For me it's when the round was a good challenge for both teams over a well fought battle. I enjoy smart tactics over brute force. Good second for me personally is ending in the top 3 XP of my team.

[Timberjac]

Participate in a fun and open battle, regardless of whether I've done a great job or I've just done my job allowing others to shine, even if the battle was a defeat.

 

Unfortunately, the WG/WoWS system only asks when you have had a great game (even if it was boring) not when you have had a difficult game to take open to both sides, even if you have lost
 

[rnat]

Out-think, out-play and out-dmg/out-spot the enemy.

Seeing my moves and (admittedly primitive) schemes work is imo among the most satisfying things this game has to offer.

Massive bonus points for dragging my team away from the glue pots if possible. (out-played 2 teams at once )

[Miessa3]

1 hour ago, LemonadeWarrior said:

For me it is the winning part. As soon as we can't lose it anymore I alt tab to do something else.

Please don't do that or stop trolling.

I've seen too many games that were turned around and still closly won by the (seemingly already beaten) enemy killing of the almost full HP afk ship at the end.

 

On Topic:

Basically what El2azer said.

Those games that your play made to a win (or even close loss confirming a worthy and noble enemy) or even turnaround (especially the solo warriors) are what is the most fun about this game.

Bonus points for every full sack of salt collected from the enemy.

[Excavatus]

I measure my success with my fun... Not with any numbers or anything. I've had a lot of fun when I lost and didn't have any fun on some wins.

 

but usually, I have fun when I do good, kill people, carry games, win battles, etc etc...

then I can say I measure my success to my contribution into that victory and the help I gave to my teammates.

 

[veslingr]

1 hour ago, Baylor98 said:

 

What would people feel was needed for them to consider a battle 'OK' or satisfactory.  Assuming that your team winning is a given, would it be causing more HP damage than you receive? sinking at least 1 ship? 2 ships? avoiding being sunk? what?

Win game - contribute to win with one ore more of major things - spotting, capping, DMG....

[Uglesett]

Dunno really. It's probably easier to list what's not a success. A roflstomp game (either direction) typically feels unsatisfying. Even if we win there are so many cases where I just felt my own presence was completely irrelevant (despite doing a perfectly adequate job).

 

But other than that.... as long as the game felt fun I usually grade it as a success. Doesn't necessarily mean I got a ton of kills or did a lot of damage. Have had plenty of games where my job has mostly been to be a nuisance to the enemy team that they can't kill but also can't ignore, and suddenly the rest of my team comes rolling over them from the other flank. I like those games even if I don't necessarily get the big damage numbers.

 

Sure, nothing beats a close fought Kraken for sheer adrenaline, but those are few and far between in my case at least.

[Verblonde]

Depends rather on things like ship, tier, and opposition, not to mention how I tend to do in whatever ship I'm playing usually.

 

My bare minimum is to basically suck less than usual e.g. I'm reliably bloody awful in cruisers and BBs, so in either of those two classes, actually contributing a bit to my team, and not actively being a liability is 'better than usual', so yay. For DDs, which I tend to be marginally less awful in, anything less than actively helping my team win is a disappointment.

 

For a potato, that's about as ambitious as I get at the moment; maybe one day the aim will be to actively carry, but my skill is simply not there yet.

[hgbn_dk]

When being bottom tier I deem it a success if I'm above the higher tier ships in the team result screen. Otherwise its purely based on the fun factor of the given match.

[GarrusBrutus]

2 hours ago, Baylor98 said:

 

What would people feel was needed for them to consider a battle 'OK' or satisfactory.  Assuming that your team winning is a given, would it be causing more HP damage than you receive? sinking at least 1 ship? 2 ships? avoiding being sunk? what?

Depends on the ship, gamemode, teamcomposition. oposing team composition, tier, etc. etc.

But in general getting all the rewards like high calibre, confederate, kraken and witherer are indicators i have had a fun match. 

[LemonadeWarriorITA]

25 minutes ago, Miessa3 said:

Please don't do that or stop trolling.

I've seen too many games that were turned around and still closly won by the (seemingly already beaten) enemy killing of the almost full HP afk ship at the end.

I figured out the alt-tabbing part ;)

[biker_618]

Great battle - going to the wire, challenging, fun ...

 

Good battle - similar as above but one team won because of brain fart in last moments ... feels like gifted to you/them

 

OK battle - both teams have less than half survivors

 

meh battle - running over enemy like he is not there ... for shooting training i`m going coop ...
                      or you have to drag (doing well) or be dragged but not because of bad play like lucky shot on you so you spend majority of game trying to stay alive ...
                      or silly spawn in slowest ship in game and because of that not being able to make an impact ...

 

bad battle - underperforming, having brain fart in last moments ...

 

extremely bad battle - being on receiving end when one team run over other with no or minimal losses - MM at his best

[Tyrendian89]

as dumb as it sounds - but I am happy with a battle if I had fun in it. Which can't be defined by any strict yes/no criteria, but involves a lot of factors... To name just a few:

• In some ships, and on some days, I care about winning more than in/on others (grinding said ship, missions requiring a win etc)
• I get to play my ship to its strengths at least somewhat (aka not chasing after coward BBs running away in their spawn all game when I'm in a Mino or DD).
• Both teams feel like they were at least trying - landslides are dumb, as are games where everybody just camps in spawn for 15min until one side wins by points...
• Particularly idiotic moves (on either side) can be a detriment to fun as well for me - I dont particularly want to have a win handed to me because a particular mouthbreather on the enemy team sailed his Yamato broadside to my Repu at 5km (different thing entirely if I feel like I managed to sneak my way into his flank with a clever move - see how subjective this is for me?), even if that looks quite nice in the statistics...

[Von_Pruss]

For me also team- and game lenght-wise a balanced match. Meaning no land slide wins or losses. In this case, I just know what I did wrong, when we loose.

 

If a handful of players rushes into the enemy fleet and instantly dies, in most cases a bunch of mixed up average players just cannot compensate for this power loss. And you see these matches a lot these days on EU server. Yes, you also "profit" from this, if the enemy team does it xp- and credit-wise, but it is nothing I am willing to take as compensation for the lack of fun I have.