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

No 1 in after battle list.

winrate or player skills? will this be much more better, to know about player skills?   

80 members have voted

  1. 1. winrate is a bad name. real is: TEAMRATE. will be better to measure player skill by % --how often-- he was No1 in AFTER-BATTLE list ?

    • yes
      15
    • no
      65

108 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
609 posts
19,579 battles

what di you think? 

 

to be No1 on the list after battle, 

 

and be there... like...  very often

 

says that about player quality?

 

nobody is measuring this......................................

abt.jpg

  • Boring 3
  • Bad 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TORAZ]
Beta Tester
13,924 posts
19,751 battles

So if I camp in the back all the time and farm damage I'm a good player according to you?

 

WR is a good measure of player skill provided a sufficient sample of matches played. If you can't get a good WR you suck, plain and simple.

  • Cool 15
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,971 posts
12,852 battles
4 minutes ago, Milan_G_ said:

what di you think? 

 

to be No1 on the list after battle, 

 

and be there... like...  very often

 

says that about player quality?

 

nobody is measuring this......................................

abt.jpg

 

The conqueror at the back farming useless fire damage says "Is it chuff".

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
609 posts
19,579 battles

you will be never first in the table, when you farm something in the mapcorner. 

ones when you also be the first..@El2aZeR will realize that :DDDDD

 

top 1 here...is about xp...not pure damage. ehmmmm

  • Funny 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FABER]
[FABER]
Players
617 posts
6,307 battles

This doesn’t make sense!

Player skill is already measured by PR which comprehend damage as the most important factor, then kills and only in minor part win rate.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,133 posts
7,085 battles
21 minutes ago, Milan_G_ said:

top 1 here...is about xp...not pure damage. ehmmmm

and damage is not related to experience earned after the battle? Experience means nothing when it comes to skill, that's why potatoes damage farmers can sometimes keep their stars in ranked even if they didn't have an impact on the battle outcome when it was needed and were actually the reason their team lost.

weren't you the one recently complaining about the "bug" of HE shells starting fires?

And now this?

You have a high winrate? means you are strong enough to impact the game in favor of your team. High winrate, high skill.

You have less than 50% winrate? 

You start threads about why winrate means nothing.

 

 

gitgud.thumb.jpg.9f7ce4e6f693ecf0ab6c9abe5e2a4261.jpg

 

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
609 posts
19,579 battles
3 minutes ago, Bics93 said:

This doesn’t make sense!

to have option, how many times was player No1 in table, has no sense ??????????????????????????

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FABER]
[FABER]
Players
617 posts
6,307 battles
3 minuti fa, Milan_G_ ha scritto:

to have option, how many times was player No1 in table, has no sense ??????????????????????????

 

I’m sorry, you have to write more clearly as English is not my first language :cap_hmm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
609 posts
19,579 battles
6 minutes ago, elblancogringo said:

about the "bug" of HE shells starting fires?

???????

 

non penetration HE.----- sure cannt cause damage!!! (extrem BUG in game mechanic now) 

 

show me, how cann a fire damage 30mm steel. ????

do you think that the fire  on battlefield is the same like in steel factory ?? :DDD yeaa youu sure think that :DDDD

  • Funny 2
  • Boring 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FABER]
[FABER]
Players
617 posts
6,307 battles
5 minuti fa, Milan_G_ ha scritto:

???????

 

non penetration HE.----- sure cannt cause damage!!! (extrem BUG in game mechanic now) 

 

show me, how cann a fire damage 30mm steel. ????

do you thing that the fire  on battlefield is the same like in steel factory ?? :DDD yeaa youu sure think that :DDDD

 

After 15.000 matches your knowledge of game mechanics is so poor to the point of thinking that this is a bug?

Well, I think your problem is not in your team composition :Smile_coin:

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,133 posts
7,085 battles
1 minute ago, Milan_G_ said:

???????

 

non penetration HE.----- sure cannt cause damage!!! (extrem BUG in game mechanic now) 

 

show me, how cann a fire damage 30mm steel. ????

do you think that the fire  on battlefield is the same like in steel factory ?? :DDD yeaa youu sure think that :DDDD

stop trolling and give us a break already 

you really have nothing more to do?

This is a game mechanic. I already told you to read the wiki, but apparently it's too hard for you:

"Non-penetrations (bounce/ricochet) will always deal 0 damage, regardless of AP or HE (the latter cannot ricochet). However, HE shells still has a chance to start fires or break modules with its splash damage"

 

deal with it.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[OGHF]
Players
1,139 posts
20,362 battles
3 minutes ago, Milan_G_ said:

???????

 

non penetration HE.----- sure cannt cause damage!!! (extrem BUG in game mechanic now) 

 

show me, how cann a fire damage 30mm steel. ????

do you think that the fire  on battlefield is the same like in steel factory ?? :DDD yeaa youu sure think that :DDDD

 

Tell you what, tell that to the crew of HMS Sheffield and the Amazon class frigates that burned to death in the Falklands!!!!

 

HMS-Sheffield-Falklands-war-exocet-1014x487.thumb.jpg.262e9f26b73aee3acadb31a20d05332d.jpg

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,133 posts
7,085 battles
1 minute ago, Cyclops_ said:

 

Tell you what, tell that to the crew of HMS Sheffield and the Amazon class frigates that burned to death in the Falklands!!!!

 

HMS-Sheffield-Falklands-war-exocet-1014x487.thumb.jpg.262e9f26b73aee3acadb31a20d05332d.jpg

surely that boat was made of wood

because hOw CaaN a FirE DaMaGe 30mm sTeeL. ???? Do YoU ThiNk thAt thE FiRe  On baTtlefIeld iS tHe saMe liKe in StEel fAcToRy ??

  • Funny 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WGP2W]
Beta Tester
1,275 posts
6,574 battles
17 minutes ago, Bics93 said:

This doesn’t make sense!

Player skill is already measured by PR which comprehend damage as the most important factor, then kills and only in minor part win rate.

I think a high pr requires mostly a lot of focus to the game. I notice that the more serious I play the higher my pr is, and the more I browse YouTube the lower it is. It doesn’t really matter winrate wise.

 

Being on top of the scoreboard is even less accurate, op...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
3,279 posts
19,066 battles
1 hour ago, Milan_G_ said:

what di you think? 

 

to be No1 on the list after battle, 

 

and be there... like...  very often

 

says that about player quality?

 

nobody is measuring this......................................

abt.jpg

Scoring the top is easy. Just farm damage and there you go. However wr is another story. Its a good/best indicator to player skill. 

 

 No, WR is not just luck. No, people with high WR are not that lucky to get good teams. And no, they are not getting better teams because they have premium time either. (Wanted to say these before anyone comes with those stupid claims) they are just good players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TORAZ]
Beta Tester
13,924 posts
19,751 battles
52 minutes ago, Milan_G_ said:

top 1 here...is about xp...not pure damage. ehmmmm

 

After 14k battles you still don't know how exp is calculated.

Honestly I am not even surprised.

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 3
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,092 posts
13,426 battles

Ships are not only 30mm of steel. There are a lot of flammables, ammunition, paint covering steel, lubricant oils, fuel oil, fabrics, wood etc. With high enough temperature everything will burn. Even aluminium. HE shell in game explodes, and sets everything flammable like paint on fire, even if not penning the steel, explodes on the contact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
330 posts
8,844 battles
32 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

 

After 14k battles you still don't know how exp is calculated.

Honestly I am not even surprised.

This. Absolutely this.

There are lots of things that don't get a lot of XP, like spotting damage, proper positioning, setting up good ambushes, providing cover in the form of smoke for teammates who might be in trouble, and anticipating those moments long before they happen. This stuff earns you nearly no XP but have a ton of impact on the game. I may not be the highest damage dealer in my Gearing or get lots of XP every game with it, for example, but I win more games in it than other ships I own because the DD class is probably the only one where I actually bothered to learn all these subtle little things that influence the behavior and survivability of my teams.

PSA: OP, You have to learn what your ship can do to help the win, and what weaknesses you should avoid allowing the enemy team to exploit. Every ship has a truckload of weaknesses and a couple of strengths. Learn to use those and win!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BODEM]
Players
782 posts
6,959 battles
53 minutes ago, ghostbuster_ said:

Scoring the top is easy. Just farm damage and there you go. However wr is another story. Its a good/best indicator to player skill. 

 

 No, WR is not just luck. No, people with high WR are not that lucky to get good teams. And no, they are not getting better teams because they have premium time either. (Wanted to say these before anyone comes with those stupid claims) they are just good players.

I never heard any sound logic as to how team winrate has anything to do with how good a single player is. I could never really contribute any battle to one player alone, certainly not when the rest of the team is doing their own thing. The only time I'd believe a winrate would tell me anything if I could see a person's division stats. If his winrate would overlap with division time, I would use his/her winrate as a viable statistic to measure one's skill level. But personal winrating and PR are both irrelevant for me anyways.

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[THESO]
Weekend Tester, In AlfaTesters
3,331 posts
8,144 battles
3 hours ago, Milan_G_ said:

what di you think? 

 

to be No1 on the list after battle, 

 

and be there... like...  very often

 

says that about player quality?

 

nobody is measuring this......................................

abt.jpg

 

3 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

So if I camp in the back all the time and farm damage I'm a good player according to you?

 

WR is a good measure of player skill provided a sufficient sample of matches played. If you can't get a good WR you suck, plain and simple.

 

I would Disagree with both to be Honest.

Because both are not exactly accurate and both are just too easily influenced by alot of other Factors.

 

 

1.

Being the Top Player Tells you pretty much nothing about how the Player Played.

He might have been Awesome of course.

But he also might have been a Completely useless ***** that just Farmed Damage and Sat back.

 

So being the Top of the List is not really a good Reference.

After all you never Know if the Player is just an Selfish **** Farming Exp.

Or actually someone Playing Real Good and thus Heading the List.

 

And Pls note a further Issue here is the Class. Because Standing at the Top of the List as a CV is Pretty easy. While standing at the Top as a DD is Pretty Hard.

Simply because CVs have a Much Bigger Portfolio of Abilities (Which is currently not Balanced by the way) and thus ends up on Top of the list much more Often.

 

 

2.

WinRate can be an Indicator for an Extremely Good Player. But at the same Time its Unfortunately not an Indicator that can be Used Generally.

The Game is a Team Game. And the Influence a Single Player has is Limited.

Really Strong and Good Players which are just Absurdly Skilled and thus can Carry a Team even against a Tremendous Disadvantage.

Will make a Real Dent in the Winratio that will Overcome the Statistical Normalization and thus Break out.

 

But for the more Common Players which are Simply going Good and are doing their Job. The Winrate is Often a very Random Stat.

Because if they are Unlucky and end up in alot of Bad Teams they might be Good and Compensate for 1 or 2 Bad Players. But they cant Carry a Team alone.

So they Lose Anyways. Meanwhile another Player which is rather Bad and not even able to hold his own. Will often end up being Carried anyways and thus Win despite not being Good.

 

Taking myself for Example.

I am a Decent BB Player. I can hold my own in Battleship and will often be Strong enough to even Defeat Higher Tiered BBs on the Enemy Team.

I am able to Read the Situation and Act Accordingly to keep the Flank I went to under Control and allow the Team to get a Victory out.

But I am not Good enough to Carry a Team.

So Despite that. I am actually running pretty Badly in Terms of Winrate on BBs.

 

At the same time. I suck at Destroyers. I mean that. I am absolutely not a DD Player. I will almost always lose against Enemy DDs on the Front.

And I just too often dont know how to React to Changes in the Situation thus making mistakes getting myself Killed and not being able to Provide Chances to my Team.

Yet. For Whatever Reason my Winrate on DDs is Better than for my BBs. I Generally need to be Carried in a DD and yet I win more often than in my BBs where I can at least hold my own.

 

 

 

 

 

Ultimately.

A Good Player is not that Easily Identified Really.

It Depends a Great Deal on the Class he Plays. But also on Luck and Situation.

 

For Example.

 

A CV is often an Incredible Deciding Factor in a Match. And also has a Huge Carry Potential and can Outbalance several Bad Players if the Player Playing it is Good.

Thats why for a CV the Winratio is really Telling on that Player being Good or Bad.

Because him being Good or Bad will Greatly Affect the Chances of a Team to Win a Match.

 

For a DD however? A DD can Play absolutely Great and yet Lose. He has a Big Potential of being Lucky or Unlucky as well.

Thats why if I want to know if someone is a Good DD Player. I will mostly Look for his K/D Ratio and Respectively for the Kill per Match and Survival Ratio.

Because a Good DD is the DD which Survives to the End of the Battle while Spotting for his Team and Taking out Enemys in Sneak Attacks or Pressure them.

But Survival Rate alone would mean I could not see if a Player might just Sit back in the Rear and be Useless as a DD.

Thats why I check the Ratio of Kills vs Death. A DD which Survives alot of Battles while also Killing alot of Enemies and thus having a Good K/D Ratio.

Will usually be a DD that is Worthwhile to the Team.

 

For a BB the thing I look for is usually Damage and Kills per Battle. A BB is the Bulk Force of a Team. He Deals out Damage and Takes out Enemies on Battle.

If he got alot of Kills but little Damage he might be a Killstealer. While if he got only good Damage but no Kills he is likely just Farming Damage without taking any Decisive Actions.

A BB which has both a High Average Damage and a good Kill Ratio per Battle. Will usually be a BB which is Capable of Holding itself. A Player who knows when to Push and how to Hurt the Enemy while also knowing when to Fall back and just Keep the Enemy in Check is an Importand Asset to the Team.

 

And Cruisers are an entirely Special Case for themselves because they fill so many Different Roles.

It makes no Sense to Judge an AA Cruiser Player who is mostly Providing AA and Radar etc to his Team to keep Enemy DDs and CVs away. Based on his Damage or Kill Ratio.

But it also makes no Sense to Judge an HE Spamming Cruiser on Shot down Planes or Spotting Damage.

Thats why for Cruisers I actually look at the Relation of Winrate and Experience Earned.

A Cruiser can be very Influental on the Battle if Played Right. And Seeing if that Cruiser is actually Providing that Influence is something that can be Seen by him Earning Experience.

So a Cruiser which Earns alot of Exp per Battle AND has a Decent Winrate. Will usually also be a Cruiser that is Capable of Providing Support and Skills to the Team.

 

 

 

Well then.

Of Course this is just the Humble Opinion of an Average Casual Potato Player :)

So your Free to Disagree with me as well.

But I for my Part will Judge based on this for now.

And not Pay too much Attention to any Single Stat Regardless of that Players actual Role.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
3,279 posts
19,066 battles
7 minutes ago, FukushuNL said:

I never heard any sound logic as to how team winrate has anything to do with how good a single player is. I could never really contribute any battle to one player alone, certainly not when the rest of the team is doing their own thing. The only time I'd believe a winrate would tell me anything if I could see a person's division stats. If his winrate would overlap with division time, I would use his/her winrate as a viable statistic to measure one's skill level. But personal winrating and PR are both irrelevant for me anyways.

Better player= has more impact on game, does more his team to win= higher WR. Simple as this. In div or not. In div wr can get higher because of the comunication between those players.but also to achieve high wr in div, players in that div should be good nd should do tbeir part to win. 

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TORAZ]
Beta Tester
13,924 posts
19,751 battles
10 minutes ago, Sunleader said:

WinRate can be an Indicator for an Extremely Good Player. But at the same Time its Unfortunately not an Indicator that can be Used Generally.

 

Ofc, which is why you need a sufficient sample. Eventually the battles you cannot influence will even out, leaving only the battles you can influence as a deciding factor in your stats.

But eventually WR becomes representative. It is statistically possible to have incredibly lucky streaks to get a good/bad WR despite player skill suggesting otherwise, but the chances of that happening are literally astronomical. Someone actually calculated that picking up a grain of sand in the Sahara, throwing said grain in a random direction then picking up the very same grain again is several times more likely than getting a good/bad WR purely by luck.

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
1,345 posts
10,449 battles
18 minutes ago, Sunleader said:

Unlucky

WR is a safe indicator after many games. Luck evens out after a large number of battles. A large sample size is required for statistics to be significant.

Being top player could say a few things about the player but not conclusive.

PR is also a good indicator but it is skewed in favor of damage and kills. 

 

If you want to assess a player you need to look all the available information. And there is lots of it.

 

However, someone that has 60% WR is better than someone that has 40% WR. That is a safe bet.

Now, someone with 50% is not necessarily better than someone with 49%.

 

 

 

 

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[THESO]
Weekend Tester, In AlfaTesters
3,331 posts
8,144 battles
5 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

 

Ofc, which is why you need a sufficient sample. Eventually the battles you cannot influence will even out, leaving only the battles you can influence as a deciding factor in your stats.

But eventually WR becomes representative. It is statistically possible to have incredibly lucky streaks to get a good/bad WR despite player skill suggesting otherwise, but the chances of that happening are literally astronomical. Someone actually calculated that picking up a grain of sand in the Sahara, throwing said grain in a random direction then picking up the very same grain again is several times more likely than getting a good/bad WR purely by luck.

 

4 minutes ago, Saltface said:

WR is a safe indicator after many games. Luck evens out after a large number of battles. A large sample size is required for statistics to be significant.

Being top player could say a few things about the player but not conclusive.

PR is also a good indicator but it is skewed in favor of damage and kills. 

 

If you want to assess a player you need to look all the available information. And there is lots of it.

 

However, someone that has 60% WR is better than someone that has 40% WR. That is a safe bet.

Now, someone with 50% is not necessarily better than someone with 49%.

 

 

 

 

 

And this is the Thing there.

If you cant tell a Good Player Apart from a Bad Player before he has Reached a Level where he can effectively Carry half the Team and thus Achieves 60% Winratio in several Thousand Games.

Then there is little use in it.

 

Of Course at 10k Games if someone has a very Strong Difference in Winrate and basicly Runs 60% Victories.

Then Sure Yeah this Guy must be Good.

But is he Better or Worse than the other Guy which had 7k Games and 57% Winrate ?

 

And what about Players which got 9k Games but still sit around 46% :)

Statistical Inaccuracy can easily make up 5%

 

Winrate is Just not a Good General Measure.

Its an Indicator. But not a Definitive Measure.

And moreover its also lacking at actually making Differences in higher Ratios.

Because a CV Player with 70% Winratio would likely not be Better than a DD Player with 60% Winratio.

Because lets Face a Fact here. A CV has vastly more Influence on the Battle. The Guy Playing mostly DDs is likely an Absurdly Good DD Player.

But he Simply does not have the kind of Influence that a CV Player has. And thus will be moved much closer to the 50% Average Ratio.

 

 

As I said ;)

You are Fine to Disagree.

But I will Keep Evaluating this myself and Based on Different Factors.

Trying to Force it onto a Single Indicator is never Accurate and will never be enough to make an Proper Decision on this :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×