Sprint 5: can anyone beat 188 matches, 34.57% winrate for r1 ?

[AlwaysBadLuckWithTeams]

So I've been wondering before the season, with only 10 stars needed, how many matches can one actually play? 50 ? 100 ? Is triple digits actually possible ? And then I stumbled across this player. When I first met him, he had 111 matches at the safe r3. I kept an eye on him, and finally, after 188 matches in a sprint season, he finally got there. Can you really be this bad ? Or as he would probably call it: unlucky with stupid teams ? Or did he intentionally throw matches to get a counter as high as possible for the lulz ? I am still flabbergasted. I surely will watch him how he is doing in the 6th season....

 

[ColonelPete]

Being AFK most of the time, you can.

[invicta2012]

7 hours ago, Caljostro said:

So I've been wondering before the season, with only 10 stars needed, how many matches can one actually play? 50 ? 100 ? Is triple digits actually possible ?

Sure, getting to Rank 1 in the first Sprint took me 100 games. The last one took me 21. Both were fun. This sort of thing can be considered stat shaming, btw...

[DFens_666]

 

 

[Bics93]

8k average damage: so he manages 1 torp hit or 1 fire or 2 BB AP pens every match, not bad  

[Redcap375]

Seen worse..

 

And no i'm not surprised.  You seen most of the players in ranked?  They are god awful. 

22 minutes ago, invicta2012 said:

Go and stat shame somewhere else.

 

So you would want a ship like this on your team? Thought not.

 

 

[El2aZeR]

31 minutes ago, invicta2012 said:

Both were fun.

 

Have you ever considered that you should not be allowed to have fun at the expense of the players who have to put up with you?

Thought not.

[DFens_666]

7 minutes ago, Redcap375 said:

Seen worse..

 

And no i'm not surprised.  You seen most of the players in ranked?  They are god awful. 

 

So you would want a ship like this on your team? Thought not.

 

https://wows-numbers.com/de/season/105,Sprint-5/?order=battles__desc#leaderboard

Some sub 30% in there Is it a form of art already?

 

Also, not sure if its shaming if its easily accessable and you dont intentionally target them

[elblancogringo]

53 people on EU managed to go to rank 1 with 10 battles only, so 100% winrate. Impressive. Took me 19.

[Mr_Tayto]

Milan_G_ 

[Excavatus]

8 hours ago, invicta2012 said:

This sort of thing can be considered stat shaming, btw.

No its not because we can't know who the player is.

If the player anonimty is being preserved, sharing stats is ok according to forum rules.

[Aotearas]

58 minutes ago, Excavatus said:

No its not because we can't know who the player is.

If the player anonimty is being preserved, sharing stats is ok according to forum rules.

Technical correctness, best kind of correctness.

 

9 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

 

Have you ever considered that you should not be allowed to have fun at the expense of the players who have to put up with you?

Thought not.

Hush venerable old one, everyone knows WoWs is a singleplayer game.

[peoplescavalry]

I don’t feel so bad about my 44 games now!

[Cyclops_]

10 hours ago, Caljostro said:

So I've been wondering before the season, with only 10 stars needed, how many matches can one actually play? 50 ? 100 ? Is triple digits actually possible ? And then I stumbled across this player. When I first met him, he had 111 matches at the safe r3. I kept an eye on him, and finally, after 188 matches in a sprint season, he finally got there. Can you really be this bad ? Or as he would probably call it: unlucky with stupid teams ? Or did he intentionally throw matches to get a counter as high as possible for the lulz ? I am still flabbergasted. I surely will watch him how he is doing in the 6th season....

 

 

I feel sorry  for the team mates of all the games he played 

[TBNRtom]

Hold my beer!

[thisismalacoda]

Vor 2 Stunden, Excavatus sagte:

No its not because we can't know who the player is.

If the player anonimty is being preserved, sharing stats is ok according to forum rules.

Still it's pretty telling that it is a superstar with his/her/its own stats hidden bringing us this valuable thread.

[lovelacebeer]

10 hours ago, elblancogringo said:

53 people on EU managed to go to rank 1 with 10 battles only, so 100% winrate. Impressive. Took me 19.

 

It always amazes me some people have that combination of ability and a little luck and can 100% it, also I'm envious of them. 

[Excavatus]

1 hour ago, Aotearas said:

Technical correctness, best kind of correctness

Actually no,

Naming and shaming is actually means (for forum rules perspective)

Giving an individual's name and accusing him for something like cheating, being toxic etc,

or giving the said individual's stats and telling him "You suck"

So, If you don't have a name, that means there is no one to shame...

 

50 minutes ago, thisismalacoda said:

Still it's pretty telling that it is a superstar with his/her/its own stats hidden bringing us this valuable thread.

That is a complete different side of the topic, and I don't want to talk about hidden stats in general,

then I would need to report my post, and then sanction it :)

[Aotearas]

5 minutes ago, Excavatus said:

Actually no,

Naming and shaming is actually means (for forum rules perspective)

Giving an individual's name and accusing him for something like cheating, being toxic etc,

or giving the said individual's stats and telling him "You suck"

So, If you don't have a name, that means there is no one to shame...

Did I disagree?

 

Like you said, it's not against the forum rules since it's not giving the identity of the player involved, i.e.: doesn't fulfill the "name" aspect of the "naming and shaming" violation. Hence why you are technically correct with it not violating ToS, despite the fact that strictly speaking invicta isn't incorrect to say that it's stats shaming in a general sense (the thread is obviously mocking the bad performance).

[Excavatus]

Just now, Aotearas said:

Did I disagree?

 

Like you said, it's not against the forum rules since it's not giving the identity of the player involved, i.e.: doesn't fulfill the "name" aspect of the "naming and shaming" violation. Hence why you are technically correct with it not violating ToS, despite the fact that strictly speaking invicta isn't incorrect to say that it's stats shaming in a general sense (the thread is obviously mocking the bad performance).

OK then, I got it wrong may be :)
lets blame the new medication ı've started yesterday..

World feels a little bit hazy now :D

[Aotearas]

Just now, Excavatus said:

OK then, I got it wrong may be :)
lets blame the new medication ı've started yesterday..

World feels a little bit hazy now :D

Good kind of hazy or "mom, I don't want to go to school" kind of hazy?

[Excavatus]

Just now, Aotearas said:

Good kind of hazy or "mom, I don't want to go to school" kind of hazy?

neither,

 

Have you seen the dragons in the fridge? they were eating all the sprouts!
kind of hazy!

 

[Padds01]

11 hours ago, Redcap375 said:

Seen worse..

 

And no i'm not surprised.  You seen most of the players in ranked?  They are god awful. 

 

So you would want a ship like this on your team? Thought not.

 

 

and this prevents that how? at least he probably isnt choosing to be bad

[Aotearas]

5 minutes ago, Padds01 said:

and this prevents that how? at least he probably isnt choosing to be bad

Let's never dismiss the meaning of willfull ignorance. Choosing to be bad is a distinct reality if it's caused by simple unwillingness to learn. The process of learning is a basic cognitive trait for every functioning sapient, so its absence is a deliberate choice.

[Redcap375]

19 minutes ago, Aotearas said:

Let's never dismiss the meaning of willfull ignorance. Choosing to be bad is a distinct reality if it's caused by simple unwillingness to learn. The process of learning is a basic cognitive trait for every functioning sapient, so its absence is a deliberate choice.

 

Never a truer word said