Can someone explain this to me?

[RaDDoXPL]

Can someone explain this to me?

 

 

How is this even mathematically possible ??? 

 

I swear to god, I would get better WR in other ships by just being AFK and not doing sh*t. 

 

I hate this ship passionately for its guns and their dispersion, reload time and turn rate, but come on now!

 

WR like this should not occur even in the worst ship in the game.

 

I'm currently on a 10 matches long losing streak... How does this game's matchmaking even work ???

 

Just as a point of reference, this is how a normal summary card should look like 

[Pikkozoikum]

The game matches players with fitting Tier and ship types and also tries to fit the nation of the ship. Lose streakes happen and maybe you just need to play that ship different, idk

[ColonelPete]

12 minutes ago, RaDDoXPL said:

Can someone explain this to me?

How is this even mathematically possible ??? 

I swear to god, I would get better WR in other ships by just being AFK and not doing sh*t. 

I hate this ship passionately for its guns and their dispersion, reload time and turn rate, but come on now!

WR like this should not occur even in the worst ship in the game.

I'm currently on a 10 matches long losing streak... How does this game's matchmaking even work ???

Just as a point of reference, this is how a normal summary card should look like 

• 0% is mathematically possible
• That is possible, but could also get you worse WR
• Lack of motivation leads to bad results
• You have ships with worse WR... 
• By not looking at your performance; I suggest breaks, as I said lack of motivation makes you play worse

[iFax]

Her sister ship seems to be fine...

[Verblonde]

44 minutes ago, RaDDoXPL said:

Can someone explain this to me?

You only have 41 battles in the thing - with that sort of battle count, a couple of relatively modest losing streaks can easily tank your WR (the reverse is also true - I have a 62.5% WR in Minsk after 32 battles, and there is no way in the gods' green earth that I'm anywhere near that good!).

 

Play a bunch more games in the ship, and your WR will almost certainly end up somewhere more normal.

 

Edit: all the best people have a 32% WR in the QE though - coincidentally, that's what mine is too (25 battles)...!

[RaDDoXPL]

6 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

• 0% is mathematically possible
• That is possible, but could also get you worse WR

Well, I thought the matchmaker prevents player from achieving WR that is too low...  (In the sense that it will actually seek to put you on the side with a higher chance of winning, if you're below certain WR)

 

10 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

Lack of motivation leads to bad results

Again, I would achieve similar if not higher WR on other ships even if I would stay inactive during the matches.

 

Others did those kinds of tests before me...

 

I win matches with AFK players on my team on a regular basis, let alone with under performing ones... (Just to be clear. I don't wanna sound pretentious. I'm aware that I'm an average player at best, but this does not stop me from frequently encountering players that are below average...)

 

So what's stopping my teammates from winning even in a situation where I'd be AFK, let alone in a situation where I'm actively trying to at least pull my own weight and deliver an amount of damage that is considered satisfactory? 

 

In at least 4 of those 10 matches I was in the top 3 and my best match in this ship with 117k dmg was also a loss....

 

27 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

You have ships with worse WR... 

Yep, like Graf Spee that WG gave me an opportunity to try out and I played a single match with.

Or Budyonny that I've just bought and played only a couple of matches with

WR is irrelevant below certain number of matches.

 

33 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

By not looking at your performance; I suggest breaks, as I said lack of motivation makes you play worse

Mentioned it already. BTW. Should've mentioned that I'm no fan of Gneisenau either.

 

[DFens_666]

2 minutes ago, RaDDoXPL said:

WR is irrelevant below certain number of matches.

 

41 is still not THAT representetive. Alltho it looks a bit like unlucky + some derpy games. You are looking at those games too much, where you did great but still lost. Look at those games where you did poorly. Maybe those could have been prevented?

Average damage is only 42k and 0,5 kills. Imo thats not that great, considering you lost so many. A good player will often have good games even in a loss, because he manages to stay alive, even tho its not enough to turn the game.

[lossi_2018]

58 minutes ago, RaDDoXPL said:

Well, I thought the matchmaker prevents player from achieving WR that is too low... 

Dont go there man. This topic will bring some 'forceful' personalities out. Touchy subject.

 

My advice. Drop the ship for a week.

Play co op for 2-3 games then stop playing and come back at a crazy hour to try some random, you may have interesting results then. Good luck o7  

[ColonelPete]

4 hours ago, RaDDoXPL said:

Well, I thought the matchmaker prevents player from achieving WR that is too low...  (In the sense that it will actually seek to put you on the side with a higher chance of winning, if you're below certain WR)

 

Again, I would achieve similar if not higher WR on other ships even if I would stay inactive during the matches.

 

Others did those kinds of tests before me...

 

I win matches with AFK players on my team on a regular basis, let alone with under performing ones... (Just to be clear. I don't wanna sound pretentious. I'm aware that I'm an average player at best, but this does not stop me from frequently encountering players that are below average...)

 

So what's stopping my teammates from winning even in a situation where I'd be AFK, let alone in a situation where I'm actively trying to at least pull my own weight and deliver an amount of damage that is considered satisfactory? 

 

In at least 4 of those 10 matches I was in the top 3 and my best match in this ship with 117k dmg was also a loss....

 

Yep, like Graf Spee that WG gave me an opportunity to try out and I played a single match with.

Or Budyonny that I've just bought and played only a couple of matches with

WR is irrelevant below certain number of matches.

 

Mentioned it already. BTW. Should've mentioned that I'm no fan of Gneisenau either.

• No, we do not have a skill based MM
• Maybe, maybe you would get worse results when AFK
• Teammates cannot always carry you, OBVIOUSLY...
• If you know that WR is irrelevant below a certain number of matches, WHY are you complaining about a ship with 41 battles??? 

[Sir_Grzegorz]

OP for me it looks like overextend in QE but not in Warspite. Your survival is low.

It is very easy to hamper team if you are not AFK. Just go straight forward and deny your DDs a chance to torp enemies or they risk torping you. Pushing cruisers out of your way can lead to them being decimated and so on. AFK ship is a juicy target and to kill AFK BB can take 2 or 3 ships quite some time to take him down. In meantime team can kill them.

When you charge in head on, 12 ships can reduce your HP before BB will have a chance to reload so it takes much less time.

From my old days when I was even worse than now it was things like that I have done just because I was not paying attention.

Remember that people like to win harder if you are still afloat you can punish that.

[Excavatus]

9 hours ago, RaDDoXPL said:

Well, I thought the matchmaker prevents player from achieving WR that is too low...  (In the sense that it will actually seek to put you on the side with a higher chance of winning, if you're below certain WR)

I don't know where did you get that idea,

but MM does not care about the player stats at all..

Because the idea you are talking about is actually "rigging the game"

[Srle_Vigilante]

Its just that time of the year when the quality of games just decides to take a nose dive....

Spoiler

 

I don't even want to show my harugumo stats... that's just depressing....

[GraySlayer]

I play my arse off in each game and I stil, LOSE 3 to 4 out of every ten games. The difference between Unicum and a 50%WR player in this game is actually quite small. 5 out of ten wins as opposed to my 6.1 

 

It's only 1.1 games. That's it. 

 

I actually don't care about the 3 or 4 lost games so long as I played my best and enjoyed myself

 

How do you achieve that extra 1.1 wins is the question then. In answer to your OQ how do you not have a ten loss streak. I've never had one myself and ill tell you why. 

 

I quit at 3

 

Yep I walk away on the third loss in a row and do something else and come back with fresh eyes and my A game later on. Of course there are other factors and that's just one of them. I could talk about 

 

Angling

Positioning

Not pushing

Pushing

Supporting when needed

Not abandoning a flank

Playing the objective

Gun accuracy

Increasing your survival rate

 

And on and on here but those are things you will hopefully learn from watching videos like i have and understanding when you're rubbish and trying to improve. 

 

I'm not really a BB player myself although I do ok in my Lenin and Massa but that's because I play them like DDs LOL and am aggressive with them (when needed) 

 

But in summary 

 

Git Gud

[NothingButTheRain]

11 hours ago, RaDDoXPL said:

Can someone explain this to me?

 

 

How is this even mathematically possible ??? 

 

I swear to god, I would get better WR in other ships by just being AFK and not doing sh*t. 

 

I hate this ship passionately for its guns and their dispersion, reload time and turn rate, but come on now!

 

WR like this should not occur even in the worst ship in the game.

 

I'm currently on a 10 matches long losing streak... How does this game's matchmaking even work ???

 

Just as a point of reference, this is how a normal summary card should look like 

You play bad in a ship that is already pretty bad. For this, the winrate seems rather appropriate. It had a few things going for it though, including superior conceilment vs the new Italian cruisers ().

It's only 41 battles. And it's not always your team.

 

Best tip for winning more often is to div up.

[RaDDoXPL]

5 hours ago, ColonelPete said:

Teammates cannot always carry you, OBVIOUSLY...

OBVIOUSLY I don’t even demand that. Have you even read what I wrote? Apparently not. You just hear what you wanna hear.

 

5 hours ago, ColonelPete said:

If you know that WR is irrelevant below a certain number of matches, WHY are you complaining about a ship with 41 battles??? 

Oh, excuse me. It takes looong hours to rack up 41 battles. I don’t know how much time you spend on this game, but for me it is a significant time investment. I have 105 battles in Gneisenau and I’ve had this ship for years... 

So tell me, how many weeks, months, years do you expect me to play before it’s ok for me to start getting my average win rate on a ship ?

 

3 hours ago, Sir_Grzegorz said:

 

OP for me it looks like overextend in QE but not in Warspite. Your survival is low.

It is very easy to hamper team if you are not AFK. Just go straight forward and deny your DDs a chance to torp enemies or they risk torping you. Pushing cruisers out of your way can lead to them being decimated and so on. AFK ship is a juicy target and to kill AFK BB can take 2 or 3 ships quite some time to take him down. In meantime team can kill them.

When you charge in head on, 12 ships can reduce your HP before BB will have a chance to reload so it takes much less time.

From my old days when I was even worse than now it was things like that I have done just because I was not paying attention.

Remember that people like to win harder if you are still afloat you can punish that.

 

I think people miss my point. I’m losing matches where I do well, I’m losing matches where I do average and I’m losing matches where I do poor. I did 117k dmg while uptiered to Tier 8 and being only Tier 6 battleships in game. I played the objective and did what my teammates requested me to do. I survived the match. I still lost. Thus, my performance is irrelevant.

 

1 hour ago, Excavatus said:

10 hours ago, RaDDoXPL said:

 

I don't know where did you get that idea,

but MM does not care about the player stats at all..

Because the idea you are talking about is actually "rigging the game"

The idea I’m talking about is good player retention strategy, good business and it is actually just making the game generally more enjoyable FOR EVERYBODY.

 

1 hour ago, GraySlayer said:

But in summary 

 

Git Gud

Like mentioned above, my performance is irrelevant. I lose either way. 

[GraySlayer]

16 minutes ago, RaDDoXPL said:

Like mentioned above, my performance is irrelevant. I lose either way. 

 

 I fundamentally disagree with this. Your WR and also PR are a direct reflection of how well you play. 

 

When you play better your WR and PR will magically respond in a nice upwards curve.

[Excavatus]

2 hours ago, RaDDoXPL said:

The idea I’m talking about is good player retention strategy, good business and it is actually just making the game generally more enjoyable FOR EVERYBODY.

aaaah.. no..
it makes game easier for bad players, and intentionally and unfairly make it harder for the good players...

Because after some point, If they want to save their WR, they will need to be carrying bad players battle after battle after batte

 

Sorry but if someone, does not enjoy the game, because they are personally unable to do that..
It is not the company or the game's duty to enable them.. nope..

[ColonelPete]

22 minutes ago, RaDDoXPL said:

OBVIOUSLY I don’t even demand that. Have you even read what I wrote? Apparently not. You just hear what you wanna hear.

 

Oh, excuse me. It takes looong hours to rack up 41 battles. I don’t know how much time you spend on this game, but for me it is a significant time investment. I have 105 battles in Gneisenau and I’ve had this ship for years... 

So tell me, how many weeks, months, years do you expect me to play before it’s ok for me to start getting my average win rate on a ship ?

OBVIOUSLY I did not say you did. Maybe you are the one reading what he wants? I was just criticising your expectation to be carried a certain amount of games.

 

That has nothing to do with time, but with number of battles, as I already said 

How long you need for these battles is your problem.

 

29 minutes ago, RaDDoXPL said:

I think people miss my point. I’m losing matches where I do well, I’m losing matches where I do average and I’m losing matches where I do poor. I did 117k dmg while uptiered to Tier 8 and being only Tier 6 battleships in game. I played the objective and did what my teammates requested me to do. I survived the match. I still lost. Thus, my performance is irrelevant.

A single match has nothing to with your winrating...

[ForlornSailor]

1 hour ago, GraySlayer said:

The difference between Unicum and a 50%WR player in this game is actually quite small. 5 out of ten wins as opposed to my 6.1 

 

It's only 1.1 games. That's it. 

 

Because the mouth breather with 40% WR and 2k avg damage really did a lot to win 4 oiut of 10 games. well deserved fpr his hard work. only 2.1 games below an Unicum. Thats it.

 

newsflash: winning 5 out of 10 is pretty much a given if you didnt stick a combination of glue and crayons into all your breathing holes. Which actually means, a 50% guy wins 0.0 games out of 10, while the one unicum is able to influence the match outcome between 24 players in 1 out of 10 cases. and THATS it.

[Kenjiro_]

44 minutes ago, RaDDoXPL said:

Like mentioned above, my performance is irrelevant. I lose either way. 

 

Your performance is irrelevant on %80 of your matches. Out of 10 games, you will win 4 and lose 4 regardless how good/bad you perform.

 

The remaining 2 is where you can actually change the outcome with your performance. Bad players lose both and end up at %40 WR while good players win both and enjoy a %60 WR..

 

There will always be exceptionally good and bad players outside of these win brackets but overwhelming majority of players linger between %40-60 for a reason 

[DFens_666]

50 minutes ago, RaDDoXPL said:

Thus, my performance is irrelevant. 

 

Your performance was not relevant in that SPECIFIC game - doesnt mean its irrelevant in every game.

How do you conclude, that in a lost game where you did poorly, your performance was irrelevant?

 

Only because you are supposed to win a certain amount of games guaranteed, doesnt mean that those games have to be evenly distributed within every 10 games.

[Taliesn]

11 hours ago, Verblonde said:

You only have 41 battles in the thing - with that sort of battle count, a couple of relatively modest losing streaks can easily tank your WR (the reverse is also true - I have a 62.5% WR in Minsk after 32 battles, and there is no way in the gods' green earth that I'm anywhere near that good!).

 

Play a bunch more games in the ship, and your WR will almost certainly end up somewhere more normal.

 

Edit: all the best people have a 32% WR in the QE though - coincidentally, that's what mine is too (25 battles)...!

 

Oi mate, nothing wrong with Lizzie!!! 

 

 

Amazed by the number of people who fail to grasp :

 

The futility of drawing conclusions from very small sample sizes

The inability to take a sincere look at your own contribution, in absolute and relative terms, to every battle.

[Sir_Grzegorz]

1 hour ago, RaDDoXPL said:

and did what my teammates requested me to do

and that is a reason why you are not wining much. Most people that makes requests are special.

You have to have your own plan and strategy and flexibility but in general do not listen to random people.

 

If you wish you can always upload a battle you played so people can see if there is something obviously wrong with your play, or you can just team up with any/most good forumites for a battle or two so they can see what you do.

[Zalzomar]

43 battles is not enough, the sample size is to low.  i have ships with 51% or more and some ships have the same numbers.

 

sometimes i raise 1.5% winrating  overal and sometimes i drop like a brick. Explanation? i wish i could explain it.

But people say its skill as always. of course there is some skill. but that's not the only factor by far.

Some of the big factors: Wich days and times you play, wich ships you play, are you tired when you play?in what kind of a team puts the matchmaker you?How often do you play? etc etc etc etc.

All of these things also play a pretty big factor in winrating.

 

my advice is, don't worry to much about the stats, don't judge yourself over like 1 day or 1 week.

I did that myself and it made me crazy.

[DrMechano]

I will point out that the Queen Liz actually lost the main thing that made her special over the Warspite thanks to the CV rework. Prior to the Rework the QE had truly monstrous AA that could fend off even tier 8 CVs with a dedicated AA build. In exchange her turrets turned MUCH slower than the Warspite and taught players things like pre-turning the turrets. Her accuracy is actually amazingly good and the 380mm guns at tier 6 mean she overmatches the 25mm of bow that tier 6 and 7 bbs have meaning she can be devastating if the lands a good salvo.

 

However the rework came along and her AA means basically nothing making her just a worse Warspite...