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

How is this possible?

33 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[CRU_]
Players
333 posts
9,502 battles

Ranked today has been disgusting, i made the mistake of playing BBs when i should have stuck to DDs and farmed the specials. Screenshots attached are from one of the many special people on my teams, i've picked this one in particular, because i don't understand how the [edited]it is possible this special has a [edited]ohio. WG you are doing something very [edited]wrong, or you're adding literal bots to the game to make up numbers. So how is this possible, look at his/it's ship list. Special registered in June this year.  Name is hidden.

Screenshot (1).png

Screenshot (2).png

Screenshot (3).png

Screenshot (4).png

  • Funny 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CRU_]
Players
333 posts
9,502 battles
23 minutes ago, Flerrel said:

This should explain things to you:

https://youtu.be/hj-jPJK8DEE?t=14

 

Don't think it is possible with cash. Account registered in June. Ohio is a RB ship, the account hasn't generated enough FXP to even buy it's way through the ship lines to get the Ohio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LEEUW]
Players
2,483 posts
10,120 battles

The worst for me were the supposedly "reliable" teammates from typhoon and hurricane clans who played like the gentlemen from OP's pictures. 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,010 posts
5 hours ago, zengaze said:

Don't think it is possible with cash. Account registered in June. Ohio is a RB ship, the account hasn't generated enough FXP to even buy it's way through the ship lines to get the Ohio

Easy. Buy doubloons, convert them into free xp, free xp the lines do the same cycle, get Ohio. Meaning he spent lots of cash.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BHSFL]
Players
3,690 posts
13,958 battles

Why is this always about team mates with low WR ? Your enemies have likewise low WR when the playerbase would be so poor.....so they should be more easily defeated when YOU have skills.....so your WR would rise facing  low quality players and not fall if you were that talented. No reason to complain at all.

 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
567 posts
3,326 battles

I mean you need to give it to him (or her)... How much frustration tolerance is involved here... Getting wasted every single game, not contributing anything at all, losing game after game, but still this player cashes in like crazy and seems to "have fun" playing. I mean you can literally achieve these win rates by staying afk the entire game. There doesn't seem to be any common sense, intelligent reflection and improvement endeavor involved, it's actually mind-boggling.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
27,517 posts
14,594 battles

I fear some of these players have a "grind" mentality.

They just want to grind to the next ship and just kamikaze into the enemy and play the next ship. This might give them low rewards, but in rewards per time they get a halfway decent payback (still worse than a good player, but you need no skill to do it).

But I wonder when they start enjoying playing the ships they got or if grinding and getting a new ship is all the enjoyment they need?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LEEUW]
Players
2,483 posts
10,120 battles
1 hour ago, Beastofwar said:

Why is this always about team mates with low WR ? Your enemies have likewise low WR when the playerbase would be so poor.....so they should be more easily defeated when YOU have skills.....so your WR would rise facing  low quality players and not fall if you were that talented. No reason to complain at all.

 

 

Well yes, but actually.... No. 

 

This is because I can carry a 48%WR player because he gives me the time to do so. You cannot carry 3x% players who survive just 2 minutes. 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
27,517 posts
14,594 battles
5 minutes ago, GarrusBrutus said:

Well yes, but actually.... No. 

 

This is because I can carry a 48%WR player because he gives me the time to do so. You cannot carry 3x% players who survive just 2 minutes. 

But that happens to enemies too.

 

And considering how often one wins with one or two afk players, you can win with such a player too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,010 posts
8 minutes ago, GarrusBrutus said:

Well yes, but actually.... No. 

 

This is because I can carry a 48%WR player because he gives me the time to do so. You cannot carry 3x% players who survive just 2 minutes. 

@Beastofwar pretty much this ^^

 

If both teams exist of low WR players, a player with better skills can carry up to a point but not necessarily up to win. When your teammates sink quick the load you have to carry gets harder and considering the lower amount of players in the team compared to random games makes it more difficult to carry as losing  one allied ship will have bigger negative impact. If both teams are full of low skilled player and you are standing out as a good one among them, most of the time best you can do is to save your star. Win comes more seldom with poor teammates. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SHAFT]
Players
10,383 posts
9,122 battles
1 hour ago, Beastofwar said:

Why is this always about team mates with low WR ? Your enemies have likewise low WR when the playerbase would be so poor.....so they should be more easily defeated when YOU have skills.....so your WR would rise facing  low quality players and not fall if you were that talented. No reason to complain at all.

 

 

26 minutes ago, GarrusBrutus said:

Well yes, but actually.... No. 

 

This is because I can carry a 48%WR player because he gives me the time to do so. You cannot carry 3x% players who survive just 2 minutes. 

17 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

But that happens to enemies too.

 

And considering how often one wins with one or two afk players, you can win with such a player too. 

13 minutes ago, Execute0rder66 said:

When your teammates sink quick the load you have to carry gets harder and considering the lower amount of players in the team compared to random games makes it more difficult to carry as losing  one allied ship will have bigger negative impact.

 

Pete even gave the right answer in his other post, yet didnt get the right conclusion.

2x 45% players can have 45% for different reasons.

- One can suicide all the time, being dead after 3-5 minutes. In randoms, that does not have a big impact, especially since the chances are good, there are some others like him on the enemy team aswell.

- The other might be sitting in spawn with his full HP BB.

 

But for a good player, the 2nd one is by far the better teammate, simply because he doesnt die. You only need those fast suiciders in DDs and its a lost game. If you have 2 DDs out of 6-8 per game die without doing anything (and maybe a Cruiser getting devstruck ontop of that), then its highly likely that you will lose one more as he faces more DDs at once. DDs will push the other ships away due to permaspotting, while the enemies can take longrange (unspotted) potshots at those retreating ships.

 

For ranked, this only evens out in theory over time, because most of the time you wont play that many games. My latest ranked session 2 days ago was filled with roflstomps. One team was often several ships down after 5-6 minutes. And it was my team a bit more often than the enemies...

I even had a 57% player once, who played like a 45%er. And one game, enemies had 4x Unicums, thats just a default loss, they didnt lose a single ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,004 posts
16,070 battles
1 hour ago, ColonelPete said:

but in rewards per time they get a halfway decent payback (still worse than a good player, but you need no skill to do it).

False. While a good player stays and camps for 20 min, one can play 4-5 battles, with current trash economy those 5 battles would give more RAW exp, so in a spawn of an hour that BOT would get more by playing aroundr 15 matches than anyone in 3. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
27,517 posts
14,594 battles
4 minutes ago, Azalgor said:

False. While a good player stays and camps for 20 min, one can play 4-5 battles, with current trash economy those 5 battles would give more RAW exp, so in a spawn of an hour that BOT would get more by playing aroundr 15 matches than anyone in 3. 

  • Good players do not camp
  • 2-4 minute matches do not give that much XP to a clueless player, especially when you factor in signals and camo, unless the Kamikaze player is buying them like mad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SHAFT]
Players
10,383 posts
9,122 battles
3 minutes ago, Azalgor said:

False. While a good player stays and camps for 20 min, one can play 4-5 battles, with current trash economy those 5 battles would give more RAW exp, so in a spawn of an hour that BOT would get more by playing aroundr 15 matches than anyone in 3. 

 

Even more so, since they seem to get more XP when the team does more stuff.

for example this

image.png.5d1b10e463ad9c4e25d0418c21acc895.png

Mino didnt do anything, except shoot the Conq a little bit when it was passing by at the islands going towards C. He torped the Thunderer, but didnt hit at all. And he got 9 plane kills.

Dead before 5 minutes, yet his XP

image.png.8f15a6ab58f0a9fa4f221cfa124a8644.png
Yes he was still last, but he got more XP because everyone got more XP.

image.png.37ff5d26474cabd4e7884de3856cc1da.png

  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,004 posts
16,070 battles
3 minutes ago, DFens_666 said:

Yes he was still last, but he got more XP because everyone got more XP.

Thats my point, but Pete here lives elswhere, where toothfairies ride unicorns and everyone poops rainbows.

5 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

Good players do not camp

ROFL

7 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

2-4 minute matches do not give that much XP

Math is not your strong subject right? Cause the point was the amout of games played in a period of time, which amounts into more EXP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
27,517 posts
14,594 battles
3 minutes ago, Azalgor said:

Thats my point, but Pete here lives elswhere, where toothfairies ride unicorns and everyone poops rainbows.

ROFL

Math is not your strong subject right? Cause the point was the amout of games played in a period of time, which amounts into more EXP.

1250 * (1+1+0,5) *4 = 12.500 (good player Base XP, 100% camo and 50% signal (ignoring Dragon Signals) with 4 games per hour)

600 * (1) *15 = 9.000 (bad player who spams 15 battles per hour)

 

When the bad player buys hordes of signals and camos, he has the advantage. But then we should consider Dragon Signals for the good player and start considering the first win bonus.

Btw. I average around 1400 Base XP at the moment...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
6,634 posts
10,873 battles
1 hour ago, ColonelPete said:

But that happens to enemies too.

 

Yes, sure, but that doesnt make the state of the game / gameplay over all any better. We would all be better of without the bottom 20% of the players.

So its absolutly valid to complain about them. They just ruin your game from the get go, if they are on your team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
27,517 posts
14,594 battles
12 minutes ago, ForlornSailor said:

 

Yes, sure, but that doesnt make the state of the game / gameplay over all any better. We would all be better of without the bottom 20% of the players.

So its absolutly valid to complain about them. They just ruin your game from the get go, if they are on your team.

But that is a different matter than the complaint that one has difficulty winning with these players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LEEUW]
Players
2,483 posts
10,120 battles
47 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

But that is a different matter than the complaint that one has difficulty winning with these players.

The difficulty in winning with teammates and opponents of this skill level is that a match is often already decided before you can make an impact. In theory, yes, worse opposition should make it easier for someone to make an impact. That would be the case for most race, sport and fps games. In wows however a 70%wr player can't play his optimal game when a 35%wr teammate dies right at the start. Without spotting you can have the best aim in the game but it won't help you. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LEEUW]
[LEEUW]
Players
471 posts
7,512 battles

Fun fact is that the players who live longest get blames for the lose like 50% of the times. :Smile_trollface:

Is it hard to understand if all others didn't die, most likely you would have won?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BHSFL]
Players
3,690 posts
13,958 battles
11 minutes ago, TheBrut3 said:

Fun fact is that the players who live longest get blames for the lose like 50% of the times. :Smile_trollface:

Is it hard to understand if all others didn't die, most likely you would have won?

 

I do not understand why WG lets players that were destroyed still chat, unless it is to division mates......the dead should be silent...they failed...their influnence ended......so shut up and certainly not tell others what to do in that position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
27,517 posts
14,594 battles
49 minutes ago, GarrusBrutus said:

The difficulty in winning with teammates and opponents of this skill level is that a match is often already decided before you can make an impact. In theory, yes, worse opposition should make it easier for someone to make an impact. That would be the case for most race, sport and fps games. In wows however a 70%wr player can't play his optimal game when a 35%wr teammate dies right at the start. Without spotting you can have the best aim in the game but it won't help you. 

And still the average team won with this player 35% of the time...

31 minutes ago, TheBrut3 said:

Is it hard to understand if all others didn't die, most likely you would have won?

It is hard to win when the whole team stays on the A or 1 line. Therefore surviving is not everything.

BB who start tanking in the 16th minute of the match, after every friendly DD and cruiser was sunk, are not really an asset to the team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×