what percent is considered good

[Capra76]

Re: Gremy doing more damage than Gnevy. Well that's no surprise. Gremy stats are skewed by prem players who are really good, playing for creds and fun. Gnevy is skewed by a load of people not knowing what to do with it and only playing it to grind to the next ship. It's not a fair comparison to say it's OP. You can't really compare a premium to a standard ship of the same tier because the player base isn't similar.

 

Anyway. Win rate is just win rate. It's better to have a higher one - it doesn't mean anything much on its own.

 

I would say that warships.today rating isn't bad guide at all, though the "last X days" is better than the overall...

 

If you have a sub 1000 rating on there, and you've played >1000 games - then you have a lot of room for improvement...

 

Grem does have some big advantages over Gnev, most significantly the much smaller gunfire detection penalty and very large invisifire zone as well as fairly useable torpedoes.

 

Not sure about that WT rating, seems like its overly focused on damage, and you can get poor players with reasonable damage.

 

 

[Tugnut]

Before when draws was very common i would of said 47% was a average player... but since the change i would say 49%  .... not sure if you can draw games any more?   But if not then 49 or even 50 is on the money.

 

 

[RichardNixon]

Not sure about that WT rating, seems like its overly focused on damage, and you can get poor players with reasonable damage.

 

Amusingly, hitrate currently has a slightly better correlation with winrate than damage does, probably because it's an indicator of aggressive play. Of course, you couldn't use it for a metric because players would avoid shooting when they had a low hit chance.

 

Survival rate is quite fun, because WoWS stores survival rate in winning and losing games separately. Survival rate in winning games has a moderate correlation with winrate for good players but no correlation for bad players. Survival rate in losing games has no correlation for either. I only checked mid tier BBs, so other classes may vary.

 

[Noobsplatter]

I cant take people serious who think stuff  like survival is of any importance. Having fun visiting the borders? You dont need to survive to ensure victory.

 

In the end it is winrate that matters. You need quite some games to make it somewhat accurate ofc. I win a lot = I carry a lot. The rest are supporting stats.

 

And it is just wonderful that WoWs tracks your solo rates.

 

For me survival means running out of enemies or not reaching them in time. I am to lazy to check my atago survival but off all the ships to die in, that one has the most glorious ways to die (aka torps EVERYWHERE while inbetween multiple foes, guns blazing and if you get the cherry on top you ram someone before your final few hundred hitpoints are gone).

 

Of course no rule is without exception, if me running and hiding leads to a win in points I will gladly do so while hearing the cries of "cooowaard" 

[slipzen]

I cant take people serious who think stuff  like survival is of any importance. Having fun visiting the borders? You dont need to survive to ensure victory.

 

In the end it is winrate that matters. You need quite some games to make it somewhat accurate ofc. I win a lot = I carry a lot. The rest are supporting stats.

 

And it is just wonderful that WoWs tracks your solo rates.

 

This.

 

While no single stat gives a correct asessment, i'm confused to why people hold avg. damage and avg. xp in such high regards. Win rate is the only thing that is tier and ship neutral.

[darky_fighter]

i see a lot of stats quoted but when it come to those stats what is deemed ok in term of an average player

 

I look at the win rate. Average player win rate is around 49 % (There were standard battles which often leaded to draws. My draw rate e.g. is around 2.8 %).

 

Damage and such stats are very dangerous. There are players which push such stats (They write in the chat "Don't cap" or make other stupid things like attacking with low hp just to increase their favorite stats). Win rate is the only stat which you can't push because victory is the goal of the game.

[Marauder9]

 

go to warships.today and type the player name. You can get some infos about that player.

 

just did that wanted to check me  apparently im a good cruiser player tho to be honest that's what i mostly play. battleship play i find boring and the rng is so frustrating. play a few destroyers that's fun.. but just enjoy the game that's my only advice.. do not get caught up in winrate as you can see mine is not that good. but this is the only game i play and thoroughly enjoy it   

[waxx25]

I don't consider someone to be good until 57% win rate. All the other stats are meaningless as there are carrier nabs with 5.0 K/D and 80k avg dmg with 46% win rates (yes I have actually seen this in game.) This is a win or lose type of game, no other stats really matter. Whether the win rate is achieved playing solo (don't care if you want to be "hardcore" and play alone or not) your win rate is what determines how good of a player you are. Myself, solo I can manage a 57-65% win rate, in division with players as good or better than me I can reach 75+ easily (matter of fact if its below 75% it feels like we are playing badly). People can say other stats matter and to a certain degree they do but the most important overall stat is HOW MUCH YOU WIN.

P.S. for the "hardcore" solo players, I consider you to be worst of all (of the good players). Yes you play well and help your team but you refuse to help your team even more (being anti social in a team oriented game) by not bringing 1-2 players with your skill level to your matches, thus making you......not as good. My friend totallymeyou has an average dmg of 135k in his ZAO (making him the top player in that ship by avg dmg on EU server) because he divisions with me and we work as a team to increase the effectiveness of our ships thus supporting the team even more.

[LilJumpa]

 

P.S. for the "hardcore" solo players, I consider you to be worst of all (of the good players). Yes you play well and help your team but you refuse to help your team even more (being anti social in a team oriented game) by not bringing 1-2 players with your skill level to your matches, thus making you......not as good. My friend totallymeyou has an average dmg of 135k in his ZAO (making him the top player in that ship by avg dmg on EU server) because he divisions with me and we work as a team to increase the effectiveness of our ships thus supporting the team even more.

 

 

The "hardcore" solo players are being social to 12 people by giving them a fighting chance. That's more than the 9 you are being social to 

[N00b32]

 

Wait what ? You are now anti social because you are a good player and play solo ?  Oh man, I think I will take a long break from this forum.

 

 

 

[mtm78]

 

I look at the win rate. Average player win rate is around 49 % (There were standard battles which often leaded to draws. My draw rate e.g. is around 2.8 %).

 

Damage and such stats are very dangerous. There are players which push such stats (They write in the chat "Don't cap" or make other stupid things like attacking with low hp just to increase their favorite stats). Win rate is the only stat which you can't push because victory is the goal of the game.

 

Actually 'No cap' is NOT stupid, capping when you can still kill all remaining ships is stupid. 

 

edit:

 

 

 

The "hardcore" solo players are being social to 12 people by giving them a fighting chance. That's more than the 9 you are being social to 

 

Like!

 

 

Wait what ? You are now anti social because you are a good player and play solo ?  Oh man, I think I will take a long break from this forum.

 

 

 

 

Like! But don't take a break, waxx25 is not representing the average forumite in this afaik 

[__Danger___]

Well, WR is something different than AVG XP or DMG and just simply tells what is your impact on your team's performance. The higher the WR, the bigger impact your performance has and the higher your team's chance to win is.

 

And now how you can look at it.

0-40% - You are terrible player and obviously your team would be much stronger without you. Allies cannot depend on you, you don't cooperate and you should seriously start thinking about every single action you do in the game, why you do it and what could you do next time to learn from you faults.

41-45% - Your skills are lacking a lot. You are not contributing enough.

46-49% - You are average player. Sometimes you are capable of nice performance.

50-52% - Little bit over average player, capable of constantly helping your team.

53-55% - Good player, you are cooperating and playing to win.

56-59% - Very good player.

60-64% - Elite player.

65-69% - Extraordinary player, you are always having huge impact on the battle's outcome.

70% - Godlike. You can single-handedly destroy several enemies with extreme accuracy and prediction skills. You are master of tactics and can survive at extreme conditions. You know when to fight and when to move as your strategy skills lure enemies into deadly traps. You are playing purely to stop any threat you encounter in order to win and to survive unless your sacrifice ensures you victory. You are killing beast and warship mastermind.

 

And then there are divisions. If you have less than 55% WR in your 2-3 man division, you are either not cooperating or you play it completely wrong, often with even bad setup and uneven ship tiers. So let's just start at 55% for 3-man divisions.

55-65% - Good division.

66-72% - Very good division.

73-80% - Elite division.

81-87% - Extraordinary division.

88% or more - This happens when you play in division composed only of extraordinary players. Each of you is capable of turning the game and annihilating multiple enemies. Together, you are nearly unbeatable and you usually lose only when rest of team get's killed easily by another skilled enemies and you lose by points.

[Aotearas]

Winrate alone doesn't say much though as it is a percentage based on the entire team performance, not yours alone. In Random battles, you're only 1/12 of your winrate and 1/7 in Ranked. Even a good player can have relatively bad winrates if he's being matched up with a group of players that aren't good. Bad players can just get lucky with teams that are good enough to carry him. Even playing in a division with two other people still leaves the majority of your team open for all kinds of players, bad, absolutely rubbish or godlike.

 

I don't consider myself a bad player, nor would I claim to be very good, but I would say I'm pretty decent overall. I usually place in the top third, topscoring isn't rare, all that shebang. Yet today my two first wins of the day in my Wyoming and Kongou respectively were absolute disasters, had one more miserable win and the remaining three matches were losses. I only survived one of the six battles (all fought in BBs). Why? Because my teams would lemming train and leave the flank wide open which I had to cover alone and consequently die as I stall half the enemy team (and sadly that was the first win of the day in my Wyoming 1.2k .. woohoo), or would just run away from any form of opposition, irregardless of how good the situation actually looks (every other game), suddenly leaving me isolated when we had started out as a solid and well balanced group of ships.

 

Personally, I do think the trifecta is winrate, average XP and average damage done is the closest approximation of how well someone does, though if it were up to me WG should introduce the potential damage taken (from non-penetrating hits or bounces) so people could also take a look at how well a player is at tanking (and thus stalling), which is a particularily important skill in BBs (even if you can't do much damage, you might soak up tons of shells and therefore keep the enemy attention and delay them, which can be absolutely critical in matches).

[Slargmann]

Winrate alone doesn't say much though as it is a percentage based on the entire team performance, not yours alone. In Random battles, you're only 1/12 of your winrate and 1/7 in Ranked. Even a good player can have relatively bad winrates if he's being matched up with a group of players that aren't good. Bad players can just get lucky with teams that are good enough to carry him. Even playing in a division with two other people still leaves the majority of your team open for all kinds of players, bad, absolutely rubbish or godlike.

 

 

In any given battle, that's true. However, across hundreds or thousands of battles, you'd have to be extremely unlucky in order to consistently be teamed with tomatos. If you're consistently being teamed with tomatos, you may have to start considering the alternative explanation that it's not your team that's the problem but rather you.

 

People with higher winrates are better players. Better players win more battles and gain higher winrates. It's nearly tautological.

 

Averages across damage, kills per death or experience accrued are all good and well, but in the end there's only one goal [discounting the aberration of missions] of every match, and that's winning it. If you never score a single hit but still manage to win more often than you lose, you're either ridiculously lucky or you're doing something for your team that increases its chance of winning.

 

 

[daki]

Winrate alone doesn't say much though as it is a percentage based on the entire team performance, not yours alone. In Random battles, you're only 1/12 of your winrate and 1/7 in Ranked. Even a good player can have relatively bad winrates if he's being matched up with a group of players that aren't good. Bad players can just get lucky with teams that are good enough to carry him. Even playing in a division with two other people still leaves the majority of your team open for all kinds of players, bad, absolutely rubbish or godlike.

 

 

Your winrate is yours and yours only. For no other reason than the fact that the only thing constant in a player's winrate across a sufficient number of battles is the player himself.

Yes, game mechanics, teammates, enemies... do play a part of course so the winrate is never a 100% accurate indicator, nor predictor of outcome in a single match, but never forget that by far the main influence is how well you play on average.

That is why I do not buy the logic that there are unlucky good players with bad winrates and lucky bad players with good winrates. To be more precise, you can be lucky or unlucky in say 10, 20, 50 or even a few hundred games. However, the more battles you play, less there is influence of luck on your winrate.

To take you as example, since you have played more than 500 battles so far, the only thing I am 100% sure about () is that you are not a bad player who is very lucky. Your stats clearly show that you make a positive contribution on average to the victory of your team.

[allufewig]

Winrate alone doesn't say much though as it is a percentage based on the entire team performance, not yours alone. In Random battles, you're only 1/12 of your winrate and 1/7 in Ranked. Even a good player can have relatively bad winrates if he's being matched up with a group of players that aren't good. Bad players can just get lucky with teams that are good enough to carry him. 

 

Not over a large amount of battles. If someone constantly wins no matter which ship he drives, over hundreds of battles, he is just good. The influence of luck over this amount of battles is negligible.

 

I for once dont care about how many damage someone does or how much XP he averages. If you sacrifice the win for it, youre trash. Winning is every competitions ultimate goal. You can fap to your damage, but you will stay a loser. (Of course, if you play for the win, the other "valuable" almost always increase automatically because the correlation is so high). However it is the "cleanest" parameter when you compare players performances in ships. As a positive side-effect it is also the best teamplay-stat there is. If you farm damage instead of winning, youre kicking your teammates in the butt. 

 

Since WoWs tracks solo- and division stats separately, no one can pull the "youre a division-whore!!" joker anymore which is great.

 

Winrate > rest.

[gr0pah]

 

In any given battle, that's true. However, across hundreds or thousands of battles, you'd have to be extremely unlucky in order to consistently be teamed with tomatos. If you're consistently being teamed with tomatos, you may have to start considering the alternative explanation that it's not your team that's the problem but rather you.

 

People with higher winrates are better players. Better players win more battles and gain higher winrates. It's nearly tautological.

 

Averages across damage, kills per death or experience accrued are all good and well, but in the end there's only one goal [discounting the aberration of missions] of every match, and that's winning it. If you never score a single hit but still manage to win more often than you lose, you're either ridiculously lucky or you're doing something for your team that increases its chance of winning.

 

 

QFT. All of it.

[Aotearas]

 

To take you as example, since you have played more than 500 battles so far, the only thing I am 100% sure about () is that you are not a bad player who is very lucky. Your stats clearly show that you make a positive contribution on average to the victory of your team.

 

And yet all my current six games today were absolutely abysmal, despite being a neutral 3 wins and 3 losses. And aside from the first match which I'm sure I could've done better (at least XP and damage wise) had I not tried to hold off half the enemy team alone and had just lemminged together with the rest of them, I don't think I could've played any better given the circumstances. On the flipside, some of the best games I had were furiously fought and ended in losses.

 

50% winrate is not bad per se, but there's bad wins and good wins. Hence why I don't think winrate is a very strong indicator since it doesn't reflect any individual game, it's just a binary 0 or 1 without a bit of context (pun intended).

 

Mind you, I'm not trying to disprove your argumentation here, just exposing the limitations of winrate alone as approximation on player skill/contribution.

[Slargmann]

 

And yet all my current six games today were absolutely abysmal, despite being a neutral 3 wins and 3 losses. And aside from the first match which I'm sure I could've done better (at least XP and damage wise) had I not tried to hold off half the enemy team alone and had just lemminged together with the rest of them, I don't think I could've played any better given the circumstances. On the flipside, some of the best games I had were furiously fought and ended in losses.

 

50% winrate is not bad per se, but there's bad wins and good wins. Hence why I don't think winrate is a very strong indicator since it doesn't reflect any individual game, it's just a binary 0 or 1 without a bit of context (pun intended).

 

Mind you, I'm not trying to disprove your argumentation here, just exposing the limitations of winrate alone as approximation on player skill/contribution.

 

It's always raining. I don't ever see the sun.

 

Why, in fact, it's been raining for two days now which only goes to prove my point: It's always raining.

[Admiral_noodle]

WT does 50% dmg 25% kills 25% win rate.

 

Those three are the most important stats we have the weighting may be a little off. I'd do 30/30/30.

 

It's very simplistic - but I've yet to see a poor player with very good damage. However I have seen the reverse.

 

Hit rate is indicative of nothing.

 

Total hits is very indicative. If we could have that.

[daki]

 

50% winrate is not bad per se, but there's bad wins and good wins. Hence why I don't think winrate is a very strong indicator since it doesn't reflect any individual game, it's just a binary 0 or 1 without a bit of context (pun intended).

 

 

 

And that is exactly the point why winrate IS a very strong indicator (but not a predictor to repeat once again). Anyone can have a good or bad individual game no matter the skill. No one can have a high winrate over a large number of battles without the skill.

In WoWs my record loosing streak is 12 games in a row while in WoT my record is 20 consecutive losses. Does that make me a complete tomato? I would say no

As an example, I enjoy watching occasionally WGL matches. Now and then you see exceptional players playing a match as complete and utter noobs. Should I dismiss them as bad players because of it, or say that their good stats are rather "luck based" and hence are not any indicator that they are indeed good players? Definitely not.

[Kenjiro_]

All your stats, winrate, damage, xp etc is dependent on your team also. Is Cristiano Ronaldo a bad footballer? We all know he's great. Check his stats with Real Madrid, fantastic. But his stats with Portugal National Team? Not so much. His winrate, damage, xp (wins, goals, assists) are relatively much worse...

[Louis2brosGummer]

 

Not over a large amount of battles. If someone constantly wins no matter which ship he drives, over hundreds of battles, he is just good. The influence of luck over this amount of battles is negligible.

 

I for once dont care about how many damage someone does or how much XP he averages. If you sacrifice the win for it, youre trash. Winning is every competitions ultimate goal. You can fap to your damage, but you will stay a loser. (Of course, if you play for the win, the other "valuable" almost always increase automatically because the correlation is so high). However it is the "cleanest" parameter when you compare players performances in ships. As a positive side-effect it is also the best teamplay-stat there is. If you farm damage instead of winning, youre kicking your teammates in the butt.

 

Since WoWs tracks solo- and division stats separately, no one can pull the "youre a division-whore!!" joker anymore which is great.

 

Winrate > rest.

 

yup winrate is most important, which mostly means these players have better situational awareness, as in, can see what is needed to secure victory, doing damage to ships that need to be damaged in order to win is different to damaging everyone in your path, even ships that are no threat to victory. better winrate means you know what ships to destroy. When not to shoot also matters as it can save your butt. so you can do other stuff that is more important. decapping or capping.

And indeed, you help your team to victory including bad players, and lots of times other players help you in getting a victory. But in most cases it's you that makes the difference, or will have to make the difference, because no one else will.

 

 

 

 

[HariSeldon]

XVM mentality have arrived. People star caring about stats and changing the gameplay when they dont cut will have as side effect longer battles, more BB camping and not pushing with full hp. DDs lirking and spamming torps far away from caps (ijn ones), and cruisers being less and less played.

 

Statwhores will ruin gameplay, and XVM produce tons of them. The worst part is tje justification some make telling that is for ...have information, no, is for being unhappy if your teams seems to be worse than the enemy ones or being relaxed and calmer if it said is better.

 

 

The being of the end, just like wot, this will only have a bad impact. StatW will have a tool to be more toxic than they already are, nobody looks for a name in the middle of the battle...not needed anymore.

[Slargmann]

All your stats, winrate, damage, xp etc is dependent on your team also. Is Cristiano Ronaldo a bad footballer? We all know he's great. Check his stats with Real Madrid, fantastic. But his stats with Portugal National Team? Not so much. His winrate, damage, xp (wins, goals, assists) are relatively much worse...

 

And if you were consistently placed with the exact same team every time, your stats would reflect the aggregate skill set of the team more than your individual skill set.

 

However, this is not the case so your analogy falls rather flat.

 

If individual skill didn't figure into it, your WR wouldn't rise over time but would rather be all over the place. Take a look at your own stats to see the trend. http://warships.today/player/530908166/eu/Kenjiro_