More damage -> less wins?

[DaWyrm]

Just looked at some stats on wows-numbers for myself and saw an interesting relationship between my average damage and win-rates. It seems as my winrates go up, my average damage go down.

I can only speculate on the reasons for this, but I find it very interesting.

 

http://wows-numbers.com/player/500689802,DaWyrm/

[IamTroublemaker]

Well, you can make 100k damage by kiling 1 BB or 100k damage by killing 5 DDs. Which one do you think will help the team more?

 

 

It is about the targets you are firing at and how much % of their HP you take. DDs are almost always a priority, especially in 4-cap dominations and it will be much harder for opponents to cap and win without DDs. But sometimes you will get a team full of teletubbies (thats how I all brainless players) and not even the best player in the world could help.

 

That is just one out of numerous examples. Playing in a division with can also help you get your win rate up since 3 players supporting each other and acting together can turn the whole game around.

[__Katniss__]

Difference between 34 300 and 34 500 after 2 months is still same bad. Yes, it went up but not enough. 

I think it goes up with dmg 

 http://wows-numbers.com/player/500016424,skvido/

 

Also depends on which class you play. With BB is minimum dmg you have to deal in the game is HP of your ship. In cruiser 2-3x of your HP. If you wanna win more than lose. And ofc div of competent players can push WR really fast.  

[Blue_Bug]

You take a rather small amount of batles for your conclusion. But it is very good posible to have less damage, but a higher winrate. It is all about killing the most dangerous enemies.  For example you can do a lot of damage against a BB who is huging the border, but it might be more usefull to shoot at the DD who is capping.  You get less damage for it, but it can bring you the victory.

 

Meanwhile you get a higher winrate / more XP and more credits. Damage isn't everything. I don't trust Ca commanders with a high damage number but a low amount of kills. There is a large chance that they are shooting at the wrong targets.

[Admiral_noodle]

Same as me. Because if you are desperately trying to salvage a loss you're probably likely to be doing damage. This correlation suggests you are naturally defensive (try not to lose first then try to win) as I am. I don't think that's a bad thing. Or you play slow ships

 

[SeaMonsterUK]

I always priorities Battleships, mainly because a Battleship shooting a Destroyer really isn't a good idea lol.

[PzAbteilung]

i wonder, why i have a hit ratio like every single pro you can see around here, but i have much less avg dmg than them

[LilJumpa]

i wonder, why i have a hit ratio like every single pro you can see around here, but i have much less avg dmg than them

 

- they shoot more often per game with the same hitratio

- more avg damage per hit due to better aiming at zones they can penetrate

- more avg damage per hit due to better target selection or ammunition choice

 

probably a combination of the three

[mtm78]

I always priorities Battleships, mainly because a Battleship shooting a Destroyer really isn't a good idea lol.

 

BB's should prioritize cruisers first -> biggest advantage to their team because they melt quicker than BB's. 

[SeaMonsterUK]

 

BB's should prioritize cruisers first -> biggest advantage to their team because they melt quicker than BB's. 

 

Battleships I find a bigger threat. Cruisers can be difficult to hit at long rage. I will prioritise them though if they are within 5-8km from my ship depending on which BB it is, same range I put priority on Destroyers.

[mtm78]

 

Battleships I find a bigger threat. Cruisers can be difficult to hit at long rage. I will prioritise them though if they are within 5-8km from my ship depending on which BB it is, same range I put priority on Destroyers.

 

Only to your cruisers, a few CA's played well will kill your quicker then any BB unless you like giving enemy BB's broadside. 

 

This is also the reason people complain about meta, if BB's don't kill CA's first, CA's would actually push up more often with BB's ( enemy CA's ofc, because you don't attack them first ). Meanwhile, your DD's get pushed back by enemy cruisers because you don't kill those cruisers, which means your CA's and you will not get screened from enemy DD's any more. 

 

I know, 'ideal world' aka 'teamplay' doesn't happen anyway right?

[VC381]

It also depends on when you do your damage and how your team is doing. Taking out priority targets early can lead to a snowball win if your team takes advantage, but less damage for you because more people are sharing the kills on the remaining enemies.

 

On the flip side, a moderately good player that fails to impact early or is just left outnumbered by a bad team can still stay alive longer and make massive damage in a hopeless losing game.

[th3freakie]

I have noticed a similar relation in my last games, playing destroyers and cruisers.

 

When I concentrate more on controlling areas or the positioning of enemies and less on outright damaging them, it obviously it lowers my kill and damage count, but it seems to increase my win rate. I don't have enough battles to make a meaningful statistic out of this, but empirically it seems to work. 

 

My guess is that simply making that enemy turn around and flee, even if I don't chase-kill him, is more important for the overall development of the battle than actually putting damage on him. Maybe because it affects his mind-set, maybe because it forces him into a bad positioning where others kill him, maybe it's just because of points and caps, not sure.

[SBS]

The way I see it is that People who simply go to farm the most damage rarely focus on supporting their team and only want to earn high numbers, thus they end up loosing. This is epsecially bad as capping is vital in several game modes, sometimes it is better to go for less damage and do what is nessecary.

 

Also, I consider shooting BB the last priority (the ones with most HP around) as they simply just tank your damage, and the time it can take to kill 1 BB, your team could focus down 2 cruisers or DD and really limit incoming return fire as well as enemy potential to cap. Also, I tend to focus fire ships other allies are shooting at, to kill enemies faster, and thus limit return fire. This ofcourse means that I have to share damage dealth with allies.

Also, when playing DD, capping can be more important that killing. Actually this can be the case in all classes.

 

Simply put, only focusing on damage can end up with the player leaving him team to day and loosing the game, because he didn't do his job. Sure, he can brag about a high damage count, but he still lost, so still worthless.

[Admiral_noodle]

It also depends on when you do your damage and how your team is doing. Taking out priority targets early can lead to a snowball win if your team takes advantage, but less damage for you because more people are sharing the kills on the remaining enemies.

 

On the flip side, a moderately good player that fails to impact early or is just left outnumbered by a bad team can still stay alive longer and make massive damage in a hopeless losing game.

 

This. But it also has something to do with play style. I'm only "conservatively aggressive". Especially if it's standard battle. First I try to not lose which means I'm often looking to defend the cap or hold the side not containing the bulk of my team. 

 

When end we win hard I sometimes find myself rushing to get to the fight before the time runs out. When things go badly in often in the front line kiting and damaging. 

 

Not always true. Sometimes my defence turns to offence as a push fails and I'm joined by more defenders, and we become the attackers. However I do notice a fair few games where I do less damage in wins. 

 

Namely the roflstomps. If the hyper aggressive players go off and stomp the enemy I'm still likely to be looking at defending (too many stealth cap experiences) which is useful. But means I have slightly more damage in losses generally. 

[DaWyrm]

It can probably correlate with destroyer-play, since i rarely manage to get good damage done in a destroyer, but due to capping, killing enemy destroyers and spotting I can have a greater impact on the game than just dealing raw damage...

[SBS]

It can probably correlate with destroyer-play, since i rarely manage to get good damage done in a destroyer, but due to capping, killing enemy destroyers and spotting I can have a greater impact on the game than just dealing raw damage...

 

And thats the thing, doing what helps you and your team to win the game is the best you can do. Regardless of if it means doing lots of damage or not.

[EsaTuunanen]

I have noticed a similar relation in my last games, playing destroyers and cruisers.

When I concentrate more on controlling areas or the positioning of enemies and less on outright damaging them, it obviously it lowers my kill and damage count, but it seems to increase my win rate. I don't have enough battles to make a meaningful statistic out of this, but empirically it seems to work.

I think I have big enough "sample set" for that.

While "sneaking" after BBs could give very high damage with only few torpedo salvoes by the time of getting into position for that other enemies could have done lot of harm.

But taking out DD or at least sending it running away from cap and then focusing on cruisers behind them is more effective.

Precisely because of many cruisers having quite high DPM while they're lot softer targets and faster to take out from enemy's strength than BB.

And by the time slower enemy BBs can even get into range they get focused.

And without supporting ships lonely BB is in troubles even against group of just cruisers.

 

 

It can probably correlate with destroyer-play, since i rarely manage to get good damage done in a destroyer, but due to capping, killing enemy destroyers and spotting I can have a greater impact on the game than just dealing raw damage...

Having more caps churning points is always good way to put pressure on enemy especially if they can't get kills.

And even if enemy is ahead in kills that gives only temporary point advantage without capping.

That pressure can make enemies do mistakes and lone ships splitting from others to cap are easier to kill than group of ships.

 

Also pushing front line forward in start gives more space and time to retreat/regroup in case of troubles reducing enemy's chances for "pincer" moves etc.

Starting to hug border wasting 10+ minutes in attempt to get to enemy CV or position against enemy BBs is waste of destroyer's potential.

 

Though if team is mostly failing then doing damage and sinking enemies becomes necessary for convincing enemy team:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ipptiqxt9rd5ozi/20160220_231945_PRSD001-Gremyashchy-1942_08_NE_passage%20Team%20Carrying%20HC%20with%20guns.wowsreplay?dl=0

Open in WorldOfWarships.exe and enjoy the sealclubbing... err show.

[BabyAdmiral]

 

BB's should prioritize cruisers first -> biggest advantage to their team because they melt quicker than BB's. 

 

Agreed. The enemy guns you can dispose of the quickest should be prioritized. No matter how good some players are, battles are more often than not a matter of team firepower vs team firepower. Cruisers can be killed rather quickly if you shoot well as a BB, while a BB takes far more time to melt down.

[SkybuckFlying]

My stats can prove a counter example for you. Which leads me to the conclusion that it has to do with tactics. It's like a profiler.

 

Your stats are similar to another high ranking player which I will not mention for the fun of it.

 

However I will reveal that I saw him "thez other day".

 

And he had a b*tch of a strategy.

 

Which ment my strategy could not work.

 

I will not reveal this strategy for now.

 

But it could mean that this particular person has found a way to "sciccor" the "sciccor-rock-stone-papper"  problem.

 

He has found a way to screw with it.

 

Which could actually be VERY IMPORTANT for the developers.

 

If I remember correctly you UNITED STATES PERSONS call it "rock siccor paper" or something like that.

 

HOWEVER there is a PROBLEM with it.

 

First an explanation of the game:

 

You pick.

 

I pick.

 

HOWEVER

 

What happens with this game if it's TEAM vs TEAM.

 

Suddenly it all changes.

 

EVERYBODY gets to PICK.

 

That means it's possible to make a COMBINATION.

 

Let's assume I can PICK TWO and you only ONE for whatever reason:

 

I pick ROCK AND SCICCOR.

 

You pick PAPER.

 

PAPER wraps ROCK, you WIN.

 

BUT STILL LOOSE cause I also choose SCICCOR, so ultimately you still loose.

 

Actually you will ALWAYS LOOSE... cause SCICCOR will prevent the wrapping.

 

So this is basically what this high ranking person seems to be doing... which is very interesting. I already came up with this idea and I think most will. Yes deliberately being vague about this LOL.

 

Let's just call it food for thought.

 

Now comes the real question:

 

Is it possible for you to PICK TWO so you can always DEFEAT ME ? Or at least BREAK even ?! Hmm... interesting question.

[SBS]

Lots of text

 

So what you are basicly saying is that the MM doesn't allways put the same ship compositions vs the same ship composition and that players can choose to do different things in different battles on different maps based on different compositions, and then have the ability to adapt later on in the battle to what is going on?

 

GASP!!!  What a SHOCKER! I think he might actually have figured it out 

 

 Sorry, couldn't resist

 

[RamirezKurita]

I find that I tend to win more when I deal less damage too, but I think that's related to me winning games more often when I spend time hunting destroyers rather than laying into battleships and cruisers.

[Tuccy]

Thing is that to win, you do not need to sink them all - and if you play tactically, cooperate with the team, try to control cap zones etc... You are likely to have less opportunities for cheap damage. Guess the guys who yesterday rolled my team had pretty poor damage score each, as they outnumbered us laggard (who did not manage to keep up with lemming train going to the far corner of the map). Net result for them though was control of two caps AND some cheap kills. So while our top tiers huddled in the corner and waited for enemy push that did not come, enemy just... won

 

Heck, did not check, but I would guess I might have higher damage than any individual ship that participated in sinking me.

 

To put it for battleships, often going to flank lets you deal heaps of damage to enemy battleships... But you may be more useful for the victory if you hang out around middle, supporting cruisers and destroyers skirmishing for caps - as on the flank you usually have islands that block your line of fire and you cannot reinforce crumbling flank or block enemy central cruiser push.

 

[Seikin]

 

They could be directly related..  Lets take an example. There's a 4v3 going on - all ships in range of each other (you're on the side with 4) . If you are performing just as well as your team, then you're gonna score roughly equal damage in that encounter...  Enemies sunk, you have caused roughly 3/4 of a  ship's worth of damage each.  Now if your team consists of bots, window-lickers and a small dog, then (assuming you still win), you will probably come out of it scoring 2.5 ships worth of damage while the rest of your team only does 0.5 between them.

 

Why does this matter? Well, if your team is bad, you're also more likely to lose..  So greater chance of losing = more chance to do more damage... (for a decent player anyway)

 

[SkybuckFlying]

I thought about this yesterday some more. I am not going to reveal everyhing (yet), because I wanna try some stuff out first

 

But let's just say, there are ways to win (apperently) in this game, methods, which apperently, do not require damage. HINT HINT.

 

Another possibility could be like WG staffer wrote: more teaming damage done and perhaps lower average damage because of that... I remain a bit skeptical about this one ! . It's possible though.