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

[Discussion] Your stats suck

155 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
1,567 posts
10,292 battles

Hello people! New day, new intresting discussion!



Very often on forum we see people that compare stats with another ones... and then  come that lovely answer: "Your stats suck" and you have no right to speak.


For you, what you consider as good stats?
Recent damage?
Recent WR?
Recent PR?
Average all of these?



Cheers!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
8,460 posts
13,036 battles

*sigh* This again ... it's not "your stats suck so you have no right to speak".

 

It's "you're talking nonsense and your stats show it" or conversely "I know what I'm talking about and the stats prove that I'm doing something right".

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
18,781 posts
6,105 battles
10 minutes ago, Boris_MNE said:

Hello people! New day, new intresting discussion!


Very often on forum we see people that compare stats with another ones... and then  come that lovely answer: "Your stats suck" and you have no right to speak.

 

Point me to one please? I never see: your stats suck you have no right to speak.

 

Everyone has a right to speak. Just not everyone has a right to be taken serious.

 

http://theconversation.com/no-youre-not-entitled-to-your-opinion-9978

Spoiler
Quote

The problem with “I’m entitled to my opinion” is that, all too often, it’s used to shelter beliefs that should have been abandoned. It becomes shorthand for “I can say or think whatever I like” – and by extension, continuing to argue is somehow disrespectful. And this attitude feeds, I suggest, into the false equivalence between experts and non-experts that is an increasingly pernicious feature of our public discourse.

 

Firstly, what’s an opinion?

 

Plato distinguished between opinion or common belief (doxa) and certain knowledge, and that’s still a workable distinction today: unlike “1+1=2” or “there are no square circles,” an opinion has a degree of subjectivity and uncertainty to it. But “opinion” ranges from tastes or preferences, through views about questions that concern most people such as prudence or politics, to views grounded in technical expertise, such as legal or scientific opinions.

 

You can’t really argue about the first kind of opinion. I’d be silly to insist that you’re wrong to think strawberry ice cream is better than chocolate. The problem is that sometimes we implicitly seem to take opinions of the second and even the third sort to be unarguable in the way questions of taste are. Perhaps that’s one reason (no doubt there are others) why enthusiastic amateurs think they’re entitled to disagree with climate scientists and immunologists and have their views “respected.”

Meryl Dorey is the leader of the Australian Vaccination Network, which despite the name is vehemently anti-vaccine. Ms. Dorey has no medical qualifications, but argues that if Bob Brown is allowed to comment on nuclear power despite not being a scientist, she should be allowed to comment on vaccines. But no-one assumes Dr. Brown is an authority on the physics of nuclear fission; his job is to comment on the policy responses to the science, not the science itself.

 

So what does it mean to be “entitled” to an opinion?

 

If “Everyone’s entitled to their opinion” just means no-one has the right to stop people thinking and saying whatever they want, then the statement is true, but fairly trivial. No one can stop you saying that vaccines cause autism, no matter how many times that claim has been disproven.

 

But if ‘entitled to an opinion’ means ‘entitled to have your views treated as serious candidates for the truth’ then it’s pretty clearly false. And this too is a distinction that tends to get blurred.

 

On Monday, the ABC’s Mediawatch program took WIN-TV Wollongong to task for running a story on a measles outbreak which included comment from – you guessed it – Meryl Dorey. In a response to a viewer complaint, WIN said that the story was “accurate, fair and balanced and presented the views of the medical practitioners and of the choice groups.” But this implies an equal right to be heard on a matter in which only one of the two parties has the relevant expertise. Again, if this was about policy responses to science, this would be reasonable. But the so-called “debate” here is about the science itself, and the “choice groups” simply don’t have a claim on air time if that’s where the disagreement is supposed to lie.

 

Mediawatch host Jonathan Holmes was considerably more blunt: “there’s evidence, and there’s bulldust,” and it’s not part of a reporter’s job to give bulldust equal time with serious expertise.

 

The response from anti-vaccination voices was predictable. On the Mediawatch site, Ms. Dorey accused the ABC of “openly calling for censorship of a scientific debate.” This response confuses not having your views taken seriously with not being allowed to hold or express those views at all – or to borrow a phrase from Andrew Brown, it “confuses losing an argument with losing the right to argue.” Again, two senses of “entitlement” to an opinion are being conflated here.

 

So next time you hear someone declare they’re entitled to their opinion, ask them why they think that. Chances are, if nothing else, you’ll end up having a more enjoyable conversation that way.

Opinions aren't limited to those who should have one sadly :Smile_trollface: 

 

10 minutes ago, Boris_MNE said:

For you, what you consider as good stats?

Recent damage?
Recent WR?
Recent PR?
Average all of these?


Cheers!

 

 

WR is most important metric since it's the goal of the game. But everything is related, I could boost my wr in divisions ( but this can be filtered so it's a non issue really ), or I can boost my win rate with playing certain over performing ships but again that is a non issue since it can be checked. 

 

Usually one doesn't get decent win ratio when the other stats are bad ( and if someone does, his sample size in battles is to small ). 

 

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UNICS]
Beta Tester
4,869 posts
9,434 battles

A healthy combination.

Lots of pinches of salt to account for sample sizes when comparing low battle numbers, like for individual ship stats.

For fast comparisons I tend to look at the "ratings" since those are the least susceptible to low sample size related errors.

Everything should be looked at in relation to other stats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
440 posts
5,824 battles

Very simple, general decent stats (at least 500-1k battles please):

WR: Anything above 50% is ok

Dmg: Hard to give a precise figure but if that person is playing mainly T8-10 and his average dmg is 20k then he obviously sucks.

Kills to death: Better than 1.5 please.

Survival rate: Better than 30% if possible.

 

To have a more accurate picture, look at his 20 most played ships or his stats for a specific ship.

 

For example, if during a forum discussion someone says he knows all about WOWS and specifically that IJN DD are OP -> you look at his stats

WR: 48%

Dmg: 30k

K/D: 0.5

and he is a BB main and has never touched an IJN DD then you get the picture.........

--------------

 

Now let's finish with a specific example:

That person has:

3k+ battles and has been steadily progressing/improving.

WR: 52% = Decent WR and slowly going up

Dmg: 36K = decent especially if playing mainly DD and CA/CL

K/D: 1.1 = Not good but improving anyway

Survival: 22%, not good, takes too much risks with his CA/CL and DD

 

Looking at ships, let's say the 10 most played by ship class:

Player is ok with DD and CA/CL and a bit better than average with BB.

 

One thing, survival for all ships types is pretty bad and dmg is not so good, that tells me:

- Player should work on his positioning + aiming skills.

- Player should take less risks, maybe learn to better angle + check more often the minimap not to get deleted regularly.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,567 posts
10,292 battles
10 minutes ago, mtm78 said:

 

Point me to one please? I never see: your stats suck you have no right to speak.

 

Everyone has a right to speak. Just not everyone has a right to be taken serious.

 

http://theconversation.com/no-youre-not-entitled-to-your-opinion-9978

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Opinions aren't limited to those who should have one sadly :Smile_trollface: 

 

 

WR is most important metric since it's the goal of the game. But everything is related, I could boost my wr in divisions ( but this can be filtered so it's a non issue really ), or I can boost my win rate with playing certain over performing ships but again that is a non issue since it can be checked. 

 

Usually one doesn't get decent win ratio when the other stats are bad ( and if someone does, his sample size in battles is to small ). 

 

 

 

 

16 hours ago, 15JG52Adler said:

nop.....i many cases you dont eaven have right to say your opinion....like "i think Nazys did good job on Jews in ww2".....you just have no right to that opininion outloud in any developed part of world.....same non drastick things could apply to "i thinnk God need to cure all illnes and we should not ingterfere" in medical faculty.....and there is many many cases where you are not entitled to your opininon free but you got sancioned by it.....

 

:Smile_trollface:


This actually inspired me for this topic :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,567 posts
10,292 battles

 

5 minutes ago, SinkTheOthersNotMe said:

Very simple, general decent stats (at least 500-1k battles please):

WR: Anything above 50% is ok

Dmg: Hard to give a precise figure but if that person is playing mainly T8-10 and his average dmg is 20k then he obviously sucks.

Kills to death: Better than 1.5 please.

Survival rate: Better than 30% if possible.

 

To have a more accurate picture, look at his 20 most played ships or his stats for a specific ship.

 

For example, if during a forum discussion someone says he knows all about WOWS and specifically that IJN DD are OP -> you look at his stats

WR: 48%

Dmg: 30k

K/D: 0.5

and he is a BB main and has never touched an IJN DD then you get the picture.........

--------------

 

Now let's finish with a specific example:

That person has:

3k+ battles and has been steadily progressing/improving.

WR: 52% = Decent WR and slowly going up

Dmg: 36K = decent especially if playing mainly DD and CA/CL

K/D: 1.1 = Not good but improving anyway

Survival: 22%, not good, takes too much risks with his CA/CL and DD

 

Looking at ships, let's say the 10 most played by ship class:

Player is ok with DD and CA/CL and a bit better than average with BB.

 

One thing, survival for all ships types is pretty bad and dmg is not so good, that tells me:

- Player should work on his positioning + aiming skills.

- Player should take less risks, maybe learn to better angle + check more often the minimap not to get deleted regularly.

 

 



Uhm, that specific person... I wonder who is :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Supertester
2,447 posts
11,449 battles

This will be fun. Expecting the frst guy to start a "stats doesn't matter and are random anyway"-discussion within the next hour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HALON]
Players
632 posts
10,198 battles

In general people that talks a lot about a certain class / ship should have a decent number of battles in them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,567 posts
10,292 battles

Let me point out, I perfectly dont care what your stats are.


I merely wish to know what you consider for "good" stats... which stat is most important and why. That is all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HALON]
Players
632 posts
10,198 battles
4 minutes ago, Kartoffelmos said:

Stats are luck anyway.

 

In the long run, absolutely not, sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
920 posts
11,130 battles

Are you seeking an algorithmic solution to the problem? Maybe a forum bot that auto-checks the profiles of the posters and auto-replies with this picture in case of WR<45% regardless of the post itself?

Spoiler

1sDVTok.jpg

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,831 posts
19,425 battles

only thing  that is bad is a sub 50% WR cause that means youre even worse than the average potato

 

every thing else depends largely on tier,  shipy type and personal style of play

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UNICS]
Beta Tester
4,869 posts
9,434 battles
8 minutes ago, Kartoffelmos said:

Stats are luck anyway.

 

Why the troll?

I don't think this topic deserves it this early.

Wait until it has derailed a bit later this evening.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HALON]
Players
632 posts
10,198 battles
3 minutes ago, Boris_MNE said:

Let me point out, I perfectly dont care what your stats are.


I merely wish to know what you consider for "good" stats... which stat is most important and why. That is all.

 

Win rate when not in a division if I really have to say one.

 

We all play to win the match so it's the most important stats by far. At least when there are a decent number of games to analyze.

 

Not in a division speaks by itself I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
18,781 posts
6,105 battles
16 minutes ago, Boris_MNE said:

:Smile_trollface:


This actually inspired me for this topic :D

 

Yeah summize to say I didn't share his opinion on that at all. Ofc he is free to have one, but I think it's a factually wrong :Smile_trollface:  

 

And that was the FIRST time I directly read: you have no right on that opinion, and it didn't even relate to something on forum. So I still feel your opening post might be a bit off with stating that people use profiles to tell people to be quiet. They are just told their opinions are entirely irrelevant, and rightfully so. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UNN]
Players
533 posts
2,226 battles
24 minutes ago, mtm78 said:

 

Point me to one please? I never see: your stats suck you have no right to speak.

 

Everyone has a right to speak. Just not everyone has a right to be taken serious.

 

http://theconversation.com/no-youre-not-entitled-to-your-opinion-9978

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Opinions aren't limited to those who should have one sadly :Smile_trollface: 

 

 

 

 

 

Ah hahahahah ahhaha hahahahah omg... i almost died. Im hoping this is sarcasm from Mr "your stats suck so you cant speak" what an arrogant attitude, "only people who agree with me can have an opinion". Wow, just wow... anyhoo back on topic!

 

As for the OP the best stat is of course win rate, as this is what you want to do in the game win. But overall stats are pretty unimportant as a comparison tool, because they can be boosted by say playing in squads, or playing certain ships to boost certain stats or playing super op ships like imperator nicolas etc.

 

Ive seen people bragging about how great they are and then when you set their stats to solo play, suddenly they are the same as most people, or when you ignore their 1 or 2 super ships or ignore the destroyers they play in and just look at battleships or vice versa. For example someone who plays battleships will usually have a higher average damage, but someone who plays destroyers will have a higher average win rate and caps etc. Also very often you will see the guys who focus on stats for an argument have litterally thousands of games, and if you look at a graph of their performance when they were at the same stage as most "normal" people, they were statistically poor. They just learnt the game through repetition.

 

So the answer is none of the stats are most important if comparing. But for yourself winning or whatever you count as "fun" in the game. It might be sinking ships! I know the stats guys will hate this having invested a lot of time in boosting, but they can keep believing in stats im not stopping them, dont get upset! I know a lot of kids are really wowed by purple banners so there is still use for impressing some people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[L4GG]
Players
3,140 posts
10,735 battles

I disagree.

Man, just have some fun...better...lots of fun.

WRs and what not are not solid foundations  to judge the in game person performance by itself.

what about common sense?

aggressive players have or could have an high rate of deaths etc, but it doesn't mean they suck.

I like those players, they act, don't sit around.

wr and what not of that player suck, and so what?

If in battle they stay in the flank, holding it, if they are in the fight, pewing, pewing everthing, and torp every [edited]red ship and doing that well. I rather be with one of this players than other player. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
18,781 posts
6,105 battles

 

2 minutes ago, Dominico said:

Ah hahahahah ahhaha hahahahah omg... i almost died. Im hoping this is sarcasm from Mr "your stats suck so you cant speak" what an arrogant attitude, "only people who agree with me can have an opinion". Wow, just wow... anyhoo back on topic!

 

Ow wow it's mr Belfast is balanced ( yes it is, it is his most played ship off course! ) :Smile_smile: Back to his old tricks of lying through his teeth ( if he has them, I hear they haven't broken through yet ). 

 

Also, go read again, you're entitled to have an opinion, and we're entitled to point at you and laugh about it, 

 

 

 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,567 posts
10,292 battles

I am going to add one more question for sake of fun:

 

If player hide his/her stats, do you think that is why he/she is underperforming or because something else? :Smile_trollface:


(I will rather hang on forum than be in battles, just in 3 battles got stomped under 5 minutes LOL) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TACHA]
Players
1,421 posts
15,840 battles

Stats are very useful - for your own use. I look at mine to see if I am improving and as I was really bad to start with, I have a constant improvement. I will never be a unicum - and certainly not at present as the game no longer is loadable on my Macs! - but I think I am usually useful in a team with the odd lapse of really sucking! Everyone can have an opinion but experience and win rate tend to mean that the opinion voiced has some backing. The loudest opinion is however not always the most important.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOXIC]
Alpha Tester
2,096 posts
7,207 battles
17 minutes ago, Nechrom said:

Why the troll?

 

Because we needed a catalyst to promote more questionable opinions, of which some have arrived already:Smile_trollface:.

 

In any case, win rate is most important, followed by damage and kills per game (these two can tell something about target selection). An exception to this is people who are being boosted by divisions, but generally speaking a good player is a good player no matter if he/she is in a division or not. Recent stats are a good way of seeing if the solo performance is near the division performance.

 

8 minutes ago, Butterdoll said:

If in battle they stay in the flank, holding it, if they are in the fight, pewing, pewing everthing, and torp every [edited]red ship and doing that well. I rather be with one of this players than other player. 

 

Aggressive players that don't YOLO (aka playing cleverly) should have good stats in any case, so your point is moot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UNICS]
Beta Tester
4,869 posts
9,434 battles
1 minute ago, Butterdoll said:

I disagree.

Man, just have some fun...better...lots of fun.

WRs and what not are not solid foundations  to judge the in game person performance by itself.

what about common sense?

aggressive players have or could have an high rate of deaths etc, but it doesn't mean they suck.

I like those players, they act, don't sit around.

wr and what not of that player suck, and so what?

If in battle they stay in the flank, holding it, if they are in the fight, pewing, pewing everthing, and torp every [edited]red ship and doing that well. I rather be with one of this players than other player. 

 

But if whatever they do makes them lose more often, then they do objectively "suck".

What other metric is there for if a person is a good or bad player?

I suck at quite a few things in this game. Some I care more about than others. But me not caring doesn't make me suck any less.

 

It's okay to not give 110% all the time when playing games for your own entertainment. But that still doesn't mean that the 43% WR guy with 10k battles played doesn't suck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×