What did I do wrong in this battle?
Feldspar78
Feb 04 2013
Alright, so I've heard several times on this forum that every game is winnable, if you lost it's because YOU did something wrong. Now, I am a believer that winrate is indicative of player skill (And am well aware that it can be skewed in one way or another by various factors), but unless these people are referring to the "you all" version of you, I'm at a loss to think of what I could have done to win this battle. As such, I don't think player skill alone determines winrate.
The single suggestion I can come up with is that I should have joined the lemming rush (That stalled) in the forest, but A) I don't believe lemming rush is the way to go, B) What cue was there that said to do the lemming rush and C) Was there some point I should have known to abandon the flank I was on and head back sooner to create victory?
Or was there something else I missed?
I'd also be interested in platooning with a "unicum" or great player to learn if any are interested. I consider myself a good to very good player who has bad games and great games along the way.
The single suggestion I can come up with is that I should have joined the lemming rush (That stalled) in the forest, but A) I don't believe lemming rush is the way to go, B) What cue was there that said to do the lemming rush and C) Was there some point I should have known to abandon the flank I was on and head back sooner to create victory?
Or was there something else I missed?
I'd also be interested in platooning with a "unicum" or great player to learn if any are interested. I consider myself a good to very good player who has bad games and great games along the way.
Nithydux
Feb 04 2013
I saw Lemming rush and Then I knew what went wrong.
90% of the time they don't work and there is little you can do to fix it. Especially when the other team has lemming'd on the opposite flank.
90% of the time they don't work and there is little you can do to fix it. Especially when the other team has lemming'd on the opposite flank.
Harkonen_siegetank
Feb 04 2013
It's just a bad game, nothing you can do. That Bat Chat practically won the game for the opposite team. Your team arties were pretty much useless too.
mattwong
Feb 04 2013
Nithydux, on Feb 04 2013 - 18:53, said:
I saw Lemming rush and Then I knew what went wrong.
90% of the time they don't work and there is little you can do to fix it. Especially when the other team has lemming'd on the opposite flank.
90% of the time they don't work and there is little you can do to fix it. Especially when the other team has lemming'd on the opposite flank.
The worst is when the team lemming-rushes right and it's just you and maybe 1 other guy to hold the left flank ... and you somehow manage to do it. Working together against superior odds, you and one other guy heroically hold the flank by yourselves ... only to discover that the guys who went right with 90% of your force somehow all died, leaving the two of you to stand alone against attacks from both flanks.
mattwong
Feb 04 2013
portplug
Feb 04 2013
You simply can't win them all. When you perform well, but still lose, try to derive some satisfaction from your efforts.
Feldspar78
Feb 04 2013
portplug, on Feb 04 2013 - 19:31, said:
You simply can't win them all. When you perform well, but still lose, try to derive some satisfaction from your efforts.
I'm of the same mindset, but others argue that it's that mindset that causes you to lose. So, it is to those people that I ask this question mainly, although all are welcome to provide their input.
stickjock
Feb 04 2013
mattwong, on Feb 04 2013 - 19:17, said:
You know, it's annoying when clan elitists with a 60% win-rate think they're sooooo superior to the "pubbies", but when a 47% clan guy acts the same way, it's just laughable.
I remember when I was first learning how to play the game just like D_X_T is... 48% hit ratio??
Arashikumo
Feb 04 2013
Could be a number of factors :
a) they had a better concentration of arty shells raining down in the forest, evident from the arty kills. With 3-4 arties per team, they can easily influence the flow of the battle. The team with the better arty player usually wins. This holds true for any other arty friendly maps too.
b) forest team took WAY too long to kill a T54 scout .. some of your heavies were moving about too much, wasting the precious window of opportunity to kill that first scout asap. With the number of guns in the magic forest, they should have dispatched the T54 in less than 10secs after it's spotted, typically. This could indicate a player skill issue for your team. I'm almost sure they had a clear firing line from that close to the edge, without the usual ridge bump blocking shots.
c) your team's Type 59 scout died a lot sooner. He backed off from the H9 hill when he could have used it as both cover and to serve as both scout and bait for your forest snipers. Granted you'd have to be arty wary, but backing off like in the open is like having a "Please kill me" sign. Which would be better, useful death or useless death? When he died, your forest team went blind.
d) the enemy had a ballsy IS4, which for some reason your forest team can't seem to bring down?
e) your western flank push seems slightly too passive. There is some hesitation and it looks like you're trying your hardest not to scratch your paint job. That T62 is just asking to be turned into Swiss cheese from the arty and sniper fire in that position.
Imo, it's a lost cause after your 1/3 of your team started dying like mayflies and lost the forest.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
My best guess would be e), if the western push had been slightly more agressive, that could have shifted some arty attention off the forest. It'll give them some room to breathe, assuming they're not total incompetents.
a) they had a better concentration of arty shells raining down in the forest, evident from the arty kills. With 3-4 arties per team, they can easily influence the flow of the battle. The team with the better arty player usually wins. This holds true for any other arty friendly maps too.
b) forest team took WAY too long to kill a T54 scout .. some of your heavies were moving about too much, wasting the precious window of opportunity to kill that first scout asap. With the number of guns in the magic forest, they should have dispatched the T54 in less than 10secs after it's spotted, typically. This could indicate a player skill issue for your team. I'm almost sure they had a clear firing line from that close to the edge, without the usual ridge bump blocking shots.
c) your team's Type 59 scout died a lot sooner. He backed off from the H9 hill when he could have used it as both cover and to serve as both scout and bait for your forest snipers. Granted you'd have to be arty wary, but backing off like in the open is like having a "Please kill me" sign. Which would be better, useful death or useless death? When he died, your forest team went blind.
d) the enemy had a ballsy IS4, which for some reason your forest team can't seem to bring down?
e) your western flank push seems slightly too passive. There is some hesitation and it looks like you're trying your hardest not to scratch your paint job. That T62 is just asking to be turned into Swiss cheese from the arty and sniper fire in that position.
Imo, it's a lost cause after your 1/3 of your team started dying like mayflies and lost the forest.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
My best guess would be e), if the western push had been slightly more agressive, that could have shifted some arty attention off the forest. It'll give them some room to breathe, assuming they're not total incompetents.
UncleRuckus
Feb 04 2013
Feldspar78, on Feb 04 2013 - 22:29, said:
I'm of the same mindset, but others argue that it's that mindset that causes you to lose. So, it is to those people that I ask this question mainly, although all are welcome to provide their input.
That reminds me of Yoda's inane and useless advice in Star Wars. e.g. "There is no try, only do."
Feldspar78
Feb 05 2013
Arashikumo, on Feb 04 2013 - 22:42, said:
Could be a number of factors :
a) they had a better concentration of arty shells raining down in the forest, evident from the arty kills. With 3-4 arties per team, they can easily influence the flow of the battle. The team with the better arty player usually wins. This holds true for any other arty friendly maps too.
b) forest team took WAY too long to kill a T54 scout .. some of your heavies were moving about too much, wasting the precious window of opportunity to kill that first scout asap. With the number of guns in the magic forest, they should have dispatched the T54 in less than 10secs after it's spotted, typically. This could indicate a player skill issue for your team. I'm almost sure they had a clear firing line from that close to the edge, without the usual ridge bump blocking shots.
c) your team's Type 59 scout died a lot sooner. He backed off from the H9 hill when he could have used it as both cover and to serve as both scout and bait for your forest snipers. Granted you'd have to be arty wary, but backing off like in the open is like having a "Please kill me" sign. Which would be better, useful death or useless death? When he died, your forest team went blind.
d) the enemy had a ballsy IS4, which for some reason your forest team can't seem to bring down?
e) your western flank push seems slightly too passive. There is some hesitation and it looks like you're trying your hardest not to scratch your paint job. That T62 is just asking to be turned into Swiss cheese from the arty and sniper fire in that position.
Imo, it's a lost cause after your 1/3 of your team started dying like mayflies and lost the forest.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
My best guess would be e), if the western push had been slightly more agressive, that could have shifted some arty attention off the forest. It'll give them some room to breathe, assuming they're not total incompetents.
a) they had a better concentration of arty shells raining down in the forest, evident from the arty kills. With 3-4 arties per team, they can easily influence the flow of the battle. The team with the better arty player usually wins. This holds true for any other arty friendly maps too.
b) forest team took WAY too long to kill a T54 scout .. some of your heavies were moving about too much, wasting the precious window of opportunity to kill that first scout asap. With the number of guns in the magic forest, they should have dispatched the T54 in less than 10secs after it's spotted, typically. This could indicate a player skill issue for your team. I'm almost sure they had a clear firing line from that close to the edge, without the usual ridge bump blocking shots.
c) your team's Type 59 scout died a lot sooner. He backed off from the H9 hill when he could have used it as both cover and to serve as both scout and bait for your forest snipers. Granted you'd have to be arty wary, but backing off like in the open is like having a "Please kill me" sign. Which would be better, useful death or useless death? When he died, your forest team went blind.
d) the enemy had a ballsy IS4, which for some reason your forest team can't seem to bring down?
e) your western flank push seems slightly too passive. There is some hesitation and it looks like you're trying your hardest not to scratch your paint job. That T62 is just asking to be turned into Swiss cheese from the arty and sniper fire in that position.
Imo, it's a lost cause after your 1/3 of your team started dying like mayflies and lost the forest.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
My best guess would be e), if the western push had been slightly more agressive, that could have shifted some arty attention off the forest. It'll give them some room to breathe, assuming they're not total incompetents.
I appreciate the in-depth analysis and the thought put into this, however I understand why we failed as a team. I was looking more for what decision did *I* make during the game that, had I made a different one, would have caused us to win. And if there is such a decision, what would have led me to make that decision?
Basically, while I personally don't think it was possible for me to pull off that victory, there are many people who have said multiple times that winrate is solely your responsibility, and I want to hear from that crowd. Maybe they're right, and I'm open to learning why.
mattwong
Feb 05 2013
Feldspar78, on Feb 05 2013 - 16:47, said:
Basically, while I personally don't think it was possible for me to pull off that victory, there are many people who have said multiple times that winrate is solely your responsibility, and I want to hear from that crowd. Maybe they're right, and I'm open to learning why.
They're right because win RATE is not necessarily winning every single game. No one says that you should have a win-rate of 100%. Win RATE is based on winning more games than you lose, not winning impossible situations that a horrible team has created for you.
The fact is that over large numbers of games, the other team is just as likely to be horrible as your own team. Therefore, you can't blame a bad win rate on horrible teams. The job of a tanker is to increase his team's chances of winning. If he can increase a bad team's chances of winning from 30% to 40%, then he has done this, and if he does this every game, then he will win more games than he loses, and his win rate will go up.
Arashikumo
Feb 05 2013
Feldspar78, on Feb 05 2013 - 16:47, said:
I was looking more for what decision did *I* make during the game that, had I made a different one, would have caused us to win. And if there is such a decision, what would have led me to make that decision?
Basically, while I personally don't think it was possible for me to pull off that victory, there are many people who have said multiple times that winrate is solely your responsibility, and I want to hear from that crowd. Maybe they're right, and I'm open to learning why.
Basically, while I personally don't think it was possible for me to pull off that victory, there are many people who have said multiple times that winrate is solely your responsibility, and I want to hear from that crowd. Maybe they're right, and I'm open to learning why.
As written before, the western flank push was too passive. I didn't want to elaborate to keep the text to a minimum and expected it was understood. Your team had 2 top TierX on that flank, plus 2 Tier 8s. That's enough tanks to at least probe that flank aggressively. Note that your team's IS7 moved forward aggressively to kill a low health tank. It suffered no damage for quite a while i.e. meaning the enemy isn't focused on that flank or they have poor tanks defending it. However, you instead backed off and tried to stay on the defensive - prefering to be safe and draw out the battle. Sensing no support, that probably stalled the lead tank. You lost the window of opportunity for a shock breakthrough. If you've seen some unicums replays, they don't only play well, but they have a very good grasp of the tactical situation and create opportunities/openings for their teams.
Even after the forest was lost, there was a longshot chance of winning the battle by capping. You should have pushed forward and supported the IS7. Even if you don't win, at least you could have probably dished out a bit more damage before they eventually outflank you.
"winrate is solely your responsibility" is correct. Your interpretation of it however, is too literal.
