Jump to content


low tiers


  • Please log in to reply
112 replies to this topic

Son__Of__Anarchy #41 Posted Oct 25 2016 - 15:41

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 29034 battles
  • 2,596
  • Member since:
    05-10-2016

View PostIronclad73, on Oct 25 2016 - 15:35, said:

 

Hit rate means nothing without looking at shots fired.  Someone who shoots 10 times in a battle with a 50% hit rate is going to do more damage than someone who fires 5 shots with a 72% hit rate.

 

in fact, i am the guy who shots about 15 times in a battle with a 72% hit rate..

Son__Of__Anarchy #42 Posted Oct 25 2016 - 15:43

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 29034 battles
  • 2,596
  • Member since:
    05-10-2016

View PostDader_The_Invader, on Oct 25 2016 - 15:41, said:

 

Then by all means reroll if you feel this way...

 

and why exactly would i do that while i have most the tanks i want already in this account and while i really dont care much about "bad or good" stats?

i really dont care about those numbers mate..

other people use to use those numbers to lower a player's true performance in a high tier battle..

thing that is irrelative in real..



Ironclad73 #43 Posted Oct 25 2016 - 15:53

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 22828 battles
  • 3,582
  • [DHO6] DHO6
  • Member since:
    07-26-2014

OP does not want help to get better as he thinks he's doing well. He only came here to whine and complain. He must not have a mirror to see what his problem really is.

Done here.



Son__Of__Anarchy #44 Posted Oct 25 2016 - 15:59

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 29034 battles
  • 2,596
  • Member since:
    05-10-2016

View PostIronclad73, on Oct 25 2016 - 15:53, said:

OP does not want help to get better as he thinks he's doing well. He only came here to whine and complain. He must not have a mirror to see what his problem really is.

Done here.

 

OP never claimed he is best player that takes no improvement.. as well OP never opened a discussion about good or bad players at all..

others did and OP just tried to prove them wrong.. OP is trying to say that players with "bad general stats" can do often better than players with "good general stats" in a battle..

as well, OP never complained about anything in high tiers.. OP is doing really fine in high tiers..

OP started this thread to point out that lower tiers need's some changes so they become playble.. in fact OP suggested that tiers up to tier 6 would be best if put in battles with just one tier higher enemies instead 2.. that was the reason that this topic started..



Ironclad73 #45 Posted Oct 25 2016 - 16:30

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 22828 battles
  • 3,582
  • [DHO6] DHO6
  • Member since:
    07-26-2014

View PostApostolos_Denopoulos, on Oct 25 2016 - 07:59, said:

 

OP never claimed he is best player that takes no improvement.. as well OP never opened a discussion about good or bad players at all..

others did and OP just tried to prove them wrong.. OP is trying to say that players with "bad general stats" can do often better than players with "good general stats" in a battle..

as well, OP never complained about anything in high tiers.. OP is doing really fine in high tiers..

OP started this thread to point out that lower tiers need's some changes so they become playble.. in fact OP suggested that tiers up to tier 6 would be best if put in battles with just one tier higher enemies instead 2.. that was the reason that this topic started..

No, you came here asking WG to make the game easier for you because you were not effective in tier 4 instead of improving and becoming effective in tier 4. 

And because you think you are doing well in high tiers is why you will not get better until you admit you are not doing well there.

 

I'm not a good player and am trying to improve all the time. The difference is I'm a lot better now than I was when I was at 6K battles and barely a 46% winrate. I didn't get better by blaming the game, I got better by realizing how bad I was and working to improve which I'm still slowly doing.

When I first played tier 4 I thought the same as you, now I can have fun in tier 4 and when in a tier 6 game with a tier 4 tank I usually can make a difference and when I'm in the top 5 players I consider it an accomplishment.



Son__Of__Anarchy #46 Posted Oct 25 2016 - 16:41

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 29034 battles
  • 2,596
  • Member since:
    05-10-2016

View PostIronclad73, on Oct 25 2016 - 16:30, said:

No, you came here asking WG to make the game easier for you because you were not effective in tier 4 instead of improving and becoming effective in tier 4. 

And because you think you are doing well in high tiers is why you will not get better until you admit you are not doing well there.

 

I'm not a good player and am trying to improve all the time. The difference is I'm a lot better now than I was when I was at 6K battles and barely a 46% winrate. I didn't get better by blaming the game, I got better by realizing how bad I was and working to improve which I'm still slowly doing.

When I first played tier 4 I thought the same as you, now I can have fun in tier 4 and when in a tier 6 game with a tier 4 tank I usually can make a difference and when I'm in the top 5 players I consider it an accomplishment.

 

didnt ask WG to make the game easier for me.. i asked WG to make game fair for all low tier players..

cause either you wanna accept it or not, a tier 4 tank against a tier 6, has none to VERY little chances to survive..

nor i said i cant go through tier 4 and i need the game to become easier.. i am in fact almost through with my tier 4s.. 10K exp loaded on my M5 stuart and 7K exp loaded on my St vz.29.. plus 27K free exp and 550K exp available to convert at anytime..

again you get me wrong because you so bad wish to just prove me a bad player.. thing that not gonna happen.. and anyway, thing that i really dont even care about even if it happen..

 

what i was asking isnt make it easier for me (i am already through), i asked make it fair so someone can keep playing tier 4 instead just passing through..

 


Edited by Apostolos_Denopoulos, Oct 25 2016 - 16:41.


Son__Of__Anarchy #47 Posted Oct 25 2016 - 17:15

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 29034 battles
  • 2,596
  • Member since:
    05-10-2016

why i still play tier 3 and 4 as you probably didnt read above, isnt to advance my lines.. that i could do 3 days ago when started grinding them already.. i could just completelly skip them with free exp..

i keep playing them cause there are still about 40 vehicles i need to destroy for my master tanker token.. all of them tier 3 and 4 vehicles.. i play to kill those tanks, how am i supposed to kill them when i play tier 3 and 12 enemies are tier 5 and 3 enemies tier 4? i am looking for tier 3 enemies FFS, very specific ones.. same goes on my tier 4 vehicles.. i play them to kill the few tier 4 enemies left for my token..

aw, guess what.. i NEVER meet them while in my tier 4, cause i ALWAYS play against tier 6 and 5..



Doomslinger #48 Posted Oct 25 2016 - 17:18

    Major

  • Players
  • 72273 battles
  • 5,767
  • Member since:
    07-29-2012

View PostApostolos_Denopoulos, on Oct 25 2016 - 06:36, said:

 

in my case and opinion it gets easier to win when playing higher tiers..

it gets easier to kill a E 100 when i shot at it with my leopard 1 or obj 140 than when i shot it with my indien pz or (as it often happened with my damn comet..!!!)

why play tier 8 when i ALWAYS find myself in tier 10 battles or in some rare cases tier 9 but NEVER tier 8? just to be food and free damage bank for tier 10s? thanks but i REFUGE.. NO MORE!!!

i dont like shoting 5-6 rounds with my indien at an E100 and none or one penetrate.. i rather shot at an E100 4 rounds with my leopard 1 and see all 4 rounds penetrating and causing serious damage..

 

so yes if you ask me, it gets a LOT easier to hit, destroy, win when i play in high tiers..

 

edit: i like to see that E100 trying to hide when sees my Leopard instead laughing in my face when sees my indien.. i think you get my point..

       and yes, chances are 85% that i will kill that E100 with my Leopard 1 when one to one..

 

 

The fact is that lower tiers are much easier to win in. You saying it is easier to win at high tiers is not a fact, it is your opinion. A skilled player at tier 10 can absolutely wreck teams at lower tiers. I have seen 60% high tier purple players get 70% or higher win rates in low tier tanks. There was a player with a 75% win rate in his T67 in a battle that I recently played in. He played high tiers quite well to but not at 75% levels like in the lower tiers.

Son__Of__Anarchy #49 Posted Oct 25 2016 - 17:28

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 29034 battles
  • 2,596
  • Member since:
    05-10-2016

View PostDoomslinger, on Oct 25 2016 - 17:18, said:

 

The fact is that lower tiers are much easier to win in. You saying it is easier to win at high tiers is not a fact, it is your opinion. A skilled player at tier 10 can absolutely wreck teams at lower tiers. I have seen 60% high tier purple players get 70% or higher win rates in low tier tanks.

 

me saying its easier to win in high tiers, as correctly you said, its MY opinion! not a fact.. i pointed that out already..

for my OWN case and own experience with the game..

because i already have enough experience in other FPSs and games with tanks as well, and because no matter what tier i play (9 and 10 excluded) i always find myself against 2 tiers higher enemies anyway, it makes it easier for me to play against tier 10 vehicles with a tier 10 vehicle.. 

personal case and opinion..



Ironclad73 #50 Posted Oct 25 2016 - 17:32

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 22828 battles
  • 3,582
  • [DHO6] DHO6
  • Member since:
    07-26-2014

View PostApostolos_Denopoulos, on Oct 25 2016 - 08:41, said:

 

didnt ask WG to make the game easier for me.. i asked WG to make game fair for all low tier players..

cause either you wanna accept it or not, a tier 4 tank against a tier 6, has none to VERY little chances to survive..

nor i said i cant go through tier 4 and i need the game to become easier.. i am in fact almost through with my tier 4s.. 10K exp loaded on my M5 stuart and 7K exp loaded on my St vz.29.. plus 27K free exp and 550K exp available to convert at anytime..

again you get me wrong because you so bad wish to just prove me a bad player.. thing that not gonna happen.. and anyway, thing that i really dont even care about even if it happen..

 

what i was asking isnt make it easier for me (i am already through), i asked make it fair so someone can keep playing tier 4 instead just passing through..

 

OP, I'm not trying to prove you are a bad player, you are doing that very well on your own.  I often play a few tier 4 tanks that I like just for fun so I know different than what you think.

I only tried to point out to you that playing tier 4 was not as bad as you think and can be successfully done.

Those that can't admit they need to improve never will. You are too close minded to listen to anyone that has tried to help you on this forum which indicates your chances of being able to play any tier tanks very successfully is not good.  Good luck with that though.



Doomslinger #51 Posted Oct 25 2016 - 17:42

    Major

  • Players
  • 72273 battles
  • 5,767
  • Member since:
    07-29-2012
The OP has said that he is seeing players with good stats doing poorly in his battles. OP likes to play high tiers so this means the team will be more reliant on him to do his part in the battle. If the OP isn't doing his share to help get the win, his allies may do much worse than they normally do because the OP is playing in top tier tanks. The team needs its top tier players to do their part or everyone will do worse in most cases. I am guessing he would notice his teams playing so poorly because they are not getting the support they need in the battles with the OP playing in top tier tanks. Because he is playing at bot levels in high tier tanks, he is sabotaging his teams and that is why he is noticing allies with better stats that are doing worse.

Edited by Doomslinger, Oct 25 2016 - 17:43.


Son__Of__Anarchy #52 Posted Oct 25 2016 - 17:42

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 29034 battles
  • 2,596
  • Member since:
    05-10-2016

View PostIronclad73, on Oct 25 2016 - 17:32, said:

OP, I'm not trying to prove you are a bad player, you are doing that very well on your own.  I often play a few tier 4 tanks that I like just for fun so I know different than what you think.

I only tried to point out to you that playing tier 4 was not as bad as you think and can be successfully done.

Those that can't admit they need to improve never will. You are too close minded to listen to anyone that has tried to help you on this forum which indicates your chances of being able to play any tier tanks very successfully is not good.  Good luck with that though.

 

glad to not make you tired trying then!!!

and very well you do playing those tier 4s for your fun.. 

lets ask the poor guy with the 200 battles that trying to advance his tier 4 to tier 5 without cash while playing mostly at tier 6 games?

you really think THEY find it lot of fun to do so?

 

and what "try for help" exactly you talk about? the "go back to tier 4" advise? because that was about almost everyone's precious help.. trying to prove that i have no place in tier 10 battles.. LOL

wanna play this part of the story all over again?

ah well.. someone advised as well to "read some manuals" (thing that i already did on my own by the way when i started the game) watching plenty vids on youtube next to it..

reading and watching reviews about tanks and right ways to play them..

 

yes mate, i spent enough hours doing that already..

rest i like to find out on the way while actually playing! sorry to disappoint you..



Ken_McGuire #53 Posted Oct 25 2016 - 17:57

    Captain

  • Players
  • 31250 battles
  • 1,732
  • [CLASS] CLASS
  • Member since:
    12-21-2012

Yes, tiers 3 and 4 are often hit hard my MM because:

1) They can see tanks 2 tiers up and only 1 tier down (with the exception of 4's seeing a T2 Light every once in a while)

2) Server population gives more tier 5 and 6 games than tier 3 and 4.

3) There are a fair number of tanks that, when you are bottom tier can one-shot you, so if you make a mistake to one of them who is in position to take advantage of it, you are dead.

 

That said, there are some advantages to playing where not everybody is at or near the view range cap. If you know what you are doing, this can be an advantage for you. Of course new players generally do not have the game knowledge to do this, and it is valid critique of the game that this new player experience needs to be improved.

 

Yes, some tier 4 tanks are clunkers. I hated the M5 Stuart - and played it really badly. Same with the Lee. They were some of my first tier 4's and I did not know what I was doing in them. While I am admittedly still not the best player, a comparison of my Lee and Grant stats shows that I have learned some things since then...

You are complaining of the ST vz 39. I found it to be a somewhat boring support tank. I admittedly have a terrible win rate in mine - had a string of 11 losses in a row in it even... But was able to generally put out damage. Not quite as much as I wanted to put out, but I did generally contribute.

 

We all rage about how terrible our teams are after battle. And sometimes they are: usually the better team wins. The better players are the ones who can ask themselves about what they might have been able to do differently. After all, we are all members of those bad teams :) Should I have gone to a different place on the map? Should I have recognized that the other flank was falling apart earlier and either pushed really hard or come back to defend? Did I make the wrong choice when I saw this for the last question? What should I have recognized from seeing the tank composition of each team before the battle even began?

 

It is quite impressive that you have "finished" so many lines with your battle count. Now is time for the next step - and playing those tanks better. It is a game, and I don't want to tell you how you have to have fun. But for me at least, it is more fun to be actually be alive more and win more - something I am still working on.


Edited by Ken_McGuire, Oct 25 2016 - 18:15.


Son__Of__Anarchy #54 Posted Oct 25 2016 - 18:03

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 29034 battles
  • 2,596
  • Member since:
    05-10-2016

View PostDoomslinger, on Oct 25 2016 - 17:42, said:

The OP has said that he is seeing players with good stats doing poorly in his battles. OP likes to play high tiers so this means the team will be more reliant on him to do his part in the battle. If the OP isn't doing his share to help get the win, his allies may do much worse than they normally do because the OP is playing in top tier tanks. The team needs its top tier players to do their part or everyone will do worse in most cases. I am guessing he would notice his teams playing so poorly because they are not getting the support they need in the battles with the OP playing in top tier tanks. Because he is playing at bot levels in high tier tanks, he is sabotaging his teams and that is why he is noticing allies with better stats that are doing worse.

 

indeed, i said that i see players with good stats doing VERY poorly in my battles, because i see them, often..

as well i said that i can be much more of a threat while playing a tier 10 tank against tier 10 instead a tier 8 against tier 10..

i will be put in tier 10 anyway.. so why go there with a tier 8 tank when i can go with a tier 10?

 

why try to hurt that E100 on my way that threating me, with an indien pz and a chance of one penetration out of 6 shots, when i can really hurt them with my Leopard 1 with 4 out of 4 penetrations?

give me a good reason for that, and make clear to me how exactly i would be more help to my team with a tier 8 tank instead a tier 10 in a tier 10 battle and i may consider play my tier 8s instead skip them right to 9 and 10 since i can!

 

as well i said that someone trying to blame a team's failure on a single player, he is in best case scenario NAIVE!!!

because as you put it, when barcelona playing football VS atletico madrid lets say.. and barcelona has its goal keeper in a bad day, means automatically barcelona loses the game yes?

cause barcelona has "blue and purple" players such as lionel messy and neymar.. but of cource they can do NOTHING, because BAD goal keeper is in a bad day.. poor barcelona is doomed..

for a team's failure, the WHOLE team is responssible.. if you ever did any kind of sports in a team, you would know that its THE VERY DAMN FIRST THING THEY TEACHING YOU!!!

now you wanna blame it on that poor goal keeper? you are welcome to do so..!

 



Son__Of__Anarchy #55 Posted Oct 25 2016 - 18:31

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 29034 battles
  • 2,596
  • Member since:
    05-10-2016

View PostKen_McGuire, on Oct 25 2016 - 17:57, said:

Yes, tiers 3 and 4 are often hit hard my MM because:

1) They can see tanks 2 tiers up and only 1 tier down (with the exception of 4's seeing a T2 Light every once in a while)

2) Server population gives more tier 5 and 6 games than tier 3 and 4.

3) There are a fair number of tanks that, when you are bottom tier can one-shot you, so if you make a mistake to one of them who is in position to take advantage of it, you are dead.

 

That said, there are some advantages to playing where not everybody is at or near the view range cap. If you know what you are doing, this can be an advantage for you. Of course new players generally do not have the game knowledge to do this, and it is valid critique of the game that this new player experience needs to be improved.

 

Yes, some tier 4 tanks are clunkers. I hated the M5 Stuart - and played it really badly. Same with the Lee. They were some of my first tier 4's and I did not know what I was doing in them. While I am admittedly still not the best player, a comparison of my Lee and Grant stats shows that I have learned some things since then...

You are complaining of the ST vz 39. I found it to be a somewhat boring support tank. I admittedly have a terrible win rate in mine - had a string of 11 losses in a row in it even... But was able to generally put out damage. Not quite as much as I wanted to put out, but I did generally contribute.

 

We all rage about how terrible our teams are after battle. And sometimes they are: usually the better team wins. The better players are the ones who can ask themselves about what they might have been able to do differently. After all, we are all members of those bad teams :) Should I have gone to a different place on the map? Should I have recognized that the other flank was falling apart earlier and either pushed really hard or come back to defend? Did I make the wrong choice when I saw this for the last question? What should I have recognized from seeing the tank composition of each team before the battle even began?

 

It is quite impressive that you have "finished" so many lines with your battle count. Now is time for the next step - and playing those tanks better. It is a game, and I don't want to tell you how you have to have fun. But for me at least, it is more fun to be actually be alive more and win more - something I am still working on.

 

finally, someone not "afraid" to see and say things for what they are instead trying to blame it all on that "poor goal keeper" .. thanks mate.. best post so far in this topic..

 

when a team loses, its NOT just someone's or anyone's fault.. ITS EVERYONE'S FAULT..

yes, even you blue and purple players so proud for your stats.. 

and you know what? if you all were so good and happened to be in my team some times.. YOU ARE RESPONSSIBLE for my 45% win rate.. 

we lost.. i didnt give that battle by myself, YOU ALL HELPED for that battle to be lost.. man up and face it.. you were just as bad in that battle.. worse than me probably in that specific battle and you should feel ashamed..

 

edit: and yes mate, i am trying to improve my game and tactics of course.. with every battle i play.. just for the moment i am more interrested on collecting the tanks i want in my garage than improving the stats on the ones i have.. i dont care about stats for the moment.. i really dont..

eventually my stats will improve when i reach the number of battles that makes those guys (the so proud blue and purple players) try to bully my way back to tier 4..

i am in no rush to improve my stats.. i am in rush to collect all the vehicles i want..

 

and yes, i may pay cash to convert exp and advance faster.. this exp to be converted has to come from somewhere though yes? from some premium and elite vehicles yes?

and the vehicles i have in my garage so far worth millions of exp yes? means i earned so many millions of exp in just so little battles yes?

aw well.. to me it seems i am doing really good regardless my win rate number!!!

 


Edited by Apostolos_Denopoulos, Oct 25 2016 - 18:41.


Doomslinger #56 Posted Oct 25 2016 - 21:10

    Major

  • Players
  • 72273 battles
  • 5,767
  • Member since:
    07-29-2012

View PostApostolos_Denopoulos, on Oct 25 2016 - 13:03, said:

 

indeed, i said that i see players with good stats doing VERY poorly in my battles, because i see them, often..

as well i said that i can be much more of a threat while playing a tier 10 tank against tier 10 instead a tier 8 against tier 10..

i will be put in tier 10 anyway.. so why go there with a tier 8 tank when i can go with a tier 10?

 

why try to hurt that E100 on my way that threating me, with an indien pz and a chance of one penetration out of 6 shots, when i can really hurt them with my Leopard 1 with 4 out of 4 penetrations?

give me a good reason for that, and make clear to me how exactly i would be more help to my team with a tier 8 tank instead a tier 10 in a tier 10 battle and i may consider play my tier 8s instead skip them right to 9 and 10 since i can!

 

as well i said that someone trying to blame a team's failure on a single player, he is in best case scenario NAIVE!!!

because as you put it, when barcelona playing football VS atletico madrid lets say.. and barcelona has its goal keeper in a bad day, means automatically barcelona loses the game yes?

cause barcelona has "blue and purple" players such as lionel messy and neymar.. but of cource they can do NOTHING, because BAD goal keeper is in a bad day.. poor barcelona is doomed..

for a team's failure, the WHOLE team is responssible.. if you ever did any kind of sports in a team, you would know that its THE VERY DAMN FIRST THING THEY TEACHING YOU!!!

now you wanna blame it on that poor goal keeper? you are welcome to do so..!

 

 

Since you are the only one around here that is seeing good players having bad matches in most of your battles, that indicates that you may be the reason why. I don't see that happening in my battles, the opposite is almost always true. Players with good stats usually do much better then the lower skilled ones. I think with you being in high tier tanks, which would make you top tier, means the teams are being hurt by your poor game play. You are making it more difficult and sometimes impossible for your allies to have great matches because the enemy top tiers are not being kept occupied with you playing poorly against them. You are the reason your allies are failing, not the other way around.

 

You have blamed your teams for your 45% win rate. This makes absolutely no logical sense at all. Why are some players able to win 60% playing solo? They get the same random mix of teams as you get, good and bad. in the long run, the good teams and bad cancel each other out and leave only your own skill as a factor in your stats. Are you saying that you are getting unique match making only for you and not the same as for other players? The match maker is holding you at a lower win rate for some reason? You said your allies played poorly and made you lose but everyone else gets those teams too, not just you. Look in the mirror for the problem in your stats.

 

Yes it is a team based game but there are battles where one player can make a huge difference. I have several videos showing how 1 player on a team took a loss and turned it into a win. A battle where an average or lower player would lose but was a win in their case. Everyone gets the same random teams over the long run. If we played 1000 battles, you would win 400 of those even if you went afk every battle or went to the washroom for 15 minutes every time. You would lose 400 even if you got a high caliber every battle and the remaining 200 battles have teams that are very close in skill level and tank types. Those 200 battles are the ones that determine your random win rate as a solo player. Better players are able to win more out of the 200 closely matched battles. You take the 400 auto win ones where your team was stacked and add to that how many you can win out of the 200 that have evenly matched teams and get your win rate. You start with a base of 40% and add how many you win from the even matches (0-20% added) depending on how many of the balanced matches you win. This will give a player a win rate of between 40-60%, depending on how skilled they are. This is true for 99% of the player base and they will fall within that range. For example, if you are a 55% player, this means you win around 150/200 of the closely balanced matches.A unicum can win 200/200 of those balanced team matches and a super unicum or a platoon of unicums can not only win 200/200 of the balanced matched but they are also able to turn a few of the "auto-loss" battles into wins. They can win 50-100 out of the 400 auto-loss battles where 99% of the player base would lose. There are players in this forum that have win rates over 60%.

 

You compared random battles to a sports team but that is just stupid. Random battles are not the same team every time you play like a sports team. A sports team would be the exact same players every time you play. A random system will give every player the same mix of good and bad teams so over a significant sample size. The good and bad teams will cancel each other out and your own ability will show in your stats. If you want to compare WOT to a sports team, then use team based modes such as team battles and skirmishes where they form actual teams, not the random mm. If a player's skill means nothing in your stats then why is it that a skilled team in team battles will almost always win vs a much lower skilled team? It is because skill does matter.


Edited by Doomslinger, Oct 25 2016 - 21:39.


Ken_McGuire #57 Posted Oct 25 2016 - 21:45

    Captain

  • Players
  • 31250 battles
  • 1,732
  • [CLASS] CLASS
  • Member since:
    12-21-2012

View PostApostolos_Denopoulos, on Oct 25 2016 - 12:31, said:

 

when a team loses, its NOT just someone's or anyone's fault.. ITS EVERYONE'S FAULT..

yes, even you blue and purple players so proud for your stats.. 

and you know what? if you all were so good and happened to be in my team some times.. YOU ARE RESPONSSIBLE for my 45% win rate.. 

we lost.. i didnt give that battle by myself, YOU ALL HELPED for that battle to be lost.. man up and face it.. you were just as bad in that battle.. worse than me probably in that specific battle and you should feel ashamed..

 

 

Yes, the battle results do depend on how everybody does. But it seems pretty obvious to me that while blue and purples do make mistakes, that people who win more games than they loose are tend to be doing more than their share of good for the team, on average, and those who loose more games than average are doing less than their share. So no, they are not responsible for YOUR 45% win rate. They are responsible for their, say, 55-60% win rate, which includes some losses - some of which does happen because they had a bad game. This is what I find in watching good players stream. They have good games. They have great games. They have bad games. But they have more good and great games than I do, and fewer bad games than I.

Doomslinger #58 Posted Oct 25 2016 - 21:52

    Major

  • Players
  • 72273 battles
  • 5,767
  • Member since:
    07-29-2012

View PostKen_McGuire, on Oct 25 2016 - 16:45, said:

 

Yes, the battle results do depend on how everybody does. But it seems pretty obvious to me that while blue and purples do make mistakes, that people who win more games than they loose are tend to be doing more than their share of good for the team, on average, and those who loose more games than average are doing less than their share. So no, they are not responsible for YOUR 45% win rate. They are responsible for their, say, 55-60% win rate, which includes some losses - some of which does happen because they had a bad game. This is what I find in watching good players stream. They have good games. They have great games. They have bad games. But they have more good and great games than I do, and fewer bad games than I.

 

More accurately, the battle results do depend on how everybody does but only for that 1 battle because the next battle will be a different group of players in random battles. Your stats don't depend on that one team you just had that played poorly, your stats depend on how well you play as an individual over a large sample size of battles. Like I said above, we all get the the same mix of good teams and bad teams, leaving the individual player as the only factor in determining his stats. One bad team didn't give the OP a 45% w/r. He averaged that w/r because he is not contributing enough to each of his battles. His average xp would show how much he contributes and if it is below 500, he is doing very little to help the teams win. XP includes not only damage but assistance to your teams by spotting enemy tanks. To average high xp, a player needs to be contributing a lot to his teams with both damage and assistance to allies damage.

Edited by Doomslinger, Oct 25 2016 - 21:55.


Ironclad73 #59 Posted Oct 25 2016 - 22:11

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 22828 battles
  • 3,582
  • [DHO6] DHO6
  • Member since:
    07-26-2014

View PostKen_McGuire, on Oct 25 2016 - 13:45, said:

 

Yes, the battle results do depend on how everybody does. But it seems pretty obvious to me that while blue and purples do make mistakes, that people who win more games than they loose are tend to be doing more than their share of good for the team, on average, and those who loose more games than average are doing less than their share. So no, they are not responsible for YOUR 45% win rate. They are responsible for their, say, 55-60% win rate, which includes some losses - some of which does happen because they had a bad game. This is what I find in watching good players stream. They have good games. They have great games. They have bad games. But they have more good and great games than I do, and fewer bad games than I.

 

Trying to explain to this to him is a lost cause. He didn't come here to debate or get help, he was just looking for someone to agree with him.  If a hundred people told him he was wrong but just one person agrees with him he feels justified.  Classic Dunning–Kruger effect.

 



GeorgePreddy #60 Posted Oct 25 2016 - 22:22

    Major

  • Players
  • 14680 battles
  • 13,313
  • Member since:
    04-11-2013

View PostApostolos_Denopoulos, on Oct 25 2016 - 12:41, said:

 

cause either you wanna accept it or not, a tier 4 tank against a tier 6, has none to VERY little chances to survive..

 

 

 

We covered this ground already, the following black text is yours and my answers in green:

 

 you try to play tier 4 and you come against tier 6 ALWAYS..  (I believe you exaggerate, tier 4s are not "ALWAYS" put into tier 6 battles)

 

its nonsence.. a tier 4 vehicle doesnt stand a chance in a tier 6 battle.. (Sure it stands a chance... go after the enemy tier 4s and tier 5s in the battle)

 

the difference its HUGE.. in 98% of the cases a tier 4 vehicle cant do crapagainst a tier 6  (There you go exaggerating again, load a reasonable amount of prem ammo and aim at weakspots and you'll be surprised to find that your "98%" figure is extremely wrong)

 

 

its just stupid to try grind a line from the begin, being tier 3 against 5s, tier 4 against 6s..  (I did it, millions of others have, too... a lot of us handled it OK)

 

low tiers up to/and tier 6 shouldnt be put in battles against 2 tiers higher.. they cant hurt the enemy..  (It's not gonna change, so get used to it and git gud)






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users