Well, I had a 'look' ......

[Aethervox]

.... at my profile (my main account on EU now) & what did I find? (this post idea came to me from another about the 'most frustrating' ships that one plays .....

I'm an almost exclusive random battle player.

I had a 'look' at which ships & at what tiers I do well or decently at & which I do poorly at.

I defined well or decent as 50%+ WR, poor as below 45% WR & do not count any ship from 45 - 49% WR.

My list of notable ships, good or bad, are the ones where I have played, at, least, 100 random battles (my most played is about 500 battles, a T4).

Good Notable Ships: V-25, Emden, St.Louis, K. Albert, Iwaki Alpha, Arkansas Beta, Clemson, ARP Kirishima, Gnevny, HSF Graf Spee, ARP Nachi, Hipper & Richelieu

Poor Notable Ships: Algerie, Amagi, Baltimore, Yugumo & Fletcher (* I could list many more poor ships than good ships - I only list the ones with 100+ random battles)

I've played most of my battles from T4 to T8, more in low tiers (1 - 3) than in high tiers (9-10) (no T* or T11).

So, what did I find? 

I should, likely, stay more in the low tiers (2 - 4), avoid the high tiers (9-10) & be careful what I'm doing in the mid tiers (5-8). 

I found T7 to be especially risky for me, perhaps, because it can get uptiered versus T9s?

Otherwise, there are ships from T2 - T8, I do well enough with along with some from T7 - T10 which I definitely struggle with.

This was a humbling self-research experience 😐

 

Edited November 22 by Aethervox

[Silence_CN]

2 hours ago, Aethervox said:

I found T7 to be especially risky for me, perhaps, because it can get uptiered versus T9s?

Any player's experience is never near to another player's one.
As for me, T VII is one of my favorites... and probably the most rewarding though MM is hard (I definitely agree) BUT... But it can be easy to get a lot of experience while setting bigger ships on fire. HE spamming, and all that... (the Shchors is very good at this for instance).  🙂 
 

[Type_93]

7 hours ago, Aethervox said:

.... at my profile (my main account on EU now) & what did I find? (this post idea came to me from another about the 'most frustrating' ships that one plays .....

I'm an almost exclusive random battle player.

I had a 'look' at which ships & at what tiers I do well or decently at & which I do poorly at.

I defined well or decent as 50%+ WR, poor as below 45% WR & do not count any ship from 45 - 49% WR.

My list of notable ships, good or bad, are the ones where I have played, at, least, 100 random battles (my most played is about 550 battles, a T4).

Good Notable Ships: V-25, Emden, St.Louis, K. Albert, Iwaki Alpha, Arkansas Beta, Clemson, ARP Kirishima, Gnevny, HSF Graf Spee, ARP Nachi, Hipper & Richelieu

Poor Notable Ships: Algerie, Amagi, Baltimore, Yugumo & Fletcher (* I could list many more poor ships than good ships - I only list the ones with 100+ random battles)

I've played most of my battles from T4 to T8, more in low tiers (1 - 3) than in high tiers (9-10) (no T* or T11).

So, what did I find? 

I should, likely, stay more in the low tiers (2 - 4), avoid the high tiers (9-10) & be careful what I'm doing in the mid tiers (5-8). 

I found T7 to be especially risky for me, perhaps, because it can get uptiered versus T9s?

Otherwise, there are ships from T2 - T8, I do well enough with along with some from T7 - T10 which I definitely struggle with.

This was a humbling self-research experience 😐

 

So, basically you’ve come to the conclusion that you should play co-op.  
Tiers 1-4 are almost completely full of bots. T5 is about 50% bots.  
You are a liability for your team at higher tiers.  

[Wolfswetpaws]

Having some room for impovement doesn't necessarily mean liability, though.  🙂 

[Nautic_Hunt]

I don't worry too much about individual ship stats until I've got 200+ battles in it and even that is probably too low to call it a trend.

[Aethervox]

16 hours ago, Type_93 said:

So, basically you’ve come to the conclusion that you should play co-op.

Not at all. I don't play coop (as I only play Randoms). My conclusion, is I should play lower tiers if I want to increase my WR, even marginally.

Edited November 22 by Admiral_Karasu
Belittling comment edit

[Aethervox]

5 hours ago, Nautic_Hunt said:

I don't worry too much about individual ship stats until I've got 200+ battles in it

I've only got 11 ships over this threshold & these, as a group, indicate I'm a slightly over 50% player overall (so TY for your interpretation/opinion).

[Itwastuesday]

You don't need to increase your winrate. It doesn't matter. Just click battle with the mindset that you'll do everything in your power to win this game. Your winrate doesn't decide what happens afterwards. 

Just don't expect anything because there'll be a high number of people who do absolutely nothing to win the game. 

[Wolfswetpaws]

8 hours ago, Aethervox said:

Not at all. I don't play 'kindergarten mode' (as I only play Randoms). My conclusion, is I should play lower tiers if I want to increase my WR, even marginally.

A friend of mine once told me "The Masters hid their secrets inside their katas", which was referencing Karate and the sequences of movements that the teachers taught their students.

I have a similar sentiment for WOWs.  The basics are in Tier-1 play.
Everything builds upon the learning to shoot and move to an advantageous position and to communicate with team-mates that can be done in the low-tiers of WOWs.
Yuro mentions some of this in his video about the Erie.

  
As for win-rates?  

~First, random battle win-rate is tracked separately from Co-op battle win-rate. 
They're distinctly different statistics. 
So, there's no need to worry that one will bring-down the other, or vice-versa.

~Second, win-rate isn't worth losing sleep. 
There are 23 other "variables" in a 12 versus 12 random battle. 
You only get to control your actions.  You cannot control the 23 other players.
We can ask our team-mates to perform an action, but we cannot compel them to perform an action (and vice-versa).

~Third, the teams are randomly chosen according to the players available and the matchmaker programming.  It's not like a professional sports team.
Because a professional sports team spends their career training with their team-mates to work together, according to the Coach's instructions and guidance.
The professional team-roster is stable and they all use the same play-book.
They're not randomly chosen every game, as we are in World of Warships.  They're not sent into battle without a plan or a Coach, like we are in WOWs.


Co-op compared with random battles?
I think everyone could learn something in each battle mode.
Co-op players sink more ships per minute. 
Random players are contending with human minds which aren't programmed the way the courageous 'Bots are.
People who normally play a DD in randoms and then sail into a Co-op battle can be pretty obvious.  For example, they'll sail forward for a little while, then park their ship and activate a smoke-screen and wait.  At that point, they'll get passed by the Co-op mains sailing Cruisers and BB's and will learn that parking inside a smokescreen too soon will prevent them from engaging (let alone sinking) a 'Bot ship.
Conversely, the aggressive tactics which work well in Co-op may need to be toned-down and given a dose of patience, while waiting for the proper opportunities to develop in a random battle.
But the fundamentals of positioning and marksmanship remain important in all WOWs battle modes.  
 

[Aethervox]

On 11/22/2024 at 6:26 AM, Wolfswetpaws said:

There are 23 other "variables" in a 12 versus 12 random battle. 
You only get to control your actions.  You cannot control the 23 other players.

This bears emphasizing again & again, especially to those who snarl "get good". You are 1/24th of the players, hence approx  5% of the resulting action.

No wonder some aver that your team loses more often if your team loses the first two players in a random battle (more losses than the other team early on).