Jump to content


Constructive Criticism


  • Please log in to reply
79 replies to this topic

Charfyee #41 Posted 11 July 2018 - 06:05 PM

    Junior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 6048 battles
  • 152
  • [22ND2]
  • Member since:
    04-27-2016
LOOOOOOK AT THE THREADS THEY HAVE MULTIPLIED

SpartacusDiablo #42 Posted 11 July 2018 - 06:06 PM

    Highly Illogical

  • Players
  • 16321 battles
  • 7,000
  • [III-R]
  • Member since:
    02-17-2014

View PostiRaikkonen, on 11 July 2018 - 09:23 AM, said:

 

Stats overall aren’t crazy meaningful until tier x anyways so don’t worry too much

I do question this though.  Perhaps if you are recruiting for a tier X competitive clan I would agree but for the run of the mill player (which I am) I would not.  I half jokingly call myself a tier VI Unicum.  I came to this game for WW2 tanks and that is what I enjoy playing.  I have little experience in playing in a competitive manner.  I'll occasionally venture into tier X but I find it to be slow and less fun then the middle tiers.  I also rarely find the quality of players to be much better there.  Far too many people have failed their way to the top (I am in no way implying that you are one of those people) and now reside there as some sort of status symbol.  I ran my FV4202 a bit this morning... The amount of 40% win-rate / 400 avg dmg players was mind blowing.  Tier X stats are important, especially if you are recruiting tier X players for competition but I do not think I put the same value on them that you do.  Just my opinion on the matter.


If you find that you lose more often then you win it may be time for you to admit that "the team" isn't the problem...

Find me on Discord, [SpartacusDiablo#7879]


Charfyee #43 Posted 11 July 2018 - 06:07 PM

    Junior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 6048 battles
  • 152
  • [22ND2]
  • Member since:
    04-27-2016
LOLOL U HAVE AL BEEN TROLLED LOLOLOL

SpartacusDiablo #44 Posted 11 July 2018 - 06:10 PM

    Highly Illogical

  • Players
  • 16321 battles
  • 7,000
  • [III-R]
  • Member since:
    02-17-2014

View PostBobboEvans, on 11 July 2018 - 01:03 PM, said:

His DPM in the Super Pershing for last 30 days.  Not overall.  I don’t normally even look at this stat.  However, it’s been a long while since I’ve tooned with SD so I was looking for indicators on why his stats in the tank weren’t good without even playing with him.  Im simply guessing. 

I've had a rough go in my Super Pershing lately.  It's rain or shine in that tank.  What it really comes down to is the weak spots.  I know all the ways to mitigate players hitting them but some folks know the tricks.... Other times they don't.  Lately they are nailing shots that amaze me.  Had a 13/75 hit me twice in a row in the commanders hatch this morning... While we were both moving.  This was from around 150 meters.  Against a novice the armor is awesome. Against a player who knows what they are doing it can be a struggle.  


If you find that you lose more often then you win it may be time for you to admit that "the team" isn't the problem...

Find me on Discord, [SpartacusDiablo#7879]


bob_000 #45 Posted 11 July 2018 - 06:26 PM

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 12997 battles
  • 408
  • [S3MC]
  • Member since:
    06-29-2015
You're improving and doing pretty well over your 30-60-90. As stated by Raikonen, your spots are a bit too high. Being an aggressive spotter can lead to you losing alot of hit points early on in the game and this may cost you by the end of it. I think your average damage from the last 30 days can improve a bit. Maybe to 1.5k-1.6k. IMO, just set a bar higher than your current 30 day average damage (1.5-1.8k dmg) and consistently hit those numbers in the games you play at your average tier. 

bg2b #46 Posted 11 July 2018 - 06:59 PM

    M4 Lifestyle

  • Players
  • 18051 battles
  • 2,085
  • [SPUD]
  • Member since:
    12-10-2015

View PostBobboEvans, on 11 July 2018 - 02:03 PM, said:

His DPM in the Super Pershing for last 30 days.  Not overall.  I don’t normally even look at this stat.  However, it’s been a long while since I’ve tooned with SD so I was looking for indicators on why his stats in the tank weren’t good without even playing with him.  Im simply guessing. 

 

His SuperPershing DPM for 30 days says 525.  Anyway, it doesn't really matter; I get the point of the stat.

Absolute_Sniper #47 Posted 11 July 2018 - 07:11 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 26096 battles
  • 1,490
  • [CRU2L]
  • Member since:
    11-05-2015
For everyone saying the spot rate is too high, I have to disagree. With a 48% survival rate I would say your spots per battle are just fine. This may be slightly inflated due to the platoon rate but if you are getting spots and not getting rekt, you’re doing something right.

SpartacusDiablo #48 Posted 11 July 2018 - 07:19 PM

    Highly Illogical

  • Players
  • 16321 battles
  • 7,000
  • [III-R]
  • Member since:
    02-17-2014

View PostAbsolute_Sniper, on 11 July 2018 - 02:11 PM, said:

For everyone saying the spot rate is too high, I have to disagree. With a 48% survival rate I would say your spots per battle are just fine. This may be slightly inflated due to the platoon rate but if you are getting spots and not getting rekt, you’re doing something right.

Thanks.  I do enjoy playing the scout.


If you find that you lose more often then you win it may be time for you to admit that "the team" isn't the problem...

Find me on Discord, [SpartacusDiablo#7879]


___ez_e___ #49 Posted 11 July 2018 - 08:57 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 58106 battles
  • 2,647
  • [GORT]
  • Member since:
    03-15-2015

View PostSpartacusDiablo, on 11 July 2018 - 01:06 PM, said:

I do question this though.  Perhaps if you are recruiting for a tier X competitive clan I would agree but for the run of the mill player (which I am) I would not.  I half jokingly call myself a tier VI Unicum.  I came to this game for WW2 tanks and that is what I enjoy playing.  I have little experience in playing in a competitive manner.  I'll occasionally venture into tier X but I find it to be slow and less fun then the middle tiers.  I also rarely find the quality of players to be much better there.  Far too many people have failed their way to the top (I am in no way implying that you are one of those people) and now reside there as some sort of status symbol.  I ran my FV4202 a bit this morning... The amount of 40% win-rate / 400 avg dmg players was mind blowing.  Tier X stats are important, especially if you are recruiting tier X players for competition but I do not think I put the same value on them that you do.  Just my opinion on the matter.

 

I agree with you.  Tier X is for pay to play players.   As a free player there’s no incentive for me to play tier X and there’s a massive disincentive.    

 

Don’t get me wrong either, I’m a competitive player at any tier, but tier X is an absolute waste compared to all other tiers as it stagnants credits.  

 

 

 



SpartacusDiablo #50 Posted 12 July 2018 - 11:21 AM

    Highly Illogical

  • Players
  • 16321 battles
  • 7,000
  • [III-R]
  • Member since:
    02-17-2014

I took a trip to tier X today after having some of the worst luck possible at eight.  Had an absolutely horrible run in my Super Pershing.  Nearly every game left me as the last tank against 4.  I just couldn't move or shoot fast enough.  Very much a bummer...

 

Anyway, I decided to run my FV4202 before calling it a day and here is how that match went.  In hindsight I think I could have been quicker to move a few times but I'm not really sure what I could have done differently to turn this into a win.  What say you?


If you find that you lose more often then you win it may be time for you to admit that "the team" isn't the problem...

Find me on Discord, [SpartacusDiablo#7879]


minitel_NA #51 Posted 12 July 2018 - 11:33 AM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 451 battles
  • 3,521
  • [EUREF]
  • Member since:
    12-19-2015

Spartacus, did you steal my stats ?

 

I’m just a lot clumsier and more impatient than you are

and thanks to all the replies, particularly raikonnen,

since it pretty much exactly applies to me :)


Edited by minitel_NA, 12 July 2018 - 11:44 AM.

Minitelrose visiting from EU, occasional player/forumer in the NA

 


NaDa_22 #52 Posted 12 July 2018 - 12:03 PM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 32303 battles
  • 907
  • [_V_]
  • Member since:
    03-27-2016

View PostSpartacusDiablo, on 11 July 2018 - 06:06 PM, said:

I do question this though.  Perhaps if you are recruiting for a tier X competitive clan I would agree but for the run of the mill player (which I am) I would not.  I half jokingly call myself a tier VI Unicum.  I came to this game for WW2 tanks and that is what I enjoy playing.  I have little experience in playing in a competitive manner.  I'll occasionally venture into tier X but I find it to be slow and less fun then the middle tiers.  I also rarely find the quality of players to be much better there.  Far too many people have failed their way to the top (I am in no way implying that you are one of those people) and now reside there as some sort of status symbol.  I ran my FV4202 a bit this morning... The amount of 40% win-rate / 400 avg dmg players was mind blowing.  Tier X stats are important, especially if you are recruiting tier X players for competition but I do not think I put the same value on them that you do.  Just my opinion on the matter.

 

Top clans have figured out awhile ago that tier X stats (in particular damage per battle #) are most indicative about the player's actual skill level and expected performance level in all tiers.

 

Doing well at tier X requires patience, reading match ups correctly and making right adjustments, and most importantly, ability to hit the majority of shots. Those skills & knowledge can trickle downward, so if top clans ever come to abandon tier X, they will simply dominate the next tier. (Though it does not mean that top clan players wouldn't need initial adjustment periods). 

 

Obviously, stats are only as important as context in which they are derived from, so top clans tend to be more nuanced than just looking at simple Xs and Os, and may even put the potential prospects through some testing, so eye-test can be done. 

 

Winning tier X tournaments are obviously a high priority, because that establishes relative pecking order among the top clans, but top clans are like most companies -- they are, in general, looking for the best people available. 


Edited by NaDa_22, 12 July 2018 - 12:04 PM.


NaDa_22 #53 Posted 12 July 2018 - 12:13 PM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 32303 battles
  • 907
  • [_V_]
  • Member since:
    03-27-2016

View PostSpartacusDiablo, on 12 July 2018 - 11:21 AM, said:

I took a trip to tier X today after having some of the worst luck possible at eight.  Had an absolutely horrible run in my Super Pershing.  Nearly every game left me as the last tank against 4.  I just couldn't move or shoot fast enough.  Very much a bummer...

 

Anyway, I decided to run my FV4202 before calling it a day and here is how that match went.  In hindsight I think I could have been quicker to move a few times but I'm not really sure what I could have done differently to turn this into a win.  What say you?

 

Your team wasn't good -- so best thing you could really hope for in this kind of situation is to do as many damage as you can and move onto the next battle. 

 

With that said, I would have crossed the river initially. That may have helped your team more via spotting, distracting and harassing enemy on the other side. 



SpartacusDiablo #54 Posted 12 July 2018 - 12:17 PM

    Highly Illogical

  • Players
  • 16321 battles
  • 7,000
  • [III-R]
  • Member since:
    02-17-2014

View PostNaDa_22, on 12 July 2018 - 07:03 AM, said:

 

Top clans have figured out awhile ago that tier X stats (in particular damage per battle #) are most indicative about the player's actual skill level and expected performance level in all tiers.

 

Doing well at tier X requires patience, reading match ups correctly and making right adjustments, and most importantly, ability to hit the majority of shots. Those skills & knowledge can trickle downward, so if top clans ever come to abandon tier X, they will simply dominate the next tier. (Though it does not mean that top clan players wouldn't need initial adjustment periods). 

 

Obviously, stats are only as important as context in which they are derived from, so top clans tend to be more nuanced than just looking at simple Xs and Os, and may even put the potential prospects through some testing, so eye-test can be done. 

 

Winning tier X tournaments are obviously a high priority, because that establishes relative pecking order among the top clans, but top clans are like most companies -- they are, in general, looking for the best people available. 

I understand what your saying.  My counterpoint would be this.

 

Not all good players play tier X and not all tier X players are good.  Of course that second point is a given but I think people tend to forget the first one.

 

That is just my opinion though.  It wasn't my intent to debate at what tier stats start to matter when I originally started this thread.  I was simply looking for feedback on how I can improve as a player.


If you find that you lose more often then you win it may be time for you to admit that "the team" isn't the problem...

Find me on Discord, [SpartacusDiablo#7879]


NaDa_22 #55 Posted 12 July 2018 - 12:35 PM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 32303 battles
  • 907
  • [_V_]
  • Member since:
    03-27-2016

View PostSpartacusDiablo, on 12 July 2018 - 12:17 PM, said:

Not all good players play tier X and not all tier X players are good.  Of course that second point is a given but I think people tend to forget the first one.

 

True, but I would also argue that tier X is what separates exceptional players from merely good players. I find that most debates regarding "skill level" arise from people not grasping that point.

 

I was going to respond to your inquiry -- but realized I can't add much more than what iRaikkonen has already said.

 

I don't look at things like spotting rate, or survival rate individually, nor do I care about them, if they are accumulated over playing multiple tanks that have different play style. Those things are useful at identifying bad players, but not so useful at differentiating one good player from another. 

 

I did add some comments on your 4202 game play. Obviously, it's a single game, that resulted in a steamroll, so I am not sure how much insight I can add. 



SpartacusDiablo #56 Posted 12 July 2018 - 12:50 PM

    Highly Illogical

  • Players
  • 16321 battles
  • 7,000
  • [III-R]
  • Member since:
    02-17-2014

View PostNaDa_22, on 12 July 2018 - 07:13 AM, said:

 

Your team wasn't good -- so best thing you could really hope for in this kind of situation is to do as many damage as you can and move onto the next battle. 

 

With that said, I would have crossed the river initially. That may have helped your team more via spotting, distracting and harassing enemy on the other side. 

I considered crossing the river.  in light of the comments I've received here I decided to take a more conservative route, I was also concerned that I would be hung out to dry by my team.  I was also too slow to switch ammunition types when I engaged the T-54.  Hindsight is a b****.

 

I appreciate your feedback.  


If you find that you lose more often then you win it may be time for you to admit that "the team" isn't the problem...

Find me on Discord, [SpartacusDiablo#7879]


___ez_e___ #57 Posted 12 July 2018 - 02:24 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 58106 battles
  • 2,647
  • [GORT]
  • Member since:
    03-15-2015

View PostNaDa_22, on 12 July 2018 - 07:35 AM, said:

 

True, but I would also argue that tier X is what separates exceptional players from merely good players. I find that most debates regarding "skill level" arise from people not grasping that point.

 

 

I absolutely disagree.  

 

The best players are the ones that can jump into any tank at any tier and excel.    The game is different at various tier levels.  

 

In addition, the logic you have used has caused some players to only specialize in tier X and in some cases specialize in a specific tank.    

 

We now have too many folks specializing in tier X, but that doesn’t make them a good overall player.   It just makes them good at tier X (or they just still stink).    

 

 

 


Edited by ___ez_e___, 12 July 2018 - 02:26 PM.


NaDa_22 #58 Posted 12 July 2018 - 03:16 PM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 32303 battles
  • 907
  • [_V_]
  • Member since:
    03-27-2016

View PostSpartacusDiablo, on 12 July 2018 - 12:50 PM, said:

I considered crossing the river.  in light of the comments I've received here I decided to take a more conservative route, I was also concerned that I would be hung out to dry by my team.  I was also too slow to switch ammunition types when I engaged the T-54.  Hindsight is a b****.

 

I appreciate your feedback.  

 

Your team was sort of following behind you, so you wouldn't have been completely isolated there. 

 

I sometimes just drive to C myself, but considering there were 4 light/meds on the other side, there is a good chance one of them would cross the river, and put your team in a bad position. 

 

I think your engagements were otherwise fine -- maybe except getting hit by E75, after trying to splash damage the side of his turret. You did solid damage and maximized HESH output, so that's a W in my book. 



NaDa_22 #59 Posted 12 July 2018 - 03:38 PM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 32303 battles
  • 907
  • [_V_]
  • Member since:
    03-27-2016

View Post___ez_e___, on 12 July 2018 - 02:24 PM, said:

I absolutely disagree.  

 

The best players are the ones that can jump into any tank at any tier and excel.    The game is different at various tier levels.  

 

In addition, the logic you have used has caused some players to only specialize in tier X and in some cases specialize in a specific tank.    

 

We now have too many folks specializing in tier X, but that doesn’t make them a good overall player.   It just makes them good at tier X (or they just still stink).    

 

If the best player can excel at any tier -- that includes the tier 10 by default. 

 

There is not a player who is good at tier 10, but is mediocre at lower tiers. But there are plenty of players who do reasonable well up to tier 7-8, but struggle to pull their weight at tier 9 and 10. It's not a coincidence -- it's harder to do well consistently at those two tiers. 

 

When I am talking about tier X separating good from the great, I am referring to tier X being a litmus test. Playing tier 10 exclusively has nothing to do with whether someone is good, or not. I don't care if someone has 20,000 games at tier X. If that player has a mediocre 30/60/90 days stats at tier X, he or she is merely an OK player. 



Gavidoc01 #60 Posted 12 July 2018 - 03:45 PM

    I Golded Level III

  • Players
  • 34056 battles
  • 2,924
  • [III]
  • Member since:
    10-12-2014

View PostNaDa_22, on 12 July 2018 - 10:38 AM, said:

 

If the best player can excel at any tier -- that includes the tier 10 by default. 

 

There is not a player who is good at tier 10, but is mediocre at lower tiers. But there are plenty of players who do reasonable well up to tier 7-8, but struggle to pull their weight at tier 9 and 10. It's not a coincidence -- it's harder to do well consistently at those two tiers. 

 

 

Completely agree with this. For me, my Tier X stats are almost the exact same as my Tier IX. I'm ok in X but overall my skill level currently peaks at IX for effective and "unicum" play. WN8 at IX, Unicum on Blitzstars. WN8 at X? Very good. So to me, that just tells me I'm a very good player overall.


My Blitzstars

My WOTBStars

I'm a Wallet Warrior. Deal with it.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users