Jump to content
dualmaster333

Getting into the mind of a 44%er

Recommended Posts

Sounds exactly like how I played when I was at 49% when I was at 3k battles or so. Sometimes suiciding and sometimes sitting in the most useless location. Trying different "tactics". My problem was just that I did not yet understand at all how the maps work and where and how the chokepoints are. I'd guess the difference is that sometimes I also played well when I accidentally drove to the right part of the map instead of being 44% bad in every game.

For example at that time I thought sitting in the bush in K5 in my su85 was a good spot. What is important to understand that for a player of that level a good game is a game where he gets to shoot enemy tank couple of times. Because you also get lots of games where you don't even get to do that much. So sitting in K5 I was happy if I got to shoot enemy 3 times before dying.

But I was never so bad that for example when a lighter tank tries to circle me I'd just turn my turret and not whole tank. Also I rarely suicide rushed on purpose but in some tanks (3001p) I did that too. 3001p in t10 match... I'd probably suicide rush that thing even today if it still got into t10 matches...

Anyways as far as 44% tactics go here is my list:

- does not know map tactics, chokepoints and any good positions. But does still know some favourite places in most maps where he always goes.

- does not know weakspots

- can't even tell tiger and pz IV (or t43 and type) from each other

- doesn't use cover

- no patience, rushes and suicides when it is the worst option

- no consumables

- no equipment

- 50% crews in everything

- I'd imagine the crew skills probably look very "interesting" as well when they have those

- no minimap awareness. Does not see if a flank has fallen or if enemies are about to cap

- doesn't notice enemy is capping

- tunnel visions into single enemies despite being shot by 4 different enemies. Doesn't notice being hit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was at 44% once as well. For me, I was blissfully ignorant of what it meant to be good or bad. I thought you just kept clicking battle and grinding out the XP. I thought of it as a true click and repeat grind like any other mmo. I didn't bother learning even the basic mechanics of the game. Took me until probably the end of tier 2 to even understand how to correctly shoot at another tank.

 

Consumables? Forget it that cost money every match, and I didn't have premium. Equipment? That stuff was really expensive, no way im getting that. Crew training? free trained my crew to the next tank because -25% was the way to go. Strategy? Just rush towards the enemy team so we can start the fight already!

 

Some how I realized that by doing better I could get more xp and the grind would be shorter. I joined a RDDT social clan and started to learn the basics. I took a long time, and a lot of remedial lessons but I've improved greatly. I had to go back and replay lowers tiers and work my way up again. I went back a relearned a couple tanks I ruined the stats on and will probably have to do more.

 

Anyway, the point is don't just yell at people and say they are terrible. Just try to convince them that if they play better, the grinds go quicker and they will have more fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<p>

But to be honest, I used to be a 46%er at my lowest point. I had the same IQ as now. The differences are more subtle, just three examples:

  • I was able to notice a weak or failing flank on the minimap. I just wasn't able to deal effectively with it. Countless times I died heroically yet pointlessly trying to patch the hole rather than fall back and fight from a better spot/ where I would get some support.
  • I had severe problems getting shots with tanks that haven't gotten decent gun depression in hilly territory.
  • I lacked understanding of the vision game. How to spot, how to avoid getting spotted, when to fall back because you are likely spotted (didn't have a single commander with sixth sense back then).

I was a bad player as well.. Most of us start at that point. My IQ=skill theory is for players 10K games played plus.. By that time the game should be 2nd nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was a bad player as well.. Most of us start at that point. My IQ=skill theory is for players 10K games played plus.. By that time the game should be 2nd nature.

 

No argument, intelligence is one of the factors that make a good player. But there are others too: dexeterity, a good internet connection, experience, instincts, ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes and No. I know Physics Ph.Ds that are brilliant..... and JUST TERRIBAD at RTS. I don't know why.... but seem bad at game theory.

 

RTS is a weird animal because it has "strategy" in its genre name, but talented@RTS and talented@strategy are almost completely unrelated.  As I understand it, great RTS players beat good RTS players by out-micromanaging them (the Real Time part of the name), and all good and up RTS players have the build orders and matchups memorized anyway.  Great strategy players beat good strategy players by out-thinking them.  

 

I think that, other than looking up and learning information that's important for every game, good@tanks isn't going to share much at all in common with good@RTS except for landing really fast snipe shots.  Good@tanks has much more to do with thinking and reading a map than directing 28 units to focus fire 7 specific 4-shottable enemies within a 3 second window as they close to engagement range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't remember ever being lower than 54% even in beta. I don't remember when I started paying attention to stays but it was pretty early in my play.

 

Anyway, 44% players generally come off as complete idiots on the forums. I always just assumed most were just really stupid/old/young. The few times I have interacted with them in game, it confirmed, they were, in fact, stupid. 

 

For those of you who have pulled yourselves up from the 44% zone, bravo! You are clearly the exceptions to the idiot rule. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This weekend I saw a link on the official forums for someone streaming.  I clicked his profile and saw that he was a solid 44%er.  In the name of science I decided to observe him for a short while.  

I appreciate that you didn't feel the need to name/shame.

 

Did you sit on your hands?  Or, did you write to him?  

 

I'm just amazed at the sheer chutzpah of someone that bad actually streaming...

 

That implies that he understands that he is horrible.  

More likely he is a narcissist, or just likes to entertain, or likes messing around with technology. 

 

---

 

I'm not sure exactly how long it took, but I was certainly at 51% before a thousand games, mainly do to my love of strategy games, and early use of the forums.  

 

For people, like this guy, who are so painfully clueless, can we put any of the responsibility on WG?  Many complicated video games start you in a tutorial, or integrate tutorials into the early levels.  The designer's goal is that you learn tools, learn to use them, learn when they are appropriate, and iterate the process until you have what you need to be able to tackle the most immersive spots in the game without getting overwhelmed.  

How bad would this guy be if WOT taught us the fundamentals like other games do, rather than forcing us to either hunt for the tools on our own, and outside the game?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was a bad player as well.. Most of us start at that point. My IQ=skill theory is for players 10K games played plus.. By that time the game should be 2nd nature.

 

I don't agree, the inference IQ is associated to skill, is, flaky at best, there is no way to prove/disprove such an assertion anyway.

 

 

I have just hit 10,000 battles, in the last ~500 I decided to improve my stats, I did not become smarter, I just applied what I already knew and actually made a modicum of effort, instead of 'deerb R, R, R bang'

My 60D WR will go purple anyday now, my Avg. DMG, Spotting, WN7 etc have all increased dramatically, all I have done is paid more attention to what I am doing, and actively not do 'stupid things' (as much) and platted.

 

Having said that, I was always >50% (though borderline), and I never played OP tanks, just whatever tanks I needed to grind, or the Lowe for credits. 44%'rs could get close to 50% just by running OP tanks and platooning.

 

Increasing stats, is an easy thing to accomplish - especially when your starting from a low base.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would also want to relate this experience with a 45% WR player I platooned with yesterday for assessment purposes for my clan.

 

- Played the StuGIII at the front lines on Live Oaks even though I told him it's a sniper tank, not a front line tank.

- Remarks that he plays the StuGIII well and that his play style demands him to play in the front line

- Extends way too far from his team mates and gets cornered

 

- Extends too far into enemy territory on Lakeville middle valley in his VK30.01P

- Claims that he can bounce shots when he angles.

- Blames the fault that a "hidden" tank shot him which caused him to not bounce

 

- Malinovka encounter battle, player goes to south in his KV-1

- I asked the player what he plans to accomplish by doing at the south

- "Flanking" because the KV-1 is a "fast" heavy.

- Asks him to help north but north falls then player dies. Remarks that it's my fault I told him to go north.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No argument, intelligence is one of the factors that make a good player. But there are others too: dexeterity, a good internet connection, experience, instincts, ...

That's the thing. You did hit the nail on the head but let me be devils advocate for one second. The other factors you have listed play much smaller rolls in WOT then say a twitch based game like COD.. And that allows WoT to have a much larger pool of people.. I fricken played my first 3.5k games not being able to load in before 12 min mark..perks of playing on an toaster.. What I am getting at is the issues you have listed dont cripple game play as much as our own ignorance..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would also want to relate this experience with a 45% WR player I platooned with yesterday for assessment purposes for my clan.

Did he pass? : )

 

It is surprising that someone trying to get into a clan would make himself so odious to work with.  Even if he were skilled, his attitude would make playing with him awful.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did he pass? : )

 

It is surprising that someone trying to get into a clan would make himself so odious to work with.  Even if he were skilled, his attitude would make playing with him awful.  

 

Very likely, no. I was trying to do an attitude assessment. That is what was demanded from my commander. Poor commander gets sucked up too much because people want to join our clan by sugar coating.

 

IMO it's the attitude that is the most important factor to be distinguished. I don't want another internal clan problem like what happened back in HDB. In fact, that's the most common reason why clans die it's because of conflicting point of views from people with different personality and attitude.

 

You can teach anyone something so long they are obedient but if they refuse to listen they're better off left alone. Bad isn't a concern to me, I can teach a bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was an interesting discussion.  While I am not 44% bad, I am not good either.  Hearing stories of good players coming from sub 50% is not surprising at all.  Everyone must learn.  Insta-purples are probably a very low percentage of players.

 

Any correlation between IQ and game skills seems kind unprovable to me, but a certain amount of intelligence is required to analyze information from a map and come up with a useful course of action.

 

I play on a shit computer.  On a good day I have 18 FPS ~100ms ping. Yeah I know its a problem.  I am working on it.

 

There is no excuse for my poor gameplay though.  Its plain old bad judgement.  I have quit doing some stupid stuff like trying to solo a flank.  I still struggle with my role.  I way too often put my tank in an undefendable position.  Also, failing to move the damn tank when I know I am spotted is a solid part of my horrible survival rate.

 

I am not impressed with my own effort to improve.  I will have what I feel is a decent day with some improvement made, but after checking my stats it turns out I actually went down in W/R again and made very small gains in just a few areas.  That pretty frustrating.

 

I know if I cave in and say to hell with stats I am playing for fun, I will not have fun because I don't like sucking.  I am a team player and cannot fail on pubbies even when I know that I cannot rely on them to help me either.

 

I think I am going to take the day off from playing and just watch some replays and streams from good players.  I will also get some of my embarrassing replays loaded up so that maybe someone can watch a few and help me prioritize where to begin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just take it easy Jimmy. No one is there with a gun forcing you to jump the ladder that fast. Everyone always starts somewhere and to start you just need to accept that you are indeed bad and then continually improve.

 

In fact, one of the most important skills in this game is just simply, decision making. CarbonWard is a Unicum yet he always says he is "bad@tanks" (which I find it hard to believe, CarbonWard tell me why you are bad.) but remarks that the most important skill is simply decision making.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that saying "intelligence is linked to how good you are at something" is a little bit obvious, and also a little bit obtuse.  Obviously intelligence makes you better at things, but the important thing to consider with WoT is that it's probably not just raw intelligence that matters so much as information bandwidth.  You don't need to be capable of writing a doctoral thesis to be good at WoT, but to be really great at WoT you need to be able to take in a lot of information quickly, and then produce something useful with that information.

 

At any given moment, to regularly do well in WoT, you need to be assessing threats, figuring out which ones you can pen, reading the mini-map to see where new threats are coming from/if you should be relocating, remembering who's been spotted and where (or just reading that information from XVM), figuring out optimal cover, timing reloads,  and the list goes on and on.  The more of that information you can take in and make useful in a short period of time, the better you're going to play.  I'm sure there are variances, where relatively equal thinkers perform better or worse than each other based on play-style, but the bottom line is that the people who can accommodate that sort of scattered information gathering while processing it quickly and usefully start off with a serious advantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I presume there was a lot of space in the mind of the 44%er. 

 

Kudos to you to subjecting yourself to it though. I supposed its extra juicy to see the crews/loadouts/unedited footage, as opposed to just the snippets of horrendous late game decisions, post my demise.

 

This player sounds like the type who is actually so bad that they can counter skill, simply by lighting (accidentally) my scout in some ridiculous spot, or camping some inane place. 

 

1.  Crab, don't die.

 

2.  Something that was hammered home time and again the day before 8.7 went live.  Played several farewell games in my T-50-2.  The moronic, orange-red player camped in an absolutely useless position was far more likely to kill/spot me than the great player, who was right where he needed to be.  It leads me to wonder if it is somehow exploitable.  You can expect a uni to be right where he should be.  Can you counter that by being elsewhere, or will you damn your team to failure if you do not also go to that required location?

 

I know this is not 100% on topic but....

I believe that a persons WOT strats are tied to there IQ and IQ alone.. I believe the good players in WOT more then likely come from a back ground of success in games(all types;poker, COD ex..) even real life to an extent. I believe that if you where to blind test a sample group of WOT players you would be able to pick the Uncorns by IQ scores.. As you would be able to pick out the stat deniers..

If there is interests and we can somehow get a group of sub 45% players(10k +games) to get sample score..

But take my theory with a grain of salt.. I smoke stupid amounts of pot, and have ADHD... So what I am saying I might be a bit of a burn out..

 

I'd argue that point.  I think game familiarity goes further than raw intelligence.  Early on, at the very least.  I'm sure some absolutely brilliant people are completely unfamiliar with concepts like hit points, and a very logical mind may have trouble adjusting to 90 ton tanks being invisible at 446 meters, but clearly visible at 445.  The intelligent person likely would be able to better improve over time.  I agree with the end bit, though.  45% at 10k+?  Something is wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want to believe that skill at tanks is related to intelligence because that would be retarded, but pretty much every sub-45%er I've spoken to has been a colossal fucking retard so there's got to be something there.

 

I don't think the IQ thing has anything to do with it though. I know people love to draw correlations between IQ and gaming performance but beyond the most basic of levels I don't think it has any basis to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last night I saw a few examples of players actively making their team worse:

 

- Heavies bossing themselves into the prime sniper spots so TDs get stuck in crap spots. After a few minutes the heavy gets bored and goes fail somewhere whereas the TD is now stuck in a bad spot

- A SU-100M1 facehugging a Hellcat (to get the kill?), blocking a bunch of other TDs. Proceeds to die and leave a bunch of tanks caught out in the open

- Noob heavies firing HE when there's only a few tanks left (tank you are relying on to be there ends up being a potato)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1.  Crab, don't die.

 

 

Daily survival below 40%. Should have posted before 4am. 

 

My story is the same as Deus'. What I do, I do hard, and metrics are a form of feedback. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this is not 100% on topic but....

I believe that a persons WOT strats are tied to there IQ and IQ alone.. I believe the good players in WOT more then likely come from a back ground of success in games(all types;poker, COD ex..) even real life to an extent. I believe that if you where to blind test a sample group of WOT players you would be able to pick the Uncorns by IQ scores.. As you would be able to pick out the stat deniers..

If there is interests and we can somehow get a group of sub 45% players(10k +games) to get sample score..

But take my theory with a grain of salt.. I smoke stupid amounts of pot, and have ADHD... So what I am saying I might be a bit of a burn out..

 

Sorry but there is no possible way you can make that inference. Especially when you have to take into account hand-eye coordination, motivation, access to information, and desire to improve. Not to mention hardware, as some 44% players may just be stuck gaming on a potato. I've seen plenty of players with blue and purple stats act just as immature as those with red stats. I've spoken with plenty of decent players that I would not qualify as high IQ. Anyway, I think its a dangerous path to go down to claim that people who aren't good at this game are mentally deficient. They just need to be educated. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want to believe that skill at tanks is related to intelligence because that would be retarded, but pretty much every sub-45%er I've spoken to has been a colossal fucking retard so there's got to be something there.

I don't think the IQ thing has anything to do with it though. I know people love to draw correlations between IQ and gaming performance but beyond the most basic of levels I don't think it has any basis to it.

I may view WoT differently with how my ADHD has my brain wired lol... And I am not sure i was clear, I am talking 10k+ games played horrabad players, not noobs.. But at 10k played you should be subconscious improving.. The maps don't change match to match, tanks stay the same.. I don't see what else could affect game play.. I don't see how a sane person could enjoy playing a game at 45% and not improve.. What else other then ones IQ can be the common factor? I know there are players out other with subpar computers, hell I play on a laptop.. But that can't be what's causing such a large portion of bad players.. I mean hell there are bots that are better then real players.. I know I am all over the place..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They aren't getting better because they are not SEEKING out feedback.

 

There is little feedback in the game unless you go digging for it.

 

 

All GOOD players.... they pour over the end of game report and go, "gee.... I wasn't to hot that time"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how a sane person could enjoy playing a game at 45% and not improve.. What else other then ones IQ can be the common factor?

After rereading the first post, here is another theory:

If you think the game is luck, each press of the battle button is like pulling a slot machine lever.  Most of the time, nothing happens, but pull enough and you will hit the jackpot.  The same sane person who plays the lottery or facebook games could get sucked into WOT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After rereading the first post, here is another theory:

If you think the game is luck, each press of the battle button is like pulling a slot machine lever. Most of the time, nothing happens, but pull enough and you will hit the jackpot. The same sane person who plays the lottery or facebook games could get sucked into WOT.

Very true.. But the argument I mostly see is that people stat pad and that W/R are luck.. But there are hard numbers to prove that this is not not case..

I want to make clear this isn't an attack on for fun players.. We need them to keep the WoT ecosystem alive.. This is trying to find a common trait of the the for fun/bad player(personally I don't have fun if I am not winnig)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...