I've been looking through the stats provided on the World of Warships web site, and it's been over a month since I've said anything about my stats. Mostly that's because there is nothing much to say. I'm not the worlds best World of Warships player, nor am I the worst. I'm solidly middle of the pack - or so I'd like to believe. I've not quantifiable comparisons to back that up. The players whose names I look up are guys like Notser, who have a 59.95% Victories/Battles rating and a 3.41 Kill/Death Ratio. Of course, he's fought more than twice as many battles as I have. Still, I'm not in that league, though I have gotten better thanks to watching his videos. They are informative, especially when it comes to targeting and aiming (not the same thing BTW.)
In summary, since the last time I posted statistics I have fought 202 battles, I've increased my victories per battle statistic by 2.03% and killed 0.18 ships more per battle. The only top line statistic to slip is average experience per battle. I attribute that to starting the Japanese destroyer tech tree. Lower tier battles just earn less experience. My gameplay is less cruiser heavy than before, but mainly because I started Japanese destroyers.
So that's my progress in general. But what surprised my about my statistics was in the warships statistics. It is through that drop down selection you can analyse your performance in individual ships. Every ship you have purchased is listed. As I was going through the various ships I've played, I discovered I have a 68% victory rate with my Colorado class battleship. I kid you not.
Granted, I've only fought 28 battles in it, but what does that matter? A win is a win even if it's your first battle. But looking at this fact, and thinking back about the bad reputation the Colorado class has in World of Warships, I'm finding it difficult to correlate the two. And then it struck me. The same reason the Colorado gets such a bad rap is the same reason I am doing relatively well in it. It's slow.
How's that you ask? Well, it works like this. When I am only able to do 21 knots, I have lots of time to plan my advance. With a 30 second reload time, I have lots of time to pick my target and aim well. Very seldom have I felt rushed when sailing the Colorado, even when I am primary for the entire enemy fleet. There is no point in rushing. It's a slow ship and you have to live with it.
Contrast that against the destroyers I've played. Let's assume that I'm as used to playing destroyers after 42 battles in a Mutsuki as I am with bullet slinging ships. My victory rate in the Mutsuki is only 45%. And I think I know what hurts me in that regard. I race into the unknown, get detected, and get whacked. I've written before of the all or nothing games I seem to have with destroyers. The nothing games are the games where I get into a capture point, get caught up in a hairball with another destroyer or a light cruiser, and have it handed to me. I'm just not that good of a twitch player. I do better when I slow down and plan my assaults, not rush headlong into a meeting engagement.
But it's difficult to prove such an assertion even when it makes perfect sense for the type of gamer I am. But there is some evidence for the assertion slowing down pays off. We only need to look at the statistics for my other tier VII ship, the Pensacola class cruiser, my second highest victory percentage ship.
Here is another bad rep U.S. ship with a better than 50% victory rate, and these are only my random battle statistics. There is an even better case for taking one's time in a battle in order to do better. My ranked battles in the Pensacola, the only ship I fought ranked, ended at 17 when the wait time in minutes began to exceed the number of ships in the battle. In ranked battles, no one rushes into anything. Fleets stick together, tend to play conservatively, and surprises are few. My victory percentage in ranked while using the Pensacola is 71%.
Once I had my hypothesis, it was time to put it to the test. I decided to do so in the Mutsuki. It can both dive into trouble quickly and play the patient game. I can't actually give you real statistics. I can only give you my opinion on how various games went as I tested out the hypothesis that slow and steady improves performance. Those games where I did not hit full throttle and dive into a capture point straight away did go better for my. Not always, but more often than not, and certainly more often than those games were I dove in fast, got into trouble and was blown out of the water. Now it only remains to be seen if I have the force of will to curb my love of fur-balls. Though I am not all that good at them, they are exciting.
So what do you think? Do your matches go better for you when you slow down and make a plan? What else is necessary for victory, other than team mates who are not complete idiots? That's a completely different subject and one I'll not get into on this blog. Let me know in the comments, and until we meet on open ocean, sail carefully.