It’s alright for now (remove Sinai), as priorities go Air Assault is the most in need of a remake
Well, goofball or not, maybe they just got hit in the launcher and it wasn’t an actual intention…
If you have trouble with others, then there’s only one way to work with that and that is educating them rather than berating and insulting them because you think they’re dumb.
It alone is not a decisive indicator, but it is a really good tool to get a gasp of how the player plays.
High K/D and high amounts of deaths and really high win rate? Agressive player who plays good.
High K/D with relatively low amount of deaths and lower (but still good) win rate? A camper.
Both are a net positive for the team.
This just made negative sense.
I can say a billion times that i have 1 billion dollars, it does not make it true.
Yes they are absolutely tracked with 2 metrics:
Relative team position and average score.
LOL.
Well, being top 3312 by overall win rate, 2229 by relative team position, 1142 by K/D and 849 by average score surely makes me a bad player…
Sometimes even getting top 2-400 in the recent stats.
What is your best place? Oh yes, top 120k…
I dont. When i tell you (or anybody) that you are bad, it is just stating facts. Get good if it hurts you.
No. We the players still can not see through it, thus using it will likely bling a part (if not all) the team, thus the bots can approach without being killed.
Even if the smoke actually shields the players, repairing/crew replenishing is almost always a (much) worse option than respawning.
Sinai is one of the easiest maps.
They are unable to comprehend such basic things, such as understanding that maybe using smoke is useless when they get shot behind it.
The best case is that they just keep doing it, the worst (and more often) case is that they purposefully start popping smoke everywhere.
It’s not hard; it’s ass to play.
Because you dont know how to play it.
Pray you load in fast enough to get out of the death box.
I ain’t entering into your massive break down of everything because we know how it always ends up around here.
You’ve already prejudiced them, if you don’t even try.
And if it happens as much as you make out, then could it be the old ‘ooops’ in Air RB that was plaguing the playerbase for so long.
If you don’t even attempt to communicate with people CIVILY in the ingame chat, then how are they supposed to even know or recognize that mistake?
Correction: You wont even try to answer to it because you cant,a nd you know it.
No. I just know how my “team” will perform 90% of the times.
What?!
Because if you explain them 2-3 times in a normal tone, yet they do not understand it, do you think they have enough braincells to recognise patterns or understand anything?
It is already a miracle they dont forget how to breathe.
What do you think how much will a Tiger 1/2 player do whose full platoon is unable to kill a single Bulldog/T92 for minutes?!
What do you think how well will players understand anything when they have a full APCR loadout, and when you try to explain to them that it is a very bad shell, they just dismiss you and say that APCR is so good because it has a lot of pen, and then proceed to cry russian bias the whole match when said APCR does not pen the IS-3 or T-54 1949 front?!
These are the average players in assault mode. A mode that is literally point and click, yet they even fail at that.
They dont know that they made a mistake because they are too dumb to comprehend it, or delude themselves into thinking they have done everything right, and its just the game that is rigged against them.
No I refuse to be cornered by a negative poster such as yourself, who’s overstroked thier ego enough to lose track of why you play a game…
I used AI to make a point about this in the previous months that echoes my direct sentiment.
KDR does NOT show skill, and it doesn’t make you good that you’ve got a high winrate because the fact is that the match is decided by 2 TEAMS of numerous people so it’s not just you.
As I said, how are they supposed to know their mistakes if you don’t take the opportunity to actually teach them, rather than make out they can’t comprehend and be all upset about them not performing as you think they should be.
See above…
Nice cope. You just simply dont have an argument and you know it. You just try to find some nice excuse to back out, and you fail at that.
Now it makes sense why it did not make sense.
This is like the 10th time i explain you. Please answer this honestly:
Do you actually not understand it, or are you just trolling?
Over a LARGE NUMBER OF MATCHES both teams will have roughly 50% win rate (for simplicity assume there are no draws). This is the case when both 16 player teams have rendomply chose players.
BUT
If we lock in a single player in one team (so the rest 15 players are random, and the other team’s all 16 are random), then the individual has an influence on the team.
If the player is bellow average, his team will lose more matches on average, if he is above average, his team will win more, because his rest of teammates and his enemies are statistically average.
Another analogy would be a coin. A perfect coin has 50% chance to land head and 50% chance landing tail. But then you imbalance it just a little bit (even if the imbalance is a millionth of it’s mass) it will land more on tail/head over a large number of tosses.
Another example:
Chess bots such as Stockfish play near perfectly, to the point that no human, not even the best of the best can reliably beat it. Yet i can program a bot that only plays completely random, yet legal moves. Putting it against Stockfish would almost always mean an easy victory for Stockfish, because it is just leages ahead. Yet, in extremely rare cases (think about ~1 in a trillion) the random bot will win statistically, since Stockfish does NOT play perfectly, only near perfectly.
This is the same as here in game. The best player can be beaten by the worst (arguably MUCH beasier than the chess example), yet ON AVERAGE the better player wins most matches.
This is basic statistics, even on high school level.
Here is a simulation of a basic model in java: GDB online Debugger | Code, Compile, Run, Debug online C, C++
Running the simulation givese these results:
Simulating 1000000 amount of matches. Rating: 0 win rate: 37.7735%. Longest win streak: 11, longest lose streak: 33
Simulating 1000000 amount of matches. Rating: 1000 win rate: 50.0594%. Longest win streak: 17, longest lose streak: 18
Simulating 1000000 amount of matches. Rating: 2000 win rate: 62.0423%. Longest win streak: 26, longest lose streak: 14
Observaions:
Better the rating, better the win rate.
An average rating (1000) results in 50% (average) win rate, and roughly same length lose/win streak.
Better the rating, more matches are won in a row, and less are lost in a row.
Even this crude and basic model returns realistic win rates.
For reference, this is the win rate distribution for ground RB:
The simulation above was done using 16 player teams. What will happen if we change it, to 4 player teams for example?
Let’s see:
Simulating 1000000 amount of matches. Rating: 0 win rate: 26.0484%. Longest win streak: 8, longest lose streak: 42
Simulating 1000000 amount of matches. Rating: 1000 win rate: 49.9846%. Longest win streak: 20, longest lose streak: 19
Simulating 1000000 amount of matches. Rating: 2000 win rate: 73.9507%. Longest win streak: 39, longest lose streak: 9
The result is the same as before, with the difference being is a bigger impact of individual players, which is expected from smaller team sizes.
What about 64 player matches?
Simulating 100000 amount of matches. Rating: 0 win rate: 43.968%. Longest win streak: 13, longest lose streak: 18
Simulating 100000 amount of matches. Rating: 1000 win rate: 49.958999999999996%. Longest win streak: 13, longest lose streak: 13
Simulating 100000 amount of matches. Rating: 2000 win rate: 55.852999999999994%. Longest win streak: 19, longest lose streak: 13
Even in those cases a single player’s contribution is still significant.
Since these simulations use evenly generated random players, while in reality players’ “goodness” is more or less gaussian, let’s see what it looks like with a gaussian distribution:
Simulating 100000 amount of matches. Rating: 0 win rate: 29.296%. Longest win streak: 8, longest lose streak: 31
Simulating 100000 amount of matches. Rating: 1000 win rate: 50.01%. Longest win streak: 16, longest lose streak: 13
Simulating 100000 amount of matches. Rating: 2000 win rate: 70.68299999999999%. Longest win streak: 28, longest lose streak: 7
Well, an even better and closer to reality simulation. The only issue is that this simulation is quite slow.
Here is the code for that:GDB online Debugger | Code, Compile, Run, Debug online C, C++
Because i explain to them, yet they can not comprehend it, just like you cant comprehend this. And as i said it is just basic patter recognition, which they completely lack. If you shoot at one place 100 times, and all does nothing, then the 101th will not do anything too.
Even babies have this very basic skill. If they hit their head in the wall 10 times, they will recognise that maybe doing so is not a good thing. Yet these players? Nothing like that at all.
Same as above.
You’re the only one making negative statements about people because you can’t accept them as other people deserving of any effort.
What? That the AI AGREED with me when asked about how KDR doesn’t relate to skill, is that how petty your ‘gotcha’ is?
I don’t think I believe you in the slightest…
The pages of ‘reasons’ you placed was mere cope, I’m sorry you can’t handle anothers opinion so much you have to be argumentative a whole 12 months after the issue was brought out.
The fact you opened with this charming line makes it clear the entire time, it was just about being superior and arguing for the sake of it.
I should’ve left it be right, so you can be unopposed in your demand…
My GPT processed it faster.
Is KDR in gaming, or even winrate linked directly to skill?
**KDR (Kill/Death Ratio)** and **winrate** are often *used* as indicators of skill in gaming—but they are **not perfect or direct measures** of it. Here's a breakdown of how they relate to skill and where the relationship can break down:
---
### 🧠 **How They *Do* Reflect Skill:**
1. **KDR (Kill/Death Ratio)**:
* A higher KDR often correlates with better mechanical skill: aim, movement, game sense, reaction time.
* In *individual-focused shooters* (e.g. Call of Duty, Apex Legends), a high KDR can reflect a player's ability to stay alive and eliminate opponents effectively.
* In *objective games*, high KDR may reflect a more cautious or aggressive role—but not necessarily usefulness.
2. **Winrate**:
* Generally reflects success in completing game objectives, which can require a combination of individual skill, teamwork, and decision-making.
* In *solo competitive modes* (like 1v1 or ranked duels), winrate is more closely tied to personal skill.
* In *team games*, it still has signal value but becomes muddied by team coordination, matchmaking randomness, or role assignment.
---
### 🚫 **Where the Link Breaks Down:**
1. **KDR ≠ Contribution**:
* A player may farm kills but ignore objectives, hurting the team (e.g., high KDR but low impact).
* Support roles often have low KDR but are vital (e.g., healers or intel players).
2. **Winrate Affected by External Factors**:
* Matchmaking randomness, team composition, or bad teammates.
* Smurfing or playing in unbalanced lobbies.
* Game mode variance (e.g., casual vs ranked).
3. **"Stat Padding" & Playstyle Bias**:
* A player can artificially maintain a high KDR by playing overly safe.
* Winrate can be skewed by only playing when with friends or during favorable hours.
---
### 🧪 Better Skill Metrics (Depending on Game):
* **Damage per Round (DPR), Utility Usage**, **Objective Captures**, **Average Score per Game**, **ELO/MMR** (if available).
* **Clutch Win Rate**, **Kill Participation**, or **Accuracy %** can also offer more rounded insight.
---
### 🧩 Bottom Line:
**KDR and winrate *correlate* with skill but do not *define* it.** They are:
* Useful **at a glance**.
* Misleading **out of context**.
* Insufficient **alone** to fully measure someone's skill or value in a game.
Would you like me to break this down with examples from a specific game you play?
Can you factor this in if the game was War Thunder
Great — War Thunder adds a whole new layer of complexity because it’s a **combined arms sim** (air, ground, naval) with highly variable match outcomes, role types, and progression systems. So let's now evaluate **KDR and winrate in the specific context of War Thunder**:
---
## 🔍 KDR in War Thunder:
### ➕ When It *Does* Reflect Skill:
* High KDR generally means:
* You’re surviving longer and getting more kills per life.
* You understand positioning, threat awareness, and vehicle capabilities.
* You’re efficient in choosing engagements (not just spamming attacks).
* In **Air RB** or **Ground RB**, especially when solo, high KDR often reflects good awareness and mechanical skill.
### ➖ When It *Doesn’t* Reflect True Value:
* Some players get high KDR by:
* Spawn camping or sniping without helping team objectives.
* Using only premium/overpowered lineups.
* Leaving matches early to preserve stats.
* Supports and caps are undervalued — e.g., capping a zone or marking enemies may win the match but not improve KDR.
---
## 🏁 Winrate in War Thunder:
### ➕ Skill Correlation:
* In **solo play**, consistently high winrate suggests:
* Good strategic impact — helping secure zones, killing threats, or turning games around.
* Ability to adapt to match flow and assist the team.
* Especially meaningful in **Air RB** or **Naval**, where one good player can dramatically impact the outcome.
### ➖ Weaknesses:
* **Team-based randomness**: Many games are decided by team collapse.
* Being good at the game doesn’t guarantee a win (e.g., you kill 5 tanks, but your team loses all caps).
* Winrate is easily skewed by:
* Playing in a squad.
* Spamming lower BRs or stomping AI-heavy lobbies.
* Avoiding bad maps or quitting losing matches.
---
## 🧮 Better Indicators of Skill in War Thunder:
* **Vehicle Efficiency**: Kills/caps per match *per vehicle* used is more insightful.
* **Average score per battle**.
* **Survival time** and **multi-role versatility** (e.g., doing well in both planes and tanks).
* **Clutch capability**: How often you turn a losing match or hold the line.
---
## 🧠 Final Word:
In **War Thunder**, both **KDR and winrate give partial insight**, but:
* KDR reflects **tactical performance** — how you handle direct engagements.
* Winrate reflects **strategic value** — how much you contribute to match success.
* True skill includes **map awareness, positioning, team support, BR knowledge, and lineup planning** — none of which are fully captured by KDR or winrate.
Would you like me to analyze a sample War Thunder stat page (like from Thunderskill or WT Live) and explain what stands out?
Screw your pages of spam to tie it all up.
What?
And i can get an AI agree that 1+1 is 3, so is 1+1 equal to 3?
Do you understand statistics? Nah, you dont have to answer, it is obvious that you dont.
You cal literally run the code i linked and see for yourself. You also literally can not believe in something that is true. Belief is only “needed” when you want to “accept” something you either cant prove or is disproven.
You can’t believe gravity exists because it is real.
You can believe that aiens exist, because there is no proof for them to exist, yet there is also no proof against. This is a justified belief.
You Can believe that the Earth is flat, despite the tons of evidence disproving it. This is an unjustified belief.
Projection :)
If what i say is not true you woul disprove it, yet you are not even attempting to do so, since even you realize you cant…
LOL.
Facts are not opinions. Your favourite animal or favourite food is up for an opinion, objective truths are not.
No, it is just that i am buffled that something that is a highschool subject (and in that one of the EASIEST match subject) is so hard for you. Your account was made 12 years ago, so unless you made it when you was 6 years old or less, you had to have completed high school, thus high school math, unless you have Dyscalculia or something similar, in which case maybe do not do math things…
I have explained it to you multiple times this. If you still cant understand it, it is your problem, not mine.
Oh yeah, asking loaded questions to an AI is so good tactic. Not dishonest at all.
Cry louder.
It’s not loaded… It’s direct for my want for it to consider.
And what was your point for bumping a year gone topic?
Honestly, I don’t buy that you’re any type of civil in situations where you have this happen, and as I mention, changing the smoke makes a better suggestion than removing it because you seem to find all these peopel that pop smoke.
‘Cry louder’ yourself.
Being nasty about it is just a hallmark of your function, after all, everything you’ve stated in this thread is constant beration and attacks on the unaware and new…
Everything, so judgemental, assumptive and angry…
Idk how far you are from it but you should definitely try the Begleitpanzer or PUMA when you get the chance. IFVs in assault are menaces
“### 🚫 Where the Link Breaks Down:”
Yep not loaded at all.
Regardless, you just copy+pasted in some text, how do i know it is a real response?
You know, i can just do this:
To correct your nonsense.
LOL
It is not.
Projection.
It is not. You dont know me.
Oh yeah, so new lvl100 players…
Everybody is judging everybody else. You do it right now. Nice double standards.
Taking logical conclusions of past events and knowledge. You do the same when you drink water without every time checking wether or not it is poisoned, when you step outside, etc…
Not at all. Maybe just shocked how low level some people are functioning.
So, maybe try to come up with counterexamples by yourself instead of relying on an AI that you can easily fool.
I could easily fool ChatGPT into thinking that an N’th degree power tower of power towers is a faster growing function like BB(x) or Tree(n), yet it is not.
For AFVs, the ZBD04A is pretty good, as well as any 25/30/35/40mm ones, especially if they have missiles.
Other pretty decent one is the VCC-80-60 if you can reliably hit ammo.