Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'stats'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • World of Warships - News and Information
    • News And Announcements
    • Update Notes
    • Public Test
    • Surveys
  • General WoWS Discussion
    • General Game Discussion
    • Team Play
    • Support
    • Discussions about Warships
    • Historical Discussions and Studies
    • Player Modifications
  • Support
  • International Forums
    • Foro en Español
    • Fórum Brasileiro
  • Contest Entries
  • Contest Entries
  • New Captains
  • Guías y Estrategias
  • Árboles Tecnológicos
  • Fan Art and Community Creations
  • Community Created Events and Contests
  • Support

Calendars

  • World of Warships Event Calendar

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Location


Interests

Found 8 results

  1. I've spent a lot of time recently reading a lot of continual threads arguing over if the Stalingrad is overpowered or not. Heck, I've participated in a few of them. However there's been a problem in all of these threads. Noone has the data necessary to make fair comparisons of the ship due to the nature of how it has been earned up to now. I'm not going to sit here and tell you I've got flawless data here and that whatever my conclusion is, is perfect. It isn't. However I do have a history in quality control. At one time I ran the quality control departments for two production facilities simultaneously. It wasn't always the case, but most of the time I legally had to follow a strict 6% variance policy. As long as our products were within +/- 3% of our target values, we were fine. Well, there aren't any "target values" for ships in WoWs, so I figured I'd work off of a 6% variance. I just took ye ole +/- 3% and decided to work with the whole spectrum of it. Now, how would I attain fair data? Well, to be honest it's quite impossible to actually get flawless data with what we're given in the API, but I figured I could get close... at least within reason. So I made a spreadsheet... yeah yeah yeah... another one. Blame the company I did quality control for, that's where I learned it. Here's how it works: 1) Auto-import the top 99 players from wows-numbers for a given ship. In this case, there were only 66 players that have the necessary 80 battles to qualify for the top list on wows-numbers, so 66 players it is. It turns out that those 66 players have (at the time of this study) played a combined 11,005 battles. 2) Look up another ship. By selecting a second ship, the sheet looks up every single of the 66 players and finds all of their t10 ships. From that data I was able to extract their data for the selected ship. 3) Purge data that doesn't correlate. Any player that had data on the second ship that didn't have at least 80 battles was purged from the list. Their stats were purged from both the Stalingrad list as well as the secondary ship's list. This of course drops the sample sizes. 4) Weight the data. Stats brought in on both ships were weighted by the number of battles in order to create a single variable for each statistic brought in. This way (for example) a single Stalingrad win rate variable may be compared to a single win rate variable from the secondary ship. Once the above was completed, I started looking through the data. Now, while the 6% variance seemed to work quite well for win rate, average frags (kills), and average damage, Some of the older ships had an insane number of average battles. Due to this I was generous and increased the variance for average battles to 15%. Better to err on the side of caution. I have only taken screenshots of the compiled and processed data. I've left out the parts with the individual player names. I started out by comparing it to the Des Moines and the Zao, since they are the two oldest CA's in the game. Their data is of course the oldest and most out of date. These two ships would be a lot of the applicable players first T10 ships. I was very shocked to say the least (sarcasm of course). The Zao completely dominated the third season of Clan Battles, the meta during Season 3 almost entirely revolved around countering the legendary mod Zao. However yes, the Zao using these metrics is completely thrashed by the Stalingrad. I was actually shocked a bit (no sarcasm) to see that the Des Moines wasn't nearly as dominated by the Stalingrad as I thought. Despite being one of the oldest ships in the entire game, and having years of players making it their first T10 ship in the game, it was within the tolerances for both win rate and average frags (kills). The next few ships I looked at I like to think of as the middle generation of tier ten cruisers. This would be the Hindenburg, the Moskva, and the Minotaur. When I first saw the Hindenburg data I was blown away. I couldn't believe it. I average somewhere around like 160k on my Hindenburg, with a brutally good win rate too. I thoroughly did not expect to see the Hindenburg thrashed like that by the Stalingrad. Then I remembered that for like half of the Hindenburg's life, it didn't have the 1/4 HE pen buffs. But either way, It is statistically defeated by the Stalingrad at this time. The Moskva is the first of the T10 CA's that actually meets the bloated battles tolerances, and despite going the vast majority of its existence without its amazing legendary mod or its fantastic 50 mm lower bow plate, it's win rate is actually within the tolerances. Shocked again I was. The Minotaur is substantially newer than either the Hindenburg or the Moskva, and her stats prove this out. Her average damage is substantially lower than the Stalingrad's, however its win rate and average frags are both within the tolerances. The last three are the newest tier ten cruisers out there. They are the Henri IV, the Salem, and the Worcester. Then Henri IV was recently buffed dramatically with its uber monster dpm buff of a legendary mod as well as its Clan Battle meta defining Main Battery Reload Booster. I'm really not sure if those buffs are reflected here or not. Only the players that played these ships and Wargaming would know that. Either way, She is within the tolerances for every statistic except for average frags, which of course makes sense due to how far back one needs to play the Henri IV. The Salem data is only here as an attempt at being thorough. There was only one single player that was a part of the 66 Stalingrad data set that also had over 80 battles in the Salem. This data is straight up worthless. The Worcester is the only ship that beats the Stalingrad. They're within the tolerances for both of the ships, but unlike every other example where Stalingrad is edging out the other ships, it is the Worcester that edges out the Stalingrad in every category except for battles. The Worcester is also the only ship to be within 2% of the Stalingrad average battle count. Their data is the most similar, as well as the newest. - TLDR - I don't really know if the ship is over powered or not. Personally I don't think so. Though the data (like all data), I retrieved can be manipulated and interpreted in many different ways. Plus, it's fundamentally flawed since large swaths of it are going to be sorely out of date with me having no way to logically excise that out of date data. Yes, the Stalingrad seems to be stronger than the vast majority of other tier ten cruisers out there. However she is not the top dog of T10, as that crown rests with the Worcester. The other trend I noticed, is that as one travels through the data from oldest ship to newest ship, the Stalingrad goes from overpowered, to right in line, to slightly behind. Plus, you know... this all comes from random battles. I tried to be brief! Link to the same sampling process, but using data from the EU server.
  2. So Ive basically been playing warships since release, and frankly, Ive never enjoyed or played a game more in my life. Ive got a lot of time and money invested in my account, and Im always striving to improve and get better each day. First off, Im by no means an "excellent" player. I have I guess been competent enough to keep my overall stats in the green on warships today, but Im far from a unicum nor am I trying to become one. Basically, I should soon have my w/r at 52%, but Im ultimately wanting to get it up to over 53% "preferably 54% before I will be content." My damage average should also be pushing 57k "which is the best in my clan", but I really want to get it at or over 60k before I will be content with it. That being said, my w/r at t10 is quite atrocious and I typically don't play my 10s unless Im in divs with my clan mates, which greatly increases chances of better games. When playing solo, I tend to stay between t5-t8 where my win rate is much better, which has gotten me from 50%to 52% and bumped my dmg average up by about 20k over the last year. However, Ive been noticing a trend. It seems I can get a lot of pretty good games Monday through Thursday night. Some times Ive even had 10 plus game wining streaks. On the weekends however, I tend to get a decent amount of losing streaks. It also seems the quality of gameplay and players really goes down the toilet Friday through sunday regardless of what tier or type of ship I play. These streaks are very frustrating as they ruin all the work I put in doctoring stats during the week. That being said, would it be a good idea to keep weekend playing to a minimum while Im trying to stat boost? If so that would suck since my job often sees to me not having play time during the week, but if it works, Im open to trying it. Any advice is appreciated!
  3. Xidax_Gamer

    Your outlook on stats?

    I'm a total potato, and I know it without the need for a spread sheet. I never even look at my own stats, much less anybody else's. You can't stat-shame someone who doesn't GAF. On the other hand, a lot of gamers live and die for status, bragging rights, etc. That's cool, if that's what floats your boat. Then there are the analysts, scrutinizing the minutia for arcane wisdom. How do you feel about it?
  4. Pardon the post in the general forum, but for the life of me I don't know where to even post this to begin with, being it is a bit odd. Does anyone know how to ping data off of the servers to use in an excel spread sheet? Paragon
  5. TaintedMiracle

    Looking For Advice

    The reason I made this post is to ask for advice and information. I've reached a point where I consider myself relatively skilled at the game overall, and so I want to know where I stand compared to most players. I started playing WoWs 80 days ago. In 912 random battles across 195 total hours spent in-game I have reached one line's T10 (Minotaur), one line's T9 (Lion), one line's T8 (Kagero), three lines' T6 (Ryujo, Aoba and Nurnberg), two lines' T5 (Omaha and Jianwei) and one line's T4 (Myogi). 251 of those battles were in premium ships and I have a 47% win rate and a 0.9 destruction ratio. Most of those battles were with a premium account, I'd guess about 850 of them. I have played 15 ranked battles, all of them in the Massachusetts, and I have a 60% win rate and a 2.78 destruction ratio in them. At the time of making this post, this is what my profile summary looks like for random battles: Is there a way for me to compare my performance and progress to the average, and if so, how? Where do I stand compared to the average player, and apart from in-game settings is there anything I should be using/changing? (IE mods/add-ons)
  6. Disclaimer: I posted this in another topic a couple weeks ago, but, since I'm a sucker for polls and numbers, I figured I'd post it here to see what my peers think. --- My opinion. Many people think all classes/types should be equally playable. I fundamentally disagree with that. I think some classes/types should be easier and others should be harder. This keeps the game engaging for players of all skill levels. Here's a visual example. In the first image, all ships are equally playable for all skill ranges. Server averages in terms of win rate, damage, etcetera will be similar. In the next example, each class/type has a different skill floor and ceiling. This means that Average Joe will perform well in classes A and B, but he will perform poorly in classes C and D. It also means that a high skilled player will perform better in classes C and D than he will in A and B because he is able to maximize their potential. Buffing class C or D such that the skill floor is lower means that the skill ceiling will also increase, making the game "too easy" for higher skilled individuals. Making changes such that the floor is lower while the ceiling remains static is extremely difficult, and it usually involves tampering with the core mechanics of the game. People often cite the server averages for different classes/types as evidence for buffs or nerfs. Unfortunately, this is extremely shortsighted. It's important to keep in mind what the ships can do in the hands of an average player and what they can do in the hands of a good player. Game balance is a complicated and unenviable job. Here's an example of server statistics often cited for DD survivability buffs. Ships which utilize concealment as their primary means of survival will ALWAYS have a lower average survival rate because utilizing concealment takes a deeper understanding of the game. Armor and HP are generally more forgiving to newcomers, inexperienced players, or average players. Destroyers are the most reliant on concealment, followed by cruisers, and then battleships. The survival % follows this trend. When I look at graphs like this, I see that the game is working exactly as designed. Cheers, KW EDIT: There's absolutely nothing to be ashamed of if you're "average". If you're enjoying the game, you're playing it exactly as it's meant to be played, for fun. The game needs ALL the players in this game... the good, the bad, and the average. This game wouldn't exist if only the top 1% played it.
  7. I have been in a little over 1750 battles. All Co-op. What is considered to be a average win record percentage? Are these average or am I just another potato...
  8. So I'm fairly junior when it comes to posting on this forum though I have been gathering information from here for quite some time. Hence why my win percentage and WTR has increased, general stats, and overall enjoyment of the game since the beginning... Which seems fairly long ago but no where near some of you veterans. I like to think of myself as an average player. You win some you lose some, but for the most part I have fun and enjoy the game as I'm sure most of you do. But what feels like the last week now I have been literally completely unable to catch a break it seems in the losing streak that has manifested itself into my MOJO... So I guess my first question is, is there any website or anywhere in the game where I can look at my recent history of win/losses? WarshipsToday and WoWs Numbers seem to not want to give something so specific as a week or a few days. This is mostly to show you guys how bad this has been... like think really terrible then think worse. Next question would be, has anyone else been experiencing this as of late? This to me would indicate maybe a meta change that is catching a bunch of people out including myself. Though the reason I tend to not drift this way in thought is cause I've been still doing well damage, kills, and team XP rank so it contradicts that I have a complete lack of ability to deal with the meta change. I do feel that I have been doing well in my American CL and Russian DD while this has been happening so that does seem like somewhat meta change to me. Another note to make is that I'm in the stage of having a lot of T8 ships. I'm progressing through every line there is and we all know how things tend to slow down around T8 just due to the currency production vs ship servicing. Just for reference I have 4 T10's, 2 T9's, 8 T8's, 3 T7's, and 1 T6. This doesn't include premiums though I don't play them an immense amount due to trying to progress the lines. Alabama is the only consistent player which I use for grinding coin. So any help guys? Just have a look at my stats if you need to and I'd appreciate if there is something that I'm chronically doing incorrectly. Any help is appreciated. I really don't want to hate the game as much as I do right now... lol
×