Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Taichunger

336 battles: ranks, divisions, radar, DDs

37 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

5,353
[INTEL]
Members
10,055 posts
28,229 battles

Ok folks. Since January I've collected 336 games and recorded their duration, the number of DDs, the number of divisions, the number of high ranked players, and the number of radar botes (all defined below), among other things. I also collected the tiers present, CVs present, and W/L outcome. I did not collect clan data because we were in the midst of clan wars so it fluctuated.

I stopped collecting because WG has made significant changes to the MM and implemented another round of Ranked battles. I plan to collect another 500 games worth of such data in the next few months, and hope others will as well.

I collected the divisions, ranked, DD numbers, and radar because imbalances in those items are popularly considered, at least based on forum complaints, to unbalance the game. I felt that was true but wanted to see with numbers whether it was.

Lets look at the easy and predictable stuff first. First, ranks. At the end of each match I collected the number of players who had reached Ranked 1-5. In 212 games one team had more such players than the other. The team with at least one more such player won 137 (64.6%). Highly Ranked players tend to be better than average, so this outcome should not be unexpected.

Second, divisions. I collected 175 in which one team had at least one more division. That team won 107 (61.1%). Yes, divisioning pays off.

Third, DDs. Many people, including myself, have strongly contended that DD imbalances seriously affect game outcomes. I collected 157 games in which one side had an extra DD. That team won 86 (54.7%). I expected a much higher number, and was honestly surprised that it was so low. 

Finally, radar. For this dataset I treated all instances of Atlanta, Belfast, Indianapolis, Black (no occurrences), and Missouri as having radar. Pan-Asian DDs and UK CLs were not treated as radar botes even though sometimes I found out during the game that they carried radar. Russian and US T8-10 cruisers were always treated as radar botes. For example, if a Donksoi or Des Moines appeared, it was counted as having radar.

Based on that definition, I collected 196 games in which one side had at least one extra radar ship. That side won 118 (60.0%). That was a much higher figure than I expected, and shows just how powerful radar is.

Fundamentally, this dataset shows that an extra radar ship is as good as an extra division and better than an extra DD. I expect this power comes from two effects of radar:

1) The concrete effects of DDs get killed and damaged and forced out of caps early. 
2) The subtler effect of DDs adjusting their playstyle, and the new playstyle being less aggressive across the DD population as a whole. (Don't worry -- I know YOU never adjust your playstyle and radar has no effect on YOU. Indeed your mere appearance in the game causes all red radar ships within 30 kms to detonate. I concede your awesomeness, but I am talking about the population of DD players as whole.)

WG knows which ships carry what consummable, because one of the devs assured us in a recent talk that the sonar/radar, taken together, are balanced. What my dataset shows is just the opposite: when WG introduced radar but didn't adjust the MM to balance it, it broke the game.

IMHO Sonar tends to be more meaningful for individual ships, radar for teams (though Des Moines' powerful radar may explain why it has the second higher WR among T10 cruisers on the NA server, even though its damage numbers are lowest, and of course the Russian bias bote with its absurdly potent radar is leading WR cruiser at T10). The reason radar doesn't affect individual ship win rates much is because radar botes are randomly distributed, meaning that sometimes they are on the extra side, and sometimes on the deficit side. 

I also have a pile of data on tiers, but I didn't play enough games at any specific tier to discuss the tier distribution meaningfully, so I am not presenting that.

Additional DD numbers: the average number of DDs per match was 6.7. Of 336 matches, 37 had 10 DDs. I dislike ten DD matches, and was happy to see so few. The most common number of DDs was 6 (67 games). Least common was 1 DD, which thankfully occurred only once.

246 (73.2%) of the 336 games had no CV. I encountered only 4 4-CV matches in that span. 

Average match duration was 842 seconds, or 14:02. 
 

  • Cool 19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,820
Members
5,575 posts
7,121 battles

Nice data and thank you for posting. I love seeing Captains keeping data like this. :Smile_honoring:

Unfortunately, now comes the part where the majority will pick everything the pieces.

Edited by Wulfgarn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
312
Members
1,156 posts
8,080 battles
9 minutes ago, Taichunger said:

Don't worry -- I know YOU never adjust your playstyle and radar has no effect on YOU. Indeed your mere appearance in the game causes all red radar ships within 30 kms to detonate. I concede your awesomeness, but I am talking about the population of DD players as whole.

Thread was worth it just for this quote alone. :cap_popcorn:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,304
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
2,857 posts
10,424 battles

I don't know if you have the data, but for DDs can you split it between Standard battles and Domination?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6
[NOVA]
[NOVA]
Members
46 posts
14,151 battles

Man this is awesome work.. I was thinking of doing something on the same lines a while back.. then the sheer MS excel work put me off.. But now seeing you work on the data has interested me again. i had raised a similar complaint long back but fell on deaf ears at that time. Now anyways the MM seems to be kind off sorted out with update 0.7.4.

Can you tell me how you extracted the battle results? i'm wanna do a similar test.

my original post on this similar issue

Thanks

Edited by RitzMatt85

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
405
[AP]
Members
1,231 posts
13,236 battles

time to call for MM to balance radars

 

(inb4 WG says "your data is biased")

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
798
[WOLF4]
Members
1,533 posts
3,534 battles

Is there that few CV's up in those tiers or is it just that CV players don't play rank?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,507
[SALVO]
Members
20,575 posts
20,433 battles
1 hour ago, Taichunger said:

Third, DDs. Many people, including myself, have strongly contended that DD imbalances seriously affect game outcomes. I collected 157 games in which one side had an extra DD. That team won 86 (54.7%). I expected a much higher number, and was honestly surprised that it was so low. 

Tai, for what it's worth, I don't know if the extra DD matters all that greatly unless it's a domination mode battle.  In standard mode, there are no caps spread out across the midline of the map that you want your DDs each trying to contend for.  And even in epicenter, all the caps are focused in a single location.  Oh, if all the DDs decide to brawl it out in the center, having a 1 DD advantage might ... might ... make a difference.  But often the bigger difference might be having a cruiser or 2 supporting their team's DD on the center cap, particularly if they have radar.  

Another point is that teams never have an imbalance in the number of top tier DDs they have.  I will say though that once in a while, you'll see a team get screwed thusly. Say that team A has 2 DDs (1 top tier) and team B has 3 DDs (1 top tier).  I've seen instances where team B with 3 DDs has 1 tier 10 and 2 tier 9's, while team A's 2 DDs are 1 tier 10 and 1 tier 8!  That's just wrong.  I realize that that tier indifference get made up elsewhere, but it really should have been 1 t10 + 2 t8's vs 1 t10 + 1 t9 just to balance things off a little.

Thankfully though, with the new MM tweaks, the number of DDs per team are supposed to be equal, so all this justifiable hand wringing about unequal numbers of DDs becomes moot.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,507
[SALVO]
Members
20,575 posts
20,433 battles
6 minutes ago, xalmgrey said:

Is there that few CV's up in those tiers or is it just that CV players don't play rank?

I suspect that any player with a clue who knows that he's only so-so in carriers wouldn't dare bring a CV to ranked, because I suspect that the only CV players who may regularly try to play a lot of CVs in ranked are the excellent CV players.  And if you're not one of those, you're asking to get spanked if you bring a carrier yourself.

The problem for CV players may also be that there really are so few CV players in ranked that it's hard for them to find a battle, if the lesser CV players don't dare bring a CV to the ranked party.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
8 posts
3,041 battles

Could not have timed this thread better.

My biggest complaint:  Radar.

Yeah yeah, they had it.  But guess what, the guys who did not, all had radar detection finding equipment.

I am not talking about the meaningless little yellow bullseye I now get to wear because I'M AGGRESSIVE, and then die shortly thereafter as everyone on the red team chuckles while clicking their mouse.  I'm talking about actual direction bearing and range finding on someone spewing out trons.

This is not smoke, where yes you can hide, but if you shoot we can at least see tracers and fire into that.  This is giving a serious game changing advantage using a technology somehow WOW has determined only existed in one form.   It did not

Within weeks of the side developing radar, the other side developed countermeasures.  Chaff, jamming, direction and range finding.   Boom.

If WOW is giving boats radar, they need to give jamming, blanking capability with chaff, and direction and range finding.

 

This, or I stop playing tiers with radar.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,507
[SALVO]
Members
20,575 posts
20,433 battles

Guess you're going to play low tiers then.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
8 posts
3,041 battles

Low tiers?  Hardly, I at least want someone to know which side of the water is on their boat.

 

Equal DD per team and with logical tier placement?  Nope, seeing 2v3 or 4v3.  Thats has not been fixed

 

This Just happened 5 min ago, run in, stay out of cap with a dd beyond detect range, get detect cue, turn, start to run, no shots fired, start smoke, bam, their radar on, cue, dead in 15 seconds from 5 boats.

 

Is this really the intent of radar mechanics on WOW?  If it is, they are using no logic in real world applications as a reference on what radar is or how it is used, nor countered.  Thats my beef, we unable to counter this which is completely unreasonable.  I have repair tools to fix broken boat parts, yet I have no opportunity to defeat a 100 percent accurate seeing device?  Absurd.

 

And lets talk just the radar, sorry, RADAR DOES NOT see through or around mountains.  WHY OH WHY is wow allowing their code to say RADAR can penetrate a mountain?  Absurd.

 

So sad wow, like wot, I need to run the IS line to make sure I have a fighting heavy, so i'll run the panasia to get radar and sell everything else.

Edited by Fetzer_Valve_
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,353
[INTEL]
Members
10,055 posts
28,229 battles
19 hours ago, RitzMatt85 said:

Man this is awesome work.. I was thinking of doing something on the same lines a while back.. then the sheer MS excel work put me off.. But now seeing you work on the data has interested me again. i had raised a similar complaint long back but fell on deaf ears at that time. Now anyways the MM seems to be kind off sorted out with update 0.7.4.

Can you tell me how you extracted the battle results? i'm wanna do a similar test.

my original post on this similar issue

Thanks

LOL. I used the Mark 1 Eyeball. I run game on dedicated SSD, so I load into a match usually with 30-40 seconds of waiting time. Then I'd just tote everything up, checking it with div mates. Everything can be collected at the beginning except player Ranks, duration, and outcome.

I found when I did this before that sometimes the computer would crash if I waited, so I'd miss games. So now I collect it right away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
272
[-TXT-]
Beta Testers
1,590 posts
17,891 battles

Very good and informative work Tai...thanks.

It would be interesting to see the DD data for just domination battles if you have it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
136
[VIP-2]
Members
814 posts
2,919 battles

Appreciate the work. +1.

Personally nothing blew my skirt up, i feel that those are very close to the numbers if i were to have to guess them, but to have a firm answer on them is great.

Of course an even larger sample with a few more variables considered may change some conclusions drawn. It would be awesome to see WGs analytics though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,067 posts
5,691 battles

This is interesting. However I think there's an obvious point when it comes to the extra DD vs. unbalanced radar that is being overlooked. DD numbers are always within one of each other yet radars are not. One team will never have 3 DDs and the other zero yet this can and does happen with radars. Did you track the exact degree of radar imbalance on each team? Because I suspect the games in which one side had only a 1 ship radar advantage would be similar in WR to the DD advantage games. 

Regardless there is no denying that MM absolutely needs to at least make an attempt at balancing radars between teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
614 posts
5,528 battles
8 hours ago, Taichunger said:

246 (73.2%) of the 336 games had no CV. I encountered only 4 4-CV matches in that span.

Then, from your sig:

Quote

Still needed: (1) a NO CV button for the MM

Looks like WG are doing a fine job of killing off CVs without your still needed button...

Seems that anti CV temper tantrums are put in perspective now. 3 out of 4 games are CV free.

Thanks for the stats. Much appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,353
[INTEL]
Members
10,055 posts
28,229 battles
17 hours ago, Rocketpacman said:

This is interesting. However I think there's an obvious point when it comes to the extra DD vs. unbalanced radar that is being overlooked. DD numbers are always within one of each other yet radars are not. One team will never have 3 DDs and the other zero yet this can and does happen with radars. Did you track the exact degree of radar imbalance on each team? Because I suspect the games in which one side had only a 1 ship radar advantage would be similar in WR to the DD advantage games. 

Regardless there is no denying that MM absolutely needs to at least make an attempt at balancing radars between teams.

I have the information on larger radar imbalance. I had the same suspicion as you. But quick checking now.... only 57 games. Interestingly, the side with +2 advantage in radar only won in 28 of those. This means that the side with the +1 advantage won 90 of 139 games. Whoa.

I wonder if the 1v0 advantage is more powerful than 4v2 because at least the disadvantaged side has some radar. But I dont have enough of those games. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,353
[INTEL]
Members
10,055 posts
28,229 battles
16 hours ago, HyperFish said:

Then, from your sig:

Looks like WG are doing a fine job of killing off CVs without your still needed button...

Seems that anti CV temper tantrums are put in perspective now. 3 out of 4 games are CV free.

Thanks for the stats. Much appreciated.

Yes, I am thankful that so few games are spoiled by the presence of CVs. Moving toward that still-distant ideal of zero....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,353
[INTEL]
Members
10,055 posts
28,229 battles
18 hours ago, c3shooter said:

Appreciate the work. +1.

Personally nothing blew my skirt up, i feel that those are very close to the numbers if i were to have to guess them, but to have a firm answer on them is great.

Of course an even larger sample with a few more variables considered may change some conclusions drawn. It would be awesome to see WGs analytics though.

I wish they'd make more of their numbers available. Occasionally you get a glimpse, like when one of the mods said that they were checking the UK BB performance by looking at the performance of individual players in other BBs. They have such fine-grained data. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,873
[SBS]
Members
3,998 posts
2,408 battles

First, I'd like say thank you for collecting the data.  I have question.  What tier ships were you playing to collect the data, 8-10?

7 hours ago, Crucis said:

I don't know if the extra DD matters all that greatly unless it's a domination mode battle.

That would be my guess as well.  Game mode might be worth collecting.

3 minutes ago, Taichunger said:

I have the information on larger radar imbalance. I had the same suspicion as you. But quick checking now.... only 57 games. Interestingly, the side with +2 advantage in radar only won in 28 of those. This means that the side with the +1 advantage won 90 of 139 games. Whoa.

I'm surprised by this.  I would have thought the two radar advantage was pulling the overall percentage up, not down.  I'd be curious to know if the +2 radar not being an advantage is a matter of diminishing returns on radar, or is it some inherent "weakness" of radar ships?  It's likely a combination of both.

Thanks again and I'll be looking forward to your next set of data. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×