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

Any good stats sites?

14 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

33
[QNA]
Members
93 posts
4,860 battles

Hey, guys,

I haven't been able to pull up Warships Today site since I returned from hiatus a couple weeks ago.  Any other good sites to track stats?

Thanks.

Sky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
252
[APOC_]
Members
908 posts
6,061 battles
1 minute ago, CylonRed said:

This is probably the best but pales in comparison to how Warships Today presented the information unfortunately..

That site has been on the fritz for weeks. Horribly outdated stats and poor reliability. It's too bad, it was my favorite too.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
344
[ZIPPO]
Members
1,530 posts
3,526 battles

I really liked the way you could break up stats into weeks, made it very easy to see how a ship line is doing since overall stats are not reliable due to buffs and nerfs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,622
[E-E]
[E-E]
Members
15,667 posts
14,042 battles

For checking player specific stats, any of the sites out there are good to go.  But if you were trying to compare ship stat performances, they all pale in comparison to Warships Today.  All the other stats use the entire game history for ship stats, which is wildly inaccurate for the current game.  Yamato and North Carolina in 2015-2016 were very different beasts.  You'll also be counting a very long period of Iowa, Missouri, Montana history where they had skyscraper citadels and were easy to 1-shot.  This is inaccurate today as their lowered citadels have made them much safer and reliable ships now.

 

Warships Today was the only one that you could narrow searches down in terms of time periods.  Is there another one out there that did it like that or better?  Sure would like to be proven wrong.  The only way to top out over WT's searches is for another site to do 30 day / Month by month filtering instead of just 2 weeks.  That'd be sweet.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,415 posts
6,082 battles
18 minutes ago, Falls_USMC said:

That site has been on the fritz for weeks. Horribly outdated stats and poor reliability. It's too bad, it was my favorite too.  

I think the domain finally expired.  It was updating the basics stats and when new lines were added but the server averages were not updated for the new lines which is what I was interested in. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33
[QNA]
Members
93 posts
4,860 battles

Cool, will check out that wows-numbers site. Thanks!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,764
Members
9,868 posts
55 minutes ago, CylonRed said:

I think the domain finally expired.  It was updating the basics stats and when new lines were added but the server averages were not updated for the new lines which is what I was interested in. 

Domain doesn't expire until Oct, but seems unlikely at this point that he'll do anything with it or renew it. By hitting refresh you can actually get to stats but they may be broken too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,415 posts
6,082 battles
6 minutes ago, awiggin said:

Domain doesn't expire until Oct, but seems unlikely at this point that he'll do anything with it or renew it. By hitting refresh you can actually get to stats but they may be broken too.

Last time I tried, late last week, I was missing games in my Richelieu for the first time.  Previously they were still updating and then I could not get to the site - Wed/Thurs of last week time period.  Over the weekend - it is not connecting to Wargaming " Latest snapshot not available. Either the player has hidden his or her statistics or connection to WarGaming has failed. " - I have not changed my setting for stats.  This error message is very new since the weekend - never got it before. 

And the Richelieu has been 'dropped' from the BB/French listing after it previously displayed 30+ games, now I have 55 games.

Edited by CylonRed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
344
[ZIPPO]
Members
1,530 posts
3,526 battles
1 hour ago, awiggin said:

Domain doesn't expire until Oct, but seems unlikely at this point that he'll do anything with it or renew it. By hitting refresh you can actually get to stats but they may be broken too.

The site Admin used to be a regular at wotlabs and he used to talk about the API issues they would run into, especially with any major patches. Unfortunately he hasn't been around in a long time so I don't know the status of the site now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,120 posts
4,735 battles

WoWS Numbers is the best one right now, since Warships Today is no longer available. Warships Numbers is a bit more detailed in that they break down your average performance not only by ship but also by tier. Their formula for calculating rating is a bit more complex than Warships Today, but personally I like both. Warships Today was good because they showed the monthly and weekly stats of ships. It's not that hard to translate what WT said about you as a player into what WN says.

 

For example, the minimum for a 'Good' PR on WoWS Numbers is 1350, that's basically a 1100 WTR on Warships Today (though light light according to WT is 'very good'). I'm at a 1429 PR / 1160 WTR, pretty similar meaning. I think 'Good' on WoWS Numbers means 'slightly above average to above average', and light blue on WT basically means the same. It takes a lot more on WoWS Numbers to be considered a unicum, while on WT anyone with over 1400 WTR was considered unicum. 

 

  As for my performance in ships, this is where it can get a bit more interesting.

 

Furutaka 507 battles 1385 WTR 1545 PR (According to WT my WTR in the Furutaka is borderline unicum, on WoWS Numbers it's quite good / dark green, but far from unicum)

 

Aoba 451 battles 1234 WTR 1369 PR (they seem to agree here. I do a bit above average but not great in the Aoba. The 46% win rate hurts.)

 

Colorado 385 battles 1248 WTR 1418 PR (again, above average, but not great.)

 

Atlanta 271 battles 1361 WTR 2327 PR (WT thinks I am not that far off from unicum but not quite there yet, WoWS Numbers thinks I am well in the unicum range when playing the Atlanta)

 

 

Kongo 1326 WTR 1613 PR (both agree I'm above average, perhaps noticeably above average).

 

New Mexico 179 battles 1399 PR 1179 PR (slightly above average, not great.)

 

 

Queen Elizabeth 152 battles 1408 PR 1177 WTR (slightly above average, not great.)

 

 

Pensacola 165 battles 1379 WTR 1952 PR (my PR is light blue, which is 'very good' according to WoWS Numbers, but WT thinks I am near unicum in the Pensacola)

 

Cleveland (old) 59 battles 2009 PR 1280 WTR (WT thinks my Cleveland play was above average but not great, but WoWS Numbers has a higher opinion)

 

 

Orion 65 battles 1546 PR 1143 WTR (WT thinks I'm only a tad bit above average, but WoWS Numbers thinks I am noticeably / quite a bit above average)

 

 

Overall though WoWS Numbers and WT paint a similar picture of me as a slightly above average player. Especially in the ships that have worked for me so far. However, what's odd to me is how can the ship statistics be different on the two sites? For example, average damage for one ship is a couple thousand higher on WoWS Numbers than on WT.

 

Overall which site do you think is more reliable? WT or WoWS Numbers?

 

 

 

Edited by Grand_Viceroy_Zhou_Ziyu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×