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

Is warships.today down?

28 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

41
[PRSR-]
Members
171 posts
6,092 battles

All,

For the past week or two I have not been able to get my statistics. This is the error I get: 

Quote

Latest snapshot not available. Either the player has hidden his or her statistics or connection to WarGaming has failed.

If this is your profile and you'd like to access it, please go to your profile at the WarGaming site and click on 'Profile Privacy' below your service record level to change the setting to public.

Then wait around 30 minutes and check this page again.

Here's the catch, I never set my stats to private. Even when I checked to make sure it didn't get reset by accident, my profile still says my profile is PUBLIC. 

I know that warships.today has always been glitchy, but what gives? Is there a better stats website to use (that is this detailed)?

Thanks guys

GONOWGETDOWN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,302
[CUTE]
Members
5,152 posts
3,430 battles

It's all the way down from my understanding. Find a new stats site kinda down...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
217
[TDG]
Members
1,127 posts
5,676 battles

I haven't seen  them able to update since the last weekend.

It's happened before.  I'm not sure what the problem is.

I use them and wows-numbers as each has features I like for reviewing performance.

wows-stats calculates WTR using the same formula.  I get the raw data directly from WG by looking at the ships data in my account details.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
351
[NAVY]
Members
999 posts
3,720 battles

WoWs Today hasn't had reliable stats for a couple of updates now. Sometimes it's up and sometimes it's down, but I don't know that it has been updating the stats correctly because every time I've checked it for the last couple of months data seems to be missing or off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
269
[PT8TO]
Members
1,402 posts
12,810 battles
1 minute ago, Grand_Viceroy_Zhou_Ziyu said:

Pretty much dead at this point. WoWS Numbers is a better site and more accurate in my opinion.

Just more reliable in my opinion and managed better by  Wiochi or whoever is in charge of it.

If you ever wanted to support or donate to a statistics site I would always go with the more reliable one

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
572
[KP]
Beta Testers
1,689 posts
11,096 battles

http://www.wowstats.org/

this works fine just take a snapshot and gives nicely detailed info

Edited by CriMiNaL__

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,117 posts
4,727 battles
Just now, GUNSTAR_THE_LEGEND said:

Just more reliable in my opinion and managed better by  Wiochi or whoever is in charge of it.

If you ever wanted to support or donate to a statistics site I would always go with the more reliable one

I am personally more a fan of their ratings than WT because I feel that WT somewhat overrates me. I'm 'Good' on WoWS Numbers but on WT I'm 'Very Good', which I don't think I am at this point. IMO WoWS Numbers should rename their light green category from 'Good' to 'Slightly / Somewhat Above Average.'

Red=Bad

Orange=Below Average

Yellow=Average

Light Green=Slightly / Somewhat Above Average

Dark Green=Noticeably Above Average

Blue=Good

Light Purple=Unicum

Dark Purple=Super-Unicum

 

That's the rating I'd use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
269
[PT8TO]
Members
1,402 posts
12,810 battles
4 minutes ago, Grand_Viceroy_Zhou_Ziyu said:

I am personally more a fan of their ratings than WT because I feel that WT somewhat overrates me. I'm 'Good' on WoWS Numbers but on WT I'm 'Very Good', which I don't think I am at this point. IMO WoWS Numbers should rename their light green category from 'Good' to 'Slightly / Somewhat Above Average.'

Red=Bad

Orange=Below Average

Yellow=Average

Light Green=Slightly / Somewhat Above Average

Dark Green=Noticeably Above Average

Blue=Good

Light Purple=Unicum

Dark Purple=Super-Unicum

 

That's the rating I'd use.

I think it is a better site as well and hopefully if the donation level gets high enough 200$ a month.

Then as it says the site can be made better and expanded to a new server  with more features

Edited by GUNSTAR_THE_LEGEND

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
217
[TDG]
Members
1,127 posts
5,676 battles

I just wish WoWS Numbers had all the data Warships.Today had, like Survival Rate, Main Battery Hit Rate, and Torpedo Hit Rate.

I may have to write my own tool to use the Warships API to just update my data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
351
[NAVY]
Members
999 posts
3,720 battles
18 minutes ago, CriMiNaL__ said:

http://www.wowstats.org/stats/na

this works fine just take a snapshot and gives nicely detailed info

If you go to that link, it doesn't work.

Have to use this one, http://www.wowstats.org/ , and then choose which server and put in the player name. Plus, how often do they update their stats? Based on what I can tell,  the site doesn't have accurate stats of the new tier 8 Cleveland or re-tiered Pensacola, New Orleans, Baltimore, nor the new tier 9 heavy cruiser Buffalo. In fact, it doesn't show any battles for me in the tier 8 Cleveland, tier 6 Pensacola, or tier 7 New Orleans.

EDIT: In case anyone is new to using wowstats.org, or like me, doesn't use it often, make sure you click on the Snapshot update button to bring your statistical date "up-to-date." Shout out to and big thank you to @CriMiNaL__ for the helpful info there.

06-22-2018 WoWs screenshot_001.jpg

06-22-2018 WoWs screenshot_002.jpg

Edited by daVinci761st

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,117 posts
4,727 battles
3 minutes ago, YeOldeTraveller said:

I just wish WoWS Numbers had all the data Warships.Today had, like Survival Rate, Main Battery Hit Rate, and Torpedo Hit Rate.

I may have to write my own tool to use the Warships API to just update my data.

WoWS Numbers does have MBH ratio and torpedo hit ratio. However they don't have survival rate so we can only calculate that from the official site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
269
[PT8TO]
Members
1,402 posts
12,810 battles
1 minute ago, daVinci761st said:

If you go to that link, it doesn't work.

Have to use this one, http://www.wowstats.org/ , and then choose which server and put in the player name. Plus, how often do they update their stats? Based on what I can tell,  the site doesn't have accurate stats of the new tier 8 Cleveland or re-tiered Pensacola, New Orleans, Baltimore, nor the new tier 9 heavy cruiser Buffalo. In fact, it doesn't show any battles for me in the tier 8 Cleveland, tier 6 Pensacola, or tier 7 New Orleans.

06-22-2018 WoWs screenshot_001.jpg

06-22-2018 WoWs screenshot_002.jpg

It updates every 60 minutes, My stats on wows stats and numbers is spot on compared to the stats right off of wows profile page

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
572
[KP]
Beta Testers
1,689 posts
11,096 battles

when your looking at your stats you have a button up the top that lets you take a snap shot, that brings everything up to date for you

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
217
[TDG]
Members
1,127 posts
5,676 battles
1 minute ago, GUNSTAR_THE_LEGEND said:

It updates every 60 minutes, My stats on wows stats and numbers is spot on compared to the stats right off of wows profile page

I've found the data is current.

There are issues with some irregularities.

Right now, you have to look carefully to be sure you have the right New Orleans as both are there.  The only actual bug I have found is that King George V is one of the shown as Nelson.  The only way I know which is which is total battles.

4 minutes ago, Grand_Viceroy_Zhou_Ziyu said:

WoWS Numbers does have MBH ratio and torpedo hit ratio. However they don't have survival rate so we can only calculate that from the official site.

True, but yo do have to look into each ship to see it.  Today had it as part of the table.  This is one of the reasons I was using both.  I actually prefer the filtering UI at Numbers.  Great for tailoring which ships to drive for specific tasks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
351
[NAVY]
Members
999 posts
3,720 battles
Just now, GUNSTAR_THE_LEGEND said:

It updates every 60 minutes, My stats on wows stats and numbers is spot on compared to the stats right off of wows profile page

 

1 minute ago, CriMiNaL__ said:

when your looking at your stats you have a button up the top that lets you take a snap shot, that brings everything up to date for you

 

Thanks @CriMiNaL__:Smile_honoring: That was the issue. I hadn't used that stat site that much and didn't notice the snapshot button. :Smile_hiding:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,368
[-K-]
Members
5,061 posts
8,938 battles
23 minutes ago, Grand_Viceroy_Zhou_Ziyu said:

Pretty much dead at this point. WoWS Numbers is a better site and more accurate in my opinion.

100% agreed.  Much more presentable information too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,117 posts
4,727 battles

I feel Wiochi could change the terms for some of the ratings. For example, instead of 'Good' for light green, a more accurate description of players in that range (including me) would be 'Slightly / Somewhat Above Average.' 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
269
[PT8TO]
Members
1,402 posts
12,810 battles
Just now, Grand_Viceroy_Zhou_Ziyu said:

I feel Wiochi could change the terms for some of the ratings. For example, instead of 'Good' for light green, a more accurate description of players in that range (including me) would be 'Slightly / Somewhat Above Average.' 

Yeah I do not consider my 55% overall WR to be along the lines of Very Good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,117 posts
4,727 battles
11 minutes ago, GUNSTAR_THE_LEGEND said:

Yeah I do not consider my 55% overall WR to be along the lines of Very Good.

I feel the Blue players (overall, excluding seal clubbers) are the ones that can truly be considered 'Good', because it takes a lot to be considered a good player in this game. If a player has a blue overall rating and most of his battles are Tier 6 and above, I feel that's an indicator he's a pretty good player.

 

  52-55% WR I would say is slightly to moderately above average, depending whether you're on the higher end or lower end of this range. I'm currently at 52% so I'd say slightly above average.

Edited by Grand_Viceroy_Zhou_Ziyu
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,583
[E-E]
[E-E]
Members
15,588 posts
14,010 battles
35 minutes ago, Grand_Viceroy_Zhou_Ziyu said:

Pretty much dead at this point. WoWS Numbers is a better site and more accurate in my opinion.

Unless the stat tracking sites can filter by time periods like Warships Today did, they'll all be worse than WT.  Using the entire game history of stats for a ship is completely inaccurate as changes have occurred over the course of time in this game.  Some ships have drastically changed over time.  At least WT you could filter by 2 weeks and all stats pulled is pertinent to the recent state of the game, not to when, say, Montana, Iowa, Missouri used to have skyscraper citadels long ago.  Or a time before North Carolina received numerous buffs, like before she got her sigma improved, etc.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,117 posts
4,727 battles

Yeah that's true regarding the North Carolina. WoWS Numbers and WT says she's the worst performing Tier 8 BB but recently it's been demonstrated that she is the BB of choice in competitive modes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41
[PRSR-]
Members
171 posts
6,092 battles

I checked out the other two sites. Maybe I'm just used to Warships.Today, but I liked its layout A LOT more. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×