Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
__crazy8s_

Warshipstoday Compared to WoWs Stats and Numbers...

25 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
3,774 posts
8,328 battles

  So I know I'm a potato I get that.  I also understand that different statistics sites add their calculations differently.  I'm not sure now which one is more accurate.  I have been watching Warshipstoday for the past couple of days.  It has not gotten back to where it actually shows your battles for that individual day.  But with the Warships today it's saying my recent win rate over the period of 1 day it says I've played 34 battles.  With a win rate of 52.94 percent.  Now I look and would think thats pretty decent.

 

  Then I would flop over to WoWs Stats and numbers.  Over the last 7 days it says my win rate is 46.92 percent and most recent is 16 games with 43.75 percent.  Which is yes horrible.  But at this point I don't care.  Yes I'm working on improving but its tough.  I'm not trying to get myself stat shamed here.  But I'm actually trying to work into seeing which site is better and more accurate.  WoWs stats and numbers looks pretty and what not but is it really that accurate compared with the fixed Warships today?  Look for yourself and judge you can use my stats as an example if you want.

Warshipstoday.PNG

Wows Stats.PNG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
436
[CAST]
Members
1,428 posts
5,968 battles

As I'm sure you're aware, a 34 battle sample size is not sufficient to draw any conclusions on a statistic like win rate (even if its over 1 day).  What is encouraging is the amount of little green + signs next to your stats over the past 400 battles...that's a far better indicator of how you've actually been playing lately.

Regarding which site is "better", that's obviously down to personal preference.  Removing recent reliability concerns from the equation, WoWs Stats & Numbers is much easier to navigate, but Warships Today offers some pertinent stats which aren't found on the other site (such as survival rate by ship & hit ratios).  WTR is far more ingrained within the Warships community than PR, for whatever that's worth.  In terms of accuracy, barring the odd hiccup both sites should be giving you the same overall numbers, even if their opinions vary on what "recent" constitutes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
198
[STW]
Members
658 posts
4,416 battles

Statistically, they shouldn't have much difference other than rounding and the rate at which they both pull API data.  I like Warships Today better personally, but it's gotten too unreliable on how often it actually works, and WoWS Numbers is nice and clean in information presentation.  The way they rate you is slightly different as well so that's going to vary from site to site, what you take most seriously and how you use the information in changing your play is up to you.

Also just something to point out, but if you can work on that survival %, that will make quite a difference in your results.

Edited by Deviathan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[KWA]
Members
132 posts
8,065 battles

Warships.Today has fallen out of favor with me. It has a lot of difficulty just giving you reliable information. Lately when new ships are released no matter how well you do in them it gives you a static WTR of 1000. And since the system doesnt go back and update itself it can make you look very bad. The first two weeks I had my Kronshtadt I was doing very well in it (and still am) but I had only 1000 WTR and I thought there was no way my stats were the average. 

So I went to Stats and Numbers, and did a comparison, not just on the Kron but all my stats. Numbers uses roughly the same algorithm as Warships.Today but actually consistanty updates you stats when you hit the Take Snapshot button. The algorithm used in Stats, is more complicated, but when you breakdown the adjusted weights it emphasizes kills heavier than the 20% it is supposed to given the degree of variance. So the PR rating was less useful than the WTR rating Numbers uses. So I use Stats for clamping myself to different percentiles of the player base as that is an option and the Clan Stats page, and I use numbers to see my overall improvement or lack thereof. 

Hope this helps with your question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
472
[QNA]
[QNA]
Members
1,838 posts
5,881 battles

My Ryujo stats suck, that is what I have been told.

:fish_aqua::fish_aqua::fish_aqua::fish_aqua::fish_aqua::fish_aqua:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
734
[HYDRO]
Members
1,583 posts
3,751 battles
10 minutes ago, C0L0NEL_MUSTARD said:

Warships.Today has fallen out of favor with me. It has a lot of difficulty just giving you reliable information. Lately when new ships are released no matter how well you do in them it gives you a static WTR of 1000. And since the system doesnt go back and update itself it can make you look very bad. The first two weeks I had my Kronshtadt I was doing very well in it (and still am) but I had only 1000 WTR and I thought there was no way my stats were the average. 

So I went to Stats and Numbers, and did a comparison, not just on the Kron but all my stats. Numbers uses roughly the same algorithm as Warships.Today but actually consistanty updates you stats when you hit the Take Snapshot button. The algorithm used in Stats, is more complicated, but when you breakdown the adjusted weights it emphasizes kills heavier than the 20% it is supposed to given the degree of variance. So the PR rating was less useful than the WTR rating Numbers uses. So I use Stats for clamping myself to different percentiles of the player base as that is an option and the Clan Stats page, and I use numbers to see my overall improvement or lack thereof. 

Hope this helps with your question.

A very good alternative I recently found is wowstats.org. It requires you to take screenshots but offers progress meters and other useful data. WTR has fallen out of favor with me as well, mostly cause the site is crumbling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
247
[TDRB]
Members
1,115 posts
4,238 battles

I had a difficult time learning how to shoot with some accuracy. My poor stats make that clear to anyone who wishes to look. But my damage per battle is increasing as a result so is my experience per battle. As long as these two stats travel upwards I'm happy. I ignore what other players may say about me. I don't play the game for their benefit.

Someone reported recently that World of Warships Today was no longed maintained. I do not know if it is or isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
280
[RUST]
Beta Testers
948 posts
10,423 battles

Ignore 1 day statistics, no site will give you an accurate representation of how well you are doing since sample size over 1 day is typically too small. Focus on 30 day+ statistics and trendlines. If you keep to raw stats like WR, Survival %, accuracy, then both sites are just as accurate assuming you are looking at stats for the same period of time for both sites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,774 posts
8,328 battles
3 minutes ago, warheart1992 said:

A very good alternative I recently found is wowstats.org. It requires you to take screenshots but offers progress meters and other useful data. WTR has fallen out of favor with me as well, mostly cause the site is crumbling.

That requires doing work I'm too lazy to do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,774 posts
8,328 battles
17 minutes ago, Deviathan said:

Statistically, they shouldn't have much difference other than rounding and the rate at which they both pull API data.  I like Warships Today better personally, but it's gotten too unreliable on how often it actually works, and WoWS Numbers is nice and clean in information presentation.  The way they rate you is slightly different as well so that's going to vary from site to site, what you take most seriously and how you use the information in changing your play is up to you.

Also just something to point out, but if you can work on that survival %, that will make quite a difference in your results.

I actually am trying to work on my survival rate.  I just had my last match in aki team lost but I was the last one alive and I stayed alive.  They did not get to kill me lol.  It was quite amuzing.  Too bad it was a lost match.  Oh well.  But I've been trying to stay alive longer like this match.

shot-18.07.11_12.32.34-0046.jpg

shot-18.07.11_12.32.39-0872.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
734
[HYDRO]
Members
1,583 posts
3,751 battles
2 minutes ago, torpsRus said:

That requires doing work I'm too lazy to do that.

Oh its automated. You connect first your account, then you just press a button on the site to do so automatically

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,774 posts
8,328 battles

According to wowstats.org I have a 55.10 percent win rating in my Akizuki currently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
303 posts
4,519 battles

When it was working, warshipstoday stats said that I was an average player.  WOWS-numbers stats say that I am a below average player.  So obviously, they are both wrong.     :Smile_teethhappy:

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,858
[NGA]
Alpha Tester
9,688 posts
3,928 battles

Well.. stats and numbers shows me with ZERO recent battles..which is totally inaccurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,550
[OPGS]
Beta Testers
3,420 posts
5,843 battles
1 hour ago, torpsRus said:

  So I know I'm a potato I get that.  I also understand that different statistics sites add their calculations differently.  I'm not sure now which one is more accurate.  I have been watching Warshipstoday for the past couple of days.  It has not gotten back to where it actually shows your battles for that individual day.  But with the Warships today it's saying my recent win rate over the period of 1 day it says I've played 34 battles.  With a win rate of 52.94 percent.  Now I look and would think thats pretty decent.

 

  Then I would flop over to WoWs Stats and numbers.  Over the last 7 days it says my win rate is 46.92 percent and most recent is 16 games with 43.75 percent.  Which is yes horrible.  But at this point I don't care.  Yes I'm working on improving but its tough.  I'm not trying to get myself stat shamed here.  But I'm actually trying to work into seeing which site is better and more accurate.  WoWs stats and numbers looks pretty and what not but is it really that accurate compared with the fixed Warships today?  Look for yourself and judge you can use my stats as an example if you want.

Warshipstoday.PNG

Wows Stats.PNG

I dispute your claim that you are a potato, you are NOT a potato sir. Anyone who is looking at their stats, and trying to improve their game is not a potato in my opinion. For me a potato is that guy who has 13k battles, horrible stats and makes NO EFFORT to improve and will yell at you for making any suggestions on how he can improve his game. 

So I say congrats to you sir, I know you are not where you want to be but if you keep working at it, keep a positive attitude you will get to where you want to be. If you ever see me in game, throw me a shout out, I am not in the best player category but I am decent. I will help in any way I can if you want help and advice from an old fart like me. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,835
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
16,161 posts
14,555 battles

In the past when Warships Today was fully working, I considered no other WoWS stat site as anywhere close to it.  But the site having been down so long until recently, and even then, we still can't check ship stats (not talking personal stats, talking something like Tier VIII BB stats), it's just not reliable anymore.

 

The other stat websites are even worse, even if they are working.  I cannot filter ship statistics, they use the game's entire history and that is completely inaccurate by itself.

How can you compare Prinz Eugen's statistics when she's been changed drastically recently?  How can you compare her to the also-just-as-altered Hipper?  How do they stack in performance compared to VIII Baltimore, VIII Cleveland?  You can't really compare.  All the other stat sites don't filter the timeframe so what we have are nothing but inaccurate pictures, except for the newest ships.

 

The day any of these sites other than Warships Today have time filters, say 2 weeks, 1 month, 2 months, etc, then I'll be a fan.  But until then, no, they're all wildly inaccurate.  You ask for stats and you have 3 years worth of old, non-pertinent data thrown at you, with no way to filter irrelevant figures.  It's all inaccurate.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
198
[STW]
Members
658 posts
4,416 battles
1 hour ago, torpsRus said:

I actually am trying to work on my survival rate.  I just had my last match in aki team lost but I was the last one alive and I stayed alive.  They did not get to kill me lol.  It was quite amuzing.  Too bad it was a lost match.  Oh well.  But I've been trying to stay alive longer like this match.

It's a process, but if you can get that survival rate to 40-50%, your WR should start sitting between 50 and 60% and you'll see an increase in your other stats too (damage, kills etc. are easier to inflate when you're staying alive longer).  If your survival rate starts getting up into that territory but your WR isn't staying ~10% higher than your survival rate, then that's a sign you've probably begun playing too passively.  From day to day you may not see exactly this happen, but over a few hundred matches you should start to see a trend.  The problem I used to have was being way overaggressive (especially when I was learning to DD) and I've had to learn to play a balanced game and know when I needed to get aggressive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
4,827 posts
5,599 battles

I like the color scheme for ratings on Warshipstoday.

But with the site having gone down recently, and WoWs stats and numbers improving their signature feature(namely in the type of background you can pick), I've switched for the time being. I'll likely go back if WT ever gets back to a point where it's consistent and doesn't have more than the occasional hiccup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,541
[OO7]
Alpha Tester
6,745 posts
3,490 battles

Other than preferring WTR over PR, and some details Today includes that Numbers doesn't, I find Numbers to be the better site and more reliable. It also shows a better breakdown over how you've improved.

The one thing I would like to see numbers do is to improve their stats picture. It is very pixelated for some reason, and doesn't look sharp. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30
[B2P]
[B2P]
Beta Testers
135 posts
7,178 battles
1 hour ago, torpsRus said:

According to wowstats.org I have a 55.10 percent win rating in my Akizuki currently.

That site is not helpful since it combines both Random and Ranked data of your played ships as a single total. So if you ever played any of the seasons in Ranked Battles, your data on those ships will be a bit different compared to just Random data only.

On top of that it lacks other useful data like your main gun hit rate, survival chance, etc.

Another thing to keep in mind is that Warships.Today can pull data every 10-20 minutes from the last pull request. On wows-numbers, it is locked with a 60 or 120 minute cooldown before you can request again. So if you wonder why data is not updating, just check the upper-right cover to see if there's a cooldown time left before you can make another request.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,128 posts
4,750 battles

Both WT and Numbers place me at slightly above average. I have 1188 solo WTR which is light blue, and my PR is light green at 1436 solo. I feel 'Good' on WoWS Numbers and light blue on WT=slightly above average, though 'Good' on Numbers and 'Very Good' are used as designations.

   Take a new ship, the Helena. I have a 1262 PR whoch places me in the yellow / 'average' range WoWS Numbers (sad), but WT places me at 1260 WTR which is above average. The numbers are striking similar and I wonder where WT got the data for the reworked USN CAs and the new CLs. Which one is more reliable? Am I just an average player in Helena or above average? 

 

According to WoWS Numbers I am at server average for WR, slightly below server average for K/D ratio, 13-14k above server average for damage and 0.22 above server average for the ship kills (1.05). No way I only deserve a yellow PR even with Helena's currently inflated stats. Doesn't damage count for 50.0% of PR and kills 30%?

Edited by Grand_Viceroy_Zhou_Ziyu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
174
[R-R-R]
Members
975 posts
6,615 battles

I prefer WoWS today for both its UI and functionality.

However, today has been quite unreliable for the past several months. So I would opt for WoWS numbers to track your personal performance for the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21
[AHOY_]
Members
183 posts
6,872 battles
2 hours ago, Belthorian said:

I dispute your claim that you are a potato, you are NOT a potato sir. Anyone who is looking at their stats, and trying to improve their game is not a potato in my opinion. For me a potato is that guy who has 13k battles, horrible stats and makes NO EFFORT to improve and will yell at you for making any suggestions on how he can improve his game. 

So I say congrats to you sir, I know you are not where you want to be but if you keep working at it, keep a positive attitude you will get to where you want to be. If you ever see me in game, throw me a shout out, I am not in the best player category but I am decent. I will help in any way I can if you want help and advice from an old fart like me. 

This guy potatoes. Wait that ain't right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
77
[BLUMR]
Members
217 posts
2,849 battles
3 hours ago, torpsRus said:

I actually am trying to work on my survival rate.  I just had my last match in aki team lost but I was the last one alive and I stayed alive.  They did not get to kill me lol.  It was quite amuzing.  Too bad it was a lost match.  Oh well.  But I've been trying to stay alive longer like this match.

Ok, that's fine and all, but really survival rating isn't a stat you should be focusing on. It important to live long so you can do other things. It's not CoD where what matters is a K/D ratio. Please don't needlessly extend games simply to preserve that survival rating. It does no one good. Play to win, and when the game really isn't winnable, just play for damage and credits. It's like the deplaned last CV player on his team running to A1. Theses no reason for it. It just wastes time so his statistic that tells you nothing about how good he is can be inflated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
351
[ZIPPO]
Members
1,561 posts
3,539 battles
5 hours ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

In the past when Warships Today was fully working, I considered no other WoWS stat site as anywhere close to it.  But the site having been down so long until recently, and even then, we still can't check ship stats (not talking personal stats, talking something like Tier VIII BB stats), it's just not reliable anymore.

 

The other stat websites are even worse, even if they are working.  I cannot filter ship statistics, they use the game's entire history and that is completely inaccurate by itself.

How can you compare Prinz Eugen's statistics when she's been changed drastically recently?  How can you compare her to the also-just-as-altered Hipper?  How do they stack in performance compared to VIII Baltimore, VIII Cleveland?  You can't really compare.  All the other stat sites don't filter the timeframe so what we have are nothing but inaccurate pictures, except for the newest ships.

 

The day any of these sites other than Warships Today have time filters, say 2 weeks, 1 month, 2 months, etc, then I'll be a fan.  But until then, no, they're all wildly inaccurate.  You ask for stats and you have 3 years worth of old, non-pertinent data thrown at you, with no way to filter irrelevant figures.  It's all inaccurate.

 

This right here is the biggest reason WT was better, it's probably the reason it breaks so often though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×