Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
SidTheBlade

Measuring BB power

8 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,015
[USA-N]
Members
785 posts
9,235 battles

This thread contains data drafted in response to another thread, concerning whether the Thunderer and Georgia are more "OP" than other ships. That thread continued the widely held article of faith, which is that the Kremlin is significantly over powered.

The data here is taken from the following source, the reader is strongly encouraged to have a look. Remember, 83% of all statistics are fabricated.

http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/ranking/20200215/na_2month/average_ship.html

How to measure the fighting power of ships?

We know that average damage caused per match is one measure of power. We may call this "raw firepower". Obviously the average XP earned in each match is an indicator of how easily that damage was farmed. This is because, while XP is indeed issued for damage, meaning that high damage results in high XP, it also takes into account other factors, such as how much damage was sustained, how much potential damage was tanked, and how difficult the opposition was, whilst the damage was farmed.

Therefore, it is useful to divide the average XP in each battle by the average damage accrued in each battle. In this way, we arrive at a ratio that balances raw firepower with the skill of the player in the ship. We reach a number that shows how many XP are achieved per unit of damage. The higher this number, the less the inherently "OP" the ship is, and the more skilled the player of the ship needs to be, to do well. On average.

 

1. Kremlin

Av. Damage:      85'360

Av. XP:               1'891

Combined Ratio (x100):  2.21

2. Thunderer

Av. Damage:      101'301

Av. XP:               1'921

Combined Ratio (x100):  1.89

3. Conqueror

Av. Damage:      98'044

Av. XP:               1'729

Combined Ratio (x100):  1.76

4. Bourgogne

Av. Damage:      118'734

Av. XP:               2'264

Combined Ratio (x100):  1.90

5. Jean Bart

Av. Damage:      85'119

Av. XP:               1'796

Combined Ratio (x100):  2.10

6. Republik

Av. Damage:      85'157

Av. XP:               1'664

Combined Ratio (x100):  1.95

6. GKF

Av. Damage:      74'002

Av. XP:               1'674

Combined Ratio (x100):  2.26

7. Yamato

Av. Damage:      84'266

Av. XP:               1'864

Combined Ratio (x100):  2.21

8. Mushasi

Av. Damage:      89'831

Av. XP:               1'733

Combined Ratio (x100):  1.92

9. Monty

Av. Damage:      71'647

Av. XP:               1'664

Combined Ratio (x100):  2.32

10. Georgia

Av. Damage:      76'931

Av. XP:               1'626

Combined Ratio (x100):  2.11

11. Ohio

Av. Damage:      95'865

Av. XP:               2'023

Combined Ratio (x100):  2.11

 

So, there you have it.

The data DOES NOT SUPPORT the widespread contention that the Krem is OP, either in terms of absolute damage (firepower) per match, or firepower relative to player skill.

On the contrary, the Krem is at the lower end of the BB rankings, with only the poor old Monty and the GKF having worse skill referenced scores. The Yamato is equally as weak as the Krem.

The most OP BBs are, very clearly, the RN duo of the Conqueror and Thunderer. The French steel ship Bourgogne is likewise OP, especially in terms of raw firepower, as is the Musashi. The Musashi crushes the other tier 9 favourites, the Georgia and the Jean Bart.

It is notable that 2 tier IX battleships do more damage than the Kremlin (Jean Bart and Musashi), and that the Royal Navy BBs are 15% stronger, in terms of firepower, than other tier X battleships, with the exception of the Bourgogne.

There is no question, from this data, that the Monty needs a buff.

Not only does it have less firepower (raw damage per match) than every other tier X, it also trails behind (far behind) the tier IXs in the list.

The Ohio nearly competes with the Royal Navy BBs in terms of damage, however given that one must give up one's firstborn child to the wretched Research Bureau in order to get it, that is scant consolation. Curiously, it's skill profile matches the Georgia exactly, reflecting what many experienced players have noted, about the Ohio being the "big brother" of the Georgia.

The GFK is unsurprisingly weak, given the static long range fire meta at tier X, and its close range brawling profile. Like the Monty, it has less raw firepower than the fancy tier IX battleships, which is arguably unacceptable.

For the record, I do not think the data argues for a buff or nerf to any ship, except the Monty. The GFK is in a bad way due to the meta, but it isn't clear how that can be solved, or whether it would "break" the game to have an effective brawling battleship.

The RN Battleships are indeed very powerful, but somebody has to be. If it were not them, then we should all complain about whomsoever else it was. Only the Monty really stands out as neglected, needing more raw firepower to justify its role and tier.

The Musashi is a beast, the monster of tier IX, but again, someone has to be the King.

It is worth noting the high average skill of Kremlin players, despite its less than ideal firepower. Truly, this group of men lead the way, demonstrating the warrior spirit that lifts up lessor men, those wide eyed acolytes who aspire to more than they were born to be, and who pilot French ships.

Should the Krem receive a raw firepower buff? Possibly.

Could the world handle that power, in combination with the skill of the Kremlin player base? Unlikely.

As you were.

Edited by SidTheBlade

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,386
Members
1,058 posts
7,478 battles

What a very flawed calculation.

By attempting to simplify the observation you completely and purposefully inserted bias into the analysis.

1.) Average XP is not a Tier 1 performance metric.  It is not even indicative of a performance, period. It is a reward, and specifically progression. It is rewarded for all types of performance and the amount is not implemented categorically based on impact of said performance on match result.

2.) Tier 1 performance metrics are: Average Damage, Average Kills, and Survival Rate.  These are based on which enacted performance has the greatest impact on match result governed by not only the win conditions (e.g. first team to 1,000 points, sink all enemy ships, a ship sunk is an instant point gain and point loss) but also the ruleset as well (YOLO, no respawns, 12v12, no SBMM, etc).     

Most high tier BBs are overpowered. Some by a very large margin. The Kremlin is actually tied with Bourgogne as the highest performing ships in the game. The Bourgogne appears higher at face-value, but after accounting for the bias in the sample due to it being gated it is relegated. 

 

 

  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,015
[USA-N]
Members
785 posts
9,235 battles
1 hour ago, Varknyn12 said:

What a very flawed calculation.
....
The Kremlin is actually tied with Bourgogne as the highest performing ships in the game. 

There it is.

Has no data, has no actual analysis of any data.

Makes the grand sweeping claim that the Kremlin is a high performing ship.

THIS is Russian bias, in WOWS.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,919
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
14,108 posts
19,206 battles
3 hours ago, SidTheBlade said:

THIS is Russian bias, in WOWS.

This is [edited], since you have no power or influence to change anything in the game, either you play or you don't. Period. THINKING Bias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
348
[YETI]
[YETI]
Members
542 posts
12,255 battles
15 minutes ago, SidTheBlade said:

THIS is Russian bias, in WOWS.

I don't think your calculations add up.  From your data Bourgogne gets an average of almost 33,000 more damage than Kremlin and also more XP.  In fact 5 out of the 11 ships listed have more Damage and a lot of those also have more XP.  Yet some how you make up a calculation so Kremlin is on top with the stats.  I think you have the bias.  I am not saying Kremlin isn't powerful and could use some nerfs but strictly using your own data I don't see what you are talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,268
[WG-CC]
Privateers, Members
9,083 posts
7,978 battles

I am not really a fan of attempts to summarize a ship‘s performance in two or three stats, or trying to create an absolute metric to do so. The game is more complex than just XP or damage, or kills, or survival rates, win rates or what other single stat people like to pull up. Not only that, but there is also the problem with us having no way to get all the data needed to make proper statements on balance. 

If one wanted to get a detailed analysis on ship performance it‘d be required to see how the ship performed compared to the other ships available to each individual player, and then gather the numerous comparisons and trying to get this all into a spreadsheet. Bonus points if the table is then also sorted in a manner to reflect the player‘s skill, to see if a ship offers relative advantages to certain parts of the playerbase. 

I said "how the ship performed", somewhat vague of a statement, but that should basically include every stat that can be drawn from the database (and no, marblesyrup does not manage that).

 

And as always with all sorts of stat comparisons and analysis attempts, there is a degree of error involved. Hence why I am really careful with those.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,115
[TDRB]
Members
5,142 posts
13,741 battles

When people use stats to support their case I think of baseball. In baseball there seems to be a stat on everything. I recall a year when a hall of fame pitcher was having his best season. The sport media sung his praises but omitted one stat almost all the time. That stat was run support. The team was averaging more than 8 runs per game when this pitcher took the mound.

Stats can support an opinion but in the context of proving a ship is overpowering I would think the advantage must be more than a few percentage points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,015
[USA-N]
Members
785 posts
9,235 battles
17 hours ago, Admiral_Andy said:

I don't think your calculations add up.  From your data Bourgogne gets an average of almost 33,000 more damage than Kremlin and also more XP.  In fact 5 out of the 11 ships listed have more Damage and a lot of those also have more XP.  Yet some how you make up a calculation so Kremlin is on top with the stats.  I think you have the bias.  I am not saying Kremlin isn't powerful and could use some nerfs but strictly using your own data I don't see what you are talking about.

The calculations, such as they, may not add up. If so, you'd be able to say which ones are mistaken. You don't bother. You haven't bothered to check the math. Yet you will run your mouth, and accuse me of being mistaken.

You refer to "your data", notwithstanding that I have provided a reference and link to the source, which is manifestly not my own. 

You then claim I have calculated the Kremlin to be "on top". In fact, I make very clear that the Monty is weakest, followed by the GKF. The Yamato is as weak as the Krem, tied for third place amongst the ships listed here. Nowhere do I argue the Krem to be "on top" of anything.

This thread is evidence of the quality of reasoning in the WOWS forums, regarding bias. Lots of talk, almost zero reading comprehension skills.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×