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

CV - Fact and Fiction - By the Numbers

30 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

210
Beta Testers
317 posts
10,130 battles

With all the whining, gnashing of teeth and wrong information floating around, I decided to take a deeper dive into the data and see what story it told.  I am NOT addressing whether the current game play is fun, or whether it's fun to play against.  I am only reviewing the higher tiers (7+).  This is for a couple of reasons.  The first is the lower tiers are a crap-show and I doubt if anyone is going to argue that point.  Secondly, our friend Maple Syrup has some summarized stats that conveniently break at T7+.  And finally, most of the people who pay attention to this sort of information are probably mostly playing at these tiers in any case.  Also, this is NA data because that's where I play.

 

This data is from Maple Syrup.  I used the last 2 months averages, dated 2/22/2020 and 2/24/2018.  For the 2020 data, I used the Unit Based data.  There was no option for 2018.  For the data concerning "best" players, I used Maple Syrup's "Top 10".  It's an imperfect data point because MS has his (or her?) own rating system.  But as the criteria is applied evenly, it gives data that's at least representational, and good enough for our purposes of seeing trends.

 

So on to our data!!!

 

The best CV players dominate as much/more than before!  Nothing changed!

False, mostly.  Based on the combination of Win Rate and Kills/Game, the overall trend among the "best" players is down.  On the carriers that performed the best it is down significantly, but numbers are up on the carriers that performed the worst.  There is much less variation between carrier performance then has been the case in the past.

 

The numbers being put up by the top 10 T10 CV players in 2020 are in line to what top 10 players are putting up in other T10 ships.  They are ranked 10, 12 and 15 in Win Rate out of 37 ships.  This is compared to all other “top 10” players in each respective class at T10.  On Kills / game they are ranked at 3, 6 and 8 out of 37.  I didn’t pull the 2018 full set of ships to see how they compared historically, but considering the major drop, I suspect they were sitting at 1 and 2 previously.  I’ll check 2018 if I get a chance.

 

Here is a quick summary of all the current "high tier" carriers.  You'll see significant decreases in the win rates and kills of the best players today as compared to 2018 for most of the ships.  Several of the ships in 2018 were beyond broken.  Several were considered "junk" in 2018 and are performing more in line with the other carriers now.  Even the broken Enterprise isn't too far out of line.

 

Kaga:

2018: 79.2% / 2.33 kills

2020: 67.2% / 1.24

 

Saipan:

2018: 84.5% / 1.87

2020: 67.1% / 1.39

 

Graf:

2018: 59.7% / 1.09

2020: 67.9% / 1.34

 

Indomitable:

2020: 69.6% / 1.35

 

Implacable:

2020: 68.5% / 1.22

 

Lexington:

2018: 73.8% / 1.66

2020: 70.0% / 1.45

 

Shokaku:

2018: 73.7% / 1.81

2020: 67.2% / 1.56

 

Midway:

2018: 82.5% / 2.66

2020: 73.1% / 1.61

 

Hak:

2018: 67.6% / 2.07

2020: 72.2% / 1.70

 

Audacious:

2020: 70.5% / 1.56

 

Enterprise:

2018: 76.3% / 1.80

2020: 74.1% / 1.99

 

Nobody plays DDs anymore!!!!

False, but DD play is slightly down.  Some interesting numbers here.

 

BB: -6.2%

CA: +9.5%

DD: -9.2%

CV: +68.3%

 

2018 vs. 2020:

BB: 41% -> 38.5%

CA: 33% -> 36%

DD: 24% -> 21.6%

CV: 2.4% -> 4.1%

 

DD play is down, but so is BB play, nearly as much!  The big winners were cruisers and carriers.  Cruiser are played nearly as often as BBs as of today.  This is an additional pressure on DD play.  The player based asked for fewer BBs, and their request was granted.  I think the lesson here is be careful what you ask for…

 

I RARELY got CV games before the rework, and now I do constantly!

Both true and false. Remember these numbers are looking at T7 -> T10 games, and there were some very popular (and brokenly OP) ships that moved tier as a result of the rework.

 

This was an interesting finding.  When you look at a game, each ship makes up 8.3% of the overall team.  In today's environment, 4% carriers means you have a 50% chance to see a carrier.  With a 2.4% carrier mix, you would expect to see carriers in about 30% of your games.  Here is where the numbers get interesting.

 

2018 carrier split by tier when comparing all carrier games from T7 to T10:

T7 carriers: 50%

T8 - T10 carriers: 50%

 

In 2018, fully half of the "high tier" carrier games were actually T7 carriers.  Which meant that people who mostly played T10 games wouldn't have seen carriers very often. 

 

On the other hand, people were spamming their brains out on T7 carriers!!!  Kaga and Saipan were brokenly OP, and they were being spammed more than any of the other carriers.  So our theoretical 30% games with carriers in 2018 was probably less than 10% at T10, and was dramatically higher with the T7 carriers.  And hot damn, were these things broken!

 

As a reminder of how bad it was….

Kaga in 2018: 79.2% WR / 2.33 Kills

Saipan in 2018: 84.5% WR / 1.87 Kills

 

 People were still seeing as many carriers in 2018, but only around T7.  Definitely NOT at T10.  And this may help to explain why some people didn't think the old RTS was too bad, and others felt it was toxic.  A lot would have depended on how much you played T10 as opposed to lower tiers.

I hope you found this deep dive into the data as interesting as I did.

  • Cool 22
  • Confused 1
  • Boring 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,708
[WDS]
[WDS]
Members
3,566 posts
11,175 battles

Hey nice post interesting . No whining no opinion very refreshing .

Image result for funny upvote memes

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Guest
0 posts
18 minutes ago, Tibson said:

Here is a quick summary of all the current "high tier" carriers.  You'll see significant decreases in the win rates and kills of the best players today as compared to 2018 for most of the ships.  Several of the ships in 2018 were beyond broken.  Several were considered "junk" in 2018 and are performing more in line with the other carriers now.  Even the broken Enterprise isn't too far out of line.

all this proves is that the best players can get good results with any CV, or rubber duck if required.

But, I like the breakdown of 

19 minutes ago, Tibson said:

I RARELY got CV games before the rework, and now I do constantly!

Both true and false. Remember these numbers are looking at T7 -> T10 games, and there were some very popular (and brokenly OP) ships that moved tier as a result of the rework.

 

This was an interesting finding.  When you look at a game, each ship makes up 8.3% of the overall team.  In today's environment, 4% carriers means you have a 50% chance to see a carrier.  With a 2.4% carrier mix, you would expect to see carriers in about 30% of your games.  Here is where the numbers get interesting.

 ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
388
[-N-]
Alpha Tester
813 posts

Some great research that I hope goes to help people understand that CV's aren't a deal breaker for any match.

  • Boring 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
210
Beta Testers
317 posts
10,130 battles
1 minute ago, MaxMcKay said:

Some great research that I hope goes to help people understand that CV's aren't a deal breaker for any match.

I'm specifically staying away from the fun with/fun against discussion.   That's subjective.  This is meant to help put that discussion in context with supporting data.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,708
[WDS]
[WDS]
Members
3,566 posts
11,175 battles
6 minutes ago, LoveBote said:

all this proves is that the best players can get good results with any CV, or rubber duck if required.

 

I don't think he said it proves anything which was kind of nice . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
156 posts
2,940 battles

Statistically CVs aren't anything to write home about. Numbers wise CVs are in a good place (maybe could actually use a bit of a damage buff). As you already stated numbers don't address whether playing (against) CVs is fun, and this is the primary reason why I dislike CVs in WoWs. Unfun to play, unfun to play against.

The main grievances I have are:

1. lack of actual CV vs CV interaction. I get it was purposefully removed for a reason, but gameplay is so dry when you can more or less pretend the opposing CV doesn't exist while you go about your bombing runs. In addition, fighter drops - as well intentioned as they are - are dogpoo at their job.

2. Hard to punish, mainly the stupidly OP auto DCP. Catching a CV pants down is still a struggle for a DD. Can't set the CV on fire meaning you can't groud their planes. Going after a CV as anything but a BB or CA is such a liability, which is silly considering lightly armored ships probably have the most beef against CVs and want sweet revenge.

 

I still don't like CVs being in this game since they are pretty gamebreaking irl, but I will have to give WG credit that they can do spreadsheets.

 

  • Cool 3
  • Boring 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
388
[-N-]
Alpha Tester
813 posts
10 minutes ago, Tibson said:

I'm specifically staying away from the fun with/fun against discussion.   That's subjective.  This is meant to help put that discussion in context with supporting data.

No no I'm sorry I probably stated this wrong.  I am saying that the presence of a CV alone does not swing a battle either way.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Guest
0 posts
2 hours ago, Tibson said:

With all the whining,

[... wall of text ... ]

 

Sorry, but without normalization all those numbers are just that - numbers, misleading and not connected with conclusions

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,017
[SBS]
Members
5,903 posts

First, great job on actually taking the time to use data.  +1 to you.

I have some questions.  The first being, why did you use 2018 for the comparison?  Early 2019 would have been a much better representation of the current meta, although its still not perfect.  I suppose its possible the numbers could be skewed some early in 2019 just before the rework went live since its possible people were playing RTS CVs more before they were gone for good.

2 hours ago, Tibson said:

In 2018, fully half of the "high tier" carrier games were actually T7 carriers.  Which meant that people who mostly played T10 games wouldn't have seen carriers very often. 

 

On the other hand, people were spamming their brains out on T7 carriers!!!  Kaga and Saipan were brokenly OP, and they were being spammed more than any of the other carriers.  So our theoretical 30% games with carriers in 2018 was probably less than 10% at T10, and was dramatically higher with the T7 carriers.  And hot damn, were these things broken!

I'd like to see your calculations here.  You'd have to look at the number of games played by tiers 8-10 and compare that to the number of CV games.  It could very well be CV in 10% of the games.  I'd really like to see the numbers for T7.  Its interesting, I sure as hell don't remember seeing T7 CVs in 50% of the matches, and T7 was by far my most played tier.  Is my memory that bad or is there some anomaly in the 2018 data point you used?

One other thing I'd like to point out, the populations of the ships types have been fluctuating recently.  You can go back a few weeks and see BBs being ~40% of the games played. 

Edited by Slimeball91

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,017
[SBS]
Members
5,903 posts
14 minutes ago, SlartiBartFastE2 said:

Sorry, but without normalization all those numbers are just that - numbers, misleading and not connected with conclusions

Its true, you really need to break down the numbers way more to come to form any reasonable hypothesis on what the data might mean.  What Tibson did is at least a start.  I'll look forward to the data you present, since you seem to have a better knowledge on statistical analysis.  Here's a link to the Maple Syrup site in case you don't have it handy. http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/ranking/index.html  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Guest
0 posts
10 minutes ago, Slimeball91 said:

Its true, you really need to break down the numbers way more to come to form any reasonable hypothesis on what the data might mean.  What Tibson did is at least a start.  I'll look forward to the data you present, since you seem to have a better knowledge on statistical analysis.  Here's a link to the Maple Syrup site in case you don't have it handy. http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/ranking/index.html  

Fair enough. Not sure if I find time free from work and game ;), but if I'd do - I will write up. Another missing part is methodology. Every time you trying to draw conclusion, you really need to explain how you do it, so it's not as simple as that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,803
[WORX]
Members
10,678 posts
18,567 battles
8 hours ago, Tibson said:

Nobody plays DDs anymore!!!!

I disagree with this section...

DD play is up but its not what you think...

Low AA or torp DDs are not being played... They're being substituted with

  • High AA DDS
  • The fastest DD in the tiers.
    • its proven time and time again.. SPEED is the only way to even try to negate the CV adv.
      • Usually its reserved for the 45+ kts. DDs
  • OP gun DDs has more then doubled  compared to Torp DDs.

I would further conclude.... With Ranked/arms race upon us... Torp DDs will be the least played ship for that game mode...

While the points I noted above, you'll see A LOT of DDs in Ranked... Problem is, they're gun DDs.

People have adapted along side WG policy and philosophy of being, a one ordnance platform...

Your write up dont compare dmg of DDs in a regular match compared to a CV match... Plus it doesn't point out the what percentage of DMG, is coming from CVs targeting DD...

Although your stats look interesting... It doesn't negate the concerns I noted/raised above...  

Edited by Navalpride33
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,275
[TMS]
Beta Testers
3,731 posts
14,321 battles

Maybe WG should do a hard count on keeping or removing the CV, and what will make people happy to spend money.

It is a buiness to make money, maybe they should bite the bullet and have a discussion about it.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,887
[PSP]
[PSP]
Members
12,654 posts
1 hour ago, Navalpride33 said:

I disagree with this section...

DD play is up but its not what you think...

Low AA or torp DDs are not being played... They're being substituted with

  • High AA DDS
  • The fastest DD in the tiers.
    • its proven time and time again.. SPEED is the only way to even try to negate the CV adv.
      • Usually its reserved for the 45+ kts. DDs
  • OP gun DDs has more then doubled  compared to Torp DDs.

I would further conclude.... With Ranked/arms race upon us... Torp DDs will be the least played ship for that game mode...

While the points I noted above, you'll see A LOT of DDs in Ranked... Problem is, they're gun DDs.

People have adapted along side WG policy and philosophy of being, a one ordnance platform...

Your write up dont compare of DDs in a regular match compared to a CV match... Plus it doesn't point out the what percentage of DMG, is coming from targeting DD...

Although your stats look interesting... It doesn't negate the concerns I noted/raised above...  

Shimakaze    24318
Harugumo    4390
Daring        3336
Grozovoi    2240
Gearing        15700

The data above are for the last time period recorded.

It takes time to grind up a ship line and people tend to play the ships they already have. For instance, the Shimakaze is not the best AA ship but it's much better than is used to be. People still seem to play it quite a bit, even in CV games. It's the only DD I've seen so far in Ranked.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,803
[WORX]
Members
10,678 posts
18,567 battles
2 minutes ago, Snargfargle said:

People still seem to play it quite a bit, even in CV games. It's the only DD I've seen so far in Ranked.  

I would make the argument, they're playing the SHIMA on its reputation... ALso I would not dismiss the die hard SHIMA drivers who been playing the ship for years...

Was that games played by DDs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
210
Beta Testers
317 posts
10,130 battles
1 hour ago, Slimeball91 said:

First, great job on actually taking the time to use data.  +1 to you.

I have some questions.  The first being, why did you use 2018 for the comparison?  Early 2019 would have been a much better representation of the current meta, although its still not perfect.  I suppose its possible the numbers could be skewed some early in 2019 just before the rework went live since its possible people were playing RTS CVs more before they were gone for good.

I'd like to see your calculations here.  You'd have to look at the number of games played by tiers 8-10 and compare that to the number of CV games.  It could very well be CV in 10% of the games.  I'd really like to see the numbers for T7.  Its interesting, I sure as hell don't remember seeing T7 CVs in 50% of the matches, and T7 was by far my most played tier.  Is my memory that bad or is there some anomaly in the 2018 data point you used?

One other thing I'd like to point out, the populations of the ships types have been fluctuating recently.  You can go back a few weeks and see BBs being ~40% of the games played. 

 

I'll try to answer your questions as best I can.  Let's start with the time frames.  The most current data was the obvious place to start.  What's the state of the game today?  Well for the previous two months which is the data that is easy to access since Maple Syrup makes it easy.  I wanted to line up the time period and considered 2019.  But I couldn't remember exactly when the patch hit, and when things started getting wonky.  2018 seemed safe as RTS was firmly entrenched, and any sort of re-work was no more than a sparkle in every ones eyes.  My selection criteria was no more scientific than that.

I'm not aware of anywhere you can get data on battles by tiers, and ship classes in the battle.  The best data I knew available was once again Maple Syrup.  Top 10 data is housed here:

http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/ranking/index.html

Here is the US data for the two months ending 2020/02/22:

http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/ranking/20200222/na_2month/ranking_ship_us.html

I pulled all the data for each nation and each class of ship into an Excel spreadsheet. This is the "Top 10" players by ship as selected by Maple Syrup.  I slightly enriched the data to allow me to add the server (I started playing with other servers, but it was too much work) as well as the year (only working with one data set from 2020  and one from 2018).  If you were being more elaborate, you would want to add the actual as-of date.  In addition, I calculated the total wins per person as well as the total ship kills per person.  This would be important later on when I created the pivot table so I could get well normalized data on win rate and kills/game.  This was a bunch of busy work to pull all the data into a lengthy excel worksheet.

I also did the same thing for the 2018 data.  The historical data is here:

http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/ranking/pastrecords/index.html

I used 2018/02/24 as it lined up the closest to the 2020 data.  I would claim it helps with the seasonality of the data, but honestly this data is noisy enough that I don't know it matters that much.

Once all the raw data was in, I built a pivot table in Excel.  This allows for slicing and dicing of your data very quickly.  Because each of the people in the Top 10 would have played a different number of games over the last 2 months, I used the total wins and total ship kills I enhanced my raw data with in order to add the 10 players per ship together, and correctly calculate a weighted average for both WR and kills/game.

You were also asking about games at each ship tier.  I am not aware of any data that sorts games based on the tiers of a ship in specific battles.  These numbers are rougher, and I used brute force to determine the number of T7 CV games vs. the T8, T9 and T10 CV games.  I used the raw class level data located here:

http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/ranking/pastrecords/20180224/na_2month/average_class.html

And then used the ship by ship numbers located here:

http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/ranking/pastrecords/20180224/na_2month/average_ship.html

And added up the games by carrier to determine the T7 carriers accounted for 50% of the total games played by carriers in our 2018 period for T7 through T10 carrier battles.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,887
[PSP]
[PSP]
Members
12,654 posts
9 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

I would make the argument, they're playing the SHIMA on its reputation... ALso I would not dismiss the die hard SHIMA drivers who been playing the ship for years...

Was that games played by DDs?

I've played about ten ranked games so far. All had DDs, all the DDs were Shimas so far. It's probably because that's what most people have in a tier X DD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
210
Beta Testers
317 posts
10,130 battles
1 hour ago, SlartiBartFastE2 said:

Fair enough. Not sure if I find time free from work and game ;), but if I'd do - I will write up. Another missing part is methodology. Every time you trying to draw conclusion, you really need to explain how you do it, so it's not as simple as that

In all honesty, this data is not very complicated.  It's more busy work than anything else.  Since I'm not trying to do a scientific treatise, I think the rough numbers I'm generating call into the category of "good enough" for giving general guidance as to what is happening in game.  I think you're being unfair with some of your criticism because I did announce where the data came from.  If you spent a few minutes looking, you would have answered most of your own questions.  As it stands, I put up another post and went into more details as to how the data was generated, why I chose the time periods I did, and links to some of the data I used.

I am drawing some conclusions, and I agree the data isn't perfect.  But on the other hand it's a far cry better than what we have been using to discuss the impact of the CV rework up until now.  If other folks can take this and either enhance it, or point out where I"ve made mistakes I'll be happy that the discussion has moved forwards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
210
Beta Testers
317 posts
10,130 battles
2 hours ago, Slimeball91 said:

In 2018, fully half of the "high tier" carrier games were actually T7 carriers.  Which meant that people who mostly played T10 games wouldn't have seen carriers very often. 

 

On the other hand, people were spamming their brains out on T7 carriers!!!  Kaga and Saipan were brokenly OP, and they were being spammed more than any of the other carriers.  So our theoretical 30% games with carriers in 2018 was probably less than 10% at T10, and was dramatically higher with the T7 carriers.  And hot damn, were these things broken!

 

2 hours ago, Slimeball91 said:

I'd like to see your calculations here.  You'd have to look at the number of games played by tiers 8-10 and compare that to the number of CV games.  It could very well be CV in 10% of the games.  I'd really like to see the numbers for T7.  Its interesting, I sure as hell don't remember seeing T7 CVs in 50% of the matches, and T7 was by far my most played tier.  Is my memory that bad or is there some anomaly in the 2018 data point you used?

One other thing I'd like to point out, the populations of the ships types have been fluctuating recently.  You can go back a few weeks and see BBs being ~40% of the games played. 

I just realized what you were asking.  This was just a spitball based on 30% CV games, subtracting out half of those because T7 couldn't have been pulled into a T10 game.  I honestly didn't mean that number to have more meaning than showing that there was a massive hump of CV games at T7, vs what was at T10.  I have no doubt you could work out a "close enough" number if you spent a little time on it.  I didn't think the actual number was important to the point I was trying to make.  I should have been more clear on that, and did use the "probably less than" to show there was no concrete calculation behind it.

I'm not trying to hide anything as this is just me being a numbers wonk and sharing what I've observed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
210
Beta Testers
317 posts
10,130 battles
1 hour ago, Navalpride33 said:
5 hours ago, Tibson said:

Nobody plays DDs anymore!!!!

 

1 hour ago, Navalpride33 said:

I disagree with this section...

DD play is up but its not what you think...

 

Your write up dont compare of DDs in a regular match compared to a CV match... Plus it doesn't point out the what percentage of DMG, is coming from targeting DD...

Although your stats look interesting... It doesn't negate the concerns I noted/raised above...  

 

 

I don't know exactly what you are disagreeing with.  I was only counting amount of DD games being played vs. other classes.  It's been an ongoing meme that nobody is playing DDs.  I sought to put a number to that meme.  I drew no conclusions other than to point out BBs have also changed, and the replacements both make life more generally difficult for DD play (CVs and Cruisers).

To the best of my knowledge, there is no source of data that compares the number of DDs in a CV match vs. the number of DDs in a non-CV match.  If you have access to that data, I would love to see it.  I think the collective assumption is the inclusion of a CV does NOT have anything to do with the selection of other ships.  That's only an assumption, and it's possible other rules kick in that change the composition of teams.  I would love to know if that's true.

I don't mean to be rude, but my goal wasn't to negate your concerns.  It was to show the state of the game using one specific slice of data and compare it to data from 2 years ago when CVs operated in a completely different manner.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
388
[-N-]
Alpha Tester
813 posts
1 hour ago, Tibson said:

 

I don't know exactly what you are disagreeing with.  I was only counting amount of DD games being played vs. other classes.  It's been an ongoing meme that nobody is playing DDs.  I sought to put a number to that meme.  I drew no conclusions other than to point out BBs have also changed, and the replacements both make life more generally difficult for DD play (CVs and Cruisers).

To the best of my knowledge, there is no source of data that compares the number of DDs in a CV match vs. the number of DDs in a non-CV match.  If you have access to that data, I would love to see it.  I think the collective assumption is the inclusion of a CV does NOT have anything to do with the selection of other ships.  That's only an assumption, and it's possible other rules kick in that change the composition of teams.  I would love to know if that's true.

I don't mean to be rude, but my goal wasn't to negate your concerns.  It was to show the state of the game using one specific slice of data and compare it to data from 2 years ago when CVs operated in a completely different manner.

 

Part of me thinks that some of this is any attempt to discredit the numbers presented because of what it shows.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,052
[BONKS]
Members
1,496 posts
50 battles
7 hours ago, Tibson said:

The best CV players dominate as much/more than before!  Nothing changed!

Where do I start?

First of all comparing RTS Kaga/Saipan with reworked Kaga/Saipan makes no sense whatsoever given the different tiers and MM. During RTS Kaga and Saipan were top tier extremely often due to T7 sitting in a sweetspot which is obviously no longer the case.
There is also little doubt that both of them during RTS were blatantly overpowered for their tier as pointed out. This is also no longer the case.

NA reworked CV population seems mostly weaker in comparison. Same parameters for other servers:
- Enterprise EU: 81.6%, RTS: 84.9%
- Enterprise SEA: 80.7%, RTS: 80.3%
- Shokaku EU: 77.8%, RTS: 77.9%
- Shokaku SEA: 79%, RTS: 81.9%
- Lexington EU: 75.7%, RTS: 75.5%
- Lexington SEA: 74.2%, RTS: 69.6%
- Graf Zeppelin EU: 70.7%, RTS: 61.9%
- Graf Zeppelin SEA: 74.9%, RTS: 54.2%
(reworked GZ stats include GZ B)
- Hakuryu EU: 75.8%, RTS: 73%
- Hakuryu SEA: 77.7%, RTS: 64.88%
- Midway EU: 76.6%, RTS: 82.2%
- Midway SEA: 72.6%, RTS: 78.6%

It should also be noted that RTS Midway was blatantly overpowered in February of 2018 and subsequently nerfed, though that really only made her slightly less overpowered. Aside from her and Enterprise EU everything is pretty comparable, so it could be concluded from that that NA server stats are simply a statistical anomaly and the best CV players do actually dominate just as much as before.

Edited by El2aZeR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×