Analysis of server stats [CV vs BB vs DD vs CL]

[Nato101]

A few points before I begin:

1: This is based on SEA server stats as of 2015/08/05 posted here.

2: This is a comparison of overall survival rate, not 'alive-time'. That stat isn't available.

3: This will be based on damage-over-time potential.

4: In regards to the way that CVs impact statistics - There is usually only one CV per team in a round, whilst there are many more other ship types. This means that each dead BB or CL brings down the overall stats for that respective class, whilst the CV remains alive in the back, still dealing damage. That is why CVs have high damage per round rates. They are usually the last to die. They get time to work. It's the nature of the class. 2 BBs can by far out-damage a single CV. But both BBs probably won't stay alive the entire match, so they won't.

 

So, here it goes:

 

This one, for example, is comparing the High Tier ships in the Overall player category.

It first compares CVs to BBs - and dmg/srv denote damage dealt / survival rates.

The % difference shows that CVs deal 34.87% more damage, whilst surviving 53.77% more of the time.

The DOT (damage-over-time) Advantage is the difference between survival and damage percentages. In this case, it would suggest that since the CV survives 54% more, but deals only 35% more damage, it is at an -19% disadvantage in regards to damage-over-time potential.

Therefore, the 'Winner' of the comparison would be the BB, since it deals more damage in the same amount of time as a CV.

 

 

	High Tier	Overall
Comparison	% Difference	DOT Advantage	Winner
CV : BB dmg	34.87364281	-18.89910464	BB
CV : BB srv	53.77274745
CV : CL dmg	114.4231849	-13.35459284	CL
CV : CL srv	127.7777778
CV : DD dmg	215.6542829	40.80303338	CV
CV : DD srv	174.8512495
BB : CL dmg	58.98079155	10.85455881	BB
BB : CL srv	48.12623274
BB : DD dmg	134.0370411	55.29844532	BB
BB : DD srv	78.7385958
CL : DD dmg	47.21089185	26.54448963	CL
CL : DD srv	20.66640222

 

What this tells me is that in this category:

1: CVs are at a minor disadvantage in regards to DOT potential vs BBs/CLs.
2: CVs out-DOT DDs to a good degree. But not as badly as BBs do.

3: DDs lose all-round. They are underpowered.

 

This is my invented-as-i-write-this 'balance scale' for that group. The smaller the range, the better. DDs stand out at -122.

BB: 85.05210877

CL: 29.04452366

CV: 8.5493359

DD: -122.64596833

 

 

 

	Low Tier	Overall
Comparison	% Difference	DOT Advantage	Winner
CV : BB dmg	68.06621881	11.3519331	CV
CV : BB srv	56.71428571
CV : CL dmg	103.4208387	-43.42884631	CL
CV : CL srv	146.849685
CV : DD dmg	130.8528869	-54.5269258	DD
CV : DD srv	185.3798127
BB : CL dmg	21.03612499	-36.47962659	CL
BB : CL srv	57.51575158
BB : DD dmg	37.35829159	-44.74368552	DD
BB : DD srv	82.10197711
CL : DD dmg	13.48536778	-2.123373112	DD
CL : DD srv	15.60874089

 

1: CVs and BBs are at a good disadvantage in regards to DOT potential vs CLs/DDs.
2: DDs have the highest potential to deal damage.

3: DDs die a lot.

4: BB survival rates are significantly better than that of DDs/CLs.

 

'balance scale' - CLs/DDs dominate this group.

DD: 101.393984432

CL: 77.785099788

CV: -86.60383901

BB: -92.57524521

 

 

Continues below...

 

[Nato101]

 

	High Tier	Top 10%
Comparison	% Difference	DOT Advantage	Winner
CV : BB dmg	21.39947317	-24.17824606	BB
CV : BB srv	45.57771923
CV : CL dmg	97.08851318	22.65784801	CV
CV : CL srv	74.43066516
CV : DD dmg	180.4790885	91.47346918	CV
CV : DD srv	89.00561935
BB : CL dmg	62.347091	42.52747431	BB
BB : CL srv	19.81961669
BB : DD dmg	131.0381431	101.2067236	BB
BB : DD srv	29.8314195
CL : DD dmg	42.31123063	33.95550133	CL
CL : DD srv	8.355729294

 

1: DDs get totally rolled at the higher skill level, compared to the overall picture. Their potential is halved.
2: BBs double in potential.

3: CLs lose a mild amount of DOT potential

4: CVs gain a mild amount of DOT potential

 

BB: 167.91244397

CV: 89.95307113

CL: -31.22982099

DD: -226.63569411

 

 

 

	Low Tier	Top 10%
Comparison	% Difference	DOT Advantage	Winner
CV : BB dmg	63.91112563	19.13049023	CV
CV : BB srv	44.7806354
CV : CL dmg	102.9082231	-0.03028037171	CL
CV : CL srv	102.9385035
CV : DD dmg	114.6096257	2.750043126	CV
CV : DD srv	111.8595825
BB : CL dmg	23.79161105	-16.37803451	CL
BB : CL srv	40.16964556
BB : DD dmg	30.93048128	-15.40095452	DD
BB : DD srv	46.3314358
CL : DD dmg	5.76684492	1.370892991	CL
CL : DD srv	4.395951929

 

1: Massive changes at the high-skill low tiers. CVs jump up in potential by a large amount.

2: DDs drop by nearly the same amount.

3: BBs get better to a mild degree.

4: CLs drop off to a mild degree.

 

CV: 21.85025298429

CL: 17.77920787271

DD: 11.280018403

BB: -50.90947926

[Mesrith]

But the forums told me that battleships suck.

[_Sarcasticat_]

As a DD driver, I wouldn't mind a buff.

[Strike_Witch_Tomoko]

welp

this is proof CA's HE is fine and not overperforming

 

now stop complaining about HE.  and aim that hatred at the flying bugs

[Mesrith]

My less snarky reply is that this all sounds about right.  At lower tiers, new battleship drivers complain because they're still getting used to defending against destroyers and aircraft.  At higher tiers, I'd say that destroyers don't impact a match nearly as much as they did at lower tiers, and rely on some combination of luck, clustered ships, and bad opponents to get good torpedo damage in.  A Kagero or Shimakaze concerns me more as an area-denial tool than an enemy I need to immediately worry about.

 

I guess we'll see how the American DD buffs change things.

[Numbah18]

My less snarky reply is that this all sounds about right.  At lower tiers, new battleship drivers complain because they're still getting used to defending against destroyers and aircraft. 

 

Reminds me of all the posts at the start of CBT and after the wipe. All of them were things with torps are OP in some way heck EU was getting 7 new torps are OP threads daily for a while.

Nato101 thanks for putting up this list 

[Strike_Witch_Tomoko]

 

Reminds me of all the posts at the start of CBT and after the wipe. All of them were things with torps are OP in some way heck EU was getting 7 new torps are OP threads daily for a while.

Nato101 thanks for putting up this list 

 

<.<

(was one of those saying it was OP......now i'm repenting by defendin them)

[Scotty_SE]

This is good number crunching, but there's a lot of problems with the CV side.

 

In a match where you have CVs on both sides they will typically attack each other, and if one CV has a tier advantage it's almost mandatory one will immediately try to sink the other thereby negating the damage factor by a huge degree. Equal CV's, or a higher tier CV -vs- multiple lower tier CV's tend to negate each other. Not a rule, but the balancing factor of both sides seems to significantly reduce their damage potential because each side's CV tend to expend resources cancelling the other.

 

When a match has one side with a single CV, or a CV two tiers higher than the other side the numbers are skewed horribly to the CV side. I don't think your stats reflect this.

 

When a lower tier BB enters a match with a higher tier BB it doesn't automatically negate the lower tier BB like CV's do. A New Mexico or Fuso in a match with an opposing North Carolina or Amagi can still deal a ton of damage.

 

While damage numbers are part of the equation, ultimately it's Winrate discrepancy that really shows you when a specific ship/vehicle is over performing, and we've already seen those and seen just how dominate high tier CV's are. If we are just going to look at damage then we need to look at cap points as part of that meta, and I'm pretty sure DD's do much better in that category than CV's and likely BB's.  Due to the late game strength of DD's this likely elevates them a bit in terms of game strength, although over all I'm certainly not arguing that DD's are OP'd. DD's have niche' strengths but also glaring weaknesses that are tough to balance.

[Striker_002]

This is a good example of "statistics can say whatever you want".

It's not the math, nothing wrong there, it's the interpretation.

You've concluded that CVs lose out purely because their "damage over time" is less than others.

You glazed over the fact, included in your own post that CVs do more damage(in a round) and survive more than every other class in the game

 

Your own chart shows that CVs, even at high tier, do 20% more damage than BBs, double the damage of Cruisers, and over 3 times the amount of damage as DDs.(Poor DDs need love at high tiers.)

The only disadvantage you've shown is that they don't put it out as quickly as others.  One might say that early game damage is worth more than late, which is true, but CVs don't suffer there, they get their alpha strike in early, the first mean hits of the game is often the 1st wave of CV torpedo bombers.  It's the reload time after that makes their DoT or "DPS" go down.

 

[Theodin]

+1and thank you for doing this.  I do believe win rate is not an accurate tool though.  At high tiers I see these seal clubbing platoons that form with all tier 9 or 10 and they usually match against much lower.  It's deliberate and the always destroy the usually tier 8 (Atago anyone?) or less opposition.  Could be my time zone (Hawaii) when pop is low, but just my experience.  Also, seen a Iowa, Montana and Des Moines grouped, no carriers planes could break that AA bubble.

I think everyone is comparing CV on a ship for ship basis, when in fact all you need to do is group or have a pair of CA together and you can cancel a CV damage potential.  

[Rocketmandb]

This is a good example of "statistics can say whatever you want".

 

It's not the math, nothing wrong there, it's the interpretation.

 

You've concluded that CVs lose out purely because their "damage over time" is less than others.

 

You glazed over the fact, included in your own post that CVs do more damage(in a round) and survive more than every other class in the game

 

Your own chart shows that CVs, even at high tier, do 20% more damage than BBs, double the damage of Cruisers, and over 3 times the amount of damage as DDs.(Poor DDs need love at high tiers.)

 

The only disadvantage you've shown is that they don't put it out as quickly as others.  One might say that early game damage is worth more than late, which is true, but CVs don't suffer there, they get their alpha strike in early, the first mean hits of the game is often the 1st wave of CV torpedo bombers.  It's the reload time after that makes their DoT or "DPS" go down.

 

 

 

This is pretty much right on.

[LuckyStarFan]

Having played several trees to tier 6-7 I agree with the data you have assembled OP.  BBs and CVs are the classes which influence the game the most, cruisers and especially destroyers drop heavily in effectiveness past the mid tiers.  The survivability and raw damage potential of battleships starts to heavily outweigh what cruisers can do, and carriers are obvious.

[IronWolfV]

As a DD driver, I wouldn't mind a buff.

 

Need to run tag team with you sometime kitty.

[_Sarcasticat_]

 

Need to run tag team with you sometime kitty.

I'm on right now.

[Nato101]

This is good number crunching, but there's a lot of problems with the CV side.

 

 

In a match where you have CVs on both sides they will typically attack each other, and if one CV has a tier advantage it's almost mandatory one will immediately try to sink the other thereby negating the damage factor by a huge degree. Equal CV's, or a higher tier CV -vs- multiple lower tier CV's tend to negate each other. Not a rule, but the balancing factor of both sides seems to significantly reduce their damage potential because each side's CV tend to expend resources cancelling the other.

 

 

When a match has one side with a single CV, or a CV two tiers higher than the other side the numbers are skewed horribly to the CV side. I don't think your stats reflect this.

 

 

When a lower tier BB enters a match with a higher tier BB it doesn't automatically negate the lower tier BB like CV's do. A New Mexico or Fuso in a match with an opposing North Carolina or Amagi can still deal a ton of damage.

 

 

While damage numbers are part of the equation, ultimately it's Winrate discrepancy that really shows you when a specific ship/vehicle is over performing, and we've already seen those and seen just how dominate high tier CV's are. If we are just going to look at damage then we need to look at cap points as part of that meta, and I'm pretty sure DD's do much better in that category than CV's and likely BB's.  Due to the late game strength of DD's this likely elevates them a bit in terms of game strength, although over all I'm certainly not arguing that DD's are OP'd. DD's have niche' strengths but also glaring weaknesses that are tough to balance.

 

How are the numbers skewed though? If two CVs take on one, that CV's stats will go way down. What you're talking about seems to be more of an inter-cv discreprancy.

Whether CVs are killing CVs, or killing ships, they will be dealing damage either way. If some of that damage goes into killing another CV, his full potential damage will be negated, impacting CV stats negatively.

 

If what you're saying is that those two CVs now have free reign to deal damage, that would artificially boost the CV stats (of that tier) by means of unfair MM (which is being addressed in the next patch).

 

And yes, damage-dealing is part of the equation of how a round flows, albeit a large one. However that's exactly what this is. A direct comparison of DOT potential using the available statistics. I'm not attempting to factor in anything else, I'm not trying to determine how XP should be given out. I do believe that it paints a general picture of the state of things though.

[Menemy]

What i'm getting from this is that the sheer survavility of CVs is actually it's major strength (this applies to BBs too). I don't really see anything wrong with this

[IronWolfV]

I'm on right now.

 

Love to, but going out to dinner with wife and friends while I'm at home. Maybe not her time kitty.

[Deadeye_Pete]

Nice numbers play.. I especially how "by the Numbers" DD's are underpowered.    This is why I don't trust statistics...  Your results are only as good as your inputs... and if you don't have the right numbers to plug in, you wont get good results.   I play all the ships, but when it come to raw damage delt, my IJN DD's rule the waves.  

 

Though for pure fun and gun, Heavy cruisers are "da kine"!

[DownhillDino]

But... even the source data shows destroyers are outplayed by eveything. Only having an advantage in low tiers. 

[Menemy]

Nice numbers play.. I especially how "by the Numbers" DD's are underpowered.    This is why I don't trust statistics...  Your results are only as good as your inputs... and if you don't have the right numbers to plug in, you wont get good results.   I play all the ships, but when it come to raw damage delt, my IJN DD's rule the waves.  

 

Though for pure fun and gun, Heavy cruisers are "da kine"!

 

That could also mean you are good with DDs and bad with everything else (not saying that you are)

[Vaidency]

 

The DOT (damage-over-time) Advantage is the difference between survival and damage percentages. In this case, it would suggest that since the CV survives 54% more, but deals only 35% more damage, it is at an -19% disadvantage in regards to damage-over-time potential.

Therefore, the 'Winner' of the comparison would be the BB, since it deals more damage in the same amount of time as a CV.

 

Are you being serious?  You're saying that BB's "win" a comparison vs CV's because, even though they deal less total damage on average and survive the match less frequently, they may be dealing more damage per minute during the time before they get sunk? 

 

That's a very dubious definition of "advantage."  We can see clearly that the CV more than makes up for the lower damage over time by surviving much longer on average, which is how they end up with more damage done per game too.  (Not to mention lower repair costs per game.)  There is no "win" for the BB here unless you just stop paying attention to the game after the first few minutes.

[Pyrofiend]

I haven't looked through all of this yet, but people need to realize that performance and stats are not everything. There is no stat that tells you how fun or frustrating something is to play.

 

I'll repeat what I said in my last topic. Take Poppy from League of Legends as an example. She has a near 50% win rate across the top 10% of ranked players. Nobody, literally nobody, will say that she is balanced. She is very broken and in need of a rework, but her performance and stats don't indicate this.

 

I'd say most people complain about battle ships not because they're inherently sucky, but more because they're incredibly frustrating to play. Having your entire salvo splash around the target, being constantly paranoid of CVs, the super slow paced gameplay compared to other classes, and being debuffed multiple times in a game (fire/flooding) are all things BB players have to deal with.

[Peregrinas]

In a match where you have CVs on both sides they will typically attack each other, and if one CV has a tier advantage it's almost mandatory one will immediately try to sink the other thereby negating the damage factor by a huge degree. Equal CV's, or a higher tier CV -vs- multiple lower tier CV's tend to negate each other. Not a rule, but the balancing factor of both sides seems to significantly reduce their damage potential because each side's CV tend to expend resources cancelling the other.

 

I play with CVs majority of the time and I rarely go for the enemy CV at the start of a game. First, you'll have a wall of cruisers between you and the enemy CV, so you can't just make a straight bee line for the enemy CV. This makes you spend extra time going around, but any decent cruiser player will detect your intentions and will circle back to defend their CV, completely nullifying your own intentions of hurting the enemy CV. This is why I prefer to go for higher tier BBs that are closer to the front lines and are more likely to have been singled out. Since I always have fighters on my USN CVs, I trust in being able to at least diminish the results of enemy CV attacks on my team.

 

With my Lexington, if I'm facing lower tier CVs, I just simply spread my two fighter groups across the front line and they can easily intercept and destroy any incoming aircraft. If I can shut down a CV by simply not allowing it's aircraft to attack, I'd much rather spend time on hurting enemy BBs as opposed to going directly for the lower tier CV, since any other ship becomes a bigger threat than the lower tier CV at that point. I've been in games where I've been the lower tier CV, and I've had my air wing shut down by enemy fighters. I am completely out of the game at that point, I'm no threat, and as such I get no bombers coming after me. People who are too greedy for their own personal gain will send their bombers at me, but in that way they are spending time on a vessel that's not a threat to their team.

[NKNKN]

 

Are you being serious?  You're saying that BB's "win" a comparison vs CV's because, even though they deal less total damage on average and survive the match less frequently, they may be dealing more damage per minute during the time before they get sunk? 

 

He simply said that BBs win this particular comparison, not 'win' an overall comparison of class strength which is a mostly arbitrary concept anyway.

 

 

 

I think Menemy made a good point in that the overall survivability of CVs is one of their major strengths. BBs also have similar high survivability if played well and supported well, and as Nato101's analysis shows BBs will have higher damage output than CVs over the time that they are alive. (I don't argue that the data shows BBs out-survive CVs, but they should in general be more hardy and receive more potential damage than a typical cruiser or destroyer will).

 

Not going to talk about low tier because I'm not too interested in analysing it and there are a large number of new players after all. Based on the analysis and the data however, I think it can be said that cruisers are overperforming at low tier and that destroyers are either overperforming or performing normally depending on who you ask, and that battleships are underperforming, at least if we assume that their respective positions at high tier make sense.

 

Now at high tier, what I mean by respective positions is that battleships and carriers assume the role of capital ships, cruisers act as support, and destroyers act as area denial, assassins, and cappers. Now since one of the main objectives in a match is to attempt to sink the entire enemy team, and that Nato101's data shows that at the high tiers battleships and carriers have the highest damage over time statistic, it is in a team's advantage in the general case to protect their capital ships so that the capital ships can survive to do more damage to the enemy team.

 

This makes sense to me and cruisers are in most cases well-equipped to act as support against the biggest threats against capital ships: destroyers and other carriers. To me then, I don't see anything wrong with the stats at high tier. Except for the poor destroyers, who deserve a slight buff and perhaps rethinking of their counters.

 

 

 

As a final point I don't think CVs should be made to have lower survivability to "match" the BBs because it doesn't make sense from a gameplay and logical perspective. Battleships by nature of their purpose are meant to fight on the front lines while carriers are not. What would be possible is a slight nerf to carrier damage potential over time if one feels that CVs outperforming BBs on a per-match basis rather than per-survival basis is imbalanced, then I think that's a valid suggestion.

 

But just speculating, I feel that much of the lower survivability of BBs compared to CVs is a lack of support from cruisers, who can very easily minimize the damage from a CV air strike so as to be fairly minor in impact. In light of the game rewarding pure damage over support role and the premium high tier cruisers being a thing, BB survivability might be lower than it could be due to the mentality and skill of their fellow cruiser players, and not due to the inherent characteristics of the class itself.