Jump to content

tc1259

Moderator
  • Content count

    398
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    2814
  • Clan

    [SIF]

About tc1259

  • Rank
    Lieutenant Commander
  • Profile on the website tc1259

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

6 Followers

Recent Profile Visitors

560 profile views
  1. My Stats for my pc - an yes - No FPS loss, or so little I've noticed - at least on wows CPU 3.50 (oc to 4.2) gigahertz Intel Core i7-5930K 384 kilobyte primary memory cache1536 kilobyte secondary memory cache15360 kilobyte tertiary memory cache64-bit readyMulti-core (6 total)Hyper-threaded (12 total) Memory 32664 Megabytes Usable Installed Memory Gcard NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti [Display adapter] (MSI)Acer Z35 [Monitor] (34.7"vis) In fact - 1fps loss
  2. Nope - Not biased, we're told to uphold rules that you've agreed to by signing up to the forums. Don't break the rules, you won't have an issue :)
  3. Hey All, Your friendly Mod TC here! There have been some queries about the forum rules on this thread so I thought I would give you guys the area's here that are in question 2.1 Forum etiquette Users are not allowed to abuse others, make personal attacks or behave disrespectfully. This prohibition applies to both public threads and private messages (PMs). Disrespect can include but is not limited to: Flaming Trolling Harassment or Defamatory remarks Profanity, Inappropriate language or abbreviations there of Personal abuse or attacks Racial, Religious, Sexual, National or Ethnic, slurs or insults, this includes "jokes" in bad taste. Excessive Capitalization Inappropriate or adult content This behaviour has no place on the World of Warships forums due to its extremely offensive and inappropriate nature. Now there is a little leeway, but the general rule of thumb is this. Respect others, if you believe there opinion is wrong, that's okay, say so then move on. Additionally as for the section covering WG staff / Moderators / Dev's please see the below No rude or disrespectful posts to or about any forum moderators or Wargaming.net employees, as well as no release of real-life information about moderators or Wargaming.net employees are allowed on this forum. Now the rules just are not just limited to those, there are others and we encourage everyone to go and remind themselves from time to time. But if mod's see the rules being broken, someone reports something and we investigate it, we will take appropriate action. *mod hat off* Alright :) we're clear, all good and all okay :)
  4. Before we go all pitchfork on this - Please go Here and here and here According to recent reports, Intel and ARM processors suffer a serious hardware-level vulnerability that the vendors cannot patch via a microcode update. Addressing the vulnerability requires a significant retooling of operating systems, in particular Windows, Linux, and macOS, which reportedly causes up to a 30% reduction in performance in some workloads. However, that number is likely overblown for the majority of applications. The overall impact of the performance regression and the specific programs impacted are poorly defined. As with many pre-release security patches, the details surrounding the bug are under NDA for now, but we expect an official update from Intel soon. Both Microsoft and Linux already have patches in the pipeline. AMD's exposure to the bug remains undefined, with some reports indicating the company's processors are immune and others stating that some models are impacted. What We Know About The Vulnerability The vulnerability reportedly allows programs to access protected areas of the kernel memory, but the exact nature of the bug is yet unclear. The potential exploits, and what they could do, are also undefined. We do know the fix requires separating the user and kernel memory pages with kernel page-table isolation (KPTI). Some ingrained hardware features on Intel processors, such as PCID (Process-Context Identifier), can lessen the overhead of separating the two spaces, but these features aren't present on older Intel processors. The Performance Impact We also know that Microsoft has already deployed patches in the fast ring Windows Insider builds. Those patches rolled out in November. Notably, there haven't been any reports of massive performance degradation from participants of the Insider Ring. Linux patches are already available. For now, the patches are confined to the operating system. It is possible that application patches could also help lessen the impact. A note of caution: The bug will have an impact on some programs, but the chance of a widespread 30% reduction in performance is slim. Phoronix conducted testing on the patched Linux 4.15-rc6 kernel with an Intel Core i7-6800K and an i7-8700K. It tested applications that are confined to the user space, which are typically indicative of what you would see on a desktop system, and found that these applications "should see minimal change (if any) in performance." That means you will likely see little to no performance impact on your next desktop session, be it gaming or otherwise. Phoronix did record significant performance regressions with the new kernel during select workloads, particularly synthetic I/O benchmarks. The site conducted these tests with SSDs that tend to offer varying performance based on the amount of past user activity, and the article doesn't indicate if the storage devices were correctly preconditioned. Phoronix noted the new kernel has other changes beyond the bug patch that could also impact performance, so for now, it is hard to ascertain the direct impact of the patch on these workloads. The performance impact is more pronounced in PostgreSQL, which is an open source object-relational database system. PostgreSQL has issued a warning about performance regression that includes benchmarks showing a 17-23% reduction in performance with the new patch. Redis also appears to suffer a performance loss, but to a lesser extent. So Much FUD The vulnerability appears to be most dangerous to data center workloads and virtualization. However, it is irrational to assume that the overwhelming majority of data centers will see a 30% reduction in performance. Losing even 15% of the computational horsepower from a data center would be a major blow, and that compute would have to be replaced almost immediately. The patch has been in development for several months, so if Intel and the major data center operators were expecting massive performance reductions, there would have been an incredible spike in data center equipment purchases. Also, we would have likely already seen signs of a pending financial disaster for Intel if there was a serious threat of hardware replacements to a wide swath of the data center. Intel's customers would likely be able to pursue litigation for widespread losses that are directly the fault of Intel. It's also reasonable to assume that the company would be required to replace faulty processors. For instance, Intel disclosed during its Q4 2016 earnings call that it had encountered a higher-than-expected failure rate for some of its processors, so it established a financial reserve to deal with the costs of replacements. We reported on Intel's statements, and later the fund was connected to failures in Intel's Atom C2000 processors. In no recent financial commentary has Intel disclosed the establishment of any new funds, so it appears the company doesn't foresee significant hardware replacements any time soon. Intel CEO Brian Krzanich also recently sold $11 million in stock, which some have proclaimed is a sign that he's unloading his shares before a pending disaster. However, Krzanich sold the stock under a 10b-51 plan, which is a pre-planned sale of stocks intended to prevent insider trading. The nature of Krzanich's transactions makes it unlikely that the trades are a precursor of a major monetary loss for the company. Currently, there are no major shifts in Intel's stock that would indicate a mass sell-off by investors. There are conflicting reports about the impact to AMD processors, and AMD's shares are currently up 5%. However, such an increase is a fairly common occurrence for the sometimes-volatile AMD stock, so the bump may be incidental; in any case, it's not out of the ordinary. Update, 1/3/18, 11:00am PT: AMD's shares are now up 9% and Intel is down 6%. For now, we await more detail on the nature of the bug and its impact. We expect an update to emerge in a future Patch Tuesday update, but Microsoft has not listed an official release date. The bug is locked behind a wall of NDAs at this point, which is frustrating. However, the silence is necessary to prevent a wave of exploits. We expect, and have seen already, the normal level of hyperventilation that comes with such news, but it's best to wait for more information. We have followed up with Intel for more information and will update as necessary.
  5. Be very careful mate - I've made no such claim. All I'm saying is if someone believes that a stat is important, and they build there formula around that, then that's what matters to them. And Your validating my own point too - So as I and others said before, stats do have a significance but is not an absolute measure. But if the stats heavily favor one side over the other (which is not the case with the football data you showed here) then we can safely compare the two and declare which side is better. Of course we have seen the underperformers coming out on top from time to time but those are usually outliers in the data. Like when that Australian ice skater got an Olympic gold because he was last but everyone in front crashed. That doesn't destroy the logic that statistically he shouldn't have won. I've been stating from the word go, that stats whilst yes - they are a part of the puzzle are not the be all and end all of it. There are many factors you simply cannot quantify. The old saying that with stats you can prove anything - is accurate, you can :)
  6. If you track this whole thread, you'll notice a couple of reoccurring things - 1. No one's opinion is wrong - Someone believes in xyz stat is right, then to them that's what's important to them 2. Your are 100% right, perception is the key... but that's on both sides there, first the poster, they are struggling with a ship, a game style, maybe a basic concept - Then you have the other side, the person who has come across in what can be perceived to be a negative way. Don't worry - I get that 20 seconds of searching would normally get results for there troubles. But your wrong in your statement that they are right and you are wrong, your both right and your both wrong all at the same time. @Adm_Kunkka you asked how stats don't mean much to the individual, lets take two examples here - In Australia, someone who has T Cell Non Hodgekins lymphoma Cancer when caught in Stage 2 have a 60% chance of not living past 5 years - Now I know of people who've had that cancer who have lived beyond 5 years and are still cancer free. but hey, lets talk football (AFL) in Australia The richmond football club by statistics should of been dominated in the grand final - yet they wern't. They won, and dominated the match. Lets take the following table comparison, which shows the raw statistical data for the entire year Adelaide Football Club is in the left hand side and Richmond is in the right. (note that these numbers are averages for the entire year, and the better the number the better you generally are) 218.8 Kicks 210.3 173.6 Handballs 154.4 392.4 Disposals 364.7 90.9 Marks 84.5 15.8 Goals 13.2 13.0 Behinds 12.3 28.8 Scoring Shots 25.5 71.9 Tackles 69.7 45.4 Hitouts 31.8 19.8 Frees For 18.8 20.0 Frees Against 21.1 10.8 Goal Assists 9.3 57.5 Inside 50s 55.8 154.7 Contested Possessions 144.9 239.4 Uncontested Possessions 214.1 286.4 Effective Disposals 256.0 73% Disposal Efficiency % 70.2% 56.2 Clangers 58.0 12.4 Contested Marks 11.0 14.6 Marks Inside 50 14.0 39.6 Clearances 35.9 13.2 Centre Clearances 12.9 26.4 Stoppage Clearances 23.0 34.8 Rebound 50s 35.8 50.3 One Percenters 47.7 6.6 Bounces 8.6 1.26 Kick to Handball Ratio 1.36 54.9% Conversion 51.8% 24.84 Disposals Per Goal 27.63 13.62 Disposals Per Scoring Shot 14.30 5983.6 Metres Gained 5711.6 74.0 Turnovers 72.7 77.0 Intercepts 77.4 13.6 Tackles Inside 50 14.3 Now to the official Grand Final Stats - once again, Adelaide on the left, Richmond on the right The final result for the final was Adelaide 8 Goals 12 behinds for a total of 60 to Richmond 16 Goals 12 behinds for a total of 108 - So statistically Adelaide should of won, looking at the actual Data, the key metric data - Adelaide should of only just won. But what this data doesn't tell you is the x factors, that allowed Richmond to absolutely dominate. On the day, statistics didn't tell the story - it was the things that you cannot get the data on that made all the difference to the end result. But just to be clear here, I've stated from the start - we're looking purely at the data, not the stuff you cannot record or we don't have the ability to see, so without knowing the people behind the keyboards, the context if you want to call it that why then are we on 'choice' bits of data that do not and cannot tell the whole story. For the record - this conversation isn't about me trying to throw my opinion down peoples throats - it's trying to get an intellectual discussion about the stats... and do they actually at the end of the day mean anything (As state above by other people) I have always felt that stats useful to track progress, but the limited data set we have visible doesn't in fact tell the whole story. @icy_phoenix I understand :) Early Supertesting didn't have event ships, so a loss was recorded as a loss and as you know - it's pretty easy to loose when you know nothing about the ship your supposedly testing. That's now thankfully changed, but one of the things that people don't see with supertesters is we're generally jumping in to an unproven ship, with unproven configuration and we're really trying to find that sweet spot of what that ship is and isn't good at. Unfortunately the side affect of that is something your annihilated and other times your not :P
  7. Hehe nice pick up there Moggy, your previous comments see below" You have that wrong, I totally understand and get that there are x factors involved, someone who has enough skill / understanding of there ship and knows how to use the map and ship they are in completely changes the maths behind the chance to win and loss. But as I stated in the original post, and as you've pointed out which was my actual original point. Stat's don't really mean much in the context of a player, yes they can give an indication of what that person is like - but people learn, develop and grow with information and experience. The whole point for this thread wasn't 'hey this is what i think and your all wrong' it is very much a 'Everyone throws around stats saying that they are the be all and end all of the discussion' when there not, and we have plenty of evidence to show that it's simply not the case as well as 'What do stats mean to the players' I'm getting a vibe that half think w/l is all important and another half think it's avg damage / exp Personally - I have and always will be of the opinion that statistics mean nothing to the individual.... and once again I only need to look at the medical and sporting fields to show that being the case :) But once again, good pick up lol
  8. In Fact you've hit the nail on the head - Stat's mean nothing to the Individual, yet the Forum population seems to love pulling out Win / Loss and all sorts of other stats to support there arguments. of superiority. Personally, whilst I love stats and numbers, they are meaningless without context and other factors behind them. See the above couple of posts to see my point there as well. The main reason I created this thread was one, to get the discussion of Stat's out of the way and two, reinforce the concept that stat bashing is not acceptable - because you have no idea what other factors are driving the way a person plays. Additionally, if you are using stats to support claim's of how to do something as opposed to how to not do something then keep it impersonal! I use stat's to see how I'm going, am I improving, where and what I can do better. But I would be just as happy for Wargaming to turn off stats all together :P at least the ones that the players seem to be focusing in on as a way to say they are better than someone else. Stat bashing is toxic
  9. percentage damage inflicted to the enemy Now that is a stat I would love to see, because it would indicate quite strongly how the player is handling the battle
  10. Nope - not an oversight - I am not factoring in Play Styles or X factors as I call them, you cannot quantify the value that a person's leadership, ping, luck and experience bring to the game. This conversation is about pure numbers :) And I made that very very clear at the start.
  11. Background: We have a thread about stat bashing, but I thought I would separate this conversation out in to it's own thread. I briefly touched on a number of the stat point's but I think i'm going to expand it out a little more here. Now to the original conversation, where I will expand out. I'm a bit of a stat nerd, after all it's what I did for a paid professional job.... here is my take on the stats that are collected Additionally and I feel that this is important, as it's usually always confused - Stat's and Game Play Styles - they are mutually exclusive to one another, this conversation isn't about Game Play style, it's looking purely at the stat and what I feel by looking at the data presented is more indicative of a players skill level. Let's start with the one that's always brought up. Win Rate Win Rate: Win Rate in world of warships, at least in random and ranked is kinda hard to pin down as the most important stat, the reason why is the following. You might be a great player, but if everyone around you in your team isn't. Then no matter what you do, the % chance that you'll win the battle is quite low. Now Yes, one can argue that over time this shouldn't really be a factor, but remember - over time doesn't actually count. It's the battle your in that gives you the win or loss. I have seen that the argument of 'when i've done this' in a match, we've usually won.... that's fantastic, congrats. But in any battle there are pivotal moments, these are X factors and some people can see them, others cannot. By in large, an individual's play cannot statistically influence a battle, there are other factors involved - but occasionally that can happen. As an example - you might yolo at the perfect moment, distract the enemies flanks, who then open themselves up to being attacked, causing them to take further damage and ultimately winning your battle. But this wont always happen in every match, every time... So what are we looking at here in Win Rate: well, taken mathematically it's this simple. You are 1/24th of the combination that can either win or loose the game, additionally you need to factor in RNG. So really your 1 in 25. Additionally to this you now need to work, without knowledge of who your team mates are there skills and weakness's and ultimately x factors which are not quantifiable to work out that from the moment you enter the game your likely hood of winning this match is actually quite low. No matter if your the best player in the world, this will only increase your winning % and not make it a guaranteed thing. Overall, whilst win rate can be used as a guide, it's not accurate, nor is it really comparable to others due to the nature that your not always with the same players. This is also why you see a difference between divisioned players and non. You have two additional players in your division, you do increase the odd's of a win, but at the end of the day the Win / Loss stat is extremely variable. Again, pure stats, nothing to do with X Factors and un-quantifiable elements Average Damage: Unlike the above stat, this one I feel is actually the most important stat you can have. And I know that will be a bit of a controversial view on things, but I'll explain why. This stat is the only stat you have direct control over This stat is the only stat that can have a direct relationship to your team winning / loosing a battle - now don't get me wrong, we've all had games where we've done 100k plus damage to loose, but if you look at your team in those losses, you'll see there average damage was quite low The more damage you do, the less HP the enemy has - the greater your influence to win the battle becomes. Personally, if i'm looking at a player who has say a 40% win rate, but has a much higher average damage than say some other players - I'll generally take them over someone who has a higher win rate - why, cause I know there doing everything they can in the situation there in. They are doing damage, obviously more information is needed at this point, but this is going outside of the stat's and more in to tangible play style / personality. Average damage to me says as an example. If the Average damage on the server is 90k for say Montana, and I'm doing 180k - I'm pretty sure that the player has a real handle on that ship, knows what there doing is getting them results and lets face it, they are now 'killing' a large portion of the enemies hp, that in some cases could be a couple of ships. Please be aware, that I am aware that some ships have low damage output, when I talk average damage, it has to be seen in layers - ie: Overall and at ship level. Battles: Another Meh stat, really this doesn't count for much - other than Experience at playing the game, we all know it takes a while to become good at a ship. Average Experience: Another good indicator, the higher the average exp, the more work the player is doing in the battle. This generally is a direct result on the damage / in game actions. If from a stat point of view I'm looking at Avg Damage + Avg Experience + Win rate and it's telling me a good story, then i'll be saying that hey, the player in question actually knows what he's doing. Survival: Meh - you can survive a lot of games by sitting in the back corner not doing much - but if this is higher than average, as well as Avg Damage and Avg Exp, then this player is starting to show that they are a good player The following two stat's I don't overly worry about - reason why - End of the Day, killing a ship whilst important, is not as important as damage. Kill Stealing is I couldn't care less, working in a division as long as that ship goes bye bye. And plane deaths, well okay - if your in a ship that has little AA, why would that matter? unless your in a cv Avg Kills Avg Plane Kills Kills / Deaths: This stat is and isn't important, depending on what your looking for, this stat is subjective dependent on if your skilled at supporting your team or being the spearhead. Individually, the top players on the asia server sit around the 2.0 to 3.7 kill to death ratio, showing there is a link there between being good as an individual and stats. But from a purely team play point of view, this kill to death drops to around 1.5 in Team Battles. Average Tier: Kinda important, a player can have great stat's but if there simply playing in Tier 3 all the time - then there probably not going to make the transition. Personally most of my games are in 5 / 6 and 7 - so for me that's where I make money. On the Asia server, it currently looks like the average tier being played is 4.6. Anyways - just remember that win loss isn't the best guide on a player, it does have some correlation - but when you factor in other elements, it's entirely possible that a decent player can have a bad W / L - In my opinion, people should focus on what they can control and not what they can't. Oh and remember, statistics do not matter to the individual! You only have to look at the sporting and medical fields to prove that. I would love to see this come up as a discussion with other players opinions, but as a reminder - No Stat Bashing and just because someone may disagree with your opinion on why a particular stat is or is not important, it doesn't mean they are right or wrong. This thread is actually about what the different data point's mean to you as players, not how you got the stat - As mentioned above, X factors cannot be recorded
  12. Personally I agree - I'm a bit of a stat nerd, after all it's what I did for a paid professional job.... here is my take on the stats that are collected Let's start with the one that's always brought up. Win Rate Win Rate: Win Rate in world of warships, at least in random and ranked is kinda hard to pin down as the most important stat, the reason why is the following. You might be a great player, but if everyone around you in your team isn't. Then no matter what you do, the % chance that you'll win the battle is quite low. Now Yes, one can argue that over time this shouldn't really be a factor, but remember - over time doesn't actually count. It's the battle your in that gives you the win or loss. Overall, whilst win rate can be used as a guide, it's not accurate, nor is it really comparable to others due to the nature that your not always with the same players. This is also why you see a difference between divisioned players and non. You have two additional players in your division, you do increase the odd's of a win, but at the end of the day the Win / Loss stat is extremely variable. Average Damage: Unlike the above stat, this one I feel is actually the most important stat you can have. And I know that will be a bit of a controversial view on things, but I'll explain why. This stat is the only stat you have direct control over This stat is the only stat that can have a direct relationship to your team winning / loosing a battle - now don't get me wrong, we've all had games where we've done 100k plus damage to loose, but if you look at your team in those losses, you'll see there average damage was quite low The more damage you do, the less HP the enemy has - the greater your influence to win the battle becomes. Personally, if i'm looking at a player who has say a 40% win rate, but has a much higher average damage than say some other players - I'll generally take them over someone who has a higher win rate - why, cause I know there doing everything they can in the situation there in. They are doing damage... Battles: Another Meh stat, really this doesn't count for much Average Experience: Another good indicator, the higher the average exp, the more work the player is doing in the battle. This generally is a direct result on the damage / in game actions. Survival: Meh - you can survive a lot of games by sitting in the back corner not doing much - but if this is higher than average, as well as Avg Damage and Avg Exp, then this player is starting to show that they are a good player The following two stat's I don't overly worry about - reason why - End of the Day, killing a ship whilst important, is not as important as damage. Kill Stealing is I couldn't care less, working in a division as long as that ship goes bye bye. And plane deaths, well okay - if your in a ship that has little AA, why would that matter? unless your in a cv Avg Kills Avg Plane Kills Kills / Deaths: This stat is and isn't important, depending on what your looking for, this stat is subjective Average Tier: Kinda important, a player can have great stat's but if there simply playing in Tier 3 all the time - then there probably not going to make the transition. Personally most of my games are in 5 / 6 and 7 - so for me that's where I make money. On the Asia server, it currently looks like the average tier being played is 4.6. Anyways - just remember that win loss isn't the best guide on a player, it does have some correlation - but when you factor in other elements, it's entirely possible that a decent player can have a bad W / L - Anyways :) everyone should focus on what they can control and not what they can't. Oh and remember, statistics do not matter to the individual! You only have to look at the sporting and medical fields to prove that Actually I'm going to copy this and paste it in to it's own thread!
×