Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'statistics'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • World of Warships - Asia Language Based Communities
    • English Speaking Community
    • 繁體中文討論區
    • 日本語コミュニティ
    • 한국어 커뮤니티
  • Mod Section
    • Player Modifications
  • Public Test Forums
    • English Speaking Community
    • 繁體中文討論區
    • 日本語コミュニティ
  • Locked Threads
    • Locked Threads

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Location


Drag Interests

Found 9 results

  1. Pete_the_pirate

    Hiding Profile

    I have noticed a few players have chosen to hide their profiles. They have been players who have played badly in my opinion, but when I have tried to find out if they are novices who could be forgiven for rookie mistakes their profile just has a message saying they have hidden their record. How is that done?
  2. https://www.reddit.com/r/WorldOfWarships/comments/8p019f/statistics_on_the_eu_server_population/ I thought it was interesting. Seems that most people pass over to a 50% WR around 3000 games. The WR typically goes up a bit more, to 52-53%, but then holds constant.
  3. Those of you who follow my occasional posts know I like playing with numbers. Today I found wowstats have published a full list of ships with their stats, so went and tried to come up with a way to rank them in terms of how "OP" they are. "OP" means overpowered, i.e. a ship will score more kills, or do more damage, relative to the other ships she typically sees in battle. The trick is to work out how to balance the weighting between damage dealt and kills, and how to normalize against tier. Of course the relative power of a ship depends on the captain as well as the ship, so of course firstly "reward ships" and secondly regular premium ships are going to score higher as far fewer of them ever set sail in the hands of anything less than good captains. That's fine, you can still compare "like-for-like", or get an idea of how much better premiums tend to do above regular ones. I settled on the formula sqrt(dmg/tier)*frags^2. It first I didn't have the square root, but that favored BBs too much I thought. Overall the ordering doesn't change too much with those kinds of tweaks though. I then scaled the OP rating on a relative, logarithmic scale with the Karlsruhe marking zero point and KamikazaR as a 1.0 - the default reference OP ship in most people's minds. Ta da! To me, the surprising thing was how well it worked. The ship OP rank is pretty much independent of tier, and doesn't seem to favor any particular ship class. The ships you expect to be at the top are, and the ships you expect to be at the bottom are. Yes, it's officially proven: the Karlsruhe is really that bad. The most interesting thing though is the sudden uptick in relative OP over 0.9. The top OP ships are truly monsters. The full list is here, P.S. Old versions of ships like Kiev and Fubuki are removed from the list, and newer ships with less than 100,000 battles reported are also not included since there maybe insufficient data for good statistics. P.P.S. I think the list is generally "fair". The only ships that are not given their OP credit are fighter CVs since I couldn't figure out how to factor in plane kills into the formula. Rina_Pon Ship OP Rank List 180123.txt
  4. Since I had 20k XP left to get my Furutaka captain to 10 points, and since I also had was down about 20 games on my Furu's win/loss stats, I decided to go all-in on a little "experiment". I played 12 games straight in Furutaka with no premium consumables, no camo or flags, to see if Wargaming would start throwing me on potato teams to encourage me to spend more in-game assets. Instead, MM not only proved me wrong, but the opposite: As far as I can tell I was given more wins than I deserved. Out of 12 games, my team won 10, yet I was only in the top half the leaderboard on 7 of those 12 occasions. On average my team performed better than I did, which logically, if it's all random, there is no reason for the rest of my team to be better than my opponents. Weird huh? ***** notes: Battle 3: Fault Line, Domination, T5-7, I was stuck alone in the middle "guarding" B, everyone seemed to be at A and C so I got bored and tried capping B. Got air spotted, 3 ships took pot shots at me for a few minutes while I unsuccessfully tried to cap. I gave up and retreated, badly damaged, as the cavalry came up from A. Enemy Fiji decided he /really/ wanted me dead so I had to hide behind an island for the rest of the game while he pounded shells into the rocks. I like to think I played an important role as a decoy/distraction. Battle 7: I played well, but just too many potatoes. Archipalego, Domination. We'd capped B and C, looked really solid, when 2 BB and 2 CA went off and chased a lone enemy BB back to the 9 line while the enemy team all swept up from A to demolish me and the rest of the team. Despite me asking them not to run off. Sometimes it's just hopeless. Battle 11: 4 CV battle, our team's CVs got completely outplayed so we were 100% spotted in our spawn, with zero spotting on our side. It was a turkey shoot. I think we've all been there: the entire remaining team balled up in the spawn around the CVs, zero caps. Pathetic. General comment: I hate Clevelands. I hate Atlantas. But most of all I hate Clevelands.
  5. With the introduction of RN BBs the player base has been introduced to battleships that are essentially floating flamethrowers, the like of which hasn't been seen since since the invention and lost of the greek fire by the byzantine empire. Community contributors quickly reported on their abilities to set other ships aflame, and the forum's quickly filled with post of the ships' superiority compare to their counterparts. A week later, the waves of posts have subsided, the win rate for the Conqueror sits at 54% on EU,52% on SEA , and 55% on NA[1]. But is this the cause of the superb HE shells? We'll look at the chance of setting a ship on fire(at least 1 fire) per turret(Assuming all the HE shell hits): Großer Kurfürst with 420mm : (1-(1-0.41)3) = 0.795 Großer Kurfürst with 406mm : (1-(1-0.38)3) = 0.762 Montana with 406mm : (1-(1-0.36)3) = 0.738 Yamato with 460mm : (1-(1-0.35)3) = 0.725 Conqueror with 419mm : (1-(1-0.48)3) = 0.859 Conqueror with 457mm : (1-(1-0.63)2) = 0.863 I've chosen to use a per turret value as we already know the chance per shell, and it is NOT possible to only fire 1 gun on each turret. Noting that dispersion value of each ship would affect the effective chance of setting fire, we can say it's been "balanced" to be roughly similar. Although, in the event that only 1 shell hits, the probability would favour the shell with higher fire chance. Next, we'll look at the chance of setting fire per ship salvo making all the previous assumptions Großer Kurfürst with 420mm : (1-(1-0.41)12) = 0.9982 Großer Kurfürst with 406mm : (1-(1-0.38)12) = 0.9968 Montana with 406mm : (1-(1-0.36)12) = 0.9952 Yamato with 460mm : (1-(1-0.35)9) = 0.9792 Conqueror with 419mm : (1-(1-0.48)12) = 0.9996 Conqueror with 457mm : (1-(1-0.63)8) = 0.9996 From the 2 data sets[2] we can see the RN BB managed a lead of roughly 10% in the chance to set fire per turret, however, per salvo, the difference is almost negligible. So, if the difference is only roughly 10%, why the sudden outcry? I put forward my hypothesis that it is the emergent properties of a whole branch being encouraged to use HE and the influx of players jumping on to this branch in the relatively short span of time, and the confirmation bias of other battleship's captain. From what I can tell, WG hasn't made any changed to the RN BBs in 6.11 as they wait for the statistics to "stabilise". A major point not discussed is the penetration of HE shells and how they affect fire chance. [1]http://wows-numbers.com/ships/ [2]http://wowsft.com/
  6. We've just launched http://warships.today/asia in beta. It does tracking of player statistics in a user friendly way and also calculates Warships Today Rating (WTR) - a rating that considers stats such as damage, frags (ship and plane) to determine player performance. The individual player page provides a great overview of how the player is doing in different ships and shows a comparison with server average stats. It currently has a good sample of players on ASIA, EU, NA, RU servers in the database, so the vehicle stats are representative (not skewed towards those that use the site). It would be great to hear what you think and any comments or suggestions. Regards, Nathan P.S. Please feel free to repost the link to the non-English communities. I will unfortunately not be able to follow the discussion there, so if you have questions, please ask here or using the Help form on the site.
  7. I've created tool for World of Warships statistics based on my WoT Page. WoWS Stats & Numbers Main features: - player statistics with progress tracking - example, - milestones - important moments for account, new ship, new damage record, - leaderboard, - warships statistics, - leaderboard for warships and same class/tier warship comparison - Cleveland, Atago, - recent events Enjoy, use, comment!
  8. So in order to end all XXXX needs buff/nerf. You're using it wrong!! debates. Here are the stats from Asia server as of 8/26 in pretty graphs with analysis that nobody asked for. Source data comes from here. Note that there are very few battles for some high tier ships (especially destroyers) Individual Ship Performance VS Tier Benchmark for all Ships (see methodology below) Blue bars represent All players. Orange top 10% BBs are generally not friendly to newer players. "You're doing it wrong" definitely applies to many ships in this class - especially Kongo Aside from the tier Xs (data not reliable), Fuso, New Mexico and (surprising to me) Wyoming are stars of the line from tier 5~8 Average players do better in the US BBs, Top 10%ers in the JP BBs Miyogi is the worst BB in game followed by Colorado, skill helps ~ but not much Before tier X(again, not enough data), the 8" CAs are UP. The lower tier 6" CAs do better (More Dakka) but require some skill Cleveland really isn't that OP The prems, Atlanta and Atago are terrible (skill makes the Atago considerably less terrible- but still terrible) Everybody's complaints about the Furutaka (soon to be buffed) are justified CVs are almost all monster ~ especially with a skilled player driving Except for the Langley, Bogue (we knew that) and Lexington (What?? Why is this performing so bad?) Aside from the Isokaze and Minekaze which require a bit of skill to perform, all other DDs blow or are at best average and are not really saved by skill Gold bars represent % damage difference between to 10% players and All Players Murmansk seems to be the Unicum's seal clubbing weapon of choices Atago can suck a lot less if played by a ninja (but will still suck) Fuso VS Nagato, New Mexico VS Colorado ? Sorry your additional unicorn spunk will have more impact on the lower tier ship. (i.e. if you can do X amount better in a Nagato, you will do even better in a Fuso) Its about the kills dahling:
  9. Umidoori

    Statistics

    http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/ranking/20150719/statistics.html Nice stats. CVs are first and DDs are last.
×