As many of you have seen, most of the articles I write have to do with stats and analytics. Though I do enjoy writing them, and try to make them as friendly to the populace as I can, I’m wondering what else you might like to read about in regards to World of Warships. The poll options include topics that I feel qualified to discuss and write about and am currently able to write about. (Sorry, I’m not a community contributor, so I can get info on new ships or their stats). Also, please feel free to post suggestions for articles and content in the comments as well, I probably left things out.
The WoWReplays Ship rating is evaluating the player’s average statistics (ability) in a ship against the overall population of average statistics in that ship. No weights are currently applied to any of the values.
- Win Rate
- Survived Wins
- Survival Rate
For the past few months, I have been working closely with Jammin411 of WoWReplays.com to validate and recreate the Ship Rating and Aggression/Passiveness statistics that are used on the website. Literally, millions of cases of data have been analyzed to find the best variables to use and how to make them come together to get the results that we are looking for. Both stats offered their own challenges such as, “What are we trying to measure?” “What variables can be used to measure that?” “Is this really measuring what we want it to?” and “How do we explain these to the community?” This article will go on to explain the process, in short, of how the formulas were created and how the variables used were chosen. Further, I will also explain what the scores for each represent and what to you need to know when reading them on the site.
It was suggested that I analyze whether or not it was worth the credits and captains points to spec out certain ships for secondaries or to use them for other things. With the current data, this is almost impossible as it would be very difficult to collect the data or even run a small experiment due to the sheer number of possibilities. However, what I can do is make a determination on which ship has the best secondaries in the game – period. The top three contenders, for data that I currently have available (and there is not enough data yet for the Tirpitz – I may revisit this in the future), are the Bismark, Yamato, and Großer Kurfürst (G.K.). They all have a vast array of secondary guns that with the right modules, training, and flags are capable of engaging targets out to 10.6km. So how do they stack up against each other and who’s the best? First, let’s get a breakdown of the secondaries of each ship.
This week I played the Minotaur on the Public Test Server. It is a fun ship, reminding me of the Atlanta in the rate of fire and turret traverse, minus the chance of fire and with bigger guns, of course. I did not really have any great games like you see in the videos. One game I remember, there were three of us left and maybe five enemies, but we had the points advantage from early capping. I took the last cap by myself and smoked up. Then it was just me left, but we were still comfortably ahead and time was running out. If I could have just run away we would have won and I would have earned Solo Warrior. But it was not to be. As I ran, the enemy carrier sent planes over me, and despite having one of the best AA ratings I only downed a couple. He bombed me, but more importantly, lit me up for the remaining enemy BBs, who did not take long to wreck me.
Using a one-way ANOVA, player performance for the tier ten battleships was analyzed based on win rate and average damage as well as the new, unpublished WoWReplays.com Ship Rating and Aggression Rating. Significant differences were found between all ships in all but aggression. While the Yamato is still the top performer, the G.K. is a close second while there is much need for a buff to the Montana.
As many high tier battleship players are aware, there is a noticeable difference between the three current tier ten battleships – Yamato, Montana and Großer Kurfürst (G.K.). As of the writing of this article Warships.Today reports the Yamato as the top performing ship, followed closely by the G.K. then the Montana (Table 1). Each ship has a slightly difference play style, which has largely been carried down through their respective tech trees. These differences in play style, in the hands of a good captain, should lead to similar performance statistics among the three top tier battle ships if the ships are truly balanced. Most players who have sailed all three, or at least the original two (Montana and Yamato), know that this is not the case and that the Montana tends to perform worse than the other two. This has also been noted by several community contributors in both the EU and NA. But is this a case of confirmation bias? As Table 1. outlines, though the win rates for the top two ships are identical, there is a difference in their damage, but is that difference significant? Further, there is a notable difference between the Montana and the other two ships, like before, are these differences significant? These are the questions I have sought to answer and have analyzed my current data batch to do just that.
I don’t often go on the Public Test Server, but occasionally I am attracted to the rewards you can get on your main account. Plus, I wanted to try out some higher-tier cruisers that I’ve never played.
In this version, you start out at Tier VIII (though for some reason I’m seeing a lot of Tier VII “Eastern Dragon”; another Myoko-clone I guess). Of course, you are given plenty of credits, doubloons, Free XP, etc. to blast through the ships if you want to, and it seems most people go right to Tier X. I started with the Edinburgh. I’ve never played a cruiser with smoke before, but I do have radar for my Atlanta and Indianapolis, so I went with that option instead of smoke for the Edinburgh. What did I learn about upper-tier British cruisers?