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.
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player performance for the tier ten battleships was analyzed based on win rate and average damage as well as the new, unpublished WoWReplays.com Ship Rating and Aggression Rating.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.
In the last 6 months or so Wargaming has tried to push more aggressive tactics and play into World of Warships with its multiple changes and additions to the game. Included in these changes has been the addition of radar and hydroacoustic search, the introduction of the brawling German Battleships, and most recently, and certainly one of the more contentious changes, the elimination of stealth firing. In theory, these changes would force players to push into smoked up destroyers or push into capture points, force the use of guns and maneuverability and create a necessity for the use of secondary guns. In fact, what has been observed by myself, and confirmed by others, at least on the North American server, is quite the opposite. The removal of stealth fire has required many of the destroyers to sit in their own smoke, as opposed to using it for teammates, and shoot high explosive at the enemy. It has also forced the cruisers that were capable of stealth fire to maintain range and use their mobility to deal damage with shells and fire while reducing their own damage. This in turn removes them from the battle, certainly on an aggression stance.