Jump to content

Koruption

Players
  • Content Сount

    33
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    181

About Koruption

  • Rank
    Able Seaman
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Koruption

    Stalingrad

    https://forum.worldofwarships.eu/topic/110896-quality-control-stalingrad-now-with-eu-data-too/
  2. Koruption

    Quality Control - Stalingrad (Now with EU data too)

    I've run the same sampling process using EU data. They have a full list of top 100 players, making their base sample of applicable Stalingrad players much larger. For comparison, here is the NA base Stalingrad Sample before purging it of any data to equalize it to another ship: The next image is of the same data, however it's the EU top 100 players for the Stalingrad: I started out with the same two ships to compare, the Zao and the Des Moines. Once again, I'm really not sure that there's anything at all to be learned from these two ship since a lot of their data is extremely old. Heck, I can't tell if the number one player in the Zao played it when it could still stealth fire or if the number five Des Moines player was a beast in the ship back when it didn't have any radar. Next we'll look at the EU Hindenburg, Moskva, and Minotaur. See, there are the Hindenburg stats I thought I'd see on the NA data... but here they are misplaced over in the EU! Seriously guys... this is embarrassing how much better the EU data looks so far on just about every single ship. A lot of the same comments that I made about the NA subsets of data seem to be similar to over here though when it comes to the trends. The lower the variance on the average battle count, the more in line they seem to be. Although holy jeebus those guys over there in the EU really like their Moskva play compared to us! They've played it so much more than we have! With that many battles in the sample, I'd wager (cannot prove) that a lot of those Moskva battles were far before she ever got her recent buffs. And now our last three ships, the Henri IV, Salem, and the Worcester. Once again the Salem is pointless to even glance at. There's only a single EU player, (just like that single NA player) that qualifies for sampling under these conditions. The Henri IV and the Worcester however both fall within the tolerances for average battles. The Henri IV lags behind in every category that isn't battles, and is out of the tolerances for avg frags. Though once again, that's likely due to how she's played. The Henri is supposed to be played far back, where getting the final blow is far more difficult to do consistently. Unlike on NA, where the Worcester actually leads the Stalingrad, it is the Stalingrad that edges out the Worcester on EU. They are within the tolerances for every single category however. So once again, the two newest sets of data lean towards an in tolerance Stalingrad while out of date data leans towards an over powered Stalingrad. The older the data, the more the Stalingrad looks over powered while newer data says that yes she's strong, but within acceptable bounds.
  3. Koruption

    Quality Control - Stalingrad (Now with EU data too)

    Hopefully it's resolved now!
  4. Koruption

    Quality Control - Stalingrad (Now with EU data too)

    Due to the sample set only being 66 players, there were quite a lot of players in that sample set that would not normally be in any server wide top 100 list.
  5. Koruption

    Quality Control - Stalingrad (Now with EU data too)

    My apologies for the it being unreadable in dark theme. I literally just copied and pasted it from my original NA thread instead of uploading all of the images again.
  6. Koruption

    Quality Control - Stalingrad (Now with EU data too)

    Thank you for the kind words!
  7. I've spent a lot of time recently reading a lot of continual threads arguing over if the Stalingrad is overpowered or not. Heck, I've participated in a few of them. However there's been a problem in all of these threads. Noone has the data necessary to make fair comparisons of the ship due to the nature of how it has been earned up to now. I'm not going to sit here and tell you I've got flawless data here and that whatever my conclusion is, is perfect. It isn't. However I do have a history in quality control. At one time I ran the quality control departments for two production facilities simultaneously. It wasn't always the case, but most of the time I legally had to follow a strict 6% variance policy. As long as our products were within +/- 3% of our target values, we were fine. Well, there aren't any "target values" for ships in WoWs, so I figured I'd work off of a 6% variance. I just took ye ole +/- 3% and decided to work with the whole spectrum of it. Now, how would I attain fair data? Well, to be honest it's quite impossible to actually get flawless data with what we're given in the API, but I figured I could get close... at least within reason. So I made a spreadsheet... yeah yeah yeah... another one. Blame the company I did quality control for, that's where I learned it. Here's how it works: 1) Auto-import the top 99 players from wows-numbers for a given ship. In this case, there were only 66 players that have the necessary 80 battles to qualify for the top list on wows-numbers, so 66 players it is. It turns out that those 66 players have (at the time of this study) played a combined 11,005 battles. 2) Look up another ship. By selecting a second ship, the sheet looks up every single of the 66 players and finds all of their t10 ships. From that data I was able to extract their data for the selected ship. 3) Purge data that doesn't correlate. Any player that had data on the second ship that didn't have at least 80 battles was purged from the list. Their stats were purged from both the Stalingrad list as well as the secondary ship's list. This of course drops the sample sizes. 4) Weight the data. Stats brought in on both ships were weighted by the number of battles in order to create a single variable for each statistic brought in. This way (for example) a single Stalingrad win rate variable may be compared to a single win rate variable from the secondary ship. Once the above was completed, I started looking through the data. Now, while the 6% variance seemed to work quite well for win rate, average frags (kills), and average damage, Some of the older ships had an insane number of average battles. Due to this I was generous and increased the variance for average battles to 15%. Better to err on the side of caution. I have only taken screenshots of the compiled and processed data. I've left out the parts with the individual player names. I started out by comparing it to the Des Moines and the Zao, since they are the two oldest CA's in the game. Their data is of course the oldest and most out of date. These two ships would be a lot of the applicable players first T10 ships. I was very shocked to say the least (sarcasm of course). The Zao completely dominated the third season of Clan Battles, the meta during Season 3 almost entirely revolved around countering the legendary mod Zao. However yes, the Zao using these metrics is completely thrashed by the Stalingrad. I was actually shocked a bit (no sarcasm) to see that the Des Moines wasn't nearly as dominated by the Stalingrad as I thought. Despite being one of the oldest ships in the entire game, and having years of players making it their first T10 ship in the game, it was within the tolerances for both win rate and average frags (kills). The next few ships I looked at I like to think of as the middle generation of tier ten cruisers. This would be the Hindenburg, the Moskva, and the Minotaur. When I first saw the Hindenburg data I was blown away. I couldn't believe it. I average somewhere around like 160k on my Hindenburg, with a brutally good win rate too. I thoroughly did not expect to see the Hindenburg thrashed like that by the Stalingrad. Then I remembered that for like half of the Hindenburg's life, it didn't have the 1/4 HE pen buffs. But either way, It is statistically defeated by the Stalingrad at this time. The Moskva is the first of the T10 CA's that actually meets the bloated battles tolerances, and despite going the vast majority of its existence without its amazing legendary mod or its fantastic 50 mm lower bow plate, it's win rate is actually within the tolerances. Shocked again I was. The Minotaur is substantially newer than either the Hindenburg or the Moskva, and her stats prove this out. Her average damage is substantially lower than the Stalingrad's, however its win rate and average frags are both within the tolerances. The last three are the newest tier ten cruisers out there. They are the Henri IV, the Salem, and the Worcester. Then Henri IV was recently buffed dramatically with its uber monster dpm buff of a legendary mod as well as its Clan Battle meta defining Main Battery Reload Booster. I'm really not sure if those buffs are reflected here or not. Only the players that played these ships and Wargaming would know that. Either way, She is within the tolerances for every statistic except for average frags, which of course makes sense due to how far back one needs to play the Henri IV. The Salem data is only here as an attempt at being thorough. There was only one single player that was a part of the 66 Stalingrad data set that also had over 80 battles in the Salem. This data is straight up worthless. The Worcester is the only ship that beats the Stalingrad. They're within the tolerances for both of the ships, but unlike every other example where Stalingrad is edging out the other ships, it is the Worcester that edges out the Stalingrad in every category except for battles. The Worcester is also the only ship to be within 2% of the Stalingrad average battle count. Their data is the most similar, as well as the newest. - TLDR - I don't really know if the ship is overpowered or not. Personally I don't think so. Though the data (like all data), I retrieved can be manipulated and interpreted in many different ways. Plus, it's fundamentally flawed since large swaths of it are going to be sorely out of date with me having no way to logically excise that out of date data. Yes, the Stalingrad seems to be stronger than the vast majority of other tier ten cruisers out there. However she is not the top dog of T10, as that crown rests with the Worcester. The other trend I noticed, is that as one travels through the data from oldest ship to newest ship, the Stalingrad goes from brutally overpowered, to right in line, to slightly behind. Plus, you know... this all comes from random battles. I tried to be brief! Link to later post in this thread where the same sampling process was applied to EU data instead of NA data. Link to original thread on NA.
  8. Koruption

    The Azuma (The Poor Man's Stalingrad)

    I think I'd rather have this as a flanking ship than the Stalin, due to it's better stealth and ability to disengage.
  9. Koruption

    Who will be able to afford new "Bourgogne" for 30.000 Steel?

    It doesn't matter how low an amount it is. It's still a 180 from their claim of Steel being for competitive play.
  10. Koruption

    Stalingrad - Any reason left to play Moskva?

    I have it on NA, and have been using it for ranked. It just feels like a fat, inaccurate Moskva. The lack of hydro hurts bad. There have been several times I wished for the Moskva, either for the accuracy or for the hydro. It's just a fat/different Moskva. It definitely doesn't replace the Moskva.
  11. Koruption

    CB Season Three; some points.

    This season the clan count Hurricane&Typhoon1&2&3 - was 53 on NA The amount of repeat teams we faced... just... non-stop. We started rejoicing when we saw the que timer go over a minute. We figured we had a greater chance of finally seeing someone new.
  12. I have updated the link in the original post. The original link provided will now make a new copy of a new iteration of the sheet. All previous features are still available and functioning. The sheet has been updated for the following: Auto-Import Stat Goals --- If this feature is turned on, the sheet will import the server averages for ships in order to dynamically adapt the stat goals to their appropriate levels. The user may increase or decrease the an added percentage above the server average by adjusting a variable directly beneath this option. It is located in the middle of the sheet below the original stat goals. The imported/dynamically adjusted stat goals may be viewed by scrolling down. If the user sets the multiplier variable to zero, one may use this to see the non-adjusted server averages/expected variables from wows-numbers. Player Rating --- The sheet now imports a brief overview of a player's "Player Rating" from the site wows-numbers.com. It also provides a link to the source page for ease of access. Individual ship player ratings are also calculated in the background using wows-numbers server averages/expected values. Spotting Damage --- Spotting damage has now been included as a imported statistic. It is not included as one of the stats required as a qualifying rank, however the data is now available for users to use as they see fit. Potential Damage --- Potential damage has now been included as a imported statistic. It is not included as one of the stats required as a qualifying rank, however the data is now available for users to use as they see fit. Ship Name/ID Import --- This feature is an unseen feature. The previous iteration of it no longer worked as a standalone. There have been too many additions of ships to the game. This has been updated to have double the available space. This means the load times of ship names and id's has gone up slightly, however it should mean that the sheet has been future proofed considerably.
  13. Koruption

    Shipstacking in CW

    Moskva's did dominate early season one on NA. But that pretty much completely evaporated by the end of the second week. If I remember correctly the clan [Botes] used it back then to be one of the first typhoon teams on NA season 1. I've played in every season so far in the Typhoon NA bracket. Ran into a 6 moskva team just last night. Line of sight is a wonderful thing. Six Moskva's just aren't flexible enough. It's too easy to catch a single ones broadside, and then there's a gap in their line. A single Zao on the flank slaughters Moskva's.
×