Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'stats'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Forum
    • English Speaking Forum
    • Deutschsprachige Community
    • Polska Społeczność
    • Česká a slovenská komunita
    • Communauté francophone
    • Comunidad de habla española
    • Türkçe Topluluk
    • Comunità Italiana
  • Mod Section
    • Rules, Announcements and General Discussion (English)
    • Modding Tutorials, Guides and Tools (English)
    • Interface Mods
    • Visual Mods
    • Sound Mods
    • Modpacks
    • Other Mods and Programs
    • Archive
  • Historical Section


  • Community Calendar
  • This Day in History

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL








Found 68 results

  1. 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.
  2. Hi all, WoWs EU reached 30K+ players OnLine again... https://stats.wotapi.ru/stats/wows/eu/EU Leo "Apollo11"
  3. A few days ago I checked my stats on a well-known website. It shows graphs for several categories - Win Rate, Average Damage, Average Experience and Personal Rating. Since I had not played Random battles from late August to the present day the graphs for the first three categories was flat, but the graph for PR showed an improvement! Graphs Could this be because better players are not playing so much (or leaving) and worse players are playing more (or joining)?
  4. Bonjour, Suite à 2 parties dans lesquelles j'ai lu des commentaires suspects dans le chat, j'ai rendu mes stats privées. Je vous rapporte - en français - les 2 commentaires : cette partie on a 40% de win donc c'est perdu. merci de focus ce joueur (c'était moi en l’occurrence), il a plus de 56% de win... (oui je sais ce n'est pas exceptionnel, mais apparemment il n'y avait pas mieux dans l'équipe..) Dans les 2 cas les parties venaient de commencer. Pour le cas 1, je ne sais pas si cela provient d'un outil type XVM, pour le second, je suis presque certain que c'est le cas, ou alors ils ont été super rapide pour regarder les stats de chaque joueur sur Warships.eu bref, j'ai mis mes stats en privé et accessible uniquement par lien (https://worldofwarships.eu/fr/community/accounts/504849748-zaramino/zsMZ0hmSfc3k3MSKSlMLOnPJYFU/) et si on ne veut pas voir se répandre les pratiques -mauvaises en général - de WOT, je vous conseille de faire pareil. Bonnes nav'
  5. Hi Another thread sort of got hijacked into a debate about stats, so lets have one on that. Which stats actually mean anything significant and how could the stats be improved to reflect something more realistically relevant to an individual player. There are only two real aspects clan battles and non clan battles. The easiest one to look at is Clan battles, every member of the teams is parts of your clan, so comparing games won against games lost in clan wars is valid. All other types of battle however are not as straight forward, in a standard random battle there are 12 players so solo you get 11 players of undetermined quality, even in division you still get 9. These 9 or 11 players can make it easy or hard to win unless you are good enough to carry well enough to cater for any shortfalls. We see a dramatic effect from this at various times of the day, weekends or holiday periods. So what things affect your win rate 1) Obviously how much you win against how much you lose. 2) The skill of players for the mix of the team you are in. 3) The ships selected by players in your team. 4) Items 2 and 3 in matchmaking. Lets move away from Win Rate for a moment. Take experience, damage even frag rate, these are all affected to a lesser degree by items 2 to 4, let me expand. If matchmaking gets it wrong and you end up on a bad team, you all know the sort I am talking about. Invariably the game is over quickly, your killed cause of no support or the enemy herd them into the sheep pends behind a rock and close the gate. Either way you end up with less opportunity to gain experience or damage that you may have got if the team was better, even a good player, the longer the game the more he will farm. Matchmaking I don't profess to understand how they are doing it, and I can appreciate how difficult it must be to get the balance right, but applying some logic.. The hard part is balancing the different ships to make up two teams with a roughly equal chance to win. Now lets make that harder by applying each players win rate so that theoretically he is up against players of about the same level. An then to add another layer of complexity there are only 4023 players online and spread across ten tiers, so not many to choose from. Matchmaking affects your chances Lets say that in an ideal world you have two teams all the ships are mirrored and all the players are consistently at a 50% to 52% win rate, you would think that this will give you a fair chance. OK, lets take a look at these hypothetical teams. Player Ship PLAYER WR WR for Ship Player Ship PLAYER WR WR for Ship 1 Bismark 51 46 1 Bismark 52 61 2 Terpitz 50 20 2 Terpitz 48 46 3 Amagi 49 47 3 Amagi 50 45 4 Kii 51 16 4 Kii 51 55 5 Hipper 48 62 5 Hipper 50 51 6 Mogami 50 35 6 Mogami 49 53 7 Chapayev 51 49 7 Chapayev 51 50 8 Cleveland 51 36 8 Cleveland 48 53 9 Edinburgh 49 42 9 Edinburgh 50 56 10 Kagero 52 69 10 Kagero 51 57 11 Benson 48 10 11 Benson 51 46 12 Hseinyang 50 37 12 Hseinyang 49 51 The reasons for picking the ship don't matter, what matters here is the difference between a player WR and his WR for that particular ship. If the matchmaker select the teams based on Player WR the team look pretty even, but in reality taking into account the players performance in the ship chosen the match is far from even. So What is the Problem The stats used in this example are flawed to begin with, we know that WR is affected by numerous things so if it is included in matchmaking the matchmaking will be flawed. Is there a solution Better matchmaking based on a better player assessment. But What? And now the debate begins who has a better idea for player assessment than we currently have?
  6. Reaper_JackGBR

    Stats not updating properly?

    Just a quick one for something that I noticed last night and checked on again today. Didn't want to send a ticket as this was a minor issue, but anyway. I scored a 51 plane kill game in my Hiryu, and while perusing my stats afterward (as I knew this had beaten my previous plane record) I noticed that my stats still recorded 46 plane kills as my record, the same as before (Akizuki) however, it now told me that the ship used for this record was the Hiryu. See? They don't match up. Actually, taking that screenshot just now, apparently I've also played only 1 tier 7 and one tier 8 game. Interesting. I'm sure this isn't important to most people, but just another little bug that ought to get attention I think.
  7. Donnée 0.7.6 Test Torpilles Japonaise Torpilles Américaine Torpilles Allemande Torpilles Russe Torpilles Anglaise Torpilles Française Torpilles Pan asia Torpilles autres nations Tableau des résistances des navires aux inondations Calcul de la portée de détection des torp avec module et comp (Détection de base de la torp) X (module acquisition X comp vigilance) = portée de détection réelle Exemple torp F3 1.8 x 1.2 x 1.25 = 2.7 km Cas du sonars : (Portée du sonars) X ( comp vigilance) = portée de détection réelle Calcul temps de réaction (Distance en km / (vitesse de la torp en knt x 2.6)) x 1000 = Temps de réaction Exemple : torp F3 1.8 / (76x2.6) x 1000 = 9.1 sec Si comp vigilance et module acquisition 2.7 / (76x2.6) x 1000 = 13.7 sec Calcul inondation réelle (Nombre de base d'inondation de la torpille + flag ) X (la résistance en % du navire au inondation) = % d'avoir une inondation par torpille Exemple : on prend les 406% des type 93 mod3 du shima contre un yama et contre un pensacola 406* 15%(0.15)= 60.9% de chance de mettre une inondation sur un yama avec une torp de shima 406* 32%(0.32)= 129. 92% de chance de mettre une inondation sur un pensacola avec une torp de shima Type Deep Water Nation Pan asia touche tout sauf DD. Nation Japon/ allemande touche seulement BB et CV. Les Deep Water ignore aussi une partie de la protection anti torpille entre 20% et 30%. Note Mise à jour 0.7.6 Test , ajout de nouveaux navire et autre stats ST
  8. With all the threads where people yell p2w and threads where they propose premium ammo and what not, I thought I make my own thread. As it stands, WoWS hasn‘t really much to offer in terms of p2w, except maybe two or three slightly overpowered ships, on which you have to do well to wreak havoc. But nothing really p2w-esque as many claim. But this could be changed! Add „Guaranteed Victory Bonds“ to the Shop in bundles of 10, 50 and 100 pieces. Sell the small bundle for 50€, five bucks a piece. Players who bought them can choose to put these bonds in one of the available consumable slots, and if the games turns out to be a defeat, just trigger the GVB and insta win! Incase players on both teams trigger the consumable, the player who bought the most bonds will win the game! Isn‘t that awesome? Finally all p2w whiners will have a point, players with no skill will finally win games, no more losing streaks, WG will finally be able to turn the Moon into Coruscant, and I get a steady income as I want 35% of the profits ( it’s my idea after all). What do you think?
  9. NothingButTheRain

    Stats on total amount of awards

    So I've been wondering for a while now, is there any way to see how common or how rare any particular award is? And more importantly, is there anywhere where I can see these stats
  10. Koruption


    Howdy y'all! I almost exclusively play on NA, and I've done as much as I can over there at the moment. I'm not really a fan of some of the 3rd party stats websites, so I've been working on my own little side project. It's primarily designed for use within a clan setting, however it is completely usable by others as well. While I'm not really ready to make it public yet, I am looking for someone that's played (at the Typhoon/Hurricane level) to critique what I've got so far. If someone that fits this description wouldn't mind sending me a PM here on the forums I'd like to have a conversation in either Discord/Teamspeak/etc to have my work critiqued.
  11. Andwari28


    guten morgen ihr lieben liebenden, ich hab mal gesucht, aber zu dem thema definitiv nix gefunden. wie letzte woche versprochen, es geht mal um die stats. jeder kennt sie oder hat davon gehört, ja für manche ist es das, was das spiel erst lebenswert macht, eine art jesus der meere. soll so sein, da es natürlich ein schönes hilfsmittel ist, sich selbst einmal zu kontrollieren, und mängel zu erkennen. das streite ich somit auch gar nicht ab, das es nützlich für einen selbst ist. nun ja, nicht jeder macht es so, also das selbstreflektieren ... ist es verwerflich? nun ja, ich sage da nein. letzten endes spielt jeder so wie er will, da er es ja auch, gott wg sei dank, kann. wer bis hier hin durchgehalten hat fragt sich jetzt: wat will der vogel eigentlich, wenn alles gut ist? ja ist es das denn, also alles gut? solange die stats dem wettbewerb untereinander dienen definitiv ja. jetzt kommt aber das aber, denn immer wieder beobachtet mann hier im forum, das user, beiträge, vorschläge usw. aufgrund von schlechten stats, nicht ernst genommen werden. nur weil jemand aus welchen gründen auch immer, schlecht spielt, heißt es ja nicht das er das spiel nicht verstanden hat bzw. null plan von nix hat. was haltet ihr also von dieser methode (die stats-keule), beiträge mit den stats lächerlich zu machen, oder wissen abzuerkennen? mich würde freuen wenn mir hier einmal von den stats suchtis, und den stats gegnern einmal schöne argumente aufgezählt werden. und damit ich ernst genommem werde, hab ich meine stats jetzt offen ... ach noch etwas in eigener sache: ich habe beobachtet, das mit dem letzten patch, die tirpitz keine änderung erhalten hat. kann das wirklich so sein?
  12. JoeXxX69

    Änderung der Gegnerstats

    Hi zusammen, erst einmal. mich würde interessieren, wie es sein kann, dass im Ladebildschirm eines Zufallsgefechtes, wenn ich mit der Maus auf die Gegnerischen Schiffe gehe, die Stats der Gegner sich urplötzlich verbessern? wenn man in der Warteschlange steht, oder schon für ein Gefecht gelistet ist, kann ich an meinem Setting doch nichts mehr ändern! warum also ändern sich die Stats einiger Gegner? Kann mir das bitte jemand verständlich erklären? Danke schon einmal im Voraus .... JoeXxX
  13. I'm hoping to have a civilized discussion about current high-tier CV gameplay. I'm not suggesting anything that would be yet-another-rework - I'm sick of those. I'd just like to see some consistency other than consistent losses and salt mine MM. I'm on a ~20 battle Essex lose-streak right now. CV mechanics seems to have become very heavily RNG-based. I don't want to have ships that are there as a nice fantasy only to make you lose interest and incentivize grinding other branches. I don't claim to be a good CV player, (going by overall stats, I guess I'm average - save me the "git gud kid" lecture, skills an practice will only get you so far on a less-than stellar PC with the current net-code and UI fluidity). However, I get thrown into matches where (1) my strafes are extremely ineffective, from every angle, while the enemy decimates me even on head-on strafes with few planes in their squadron; (2) my planes get chewed up by outer AA auras while the enemy seems to be able to loiter above multiple targets to line up good runs. I can't go spot because even destroyer AA wrecks my planes in a matter of seconds; I can't do much damage because even average T7 battleship AA widens my drops. If this was a flash in the pan, offset by meh games or ones where it's the other way around, I'd say "screw it, grind through, wait it out" - but loss after loss after loss it's the exact same symptoms from different people. I know that (1) people play strangely when they're focusing on weird achievements and that (2) the still new Steam users are making their way up to top tiers and they're offsetting baseline competence and may be throwing the meta off, but come one! Most of the time it feels like a combination of insane RNG disparity and a good deal of de-sync: I get pings of 30-37 ms, but enemy planes often dodge my strafes at the last second and I lose 3 planes as soon as their strafe appears to start (and I try to be tricky, but it's like they have a sixth sense or they see things a fraction of a second sooner). Visuals are jerky, even on reduced graphics (medium / DX9 / small object animations OFF). FPS drops when side-scrolling or setting up manual attack runs. (For the record, I'm running an AMD FX 8350 with 8GB DDR3 and an AMD Radeon HD 7850 - I keep my software up to date, clean and light - no bloatware utilities, no snake-oil optimizations, etc). I seem to be doing OK with mid-tier CVs like Hiryu or Saipan, it's higher tiers that seem to be a constant pain. On my Essex, I dropped from decent matches and a ~50% win-rate to constant utter sh*tshows and a 42% win-rate. I sold my Lexington, even though I bought her permanent camo, because of pretty much the same experience, constant up-tiered MM to T10, and not wanting to have my stats and memories with her tarnished (plus I needed the captain on the Essex). I know there are probably plenty of things I'm doing wrong, but for the last few dozen high tier games I'm getting punished ridiculously, while the enemy teams seem to get a pass. I suspect WG gathering much richer player-performance-related data than stat-tracking sites do, to then use for match-making. It would make sense. I figure it's well within the realm of possibility that seemingly equal teams are pitted against each other in fact in a way that one team has a clear situational advantage: (1) more competent players who are likely to lane with decent AA cover everywhere (2) better spotting, better charging, better surviving DDs (3) more accurate, more aware, quick-to-click-planes, competent hydro- and radar-using cruisers (4) non-campy/non-potato/non-lemming BBs. I started using Matchmaking Monitor to figure out what the hell is going on, but I don't mean to sound like a stat-whore. In fact if anything, MM seems to have tilted scales based on much more than the superficial stats gauged by tracking sites: below-average players charging better, benefiting from reduced damage, have better AA RNG while even our average or above average players do nothing but camp and disperse from the spawn and then are force to play defensive. Just to be clear, this would be par for the course if I'd see this randomly, every now and then, on any ship, but I get this almost constantly in CV, to the point where running in a division doesn't seem to balance anything either. It doesn't matter where I spot, it doesn't matter who I protect, it doesn't matter who I bomb, it's most often like an uphill battle while our team's just there for target practice. Could we PLEASE have lesser RNG variance for CVs??? At least for those that have lost their different loadouts. It used to be the case that you were at the mercy of MM due to the choice of loadout you made before hitting "BATTLE", but now you're at the mercy of MM setting you up for an "R"NG roast.
  14. Hi Guys, I'm looking for a UK clan with team mates I can play alongside during the daytime and early evening hours. I possess lots of experience, not afraid of the microphone, good internet connection .. Currently Tier 1-9. Whilst I can quite happily do lots of damage, this doesn't win games and I can't reliably swing random battles on my own. Needing assistance and looking to provide help where needed !!!!!!!! My stats are suffering :( DD
  15. Excavatus

    What statistics tell?

    Dear salty ladies and gentelmen of the world of warships! (salty because sea.. not because watching all the team camping behind an island size of a matchbox!) For some of you know, I am a cruious bob who likes to learn and learn! (but I can't.. :P) and I love numbers.. statistics.. I love analyzing them.. I check my stats after every daily session of WOWs and try to analyze that. I did that in WOT for over 2 years and always thought numbers are good to deduce some good and bad things. Help with the progress of the improvement of one's self skill cap! Anyway, This morning, I've just realised, with some of the numbers, I don't know what to make of them because I don't have anything to compare them in general. and decided to help some of the bobs out there just like me, in the way of feeding my curiosity. I know what the damage numbers mean, I know what to do with WTR and WR, but can you give me some meaning for the following numbers and some comments on mine especially. What do they mean? I mean in gameplay wise... My general survival rate is, %35,17 and my last 21 days (270 battles) survival rate is %45,19. What do I make with these? Are they low? am I playing too YOLO? or are they high? am I playing too cautious? holding miself back? What do you think that a good survival rating should be? in battleships, DDs, Cruisers.. etc? My main battery accuracy is %27,94 My torpedo accuracy is %7,71 They seem very low to me.. are they low really? I am spotting 1,04 ships in total average and 1,15 ships in 21 day average.. low, high? any relation with my survival rating? 1095 xp average in general and 1464 xp in 21 days average.. does this number includes bonus from premium acc or premium ships? because this is the time I bought Graf Spee roughly.. I really believe, watching one's own replays and analyzing own stats is the very basic first step of the stairway to improvement. (Led zeppelin style!) Cheers caps.. PS: I may be totally missing or not looking for more important stats. Please feel free to check them.. https://wows-numbers.com/player/512538544,Excavatus/ and bash them If needed in the road of enlightment.
  16. T0byJug

    HMS Cossack.... God She is Predy

    Note the 102mm count as secondary Guns Think im gonna like her Stats Pics of the Lady
  17. OttoZander

    Player stats don't matter

    Did that get your attention? Fantastic! Now that you're here, let me tell you a story. Have it ever happened to you that a complete rotten tomato has kicked your butt so hard you couldn't sleep right? Yesterday some generic, non-outstanding member of the community with the stat-board all in yellow, win rate of 51% and PR of 1000, you know the type, has out-played me in his CV against my Hakuryu, and in such a spectacular way. I am not a great player in any way, I am barely beginning to learn the intricacies of carrier play, but I am definitely not a slouch and there is no way a player of such caliber (stat-wise) should've been able to bring me to shame in such a glorious way. He was pulling off fighter manoeuvres that I've only seen Feld, MV and Papedepupi perform I began wondering, could it possibly be that once in a 1000 battles, just once, the player statistics were giving me a completely wrong impression of player's actual skill? Or is it some old-timer that had bought that account. This is simply an acknowledgement of my own faults. Considering what a colossal thundercunt I can be to my team mates when I snap, judging their incompetency in random battles, it is possible that karma had finally caught up with me and I've got curb-stomped by one of their kind People, learn from my mistakes.
  18. Hi all, Are there any Clans & ClanWars stats yet (either by WoWs stats sites and/or WG)? With ClanWars in full swing I think it would be more than interesting to know (for example): total number of Clans in ClanWars with total number of players in those clans (both active = at least 1 ClanWar battle and inactive) total number of Clans in ClanWars in "Squall League" with total number of players in those clans (both active = at least 1 ClanWar battle and inactive) "Squall League III" "Squall League II" "Squall League I" total number of Clans in ClanWars in "Gale League" with total number of players in those clans (both active = at least 1 ClanWar battle and inactive) "Gale League III" "Gale League II" "Gale League I" total number of Clans in ClanWars in "Storm League" with total number of players in those clans (both active = at least 1 ClanWar battle and inactive) "Storm League III" "Storm League II" "Storm League I" total number of Clans in ClanWars in "Typhoon League" with total number of players in those clans (both active = at least 1 ClanWar battle and inactive) "Typhoon League III" "Typhoon League II" "Typhoon League I" Leo "Apollo11"
  19. blanc091

    Clan wars stats

    Hello, The Clan Wars' individual performance, like number of battles, win ratio and so on, where does it show ? I mean, does it go under random battles' statistics in the user profile ?
  20. gekkehenkie50

    Personal stat review plz!

    So @GSPDibbler made a nice post: And I thought, hey maybe that could help me 2 (If you do not like the fact that I kinda stole your idea GSPDibbler, please, just msg me or say so in this thread and I'll ask for it to be closed) Anyways, I hope you could help me the same way you helped GSPDibbler, by checking my stats an maybe spotting something I have not been able to yet. Usually I just check them myself, but a 2nd opinion from a different point of view cant hurt https://wows-numbers.com/player/503631774,gekkehenkie50/ All constructive critisism (or wittey remarks) are welcome!
  21. Azakeit

    Saving post battles stats

    Hello, In the future do you consider implementing a way to save all the post battle statistics into the account ? I find it interesting to gather some stats like : - How much AP / He / Fire / torp damage i've taken from a certain class of ships - How many shells i've missed against a certain class of ships Analyzing some games with the replays are not enough (too much time, too heavy) to get some interesting stats to improve one's playing.
  22. Azakeit

    Monitoring of low played ships

    Hello, Along with ships statistics (damage dealed, taken, etc...) and players and testers feedback, do you monitor how often ships are played and is that a factor in decision to buff them if they're not a lot played ? Take the Henry 4 and Grozovoi for exemple, only 9k battles played the last two weeks, approx half battles played less than the next in the chart (Khaba with 15k battles played the last 2 weeks). Source Warships Today.
  23. GSPDibbler

    Roast me! by my stats pls

    Hello, Browsing the forum for some time i saw a lot of people using stats to tell whether payer is good, bad or what mistakes he/she does. I do that to to myself, however sometimes, reading some more experienced players insights i see i dont read my stats to full understanding (they draw conclusions i miss, simple as that). Ergo, i would like at least few of you to look into them and criticise about what you see. I am immune to salt so, roast if you feel like it, as blunt and disricpecting as you want - as long as you will provide factual critic and some advice ;) Here the link to warships today: https://eu.warships.today/player/502920480/GSPDibbler ...and wows numbers: http://wows-numbers.com/player/502920480,GSPDibbler/ Basics: about 4k games and 55% WR, mostly play DDs (fully grinded in USN, to T9 with IJN, T8 with KM, to Khaba and making way to Grozovoi with RU line), I also play cruisers (Ibuki, Balti, number of mid tier premium cruisers - cause i like to have one of each nation). I know i suck in Bismarck (yeah, i won it in the event, like 30k other players, i discovered i sucked, i play Scharn instead - feels more like cruiser and to my mediocre-at-best BB skills, OP-like ship suits me better)
  24. P2Win

    Be honest (Stats)

    Is anyone guilty of looking up other people stat while in game? How often do you guys look at your teammate stats before you know your team is about to get stomped? If these questions are not enough...look at the one under.. How many of you guys actually care about stats? Be honest.
  25. DutchDelightsNL

    Ranked Season Seven,the numbers

    Today, I came across this article on the NA server. https://worldofwarships.com/en/content/in-da-club/ I noticed that only 24 players made it 2 rank one, with I believe 3 weeks to go. When trying to find the number of players, playing ranked I came across, the numbers on http://wows-numbers.com for ranked Season 7 - Na server more love for premium ships like, Warspite and Arizona - Cleveland and Fuso most played ship on both servers - Fubuki great DD, with 10k torpedoes, 3x3 hard to detect, and Farragut good smoke duration and great guns, although I would choose Fubu - No CV in the top 10 ship list, and I have seen that when you are a good CV player, in a Ryujo you can totally dominate a game - Leander great ship versatile, speed, smoke, torps, and stealth but 2 many BB and no HE. - Shinonome well I would say if you have one use it! should be an easy breeze to tier X after that well somewhat harder but I believe you make it to 1. - 24 out of how many players, prepare that this ain't going to be easy, guess I make it to 10.