Jump to content
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
Koruption

Quality Control - Stalingrad (Now with EU data too)

16 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
38 posts
197 battles

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.

 

115744627_1Zao.thumb.JPG.f68a72bed803167c1a5dda51d88e5c44.JPG1124986900_2DesMoines.thumb.JPG.14bb733a121ac13d598898613626340e.JPG

 

 

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.

 

352761445_3Hindenburg.thumb.JPG.152d8eeb3953ccfd69d5742846b83bdf.JPG441487326_4Moskva.thumb.JPG.9061ec4db4a5075842abf1c5ec339a0f.JPG1998017801_5Minotaur.thumb.JPG.87e9ccf605b1aca9d01252104a1bcb4c.JPG

 

 

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.

 

1292860110_6HenriIV.thumb.JPG.fe891f5cf20c2092604082aeaee08645.JPG947233397_7Salem.thumb.JPG.28b67686c214273eeee50f47e4941096.JPG1339206087_8Worcester.thumb.JPG.8e41cda724d0bf32f85d97ae6aaed0cf.JPG

 

 

 

 

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.

Edited by Koruption
Attempted to fix the issues with viewing the thread in dark theme.
  • Cool 22

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
7,858 posts
10,066 battles

The one decisive argument is that a Stalingrad, to some lesser extent, bypasses the 1 BB rule. Sure it can't overmatch so you can angle against her, but its combination of incredible alpha, insanely good ballistics and very good accuracy make her just as punishing (of not more due to the decreased impact of RNG dispersion compared to a BB) once it gets a sufficiently non-angled side (and with better pen angles and her ridiculous penetration she doesn't need much side, just enough to not autobounce is all she needs). She's also ridiculously tanky thanks to her large HP pool and overall strong armour plating.

 

 

All that on its own wouldn't be too much of an issue since she does have some distinct weaknesses such as bad concealment and an exposed (though still strongly protected) broadside citadel.

 

 

However since WG can't into map design and saturates maps with lots and lots of islands for Stalingrads and other ships to slip behind and next to it makes it very easy for players with decent positioning to migitate most of those weaknesses. And then the only argument left is that Hindenburg and IFHE HIV can "just burn it down" ... which is laughable because that's hardly a distinct weakness and with the huge HP pool it takes a whole while during which a competent enemy team can just relocated someone to help out on the threatened side where the enemy committed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
4,634 posts
6,364 battles

Is there any difference between solo and division games? I guess not?

But that could explain the good stats for Worcester -> division play with CV.

I dont think Stalingrad profits much from CV divisioning (alltho number one WR is 80 battles with superunicum CV...).

 

As for Hindenburg:

Imo the lack of them in CWs also speaks for themselves. We rarely encounter one in the enemy team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-AP-]
Players
962 posts
3,071 battles
36 minutes ago, LemonadeWarrior said:

Why are the average damages so low?

Because high winrate players dont waste time farming irrelevant damage. Thats why they are high winrate players.

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[OP-B]
Beta Tester
597 posts
3,335 battles
48 minutes ago, thiextar said:

Because high winrate players dont waste time farming irrelevant damage. Thats why they are high winrate players.

Makes sense. I am lazy as well lawl.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
7,858 posts
10,066 battles

In the end, the biggest hurdle in trying to get objective data about the Staligrad is that it's hard to get at somewhat representative data from CBs.

 

Randoms can give a solid impression only if enough players of varying skill level play the ship and as the nature of how the Stalingrad is obtained we'd be looking at a looooong timeperiod until we'd ever get something approaching a reasonable playerbase representation regarding that ship. And CBs are an entirely different beast alltogether however so even if the stats showed the Stalingrad were overperforming (upon a time when not only unicum players have access to her of course), that wouldn't necessarily reflect the ships strengths/weaknesses or even raison d'etre in CBs where ships are selected for an environment that quite frankly is largely incomparable to normal random battles due to the sheer impact of teamwork that's the standard in CBs that I've never even come remotely close to experiencing in all my random games, including divisions.

 

 

If there's anything I'd adress at this point, it's to make more open maps for the CB mappool to facilitate flanking strategies without there always being a convenient line of islands segmenting the map and providing limited crossfire opportunities on a push. And map design criticism is hardly a new thing where CBs are regarded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BOATY]
Players
702 posts
10,204 battles

@Koruption Your post is unreadable under dark theme! 

 

The fact that you see increased numbers of Henri and Yamato and even Conqueror in CB means exactly that this ship redefined the meta because they are brought there with just one purpose - to counter Stalingrad.  

That ship have alpha strike that can delete most of the tier 10 in single salvo and the accuracy to do that on any range.

 

OVERPOWERED or NOT more and more players will have access to it. 

 

+1 for your effort and -1 for the unreadable post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[AAO]
Supertester
112 posts
7,052 battles

Really good work OP @Koruption

 

What I notice, and you briefly mention it in the beginning of your post, is that there are not enough players with the required amount of battles in the ship, because it is fairly new, and fairly rare, albeit it, you have reasonably tried to balance this out.

The number one argument so far about the Stalingrad has been about top players of top clans or veterans of WoWs (going back several Ranked seasons) or a combination thereof having access to it, which will likely skew the results towards the higher end of the spectrum. Now with the new CB season running, as well as the large influx of steel by virtue of missions and campaigns, a lot more people are expected to get it, and have actually done so, as we can witness in other threads. Admittedly, some of the new Stalingrad owners may also be experienced players and veterans that simply just missed out on one CB season, or a few ranked seasons, but I would wager that the vast majority of the new players are not of the same calibre.

 

To reaffirm if this argument stands or not, I would like to draw a parallel to the likes of Alabama and Alabama ST. Not a lot of background information is needed here, the ships are exactly the same bar for a large cephalopod on the sides of the latter. However the former is a premium ship available to everyone, and the latter is only given to a select few Supertesters. Now, supertesters are not all super-unicums, some of them are, but most of them are not, something that makes sense, because you wouldn't want to balance ships around the elite 1% of the playerbase, you can look up some of STs stats if you so wish.

 

Now if you compare the statistics of the two identical ships, you will see that the ST version of the Alabama greatly outperforms the regular version. Yes, the number of battles played in the ST is a fraction of that of the Alabama, however I would argue that even if the ST owners played the same number of battles as the regular version of the ship, the stats would generally stay the same. I theorize that this because of a much smaller, controlled group of people (who also happen to be very experienced) that are given access to ship, rather than the general public. Exactly the same thing that is happening right now with the Stalingrad.

So I would wait for the number of battles played in the Stalingrad to pick up and then use the OPs tool to make comparisons again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
2,472 posts
7,865 battles

This data was very well constructed and gives a good overview where Stalingrad stands. I can not think of a better way to build comparison with the data at hand, than you just did. :cap_like:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
38 posts
197 battles
7 minutes ago, Kenliero said:

This data was very well constructed and gives a good overview where Stalingrad stands. I can not think of a better way to build comparison with the data at hand, than you just did. :cap_like:

 

Thank you for the kind words!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
38 posts
197 battles
3 hours ago, Episparh said:

@Koruption Your post is unreadable under dark theme! 

 

The fact that you see increased numbers of Henri and Yamato and even Conqueror in CB means exactly that this ship redefined the meta because they are brought there with just one purpose - to counter Stalingrad.  

That ship have alpha strike that can delete most of the tier 10 in single salvo and the accuracy to do that on any range.

 

OVERPOWERED or NOT more and more players will have access to it. 

 

+1 for your effort and -1 for the unreadable post.

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
38 posts
197 battles
5 hours ago, LemonadeWarrior said:

Why are the average damages so low?

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PK11]
Beta Tester
712 posts
10,977 battles
Vor 40 Minuten, Koruption sagte:

 

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.

Can't you switch to dark theme and have a look? Then change the color of your text to automatic where necessary. Good work on the stats and well explained.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
38 posts
197 battles
8 minutes ago, Donnerturm said:

Can't you switch to dark theme and have a look? Then change the color of your text to automatic where necessary. Good work on the stats and well explained.

 

Hopefully it's resolved now!

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
38 posts
197 battles

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:

1959460806_NABaseSampleStalingrad.thumb.JPG.9a7e3dc8b9766398dff9de76a7901a3f.JPG

 

The next image is of the same data, however it's the EU top 100 players for the Stalingrad:

723362427_EUBaseSampleStalingrad.thumb.JPG.ac174fb208068cef757c6983aff33640.JPG

 

 

I started out with the same two ships to compare, the Zao and the Des Moines. 

 

1250182850_EU1Zao.thumb.JPG.22f83c995c919c231269e55889c085c1.JPG1694975891_EU2DesMoines.thumb.JPG.1bcc7557e8b6208b75e42a375047c476.JPG

 

 

 

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.

 

1238123997_EU3Hindenburg.thumb.JPG.1ee78fff97cfdf48a659c94964d53ada.JPG1737743793_EU4Moskva.thumb.JPG.0dcae8e4914e51479057fce78428c2c9.JPG488158681_EU5Minotaur.thumb.JPG.b164033028248cd677afd037f71984e9.JPG

 

 

 

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.

 

2143640005_EU6HenriIV.thumb.JPG.365f320a3261f6ea0186178e2185501c.JPG439068529_EU7Salem.thumb.JPG.77eaabfcf88a45f7379e7da6e6e3cd3d.JPG2147393831_EU8Worcester.thumb.JPG.fb4344855bac1cf4932c9afc90bab629.JPG

 

 

 

 

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.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×