LittleWhiteMouse - Missouri's Earning Data 10.6 vs 10.7

[Andrewbassg]

13 hours ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

Thank you all for your patience.  Here's a graphical representation of the difference between Missouri's earning data between patch 0.10.6 and 0.10.7.  This data was compiled from volunteers over Reddit, Discord, Email and from global forum users.  A very sincere thank you to everyone who participated.  I have almost 500 results between Ranked, Random and Co-Op Battles.  I received more Random Battles by far than anything else and I used those to compile the following the graphics:

10.6 Earning Data

This first graph shows the base experience earned from a winning match on the X-axis with the base, unmodified credit totals mapped on the Y-axis.  You can see there's quite a bit of variation but a chunktacular line does emerge.  I used 100 results, picked at random for this graph, though this did end up using most of the ones I received.

I then took these results submitted by the community and applied every applicable credit modifier possible to them (two flags, all applicable signals, +50% credit earning camo and premium account).  This ballooned up the scale of the Y-axis while keeping the X-axis the same with base experience.  This means there's an enormous amount of variance now on the vertical axis despite the line looking similar.

10.7 Earning Data

I repeated this with the base credit earning for Missouri from 10.7, omitting the bonus provided by the mission. For any of you opening loot boxes today, this is the credit earning total you can expect from Missouri.  This is again about 100 results and I used all of the ones submitted.

We can then overlay these 10.7 results on top of the 10.6 base credit earning to get a direct comparison.  It's very clear that the 10.6 Missouri is earning more, though a mediocre result in 10.6 Mo can earn less than a good result in 10.7 Mo.  Missouri in 10.6 is represented in pale blue, with 10.7 in red-orange.

Bonus Credit Mission

The question, of course, is how does the +20% credit mission affect the delta between the 10.6 and 10.7 results.  Well, for base credit earning (before any other modifiers), the +20% credit mission appears to fully compensate, if not exceed the base credit earning of 10.6 Missouri.  From the results I received, it's too close to call but I am inclined to give it to the 10.7 Missouri based on the limited data available.  10.6 is represented in pale blue with 10.7 in yellow.

Of course, that was never really the question on everyone's mind.  What WAS the question was if whatever modifier Wargaming added would be enough to compensate existing Missouri players for what they could have earned back in 10.6.  With all modifiers applied, this is what the comparison looks like (10.6 is again in blue).

Conclusions

If it looks close, that's not just you.  You have to appreciate that the scale between the earlier graphs showing base earning are far less compressed than the one directly above. A few pixels difference in the above graph represents a difference of tens of thousands of credits.  Thus, while the two look close, 10.6 Missouri still stands out as being better than 10.7 with the +20% credit earning mission.  At the higher end, you could potentially be losing out on hundreds of thousands of credits though this is by no means guaranteed.  The amount of variance in credit earning for similar amounts of experience is considerable.  Thus a good result in a 10.7 match can still exceed what you might have earned for a more modest performance in 10.6 for the same amount of base experience.  Still, there's denying that with all bonuses applied, Missouri earned more before her revision.

The solution is, of course, for Wargaming to balance Missouri's credit earning for the upper maximums; even if this comes at the expense of making her base credit earning skew higher with fewer credit modifying upgrades.  What this exact value should be, I dunno.  My brain has been turned to pudding doing all of this data entry.  But it's not going to be much higher than the current +20% mission.

Mouse out.

(PS:  It looks like I may have added a stray orange dot or two when I sneezed compiling the maximum earning graph.  Oh well, I'm not redoing it!)

EDIT:

This is a better indicator of the gap between 10.6 (blue) and 10.7 (amber).  10.6 trends higher with all of the signals and upgrades.

 

https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/243733-missouris-earning-data-106-vs-107/

 

 

[totally_potato]

yeah

LWM at her finest again

[King_Of_The_Potatoes]

What a shocker WG caught telling little white lies again by the little white mouse.

[Aethervoxx]

What I see in these graphs is it's all pretty much the same (especially your last 'enhancement'). This appears to be a small mammal drowning in a liquid cesspit.

I like LWM a whole lot but why is she wasting time on this? WG certainly won't care, imho, one iota.

[black_falcon120]

Just now, Aethervoxx said:

I like LWM a whole lot but why is she wasting time on this? WG certainly won't care, imho, one iota.

She didn’t know what the data would say when she started and when she got the data she should publish the data, and she has made it clear that there is only a minor difference.

[Aethervoxx]

1 minute ago, black_falcon120 said:

and she has made it clear that there is only a minor difference.

Which is exactly what I saw & TY for being more succinct & to the point.

[Smeggo]

I'm a little bit sceptic about these statistics. Too much variation, maybe regression-lines would help. 

XP and credits obviously don't correlate that much. (I guess things like tanking adds XP but not credits as once mentioned)

 

[tocqueville8]

 

5 hours ago, Andrewbassg said:

This is a better indicator of the gap between 10.6 (blue) and 10.7 (amber).  10.6 trends higher with all of the signals and upgrades.

Is it and does it?

 

Despite all the hubbub about the new Missouri's credit earnings, all I see here is a bunch of dots more or less in the same place. What are the regression coefficients? Are they within standard error? If so, this is much ado about nothing.

[Ocsimano18]

9 minutes ago, Smeggo said:

I'm a little bit sceptic about these statistics. Too much variation, maybe regression-lines would help. 

XP and credits obviously don't correlate that much. (I guess things like tanking adds XP but not credits as once mentioned)

 

That’s a general issue with LWM’s presentation of any statistics. She invests a lot of work that we all appreciate but then presents the results in a messy way. I don’t expect scientific rigor, but some trend lines that you mentioned.

[Andrewbassg]

25 minutes ago, Aethervoxx said:

What I see in these graphs is it's all pretty much the same (especially your last 'enhancement'). This appears to be a small mammal drowning in a liquid cesspit.

I like LWM a whole lot but why is she wasting time on this? WG certainly won't care, imho, one iota.

No she doesn't. It seems that it is forgotten that initially WG set the "special mission" earning at 17%. Only after she confronted them over this they changed it to 20%. Without, there would be a much bigger difference. And they would have not acted as quckly.

 

In fact she resigned as a direct consequence to the disrespect shown during that ..."discussion."

 

On 8/27/2021 at 1:33 AM, LittleWhiteMouse said:

Yeah, we're not seeing any indication of this:

• Yukon incident (June 25th, 2021):  Wargaming failed to listen, ignored evidence and spun a false narrative.
  Chobi and I tried to get two WGNA staff members to hear us out regarding our involvement in Yukon.  We provided them with eighteen months worth of chat logs proving our case.  Wargaming didn't bother reading said logs, told us we were delusional and demanded we amend my review article to reflect their version of events.
   
• CC Discord incident (August 12th, 2021):  Wargaming failed to listen, ignored evidence and spun a false narrative.
  WG staff member attempts to correct me over a point about Missouri's credit earning.  They proceed to ignore the chat-logs I provide showing that CCs have been receiving contradictory messages, even when directly cornered with very specific questions.  Instead, said employee tells me that I don't know what I'm talking about and that I need to show them the proper respect.  They only back down when other CCs intervene.
  ( I knew it was over the Missou!! 1+1=2...)
• CC Exodus (August 13th, 2021 to Present):  Wargaming doesn't even try to listen and has spun a false narrative.
  Mademoisail claimed on stream that the ex-NA-CCs have been reached out to.  We haven't been approached.  They're not interested in communicating with us.

Nothing is changing, but none of the CCs who left thought they would.

[_HomTanks_]

I’ve been saying it should be 33% not 20% if they will not multiply the bonus with other modifiers.

[Andrewbassg]

31 minutes ago, black_falcon120 said:

She didn’t know what the data would say when she started and when she got the data she should publish the data, and she has made it clear that there is only a minor difference.

 

23 minutes ago, tocqueville8 said:

 

Is it and does it?

 

Despite all the hubbub about the new Missouri's credit earnings, all I see here is a bunch of dots more or less in the same place. What are the regression coefficients? Are they within standard error? If so, this is much ado about nothing.

Like I said above.

[lovelacebeer]

Interesting reading and thank goodness LWM exposed WGs maths was wrong with their original 17% bonus mission.

[chazwozza]

Does anyone really give a toss if you're half decent you can make good cash in any 8+ prem

[Karasu_Browarszky]

So... did I understand correctly, they've effectively managed to cap the credit boosting at a certain level, eliminating the top end of the scale completely?

[Peffers]

2 hours ago, Ocsimano18 said:

That’s a general issue with LWM’s presentation of any statistics. She invests a lot of work that we all appreciate but then presents the results in a messy way. I don’t expect scientific rigor, but some trend lines that you mentioned.

I guess that she wishes players to see raw data and a trend line could be seen as "interpreting" the data, but you have to respect the commitment.

 

[Sunleader]

So Basicly.

After the Changes.

Missouri Players that usually used Signals and Camos to get Very Big Payouts from Very Good Performance. Are Cheated by several 100ks of Credits as their Very Big Bonusses from the Signals and Camos are not Compensated for by the Mission.

At the same time. The Average Potato with Mediocre Results. Might actually get a few more Credits from Missouri. Especially if he does not use Big Camos and Signals usually. As he then gets the most out of the Credit Mission which doesnt care for these anyways.

 

Assuming that I understood that Correctly.

I would say its pretty Typical Wargaming. Pamper the Average Potato. Punish the Unicums.

 

 

 

[Andrewbassg]

9 hours ago, Karasu_Hidesuke said:

So... did I understand correctly, they've effectively managed to cap the credit boosting at a certain level, eliminating the top end of the scale completely?

 

8 hours ago, Sunleader said:

So Basicly.

 After the Changes.

 Missouri Players that usually used Signals and Camos to get Very Big Payouts from Very Good Performance. Are Cheated by several 100ks of Credits as their Very Big Bonusses from the Signals and Camos are not Compensated for by the Mission.

At the same time. The Average Potato with Mediocre Results. Might actually get a few more Credits from Missouri. Especially if he does not use Big Camos and Signals usually. As he then gets the most out of the Credit Mission which doesnt care for these anyways.

 

Assuming that I understood that Correctly.

I would say its pretty Typical Wargaming. Pamper the Average Potato. Punish the Unicums.

  

  

 

She responded to your questions :)

 

14 minutes ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

Based on the admittedly limited data available, that appears to be the case.
But I stress:  This is admittedly limited data.  There just aren't enough samples to say so definitively. 

 

Also, this response  I think explains, why she choose to present the raw data vs definitive conclusions. There are simply too many variables (flags cammo's , yadda, yadda) and a too small sample pool to draw an "exact" conclusion.

 

 

 

[Sunleader]

50 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

 

She responded to your questions :)

 

 

Also, this response  I think explains, why she choose to present the raw data vs definitive conclusions. There are simply too many variables (flags cammo's , yadda, yadda) and a too small sample pool to draw an "exact" conclusion.

 

 

 

 

You know what really Drives me a bit Mad about this ?

 

The Fact that we are here in the EU Region Forums. Many of us cant even Post in the NA Forums.

And Yet most of the Old and more Experienced Players will look to LWM for such Data and take her Data pretty much Unquestioned.

 

And then I realize that Wargaming, A Company which could not even hope to Dream at Night that any of their Statement would ever be taken with half as much Trust as LWMs Posts.  Were Seriously Stupid enough to Drive someone so Universally Respected even across the Continent. From their CC Program for no reason beyond mere Pettyness and Stubborness.

 

[Andrewbassg]

24 minutes ago, Sunleader said:

 

You know what really Drives me a bit Mad about this ?

 

The Fact that we are here in the EU Region Forums. Many of us cant even Post in the NA Forums.

And Yet most of the Old and more Experienced Players will look to LWM for such Data and take her Data pretty much Unquestioned.

 

And then I realize that Wargaming, A Company which could not even hope to Dream at Night that any of their Statement would ever be taken with half as much Trust as LWMs Posts.  Were Seriously Stupid enough to Drive someone so Universally Respected even across the Continent. From their CC Program for no reason beyond mere Pettyness and Stubborness.

 

Yeah......I definitively know the feeling. Sad is that once someone realizes that Weegee's interests are fundamentally different ( if not outright contradictory) to those of the players..... .But they are actually idiots, because it shouldn't be the case. The community should include the devs and the company. Fundamentally the goal should be the same. To maintain the game and if possible widen the playerbase. Then we can have our fun and they can have their/our money.

 

But no....coz "we" have a "hot" latin submarine lover.......

 

 

[Andrewbassg]

Btw...

 

14 minutes ago, shonai_ said:

Thanks for the nice visual represenation of data you've collected (and also to everyone here for staying cool)

We've also collected our data on Friday and started to analyze it, but regrettably couldn't complete it and prepare a statement. We will be back in the beginning of the coming week with information and further actions. 

[Andrewbassg]

Also it seems that others are watching too...

 

[mtm78]

On 8/28/2021 at 8:09 PM, Karasu_Hidesuke said:

So... did I understand correctly, they've effectively managed to cap the credit boosting at a certain level, eliminating the top end of the scale completely?

 

You mean, exactly as I predicted? Geez, it's almost as if their tricks are getting old and stale like the game itself

[Andrewbassg]

Btw.... 

 

1 hour ago, Ev1n_NA said:

 

We don’t think players are dumb. In fact, we believe it’s reasonable for us to assume that players will generally be able to identify the ship by using its name and description. It’s also worth pointing out that while you seem to generally dislike the idea of cloning ships, the player you are quoting is saying that doing that would have been better. With Mo we chose not to clone because we thought that players would want “the original Missouri”, rather than a clone – we saw similar comments with Belfast.

 

Also, your example with Vampire II is curious, considering that is an actual surviving vessel. https://www.navy.gov.au/hmas-vampire-ii   

Not sure how to address the fact that you’re confused by its similarity to the other Vampire.

 

As for your characterization of effort, it’s worth pointing out that the two examples you give have nothing to do with each other, save for a QA and deployment process. Other than this they require different people, have a different complexity, require a different amount of workload and different tools to be used. Since it’s not the same person working on them, they can be addressed at the same time and one of them is easier than the other, so will be fixed faster. I believe this is normal.

The torpedo bug involved game logic, so while the solution was found within a week, it had to go through all the regular quality assurance processes, because just deploying the fix to production could have made the things even worse.
 

Best,

 

...for the inevitable lolzies...

 

 

 

[_HomTanks_]

5 hours ago, Andrewbassg said:

With Mo we chose not to clone because we thought that players would want “the original Missouri”, rather than a clone – we saw similar comments with Belfast.

If they saw similar comments with Belfast, why did they release a different ship, Belfast '43, and not the original? Belfast example totally disproves him, sad.

 

People wanted original Missouri for its credit earnings mostly and not only for its historical value. No one is going to buy her in this game and keep staring at her with nostalgic thoughts and memories of their grandfather who visited the ship, for hours without playing. Nerfing the original Missouri income and assigning a solo base credit multiplier along with income nerfed newly released Missouri that doesn't even have an income multiplier neglect everything this guy says.

 

5 hours ago, Andrewbassg said:

We don’t think players are dumb

Very unprofessional way to express thoughts when representing a company.

 

5 hours ago, Andrewbassg said:

The torpedo bug involved game logic, so while the solution was found within a week, it had to go through all the regular quality assurance processes, because just deploying the fix to production could have made the things even worse.

There is no solution in the world which was found in a week time would take months to complete QA/QC procedures. We are not talking about a nuclear reactor here and even there it doesn't take that long. The bug has been there for how long, 3 months or longer? In this case, what EV1N means is, either they don't have enough QA personnel to spare time for this bug as they are busy with other things or they have enough QA personnel but fixing the bug is the 50th item in their list.

 

Who appointed this guy as a regional director, seriously?