Jump to content


Unofficial EU Server Statistics

Data from 26. November 2012

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
1138 replies to this topic

HarryStotle #41 Posted 16 November 2011 - 11:52 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 19936 battles
  • 1,022
  • Member since:
    09-16-2010

View PostFrankyK, on 16 November 2011 - 07:32 AM, said:

Interesting stats, thanks for the info. At least we know now that the upcoming nerf of the E-Series has no balance/gameplay reasons, but only "historical" reasons. ;)


Overlord said the ''Historical Experts'' had speculated the Transmission wouldn't fit. So it's actually for 'Speculative' reasons which is at least a new way to justify a nerf :Smile_harp:

Interesting post Snib. WG should give you a job. +500

Naeron66 #42 Posted 16 November 2011 - 11:55 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Veteran
  • 8504 battles
  • 1,924
  • Member since:
    11-12-2010

View PostPzGrenKdr, on 16 November 2011 - 08:36 AM, said:

E-50 performe worser than other T) mediums but will be nerved in v0.7, great.

The performance figures for the E-50 are a little unreliable because it inherited the stats of the Panther 2 when it replaced it as a Tier 9. You would need to look at stats that show performance after that patch only to get an accurate picture.

View PostJimmyBond, on 16 November 2011 - 09:25 AM, said:

Not forgetting the E75 - which has consistently been stated to be the strongest tier 9 heavy tank... yet lo and behold its the IS4 that comes out on top!
So couple that with the nerf to make every other hit to the front of the E75 blow the engine, the IS4 will reign supreme by miles once again!

So now thats the E50 and E75 destroyed in one fell swoop... another tremendous move to balance tanks that need boosting not nerfing????????????

Again not an wholly accurate comment. The IS-4 win rate above includes the months when it was certainly the best T9 Heavy (as a comparison with the VK4502P and the T34 shows) as well as the months that it has been up against the E-75.

In Farrek's spreadsheet which has data from a period of about 1.5 months the win rate of the IS-4 was slowly dropping, which would indeed imply its no longer the best Tier 9.

Ry0ken #43 Posted 16 November 2011 - 11:59 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 12168 battles
  • 757
  • Member since:
    02-07-2011

View PostNaeron66, on 16 November 2011 - 11:55 AM, said:

The performance figures for the E-50 are a little unreliable because it inherited the stats of the Panther 2 when it replaced it as a Tier 9. You would need to look at stats that show performance after that patch only to get an accurate picture.
Ok, but when the Panther II underperformed because of the front transition/gears, how will the similar setup not make the E-50 as bad as the Panther II?

Maj_Solo #44 Posted 16 November 2011 - 12:05 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 56953 battles
  • 2,237
  • [SWE] SWE
  • Member since:
    06-09-2011
that the stats are like this just proves it is not random. MM is interfering inflicting losses on successful players.

at least MM is trying to. some can bubble up to 60% wins and a few up to 70% but that is how far they can get before MM brings them down.
not that MM did not try as soon as they got above 50%.

Naeron66 #45 Posted 16 November 2011 - 12:10 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Veteran
  • 8504 battles
  • 1,924
  • Member since:
    11-12-2010

View PostRy0ken, on 16 November 2011 - 11:59 AM, said:

Ok, but when the Panther II underperformed because of the front transition/gears, how will the similar setup not make the E-50 as bad as the Panther II?

It also underperformed because it had poor armour for a Tier 9 (remember they left the armour alone when they dropped it to Tier 8), I also think that it did not have the same top gun as the E-50 (didnt have one before the change so I cant be sure).

I play the P2 quite regularly (as I am aiming for the E-50) and it doesn't burn that often for me.

Paaranoja #46 Posted 16 November 2011 - 12:10 PM

    Captain

  • Beta Tester
  • 31747 battles
  • 2,215
  • [DAVAI] DAVAI
  • Member since:
    11-03-2010

View PostRy0ken, on 16 November 2011 - 11:59 AM, said:

Ok, but when the Panther II underperformed because of the front transition/gears, how will the similar setup not make the E-50 as bad as the Panther II?


Panther 2 had weaker armor, less slope, weaker turret, less top speed AND frontal gearbox, that's why he was under preforming. Front gearbox was not the only factor that lowed p2 stats ;)

Edit: Naeron66 beat me to the point

Ry0ken #47 Posted 16 November 2011 - 12:17 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 12168 battles
  • 757
  • Member since:
    02-07-2011

View PostNaeron66, on 16 November 2011 - 12:10 PM, said:

It also underperformed because it had poor armour for a Tier 9 (remember they left the armour alone when they dropped it to Tier 8), I also think that it did not have the same top gun as the E-50 (didnt have one before the change so I cant be sure).

I play the P2 quite regularly (as I am aiming for the E-50) and it doesn't burn that often for me.
Ok then lets hope the E-50 can still take a beating after the front transmission change.

I to play the P2 often, as I am a Fan of the Panther series and also aim for the E-50. I also observed that it did not burn that often and changed the fire extinguisher for some silver fuel to get more power and acceleration as this is a weak spot. Therefore it very hard to get an enginehit from the front! and loose half of the engines power. Even more harsh as the manoeuvrability of the Panther series is not that good and showing the front to the enemy coz of the low side armor is often the only tactic to employ as you can not circle or play hull down due to the bad gun depression.

Rollup #48 Posted 16 November 2011 - 12:27 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 35638 battles
  • 799
  • Member since:
    08-27-2011
Thanks very much for this Snib.

The E75 / E100 stats are bound to be off. Due to their later release they have less battles played and therefore the effect of not having all the modules will be greater, especially the E100. As the poll in Overlord's blog  confirms, most players believe that the E100 is the most powerful T10. Over time that will be reflected (transmission fires notwithstanding

There are lots of reasons why the stats may not be a perfect indicator of strength, but upgrades are the major one. This post does give you a great insight into balance though.

SuperBidi #49 Posted 16 November 2011 - 12:34 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 32193 battles
  • 7,447
  • [MADFR] MADFR
  • Member since:
    05-31-2011

View PostSnib, on 16 November 2011 - 04:04 AM, said:

That means over 42% of all accounts created are never used. Talk about serious attention disorder. I'm wondering if the length of the download is putting potential players off here.

Configurations problems more than download time.
WoT is really heavy on memory, and there are some bugs happening sometimes.
You can also add network configuration problems (if you have a strong network firewall that kicks WoT).

Snib #50 Posted 16 November 2011 - 01:30 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Beta Tester
  • 18888 battles
  • 3,307
  • Member since:
    07-16-2010
Wow, this thread has taken off quick.

One big reminder, even though it's printed all over the OP: These are stats for the server's lifetime, not stats for the situation at this minute right now. Once I did my next run in a few weeks (I'll probably do monthly snapshots, haven't decided yet), I can give you stats only for that specific time-frame between now and then, they will be more meaningful. Please refer to farrek22's thread for data for the last two weeks of September only.

Added some new stats to the account stats section:
Spoiler                     

I also amended the avg and highest XP sections with some examples of the best values (if the players with the highest single XP want to get listed by name they'll have to tell me, otherwise I'll keep this anonymous):
Spoiler                     

View Postadilehanceanu, on 16 November 2011 - 07:58 AM, said:

Either I'm blind or you based the above affirmation on not shown data in you post, but I see no significant difference between Alpha and non-Alpha :).
The alpha comes up with a 49.81% win ratio, the non-alpha with 48.17%. Considering all values are generally fairly close, it's a notable difference. Of course there are not that many players of these tanks to begin with, same as for some other tanks, so the statistical value of all these numbers is to be handled with care.

View PostStimpeltje, on 16 November 2011 - 10:17 AM, said:

Do u also have numbers of how many battles were played with each nation (in numbers and/or %). This could be of some importance when u want to compare those average win/loss ratios.
Good suggestion, added to the OP along with battles per tier.

View PostStimpeltje, on 16 November 2011 - 11:04 AM, said:

Cant it just be that the type 59 gets a better matchmaking? According to the MM chart it doesnt meet tier 9 meds and tier 10 heavy's. Even tier 7 meds can get into battles with those tanks.

When claiming the truth, remember to view all the aspects.
Point taken, wording adjusted. ;) The match-making argument can be made for nearly all premium tanks, however. The Type 59 is in exactly the same battle tier bracket as the KV-5, but they are at opposite ends of the performance spectrum.

View Postloco_chico, on 16 November 2011 - 11:41 AM, said:

ps. at the end he can alwayas say: "its a fake guys, it was a joke" and get tons on -1 :)
Hmm, tempting. :lol:
But unless my coding failed, the data should be accurate.

View PostRollup, on 16 November 2011 - 12:27 PM, said:

The E75 / E100 stats are bound to be off. Due to their later release they have less battles played and therefore the effect of not having all the modules will be greater, especially the E100. As the poll in Overlord's blog  confirms, most players believe that the E100 is the most powerful T10. Over time that will be reflected (transmission fires notwithstanding

There are lots of reasons why the stats may not be a perfect indicator of strength, but upgrades are the major one. This post does give you a great insight into balance though.
As to upgrades, you'll notice I used only data from players with at least 150 battles to mitigate the impact of that, and I did do a test with > 250 battles and the ranking didn't change. But all stats are off because they cover the server's lifetime at the moment, and all tier 10's did get rebalanced last patch - of course most battles for the other tier 10's were still from before that rebalancing, while the E-100 is new.

Longtomsilver #51 Posted 16 November 2011 - 01:40 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 19687 battles
  • 1,049
  • Member since:
    08-11-2011

View Postiztok, on 16 November 2011 - 11:33 AM, said:

Hi!

Please remember that win most of the time means you did more damage to them than they did to you. ;)

BR,  Iztok

No, it means your "team" did more damage than the other.

If you get matched against clanmembers again and again with a lot of noobs in your own team, your win ratio will go down, no matter wich tank you have or how high your skill is.
Does it mean your tank is bad? or your skill is low? no!

At least we are talking about 0-5% diff. in win/loss ratio, that's not that much to whine about.

Wriothesley #52 Posted 16 November 2011 - 01:47 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 50 battles
  • 1,066
  • [1BP] 1BP
  • Member since:
    01-28-2011
And WG.net will still ignore issues with under-performing tanks, since it is "unofficial", and they know better, and they have better historians and better history books etc.

Last announced changes also indictaes, that they have better tank engineers then Germany during II WW...

yourgreatestfear #53 Posted 16 November 2011 - 02:31 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 31425 battles
  • 1,050
  • Member since:
    04-21-2011
@OP
Why are you statistics-people always so obsessed with win- or killratio?
Those statistics dont say if its the tank, the matchmaker or the many changes responsible for the statistic.

A tank still can be crap in comparison to its direct challenger from another nation, but keeps winning (probably early destroyed) because the matchmaker puts him in well compensating collection of allied tanks.
A well balanced tank also can be bad in win/killratio, because matchmaker tends to set him up against much heavier guns from opposing tanks / against overarmored opponents which cant be penetrated.

Also i can see some few tanks which are bad in comparison to its direct competition AND always end up facing huge Gun/armordifferences to its opponents.

A matchmaker who regulary puts a team full of TD vs Battletanks or strictly sorts all tanks of one specific model to the same side doesnt really helps to make it easier. And lets not forget that certain updates copied statistics from one tank to another (for example the Panther I/II changes).

And that all tanks together per nation end up in a well balanced picture doesnt tell us anything, since overpowered lowlevel tanks easily could compensate for underpowered highlevel tanks. Also could the bias for one nation easily be compensated by a newer update which did the same failure in reverse. To conclude from all time server statistics that there is no problem in Balance is just shortsighted.

So my point is: Thumbs up for all the work!
... if you really want to get substancial conclusions please come with numbers which really reflect the performance of the tank not the general teamwork or matchmaker ... or dont make conclusions about balance/bias at all.
The numbers which would be helpful are survivalrate, damage/battle, experience/battle for each tanktype and updateversion to silence or to proof all the blame out there.

I wouldnt waste my time trying tbh.

TankkiPoju #54 Posted 16 November 2011 - 02:32 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 17586 battles
  • 5,304
  • Member since:
    05-20-2011
Poor KV-5. If only it had a little bit better penetration...

Snib #55 Posted 16 November 2011 - 02:47 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Beta Tester
  • 18888 battles
  • 3,307
  • Member since:
    07-16-2010

View Postyourgreatestfear, on 16 November 2011 - 02:31 PM, said:

@OP
Why are you statistics-people always so obsessed with win- or killratio?
Those statistics dont say if its the tank, the matchmaker or the many changes responsible for the statistic.
Well, nobody forces you to read it, many people find it interesting.

In a truly random environment win ratio is the only stat to measure the impact a single tank has on the team as a whole. Match-making is factored into that. However, we do of course not have a truly random environment with non-random factors like platooning, usage in tank companies and clan wars, usage of gold ammo (see VK3601H), different tank configurations (typically "derp" gun or AP gun), an exceptional number of untalented players drawn to a single tank, etc. It's still the best we have available (it's actually the only stat we have available on a per-tank basis), so that's why I'm looking at it. Note that I mentioned all over the OP that the data currently covers the server's life-time and thus many of it is pointless at this time due to tank replacements and rebalancing.

You also conveniently skipped over the fact that win ratio analysis was only a small part of my post. Again, nobody forces you to read it, I'd still have done it if nobody was interested at all, because myself I am. ;)

LiannaSilverwind #56 Posted 16 November 2011 - 03:26 PM

    Veteran

  • Veteran
  • 5460 battles
  • 957
  • [JOKE] JOKE
  • Member since:
    07-12-2010
Thank you very much Snib!

Thread added to Where to section.  :Smile_honoring:

Wriothesley #57 Posted 16 November 2011 - 04:49 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 50 battles
  • 1,066
  • [1BP] 1BP
  • Member since:
    01-28-2011
Any chanse for statistics for each tank, what is the correlate between average player's win/lost and on specific tank?

Meredyth #58 Posted 16 November 2011 - 05:02 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 7738 battles
  • 130
  • [DUDS] DUDS
  • Member since:
    07-28-2011
Any stats on the differences between premium and non-premium players?

c4ution #59 Posted 16 November 2011 - 05:04 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 2067 battles
  • 119
  • Member since:
    04-10-2011
A lot more people would play this game if it didn't take 1000's of games in underpowered and/or redundant tanks just to get to something half decent.

Grinding to the M6 and subsequently the T29 on the US tech tree was soul destroying, with the exception of the m4 sherman with 105mm he gun, however since acquiring these tanks I have had a much more enjoyable experience.

I have just started down the german tech tree(I want to try the tiger and tiger II) and again you're faced with a long, joyless grind in poor tanks just to get to something half decent, I'm currently in the PzIII ausf A and without premium I'm getting like 200ish xp per battle on a good day and need 4000xp to get the PzIII, which imo is entirely too much.

This game is similar to vanilla world of warcraft, where you had to play for 12 hours a day every day doing mindless quest grinds to get your character to the maximum level in an acceptable amount of time and get to the fun stuff.

The fun in this game IMO starts at tier 5 onwards and getting to tier 5 should be considerably quicker.

Removing quite a few of what I would call, 'redundant' tanks and/or lowering the xp required to advance up the tree's to at least tier 5 would go a long way to making people stick with the game.

Also you might want to remove Tracks from the list of upgrades, they only serve as another anti-fun time sink, delaying you from getting the useful upgrades, such as gun, turret, engine.

sword_of_Damocles #60 Posted 16 November 2011 - 05:11 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 57469 battles
  • 5,285
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    03-26-2011
Splendid topic snib thank you very much :Smile_great:
+1 is very few for your effort :Smile-hiding:




3 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users