Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'warships'.
Found 2 results
I am curious if there is any interest among the WNx veterans about developing a Player Rating for World of Warships. The two main statistical websites have basically defaulted to using the simplistic %damage, %kills, %win rate as the three data sets they extract from the API. Warships Today rating system (WTR): https://na.warships.today/help/warships_today_rating Wows Numbers rating (PR): https://na.wows-numbers.com/personal/rating Recent work on the wows-numbers site shows their is more data available from the WG api than before - spotting damage, ship spots, kill/death ratio, survival rate, are all showing up in the more comprehensive wows-numbers site, but are not being used in the rating for being superfluous according to the site owner. To a certain extent, I do agree, the best players are the best at PR and WTR based on just those 3 numbers, and while it is abusable by seal clubbing or overplaying ships with low expected values, it's easily detectable by a clan commander. I am more interested in seeing if there is any interest in driving Warships player traffic to this site by developing the preeminent rating system. Maybe everyone is content to let the site fade out as World of Tanks slowly fades from the scene, but there is a very active and dedicated player group for warships, and it has not peeked yet, developing the best rating system would drive traffic here, if that is even something that Solono wants. In any case, I wanted to put this thought out there. I am a mathematical neophyte to be sure, but it is interesting to me to watch how the rating mechanisms come into existence, and it seems like this might be an opportunity to bring new enthusiasm back to wotlabs.
So i've tried comparing the fully upgraded Colorado vs the fully upgraded Nagato (which I own), and I'd like to say that the decision between which of them is the better isn't actually as clear cut as people think - Colorado actually has good AA compared to Nagato's lackluster AA which has gotten me killed countless times, since both are so slow you generally get left behind by cruiser pubbies and have to fend against CV Torp attacks by yourself. Colorado's citadels are also much harder to hit if you compare them to Nagato's... in fact; Nagato seems to take a lot more citadel damage (they're bigger? that could be said for most IJN ships in comparison to their USN counterparts in fact). This leaves the guns; where Nagato arguably comes out on top, alongside having a much better quality of life grind because you begin with 19.5km range and the stock shells aren't that bad. If you list it down to small points... Nagato has arguably better guns, better secondaries, and more health and a slight edge on maneuverability. Colorado has better AA, better defenses, and citadel protection. I've gone in a training room and tested their protection from my Amagi's 410cm, and the Colorado received way less citadel hits on the 20+ salvoes I fired at them compared to Nagato ships that just bit the dust quickly. Am I missing something? Because both seem to be pretty good. The lower Health is a problem potentially, but the Colorado's citadels being much harder to hit appear to indicate that it doesn't need that HP as much as Nagato does.