Warships Today Rating - a WoWS rating, and warships.today

[Rodrigopine 184]

29 minutes ago, Das_Schlippo said:

I have been getting this error every day for the past week.

Latest snapshot not available. Either the player has hidden his or her statistics or connection to WarGaming has failed.

If this is your profile and you'd like to access it, please go to your profile at the WarGaming site and click on 'Profile Privacy' below your service record level to change the setting to public.

Then wait around 30 minutes and check this page again.

Ditto. Quite annoying!

[map381 264]

Generally how long after new ships are introduced does it take for stats to level out?  I was looking as the Bismark stats, there's only 9 people on the NA server that are Uni on it, with 0 supers.  I find that odd.  Or I'm jsut used to tank stats still that have more supers

[WarshipsToday 40]

We tried to fix some issues with Yesterday/Today detection and had broken the "is profile hidden" functionality for some users. Apologies for this. It should be fixed now.

[Jaegaer 180]

In WoT (which uses a similar method) it would take a good 6 to 8 months before the recency bias would be completely gone. Right now they don't even bother giving a tank expected values before 2-3 months have passed.

In ships, I would wager, the recency effect is a bit smaller but therefore the time to get a statistical amount is longer (bc fewer battles played).

[BoilerBandsman 427]

German BBs are super tough statistically because their entire existence has been the heart (and partial cause) of the BB meta. The baseline is entirely set from high-HP games. 

[GDavid 2]

Seems to have changed the default view from 1 : 7 : 30 : (total battles).

Just look at the two previous posts ^^

Is there an option to reset the sig back to default?

[Birkovic 135]

Look mommy I've gone blue overall!

[WarshipsToday 40]

3 hours ago, GDavid said:

Seems to have changed the default view from 1 : 7 : 30 : (total battles).

Just look at the two previous posts ^^

Is there an option to reset the sig back to default?

No, no changes in that regard.

However, we ran out of disk space a few days back and so didn't collect overnight snapshots while that happened. Therefore, you have gaps in snapshots and the usual intervals aren't available. It should fix itself over time as new snapshots are collected.

Sorry about that.

[GDavid 2]

Aha, thankyou for the quick reply....

[WarshipsToday 40]

New feature - statistics distribution (pseudo-)histogram charts now shown in vehicle page - with a reference point for the stats of the current user, if available.

Feedback very welcome.

[map381 264]

https://na.warships.today/vehicle/4181669680/Bismarck

just a quick bug.  looks like lots of multiple readings.  seeing the same players with just a few battle difference.  2 weeks, pvp, min 100 battles.  seeing guys with 195, then right below that one same guy, 199 battles

[WarshipsToday 40]

1 hour ago, map381 said:

https://na.warships.today/vehicle/4181669680/Bismarck

just a quick bug.  looks like lots of multiple readings.  seeing the same players with just a few battle difference.  2 weeks, pvp, min 100 battles.  seeing guys with 195, then right below that one same guy, 199 battles

Thanks for letting us know.

This sometimes happens during re-calculation (old values still not deleted, new values already present). 

[cheereereerios 44]

How are things going to work with the revamped IJN DD line? EDIT: To clarify, I mean in the realm of stats-collection. Looks like they are considering them different (Fubuki VIII and Fubuki VI).

So much confusion possible, depending on what WG offers for the stats? Would the new Fubuki be compared with the old Fubuki? Would a new Mutsuki be compared to the old one, or the current Minekaze, and/or etc etc etc?

(I realize all that can be done is hoping WG releases detailed and broken out stats via the API...)

[Jarkorsis 92]

Look at many YouTube vids. Read the web site.Listen to Dasha. The new setup appears to be a mixed bag. I will have to play them and see. 

[BiggieD61 364]

The update broke the Warships Today site, i imagine it will take a while to sort out the tier and spec changes from the new IJN line revamp.

[map381 264]

i'm assuming the patch done broke things?

[BiggieD61 364]

Yeah, you have ships with the same name but now at different tiers - You have a bunch of new ships in the place of old ones, and I imagine that the ID numbers of old ships are different even if they have the same name.  It's like the Russians are hacking WoWs instead of our election ... lol ....

[cheereereerios 44]

On 12/1/2016 at 6:26 PM, BiggieD61 said:

Yeah, you have ships with the same name but now at different tiers - You have a bunch of new ships in the place of old ones, and I imagine that the ID numbers of old ships are different even if they have the same name.  It's like the Russians are hacking WoWs instead of our election ... lol ....

Yeah, basically all of the old stats for the re-tiered ships *poof*

[WarshipsToday 40]

The different IDs are actually a very nice touch from WG, it makes it easier to track these sort of extensive "ship encyclopedia" changes, and otherwise WTR would be affected (but it's fine now).

One issue we've run into is that the old ship images & encyclopedia values have been removed.

Everyone will just have two ships now in their profile - old and new (can be distinguished by the different tiers).

Does anyone see any more issues on warships.today?

[map381 264]

Interesting, my signature gaps are 1, 30, 223, 409 days..... 

[How_Terrible 529]

5 minutes ago, map381 said:

Interesting, my signature gaps are 1, 30, 223, 409 days..... 

I wish we had some sort of standardized signature interval like WotLabs does.

[SoliDeoGloria 417]

1 hour ago, How_Terrible said:

I wish we had some sort of standardized signature interval like WotLabs does.

Do it over intervals like 25, 50, 100, and 500 battles, and then overall

[map381 264]

2 hours ago, How_Terrible said:

I wish we had some sort of standardized signature interval like WotLabs does.

I'd be ok with 1 day 7 60 overall

[How_Terrible 529]

1 hour ago, SoliDeoGloria said:

Do it over intervals like 25, 50, 100, and 500 battles, and then overall

 

39 minutes ago, map381 said:

I'd be ok with 1 day 7 60 overall

Either of these would work nicely.

[BiggieD61 364]

Plus 1 to the previous 4 posts, the moving "goal line" effect of variable interval days can be frustrating to people who are trying to improve - see some sunlight - and then get thrown back with an odd interval of the last 1300 games over 407 days ( How Terrible's numbers are lovely, but for a lot of people, it would be almost like looking at their overalls ..)