Lusches AH Stats Megathread

[Vinkman]

With the Cv cruising just off their target, carrier planes will get many sorties (and much combat) in short time, while not being used much in pure land based combat. That's why the usage of bomb trucks like the F4U-1D and the F6F is quite high.

And 12548 was an oversight, it's the F4U-1D

that explains it, I avoid CV's like the plague.

[Lusche]

GV usage then and now

The recent discussion about "too much GV" motivated me to take another look at GV usage. As shown at different occasions earlier it's undeniable that we do have more GV activity these days than back in the day (it's a continuous trend).
But how is that GV usage distributed? Are players generally using vehicles more across the board, or do we have much more "tank only" players? And is it really that much more?

For that reason, I sampled all active pilots (=all pilot ID with at least one kill or death in anything) of tour 70 (my first tour, Nov 2005) and tour 162; and recorded how much of their play time they did spend in GV:



Explanation:
X-axis has all the players in each tour (put to a percentage scale for better comparison), y-axis is shown % of their time spend in GV.

Interpretation:
As you can see, about the same 20-25% had not time in GV at all (But that includes a lot of 2-weekers just doing one or two plane sorties before giving the game up again)
The share of players spending almost all of their time in GV has increased, but they are still a very small minority. It also seems that the number of players who don't care about that GV crap has not really changed much. But the players who took a 'combined arms' approach, i.e. spending some of their time in GV are just doing more of it.

(It has to be noted that the population of t70 and t162 are not the same people. I'd guess only few players today have been around eight years before, but of course I have no idea how many.)

 

[bozon]

It also seems that the number of players who don't care about that GV crap has not really changed much. But the players who took a 'combined arms' approach, i.e. spending some of their time in GV are just doing more of it.

'Combined arms' often means a sortie or two (suicidal in many occasions) to pork the ords/VH and then jump into GVs.

The graph shows that the fraction of players who spend more than 50% of their time in GVs has doubled. True, they are "only" 15% of the population.

[TDeacon]

'Combined arms' often means a sortie or two (suicidal in many occasions) to pork the ords/VH and then jump into GVs.

The graph shows that the fraction of players who spend more than 50% of their time in GVs has doubled. True, they are "only" 15% of the population.

From the graph, I would correct that to say "the fraction of players who spend more than 50% of their time in GVs has increased by 40%".  Your "Doubled" means increased by 100%, and the graph doesn't show this.  

MH

[Lusche]

'Combined arms' often means a sortie or two (suicidal in many occasions) to pork the ords/VH and then jump into GVs.

One with that profile would still end up at something like 80-90% time in GV, which only very few players do.
And furthermore, I'm not entirely convinced that thos who spend most of their time in planes do fly much different or 'better'

[Kingpin]

From the graph, I would correct that to say "the fraction of players who spend more than 50% of their time in GVs has increased by 40%".  Your "Doubled" means increased by 100%, and the graph doesn't show this.  

MH

If I am reading the graph correctly, it does show this.

If you look at the 50% horizontal (y-axis) line of time in GVs, you can see where it hits the curve for the earlier tour is at about 7 or 8% of the player base that spent half or more of their time in GVs.  For the recent tour, it is closer to 14% or 15% spending half or more of their time in GVs.

So, I think he would be correct in stating that it has nearly doubled.  If the numbers are 7% and 14%, then it has exactly doubled.

[715]

From interpolation of a blown up plot: Tour 70 crosses 50% at 92.3% (7.7%) and Tour 162 crosses at 85.1% (14.9%) so it's 14.9/7.7 = 1.93 or 93% increase.

[Lusche]

From interpolation of a blown up plot: Tour 70 crosses 50% at 92.3% (7.7%) and Tour 162 crosses at 85.1% (14.9%) so it's 14.9/7.7 = 1.93 or 93% increase.

Good eye, that's almost the exact numbers 

[Ardy123]

Graph is wrong... If a player spends 100% of the time in a GV they cannot be categorized as pilots  

That being said,  The graph doesn't make sense to me. While I would expect 50% of the player base to spend 10% of their time in a GV, going further down the X-axis, I don't see how then subsequently 90% of the pilots spending 65% of their time in a GV. Its almost like the X Axis is swapped as I would expect 1% of the tour players to spend 90% of their time in a GV not 99% of the players spending 90% of their time in a GV.

[Lusche]

While I would expect 50% of the player base to spend 10% of their time in a GV, going further down the X-axis, I don't see how then subsequently 90% of the pilots spending 65% of their time in a GV.

It's not 90% of the pilots. The X axis is just all pilots of the tour, and 90% are spending less than 65% of their time in GV, while 10% are spending at least that much of their time in GV.

Instead of % of pilots I could also have labeled it with pilot 1, 2, 3 or the actual names. I had to use percentages to get both tours to the same scale, having different number of pilot IDs.

[Vinkman]

It's not 90% of the pilots. The X axis is just all pilots of the tour, and 90% are spending less than 65% of their time in GV, while 10% are spending at least that much of their time in GV.

Instead of % of pilots I could also have labeled it with pilot 1, 2, 3 or the actual names. I had to use percentages to get both tours to the same scale, having different number of pilot IDs.

The plot is a cumulative histogram. If the X-axis were "Spent this percent of their time in a GV" and the Y-xis were "Percentage of players" Then the area under the graph would sum to 100% and graph would look like a bell curve. Then when overlaid you would see shift to the right for Tour 162. Might be a more intuitive graph. 

[Lusche]

A few minutes ago I was asked by a player "Is it true that most perks are made by bombing GV instead of shooting down other planes in air combat"

A question that might be interesting for others as well, so I give the answer in public:

IMHO,no. Not even close.

Taking all LW arena kills for the 8 finished tours in this year so far, we can calculate the theoretical raw perk gains (at perk bonus 1.0, no landing modifiers and current ENY settings) for each plane and each kill type. (As you know, perks gained = (ENY killer / ENY killed) * perk bonus * landing modifier)
This way, we get the theo. perk gain for P-51s killing other P-51s, Tigers, B-29s and if we sum it all up, the perk gain for fighter killing planes, fighter killing GV, bomber killing planes... and so on.

Result:



The actual perk gain is different from that, as it depends on the modifiers on time of the kill, but the relation between categories will not be changed radically. And of course, bombers will have a much higher perk gain by the results of their bombings, but I can't even estimate a number for that.

It has to be noted that not only the number of A2A kills is much higher than the number of A2G kills, but also the perk gain per kill is less for A2G kills, as GV have generally a higher ENY than planes.

[Karnak]

It strikes me as absurd that the question was even asked given the small fraction of GVs that are killed by aircraft as compared to the number of GVs killed by other GVs.

I'm guessing it was by somebody who has heard the repeated complaints about "Lancstukas" and such or somebody who GVs a lot and is one of the guys who complains about "Lancstukas" a lot.

[Lusche]

It strikes me as absurd that the question was even asked given the small fraction of GVs that are killed by aircraft as compared to the number of GVs killed by other GVs.

Even if one knewthat most GV are killed by GV, they still could have made up most of the plane's kill tally (and perk balance)

But in the end, we have a small group of people making any kind of stuff up on the fly to 'prove' their point, throwing around all kinds of 'facts' on 200 and BBS, and a rather large group of people who may believe stuff they hear because they just never had taken a look at the stats themselves. And it's not always that easy, I certainly don't expect from the average player to waste his spare time by clicking on all the data links and compile kill stats. I' guess most players are glad to have the odd hour available to play, not to crunch numbers.

And that's one of the resons why I'm doing this thread 

[Tank-Ace]

Lusche, I'm curious, could you plot the statistical usage of perk units as their costs decrease, or is the data simply not available to you?