Assassin7

Elimination: Tier 9 - 2018

240 posts in this topic

4 hours ago, Hellvn said:

I don’t recall the 430v2 catching fire, losing an engine or being ammo racked EVERY SINGLE FUCKING TIME it was hit though.

What I do recall was the 430 V2 being the better heavy and T-10 the better medium. Now every time when I look at my 430 V2 gathering dust in my garage I want to cry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, hazzgar said:

263 is just bad because the gun is shit. It's fairly mobile. 

 

btw. Just checked armor use values. t95 bounces more % of shots than bobject. 

Yet the 263 is statistically better for a player's stats from 46%+

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Kolni said:

ou do realise that most of this playerbase are actually more useful just pressing triple R in a T95 going straight over Mali field doing 0 damage than they would be in any other tank in the entire game? Soaks up damage, hard to pen from distance, decent gun and now that mobility got boosted it's really the average players perfect tank. 

Very much so. And its annoying when that player is also running Vents, food, double reps, and a Tool Box w/ a 100% repair crew. Your entire team stops to shoot it, cause...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, MagicalFlyingFox said:

The issue with this thread here is that there is no scope besides 'your best' and 'your worst'. This makes this thread an entirely subjective view on what you think is the best and worst tier 9.

 

If we go by what is the best and worst for the average WoT player, we'd end up with tanks like the T95 being on top which is fair enough because it is a very powerful tank in the game right now. Hell, the Mauschen hasn't even gotten a mention yet and that is also one of the most powerful tanks. 

 

Can we just go back to upvoting what is the best and worst tank for ourselves instead of debating about how powerful a tank currently is in this meta?
There would be no real point to this thread if it were just a "which is the objectively best tank in the current meta". 

What I was saying is that tank viability is subjective, for half the playerbase the T95 is probably the best tank even though many don't like it and those who can pull the winrates to make it fall off clearly will do better in other tanks will keep making it so that votes are based on experience and purely subjective. It's an elimination game of what you think is the best tank, not what you know is.

Going by statistics isn't a good idea when it comes to the real viability either, the top of the top is such a small part of the playerbase (10-20 people on EU basically when I stopped) that them being huge outliers won't affect the stats even for super unis alone. Super uni cut-off is at 2900, and people are pulling literally double that. That's quite a bit of a higher standard where the same general ideas don't apply in the same way. When you reach the point that you don't have to think about what tank you're playing and how to play it but playing the map and situation alone, things change a lot. Mobility value goes through the roof but gun stats are still on top. Armour is valued more the lower you go, the thing is that super unicum thresholds are so far below how good the best of the best actually are, so armour value at super uni is still high. Armour value at 5-5,5k DPG standards are much less even if they still exist. SConq isn't ahead in WR despite being objectively the best tank for literally the entirety of the playerbase at T10 that tryhards with how favoured everything is for it - but other tanks with mobility beat it at the very top in both DPG and WR with SConq around 70% and RUmeds/M48 among others and even 50B at 75%. Even if it's very few people to call it real statistics, the same thing happens for enough tanks among the same players to not be a coincidence which is why I've always thought that these treads with subjective thoughts are interesting. You could just pull a vBAddict avg for a general idea (where the IS-4 would be ridiculously good which no one in their right mind would ever play today) of what tanks perform well but it doesn't show what the absolute best players perform the best in - which is the real thing when it comes to "viability". I have absolutely no problem with people voting for what they like, but it isn't the best because how can you know what's best for anyone else but yourself if you're not the best player around? King of the hill decides what's the best because they play the best so their results are the ones that matter. 

Edited by Kolni

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, MagicalFlyingFox said:

Yet the 263 is statistically better for a player's stats from 46%+

Looking at recent curves it doesn't help players <54%. Where do you source your curves data from? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Kolni said:

I have absolutely no problem with people voting for what they like, but it isn't the best because how can you know what's best for anyone else but yourself if you're not the best player around? King of the hill decides what's the best because they play the best so their results are the ones that matter. 

I vehemently disagree with the reasoning that best for best players = best for all players; but there is truth in the observation that good players can tell what tanks are good for bads and above, but not the other way round. As has been noted, the methodology and metrics of this elimination thingie is unclear, so it will probably boil down to: wotlabs' favourite tier 9s: the elimination

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Kolni said:

You do realise that most of this playerbase are actually more useful just pressing triple R in a T95 going straight over Mali field doing 0 damage than they would be in any other tank in the entire game? Soaks up damage, hard to pen from distance, decent gun and now that mobility got boosted it's really the average players perfect tank. 

Basically half of the playerbase can't pull 1800+ DPG on T10s, just let that sink in on how ridiculously bad that is and it'll start to make sense how stupid tanks for stupid people is a viable solution. WG just can't balance stupid tanks and make the stupid tanks good and we get Type 5s because of how ridiculously bad these players are that need that type of tank to even have any sort of chance at all to influence the outcome of one of a hundred games. That's literally how bad they are

The thing is t95 overperforms for people 55-63% so people who pull 2200 dpg in t9s. Maybe not great but people who you can rely on in MOST (Key word here) situations. T95 it's not good for you but that's because you are in the top what? 20-50 players? I'd argue it's still good for top5000 wot players.

 

Also remember it depends on what we are talking about here. What was disputed was if t95 was good. What is best for best players is preference but saying t95 sucks is idiotic since even for you it will perform vastly better than many other tanks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, lavawing said:

I vehemently disagree with the reasoning that best for best players = best for all players;

That's not what I was saying. Best tanks for the best players are the best tanks because those are the tanks that give the most room for your own potential, simple as that. Whether that is the best tank for you specifically at this moment or at that skill level or even for 99% of the playerbase still won't make that go away. General meta and top meta have never been the same. Emu87 was playing M46 back when people thought it sucked, eventually people learned and realised that it was pretty good. Same thing with EJ and his Leo 1 playstyle (more the playstyle specifically than the tank, Leo 1 was pretty meta back then), Kewei with JP2, Garbads KV-5, unknwn in Tiger II, IMeeGo in STB-1 and so on and on and on. Single players breaking meta on their own and eventually people caught up, it's just that nobody was good enough to replicate it at that point but it doesn't change that they took a tank regarded as bad/average and made it top tier on skill alone. The tank was good all along but people just didn't know how to play it. These are single players that basically changed meta on their own as a single player. It matters. 

23 minutes ago, hazzgar said:

even for you it will perform vastly better than many other tanks. 

I actually quite like the T95 as the tank it is, but that's a real bad tank for me to play. Only tank I can surely say without a doubt I'll perform worse in is the T9 chinese TD and probably most lights in both DPG/WR. T95 at a high level requires basically flawless initial deployment and tempo awareness along with knowing how to slow engagements down. That alone is something most players haven't even begun to touch upon when it comes to actually dictating tempo that isn't "push forward". It doesn't fit my playstyle, my traits as a player or any of the core things I look for in a tank to be competitive. I'd probably end up around mid 60s in WR because the tank allows for that very well, but hitting 70 or even 80 like I did with the M46? I really doubt it even with perfect play, at this point 65% is actually doable in everything solo that isn't arty or the really bad lights, so the T95 doesn't really stand out when it comes to it. It's right down there with tanks I simply don't perform well in because they don't allow me to do what I want to

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Kolni said:

That's not what I was saying. Best tanks for the best players are the best tanks because those are the tanks that give the most room for your own potential, simple as that. Whether that is the best tank for you specifically at this moment or at that skill level or even for 99% of the playerbase still won't make that go away. General meta and top meta have never been the same. Emu87 was playing M46 back when people thought it sucked, eventually people learned and realised that it was pretty good. Same thing with EJ and his Leo 1 playstyle (more the playstyle specifically than the tank, Leo 1 was pretty meta back then), Kewei with JP2, Garbads KV-5, unknwn in Tiger II, IMeeGo in STB-1 and so on and on and on. Single players breaking meta on their own and eventually people caught up, it's just that nobody was good enough to replicate it at that point but it doesn't change that they took a tank regarded as bad/average and made it top tier on skill alone. The tank was good all along but people just didn't know how to play it. These are single players that basically changed meta on their own as a single player. It matters. 

I actually quite like the T95 as the tank it is, but that's a real bad tank for me to play. Only tank I can surely say without a doubt I'll perform worse in is the T9 chinese TD and probably most lights in both DPG/WR. T95 at a high level requires basically flawless initial deployment and tempo awareness along with knowing how to slow engagements down. That alone is something most players haven't even begun to touch upon when it comes to actually dictating tempo that isn't "push forward". It doesn't fit my playstyle, my traits as a player or any of the core things I look for in a tank to be competitive. I'd probably end up around mid 60s in WR because the tank allows for that very well, but hitting 70 or even 80 like I did with the M46? I really doubt it even with perfect play, at this point 65% is actually doable in everything solo that isn't arty or the really bad lights, so the T95 doesn't really stand out when it comes to it. It's right down there with tanks I simply don't perform well in because they don't allow me to do what I want to

Which is plain wrong given that not every player has the same potential. A best tank for good player may have a high skill floor which prevents players from actually utilising its strengths - what you seem to be saying is that the tank with the highest possible skill ceiling is the best tank, independent of where the skill floor is. You seem to be under the impression that what matters for the best players matters the most, which is a value judgment that to me is just plain wrong. The vast majority of players you see in a game are going to range from bad to moderately decent (i.e. green), and unless you're fighting superunis more than half of the time, it's how good a tank performs in the hands of those players that will make the difference most of the time. 

For argument's sake, I might as well argue that 'Best tanks for the worst players matter the most because these are the tanks that rely least upon the players' own potential, simple as that'. As is reasonably apparent, that (as is best tanks for best players) is a very poor metric.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you guys going to just argue about skill and which tanks are the best or are you going to actually contribute to the elimination?

 

T-10: 26
AMX M4 51:24
T49: 24
T-54: 23

Conqueror:  22+1=23 A good all-around vehicle that deserves to be rated as such.
Type 4 Heavy: 22

WZ-111 1-4: 22 
E50: 21 

E75: 21
AMX 30: 21
T30: 20
T95: 21
M46 Patton: 21
WT Auf Pz. IV: 20
Mauschen: 20
Leopard PTA: 20
Object 704: 20
Object 263: 20
T-54 LW: 20
Object 430: 20
ST-I: 20
Tortoise: 20
Foch: 17
B-C 25t AP: 21
AMX 13 90: 20
Skoda T50: 21 
WZ-132A: 17 
WZ-120: 20 
50TP: 20
STRV 103-0: 20
Standard B: 20
Centurion 7/1: 18
Object 705: 17
Jagdtiger: 17
Conway: 17
VK4502B: 17
Object 257: 17
T54E1: 15
Type 61: 14 
WZ-111G FT: 17-3=14 A shitty, generic Casemate TD at tier 9, really does nothing well other than alpha, there are other far better TD's that do everything better.
Emil II: 11
AMX 50 120: 8

M103: 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

T-10: 26

AMX M4 51:24

T49: 24

T-54: 23

Conqueror: 23

Type 4 Heavy: 22

WZ-111 1-4: 22 

E50: 21 

E75: 21

AMX 30: 21

T30: 20

T95: 21

M46 Patton: 21

WT Auf Pz. IV: 20

Mauschen: 20

Leopard PTA: 20

Object 704: 20

Object 263: 20

T-54 LW: 20

Object 430: 20

ST-I: 20

Tortoise: 20

Foch: 17 - 3 = 14 Low alpha and pen gun, bad armor only on UFP (but weakspots are huge), good mobility. In any meta it's not even a decent tank. 

B-C 25t AP: 21

AMX 13 90: 20

Skoda T50: 21 

WZ-132A: 17 

WZ-120: 20

50TP: 20

STRV 103-0: 20

Standard B: 20

Centurion 7/1: 18 + 1 = 19 Pretty good mobility, bad bloom gun but with amazing final accuracy, existing but not retardproof turret armor and HESH ammo with 210mm pen (it's extremaly good for fun). 

Object 705: 17

Jagdtiger: 17

Conway: 17

VK4502B: 17

Object 257: 17

T54E1: 15

Type 61: 14 

WZ-111G FT: 14

Emil II: 11 

AMX 50 120: 8

M103: 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

T-10: 26

AMX M4 51:24

T49: 24

T-54: 23

Conqueror: 23

Type 4 Heavy: 22

WZ-111 1-4: 22+1 = 23 overshadowed by the 5A as of late but is virtually the same tank tier for tier. gun is derpy, shoot more

E50: 21 

E75: 21

AMX 30: 21

T30: 20

T95: 21

M46 Patton: 21

WT Auf Pz. IV: 20

Mauschen: 20

Leopard PTA: 20

Object 704: 20

Object 263: 20

T-54 LW: 20

Object 430: 20

ST-I: 20

Tortoise: 20

Foch: 14 

B-C 25t AP: 21

AMX 13 90: 20

Skoda T50: 21 

WZ-132A: 17 

WZ-120: 20-3=17 wants to be the 1111111111 but fails in everything that counts. would make a decent tier 8 premium

50TP: 20

STRV 103-0: 20

Standard B: 20

Centurion 7/1: 19 

Object 705: 17

Jagdtiger: 17

Conway: 17

VK4502B: 17

Object 257: 17

T54E1: 15

Type 61: 14 

WZ-111G FT: 14

Emil II: 11 

AMX 50 120: 8

M103: 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Kolni said:

That's not what I was saying. Best tanks for the best players are the best tanks because those are the tanks that give the most room for your own potential, simple as that. Whether that is the best tank for you specifically at this moment or at that skill level or even for 99% of the playerbase still won't make that go away. General meta and top meta have never been the same. Emu87 was playing M46 back when people thought it sucked, eventually people learned and realised that it was pretty good. Same thing with EJ and his Leo 1 playstyle (more the playstyle specifically than the tank, Leo 1 was pretty meta back then), Kewei with JP2, Garbads KV-5, unknwn in Tiger II, IMeeGo in STB-1 and so on and on and on. Single players breaking meta on their own and eventually people caught up, it's just that nobody was good enough to replicate it at that point but it doesn't change that they took a tank regarded as bad/average and made it top tier on skill alone. The tank was good all along but people just didn't know how to play it. These are single players that basically changed meta on their own as a single player. It matters. 

I actually quite like the T95 as the tank it is, but that's a real bad tank for me to play. Only tank I can surely say without a doubt I'll perform worse in is the T9 chinese TD and probably most lights in both DPG/WR. T95 at a high level requires basically flawless initial deployment and tempo awareness along with knowing how to slow engagements down. That alone is something most players haven't even begun to touch upon when it comes to actually dictating tempo that isn't "push forward". It doesn't fit my playstyle, my traits as a player or any of the core things I look for in a tank to be competitive. I'd probably end up around mid 60s in WR because the tank allows for that very well, but hitting 70 or even 80 like I did with the M46? I really doubt it even with perfect play, at this point 65% is actually doable in everything solo that isn't arty or the really bad lights, so the T95 doesn't really stand out when it comes to it. It's right down there with tanks I simply don't perform well in because they don't allow me to do what I want to

Well, when it comes to this a friend of mine managed to 76%/4.9k with tortoise and almost 5k with E-100 and it's not like those tanks were hidden gems or shit like that. Idk how he managed to do it. All I know, he's crazy in this game. And we wouldn't define those 2 as top tanks tier for tier in the meta. It's like Carbon coming and telling 260 is still top because he can still output 5k with it. There are clearly better tanks overall. About the votes, why you wanna instantly go for the best tank rn. If that's the case just delete every tank from the list but T-54/Conquer/WZ 111 and T-10, because the winner will be there for sure. I thought voting for one tank would mean it has certain potential. I'm more interested to see where tanks like the ST-I or Conway are gonna end placed. We all already know which tanks are gonna be in top.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, hazzgar said:

Looking at recent curves it doesn't help players <54%. Where do you source your curves data from? 

http://wot-news.com/game/tankinfo/en/ru/ussr/R93_Object263

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, MagicalFlyingFox said:

sub 47% ers dont get a bonus and comparatively t95 gets a bigger bonus though

4 hours ago, Kolni said:

I actually quite like the T95 as the tank it is, but that's a real bad tank for me to play. Only tank I can surely say without a doubt I'll perform worse in is the T9 chinese TD and probably most lights in both DPG/WR. T95 at a high level requires basically flawless initial deployment and tempo awareness along with knowing how to slow engagements down. That alone is something most players haven't even begun to touch upon when it comes to actually dictating tempo that isn't "push forward". It doesn't fit my playstyle, my traits as a player or any of the core things I look for in a tank to be competitive. I'd probably end up around mid 60s in WR because the tank allows for that very well, but hitting 70 or even 80 like I did with the M46? I really doubt it even with perfect play, at this point 65% is actually doable in everything solo that isn't arty or the really bad lights, so the T95 doesn't really stand out when it comes to it. It's right down there with tanks I simply don't perform well in because they don't allow me to do what I want to

I didn't know you push 80s in some tanks. Then yeah for you t95 is horrible but for me, a player with 59-60% recents on non shit accounts, 56-57% on shit accounts (stock grinds, tanks I hate, idiotic low skill crews, everything wrong with no time to fix it) t95 still gives me a bonus. Yeah you will sometimes go to the wrong flank but if you encounter enemies you will kill them or at least hold them long enough to help your team a lot. t95 for top of the top players doesn't work because for you and like 20 people staying active as much as possible is key. To get 60-65% all you need is a big positive influence. That's why I drove mine. RRR to a place with a big number of enemies (and with some support from my team) and it's gg most of the time. 

It's boring as hell though and as my playstyle shifted to super spot heavy light tank play the t95 annoyed me more. Hell I'd argue 13 90 is a better tank for me but somehow stats don't support that and I'm both at 61% on t95 and 13 90

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

T-10: 27 - Objectively the best heavium, played for the first time in ages the last three days and it remains one of a few tanks I can get in and play like I used to.
AMX M4 51: 24
T49: 24
T-54: 23
Conqueror: 23
Type 4 Heavy: 22
WZ-111 1-4: 23
E50: 21
E75: 21
AMX 30: 21
T30: 20
T95: 21
M46 Patton: 21
WT Auf Pz. IV: 20
Mauschen: 20
Leopard PTA: 20
Object 704: 20
Object 263: 20
T-54 LW: 17 - Almost certainly not the worst tank left, but the worst one I've played recently. Less than half the tank it was at tier 8, gun handling is pretty good but the pen is less than ideal in the corridor/superheavy meta and the lack of a HEAT round means you're not penning anything except mediums and lights until/unless the game opens up, the mobility is excellent but in this meta it's hard to use. It  has over 500 dpg less expected moe than the 13 90 and the Chode for crying out loud.
Object 430: 20
ST-I: 20
Tortoise: 20
Foch: 14
B-C 25t AP: 21
AMX 13 90: 20
Skoda T50: 21
WZ-132A: 17
WZ-120: 17
50TP: 20
STRV 103-0: 20
Standard B: 20
Centurion 7/1: 19
Object 705: 17
Jagdtiger: 17
Conway: 17
VK4502B: 17
Object 257: 17
T54E1: 15
Type 61: 14
WZ-111G FT: 14
Emil II: 11
AMX 50 120: 8
M103: 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, lavawing said:

Which is plain wrong given that not every player has the same potential. A best tank for good player may have a high skill floor which prevents players from actually utilising its strengths - what you seem to be saying is that the tank with the highest possible skill ceiling is the best tank, independent of where the skill floor is. You seem to be under the impression that what matters for the best players matters the most, which is a value judgment that to me is just plain wrong. The vast majority of players you see in a game are going to range from bad to moderately decent (i.e. green), and unless you're fighting superunis more than half of the time, it's how good a tank performs in the hands of those players that will make the difference most of the time. 

For argument's sake, I might as well argue that 'Best tanks for the worst players matter the most because these are the tanks that rely least upon the players' own potential, simple as that'. As is reasonably apparent, that (as is best tanks for best players) is a very poor metric.

Highest probability of a relevant game impact is what I value, and there are tanks that when played right skyrocket up in value from an otherwise bad spot. FV4005, Maus (before the stupid buff), FV215b and tanks generally regarded as bad somehow held real value in ESL/Comp/Randoms because you can’t judge a tank based on a player not able to play it well. 

Imagine F1 or whatever: Mercedes releases a new engine. Are you seriously going to put an average driver in to test it out? Obviously not. You put Hamilton in so he can push its limits and get real value out of the performance. You’re not going to be able to push or minmax anything to its limits with average players, so the top dictates what is objectively the best. Subjective experiences I’m all for, but all players who can’t compete at that level are not relevant. Avg stats matter for the healthiness of the game as the average make up so much of the playerbase, but it’s also the root cause of the poor gameplay quality the game suffers through because testing is only made on lower spectrum ends when certain characteristics are boosted exponentially with player skill (aka how you break the game). 

That’s why from an objective PoV the average simply doesn’t matter. T95 might be the best tank for more players than a T-54, but that T-54 is a hell of a lot better for the other players. A tank having a 60% global WR is a problem, but it caps out at 70% is objectively a worse tank than a tank with a 47% global WR capping out around the 80s because it is better at winning. Harder to play means a worse average but generelly higher caps. This is the entire reason WN8 got broken because RU meds were stupidly good for a small part of the playerbase while the majority did poorly. 62A still has a terrible average but Poltto went over 70%WR over 1k games in it solo. Outlier ahead of time -> The average isn’t accurate, it only tells you generalised data and doesn’t account for invention or simply gameplay at a level that only a handful of people can understand. If you want objectively the best tank the way to find out is to put the top 50 players in and spam randoms to evaluate their performance which will actually give the right answer to the question of what tank is the best when the players playing it don’t matter. Otherwise it’s all subjective and an average will never tell the whole story. 

This is a subjective topic, but average statistics don’t have a place here or regarding viability. It only matters to the audience it’s targeted to - the average. It’ll align nicely with most people but the curve will deviate more the further up you go, and at the top it’s so far apart from the average that it could very well be a different game entirely. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

order sixty fixed

 

T-10: 27 
AMX M4 51: 24
T49: 24
T-54: 23
Conqueror: 23
WZ-111 1-4: 23
Type 4 Heavy: 22
E50: 21
E75: 21
AMX 30: 21
T30: 20
T95: 21
M46 Patton: 21
B-C 25t AP: 21
Skoda T50: 21
Leopard PTA: 20
Object 704: 20
Object 263: 20
WT Auf Pz. IV: 20
Object 430: 20
ST-I: 20
Tortoise: 20
AMX 13 90: 20
Mauschen: 20
STRV 103-0: 20
50TP: 20
Standard B: 20
Centurion 7/1: 19
T-54 LW: 17
Object 257: 17
WZ-132A: 17
WZ-120: 17
Object 705: 17
Jagdtiger: 17
Conway: 17
VK4502B: 17
T54E1: 15
Foch: 14
Type 61: 14
WZ-111G FT: 14
Emil II: 11
AMX 50 120: 8
M103: 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well let me add mine for the first time

T-10: 27 
AMX M4 51: 24
T49: 24
T-54: 23+1 = 24 Great combination of mobility+usable armour+great DPM+HEAT memes for all those Type 5s and 268v4s. I agree with kolni on this, the best all rounder IMO.
Conqueror: 23
WZ-111 1-4: 23
Type 4 Heavy: 22
E50: 21
E75: 21
AMX 30: 21
T30: 20
T95: 21
M46 Patton: 21
B-C 25t AP: 21
Skoda T50: 21
Leopard PTA: 20
Object 704: 20
Object 263: 20
WT Auf Pz. IV: 20
Object 430: 20
ST-I: 20
Tortoise: 20
AMX 13 90: 20
Mauschen: 20
STRV 103-0: 20
50TP: 20
Standard B: 20
Centurion 7/1: 19
T-54 LW: 17
Object 257: 17
WZ-132A: 17
WZ-120: 17
Object 705: 17
Jagdtiger: 17
Conway: 17
VK4502B: 17
T54E1: 15
Foch: 14
Type 61: 14
WZ-111G FT: 14
Emil II: 11
AMX 50 120: 8
M103: 8 - 3 = 5 I This tank is terrible. not enough armour, turret is giant and becomes auto pen if its even slightly angled away, giant cupola, and is the biggest arty magnet I have ever played. 

 

Id also like to point out, I kinda agree with Kolni on this topic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being too lazy to read back, am I right in thinking that we reset the base score from 30 to 20?

 

T-10: 27 
AMX M4 51: 24
T49: 24

T-54: 24 + 1 = 25 The ultimate terrorizer of lower tiers, and there no maps in which you cannot find a way to make yourself useful.  City map?  Hull down/sidescrape while blasting HEAT if necessary.  Better mobility than the tanks that come after it, to boot.
Conqueror: 23
WZ-111 1-4: 23
Type 4 Heavy: 22
E50: 21
E75: 21
AMX 30: 21
T30: 20
T95: 21
M46 Patton: 21
B-C 25t AP: 21
Skoda T50: 21
Leopard PTA: 20
Object 704: 20
Object 263: 20
WT Auf Pz. IV: 20
Object 430: 20
ST-I: 20
Tortoise: 20
AMX 13 90: 20
Mauschen: 20
STRV 103-0: 20
50TP: 20
Standard B: 20
Centurion 7/1: 19
T-54 LW: 17
Object 257: 17
WZ-132A: 17
WZ-120: 17
Object 705: 17
Jagdtiger: 17
Conway: 17

VK4502B: 17 - 3 = 14  You want arty magnets?  I'll give you your damned arty magnet.  Evasive maneuvers in this mean the crew gets out and runs away.
T54E1: 15
Foch: 14
Type 61: 14
WZ-111G FT: 14
Emil II: 11
AMX 50 120: 8
M103: 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Tanager said:

Being too lazy to read back, am I right in thinking that we reset the base score from 30 to 20?

Yeah, we did.

T-10: 27 + 1 = 28 I really only have a couple of T9 tanks (E1, T49, 46, sold the M103 for obvs reasons), this tank is just a solid performer across everything bar gun depression.
AMX M4 51: 24
T49: 24

T-54: 25
Conqueror: 23
WZ-111 1-4: 23
Type 4 Heavy: 22
E50: 21
E75: 21
AMX 30: 21
T30: 20
T95: 21
M46 Patton: 21
B-C 25t AP: 21
Skoda T50: 21
Leopard PTA: 20
Object 704: 20
Object 263: 20
WT Auf Pz. IV: 20
Object 430: 20
ST-I: 20
Tortoise: 20
AMX 13 90: 20
Mauschen: 20
STRV 103-0: 20
50TP: 20
Standard B: 20
Centurion 7/1: 19
T-54 LW: 17
Object 257: 17
WZ-132A: 17
WZ-120: 17
Object 705: 17
Jagdtiger: 17
Conway: 17

VK 4502 (B): 14
T54E1: 15
Foch: 14
Type 61: 14
WZ-111G FT: 14

Emil II: 11 - 3 = 8 I like to refrain from downvoting tanks I don't play but this tank has always been pretty bad on principle. Just play the Krapvagn if you want that -12 hulldown meme.
AMX 50 120: 8
M103: 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even before this list gets finished it's already clear how the meta has shifted even for tier 9. Heavies seem to take priority over meds but at the same time some heavies that I feel dominated meta last time I actually bothered playing more than 10 games a month (that isn't in a shitty tier 6/7) aren't favored. Regardless, I'll give my input but I'm probably outdated here.

T-10: 28
AMX M4 51: 24
T49: 24

T-54: 25
Conqueror: 23
WZ-111 1-4: 23
Type 4 Heavy: 22
E50: 21
E75: 21
AMX 30: 21
T30: 20
T95: 21
M46 Patton: 21
B-C 25t AP: 21
Skoda T50: 21
Leopard PTA: 20
Object 704: 20
Object 263: 20
WT Auf Pz. IV: 20
Object 430: 20
ST-I: 20
Tortoise: 20
AMX 13 90: 20
Mauschen: 20
STRV 103-0: 20
50TP: 20
Standard B: 20
Centurion 7/1: 19
T-54 LW: 17
Object 257: 17
WZ-132A: 17
WZ-120: 17
Object 705: 17
Jagdtiger: 17
Conway: 17

VK 4502 (B): 14 + 1 = 15 / Man I'm disappointed in you people. Unless this tank was nerfed last time I played it, this tank is a real hidden gem. It's a monster at side-scraping, has bully alpha (490??), good HP, and it's a corridor demon.
T54E1: 15
Foch: 14

Type 61: 14 - 3 = 11/ Honestly I didn't hate this tank but even when meds dominated around the time it was released it was still ehh as fuck. Tall(and stupid tumor), mediocre gun handling, made of paper and yet it has mediocre mobility, and honestly- just fuck this line in general - only redeeming quality was STB.
WZ-111G FT: 14
Emil II: 8
AMX 50 120: 8
M103: 5

If I really am outdated in what I said, the next to do their list can void my votes. I don't feel like the tanks have changed, but I like these threads and I'm too lazy to get on WoT and actually check to see where I'm at with these tanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kolni said:

Highest probability of a relevant game impact is what I value, and there are tanks that when played right skyrocket up in value from an otherwise bad spot. FV4005, Maus (before the stupid buff), FV215b and tanks generally regarded as bad somehow held real value in ESL/Comp/Randoms because you can’t judge a tank based on a player not able to play it well. 

Imagine F1 or whatever: Mercedes releases a new engine. Are you seriously going to put an average driver in to test it out? Obviously not. You put Hamilton in so he can push its limits and get real value out of the performance. You’re not going to be able to push or minmax anything to its limits with average players, so the top dictates what is objectively the best. Subjective experiences I’m all for, but all players who can’t compete at that level are not relevant. Avg stats matter for the healthiness of the game as the average make up so much of the playerbase, but it’s also the root cause of the poor gameplay quality the game suffers through because testing is only made on lower spectrum ends when certain characteristics are boosted exponentially with player skill (aka how you break the game). 

That’s why from an objective PoV the average simply doesn’t matter. T95 might be the best tank for more players than a T-54, but that T-54 is a hell of a lot better for the other players. A tank having a 60% global WR is a problem, but it caps out at 70% is objectively a worse tank than a tank with a 47% global WR capping out around the 80s because it is better at winning. Harder to play means a worse average but generelly higher caps. This is the entire reason WN8 got broken because RU meds were stupidly good for a small part of the playerbase while the majority did poorly. 62A still has a terrible average but Poltto went over 70%WR over 1k games in it solo. Outlier ahead of time -> The average isn’t accurate, it only tells you generalised data and doesn’t account for invention or simply gameplay at a level that only a handful of people can understand. If you want objectively the best tank the way to find out is to put the top 50 players in and spam randoms to evaluate their performance which will actually give the right answer to the question of what tank is the best when the players playing it don’t matter. Otherwise it’s all subjective and an average will never tell the whole story. 

This is a subjective topic, but average statistics don’t have a place here or regarding viability. It only matters to the audience it’s targeted to - the average. It’ll align nicely with most people but the curve will deviate more the further up you go, and at the top it’s so far apart from the average that it could very well be a different game entirely. 

I pretty much agree with all you've said here except with the example, which I consider pretty extreme. What if you compare M48 with S.Conquer?  Top DPGs  are 5356/78% vs 5042/73% respectively. I don't know the overall WR of both. But I wouldn't even think about M48 being better than S. Conquer. M48 can stomp tier 9/8 as well if not better than S. Conqueror but will it perform as well vs some other tier 10s?. I know there's a difference between pubs and competitive, but do we take into consideration coordinated gameplay?. I don't know if you guys play MOBAs but I do and there's a big difference between solo queue meta and competitive meta. Certain things only work because of the strategy behind it, meanwhile other things work due to the lack of coordinated gameplay. As one last example, the ranked meta differs a lot from pubs in WoT. In my personal experience, I'd put IS-7 between the top just because it's the only tank that can poke hull down and bounce 99% of the shots. But I wouldn't say it's between the best for dmg farm/WR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Kolni said:

Highest probability of a relevant game impact is what I value, and there are tanks that when played right skyrocket up in value from an otherwise bad spot. FV4005, Maus (before the stupid buff), FV215b and tanks generally regarded as bad somehow held real value in ESL/Comp/Randoms because you can’t judge a tank based on a player not able to play it well. 

Imagine F1 or whatever: Mercedes releases a new engine. Are you seriously going to put an average driver in to test it out? Obviously not. You put Hamilton in so he can push its limits and get real value out of the performance. You’re not going to be able to push or minmax anything to its limits with average players, so the top dictates what is objectively the best. Subjective experiences I’m all for, but all players who can’t compete at that level are not relevant. Avg stats matter for the healthiness of the game as the average make up so much of the playerbase, but it’s also the root cause of the poor gameplay quality the game suffers through because testing is only made on lower spectrum ends when certain characteristics are boosted exponentially with player skill (aka how you break the game). 

That’s why from an objective PoV the average simply doesn’t matter. T95 might be the best tank for more players than a T-54, but that T-54 is a hell of a lot better for the other players. A tank having a 60% global WR is a problem, but it caps out at 70% is objectively a worse tank than a tank with a 47% global WR capping out around the 80s because it is better at winning. Harder to play means a worse average but generelly higher caps. This is the entire reason WN8 got broken because RU meds were stupidly good for a small part of the playerbase while the majority did poorly. 62A still has a terrible average but Poltto went over 70%WR over 1k games in it solo. Outlier ahead of time -> The average isn’t accurate, it only tells you generalised data and doesn’t account for invention or simply gameplay at a level that only a handful of people can understand. If you want objectively the best tank the way to find out is to put the top 50 players in and spam randoms to evaluate their performance which will actually give the right answer to the question of what tank is the best when the players playing it don’t matter. Otherwise it’s all subjective and an average will never tell the whole story. 

This is a subjective topic, but average statistics don’t have a place here or regarding viability. It only matters to the audience it’s targeted to - the average. It’ll align nicely with most people but the curve will deviate more the further up you go, and at the top it’s so far apart from the average that it could very well be a different game entirely. 

Simply put, good tanks in the hands of good players is no less subjective than good tanks for average players. And tanks that are hardcapped in terms of skill ceiling 'objectively' matter even if you can't push 70-80s winrate with them: why?

Because the game is not a one man game and you have enemies and allies. I am going to be concerned on how good a tank the Type 4/5 is for bads because mostly that's the kind of players which will be on my team and on the enemy team. To be honest, if you think that tank performance for less than stellar players doesn't matter, I think you're just closing your eyes to the game that is actually played by in all probability your entire team and the reds you farm.

Any F1 will be one of the objectively fastest cars in the world. Obviously that does not make it one of the best cars, because how fast a car goes is not the only metric for evaluating cars. To go a bit further, the Me-163 isn't the best interceptor in WWII among other things because it's a bitch to fly. Point being: how good a (virtual) machine is does not exist on a celestial plane independently of how well or badly most people actually play it.

On a side note: tanks that are good for good players may not be good for bads; but tanks that are good for bads do tend to be good for goods as well, even if cancerous to play (e.g. Mauschens, Types, Defenders, etc).

 

2 hours ago, Masterpupil2 said:

VK 4502 (B): 14 + 1 = 15 / Man I'm disappointed in you people. Unless this tank was nerfed last time I played it, this tank is a real hidden gem. It's a monster at side-scraping, has bully alpha (490??), good HP, and it's a corridor demon.

Anything without 340 pen HEAT or up isn't a corridor demon. The turret gets HEAT-spammed, the sides get HE-ed, and the tank is too inflexible to do anything to avoid either. The good lower plate doesn't matter too much because people switch to gold upon bouncing the first shot anyway. The E 75 does most of the things it does while being faster, more agile, and better at getting shots off, and even that isn't perfect for the current meta.

IMO the current meta is about having good premium rounds for frontal engagements, and enough armour on parts of your tanks to fight those engagements. Mobility is just the cherry on the top, and anything with the first two traits are going to be decent. Tanks with all three basically rule now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.