Assassin7

Elimination: Tier 9 - 2018

240 posts in this topic

T-10: 30 
T-54: 26
AMX M4 51: 24
T49: 25
WZ-111 1-4: 25
Conqueror: 23
Type 4 Heavy: 22
E50: 21
E75: 22
AMX 30: 21
T30: 20
T95: 21
M46 Patton: 22
B-C 25t AP: 18
Skoda T50: 21
Leopard PTA: 20
Object 704: 20
Object 263: 20
WT Auf Pz. IV: 20

Object 430: 20 +1 = 21 I'm not sure if this is any better than the T-54, but it tanks well and alpha is important in this meta of minimizing exposure or getting blapped by HE
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: 8.
Object 257: 17
WZ-132A: 17
WZ-120: 17
Object 705: 17
Jagdtiger: 17
T54E1 : 12
Conway: 14
Foch: 14
WZ-111G FT: 15
VK 4502 (B): 9

Type 61: 11 -3 = 8 There are certain tanks that I just don't fear or respect in any way because I know I can easily kill them if they become bothersome.  Of the tanks that are left, this instills the least amount of fear in me
AMX 50 120: 8
Emil II: 5
M103: 5
RU 251: 14 

For the record, all of you are wrong about how to determine what is 'good' or 'bad' in a tank.

@Kolni made reference to a Mercedes Formula 1 race car and its elite driver.  Ha, Mercedes builds less than a half dozen F1 cars per year - what they do build a lot of are dump trucks.  There are no unicum dump truck drivers.  In most games on NA there are no unicums, frequently even at high tiers you're lucky to catch a teal.  Most games are decided by a mixture of chance and the decision making of a horde of yellows.  

When I am evaluating the start screen I am looking at XVM (yes, I'm cancer) and at the ratio of OP/UP tanks.  The evaluation process is a simple binary sorting.  If I could rearrange just by tanks, which ones do I want my yellows driving and which ones do I want their yellows driving.  Do that top to bottom sorting enough times and patterns start to show up.  This thread is all about how each of us sorts dumptrucks.

@nabucodonsor Lies, damn lies, and statistics my friend! I don't care what your stats say about the T95, the IS-4, the Ferdi, etc.  If I put $1k on the table and said "pick a tier 9 and win the first game you play and its yours", not a single player in this room would pick the T95.  Not one.  A good tank has carry potential on every map, whether top or bottom tier, regardless of the platoons or arty or how the lemmings roll.  A good tank puts the player in a position to determine the outcome no matter the circumstance.  The T95 is just not that dumptruck.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Archaic_One said:

T-10: 30 
T-54: 26
AMX M4 51: 24
T49: 25
WZ-111 1-4: 25
Conqueror: 23
Type 4 Heavy: 22
E50: 21
E75: 22
AMX 30: 21
T30: 20
T95: 21
M46 Patton: 22
B-C 25t AP: 18
Skoda T50: 21
Leopard PTA: 20
Object 704: 20
Object 263: 20
WT Auf Pz. IV: 20

Object 430: 20 +1 = 21 I'm not sure if this is any better than the T-54, but it tanks well and alpha is important in this meta of minimizing exposure or getting blapped by HE
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: 8.
Object 257: 17
WZ-132A: 17
WZ-120: 17
Object 705: 17
Jagdtiger: 17
T54E1 : 12
Conway: 14
Foch: 14
WZ-111G FT: 15
VK 4502 (B): 9

Type 61: 11 -3 = 8 There are certain tank that I just don't fear or respect in any way because I know I can easily kill them if they become bothersome.  Of the tanks that are left, this instills the least amount of fear in me
AMX 50 120: 8
Emil II: 5
M103: 5
RU 251: 14 

For the record, all of you are wrong about how to determine what is 'good' or 'bad' in a tank.

@Kolni made reference to a Mercedes Formula 1 race car and its elite driver.  Ha, Mercedes builds less than a half dozen F1 cars per year - what they do build a lot of are dump trucks.  There are no unicum dump truck drivers.  In most games on NA there are no unicums, frequently even at high tiers you're lucky to catch a teal.  Most games are decided by a mixture of chance and the decision making of a horde of yellows.  

When I am evaluating the start screen I am looking at XVM (yes, I'm cancer) and at the ratio of OP/UP tanks.  The evaluation process is a simple binary sorting.  If I could rearrange just by tanks, which ones do I want my yellows driving and which ones do I want their yellows driving.  Do that top to bottom sorting enough times and patterns start to show up.  This thread is all about how each of us sorts dumptrucks.

@nabucodonsor Lies, damn lies, and statistics my friend! I don't care what your stats say about the T95, the IS-4, the Ferdi, etc.  If I put $1k on the table and said "pick a tier 9 and win the first game you play and its yours", not a single player in this room would pick the T95.  Not one.  A good tank has carry potential on every map, whether top or bottom tier, regardless of the platoons or arty or how the lemmings roll.  A good tank puts the player in a position to determine the outcome no matter the circumstance.  The T95 is just not that dumptruck.  

At least the T95 looks like a dumptruck

Share this post


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

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.

Would definitely disagree with the 340 pen. HEAT claim. You do not need that much pen to be able to bully scrubs in corridors, and there's not many heavies with that much HEAT pen to begin with, even at tier 10- that's one thing I remember, and if there's anything I know and can discuss about this game still, it's brawling. Not only that, but something you have to realize with heavy play/carrying is that you don't necessarily need mobility to carry, just smart positioning. I could play the Maus 100 times and lose only 5-6 games max. because I was simply too slow to do something. Same goes with the Type 4/5 or the old VK B (before the stupid nerf); Also, if anyone is HE'ing your sides while you're in a super heavy and you're losing brawls (even as the old VK which had poor side armor) and you're not facing a Type 4/5 or TD with a high caliber gun, you're angling terribly. 

 

 

T-10: 30 
T-54: 26
T49: 25
WZ-111 1-4: 25
AMX M4 51: 24
Conqueror: 23
Type 4 Heavy: 22
E75: 22
M46 Patton: 22
E50: 21
AMX 30: 21
T95: 21
Skoda T50: 21
Object 430: 21
T30: 20
Leopard PTA: 20
Object 704: 20
Object 263: 20

WT Auf Pz. IV: 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
B-C 25t AP: 18
Object 257: 17
WZ-132A: 17
WZ-120: 17
Object 705: 17
Jagdtiger: 17
WZ-111G FT: 15
Conway: 14
Foch: 14
RU 251: 14
T54E1: 12

VK 4502 (B): 9

Type 61: 8
AMX 50 120: 8
T-54 LW: 8
Emill II: 5

M103: 5 

 

List in order from highest-to-lowest in terms of points, don't copy/paste this as I probably fucked up- I had to do it the long and hard way (slowly replacing each tank on the list) because the spacing is retarded and wants to double space and I can't seem to fix it (as shown by the M103 which was the last entry). Very interesting, and I won't continue contributing to the list seeing as I'm outdated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

T-10: 30 
T-54: 26
AMX M4 51: 24
T49: 25
WZ-111 1-4: 25
Conqueror: 23

Type 4 Heavy: 22 + 1 = 23 Big bad derp gun. Armour is a pennable with gold but you are immune to enemy side-scraping whereas they are not immune to your side-scraping.
E50: 21
E75: 22
AMX 30: 21
T30: 20
T95: 21

M46 Patton: 22 - 3 = 19 Sure its a bit early to downvote this, but watching this go up when the 430 has barely been mentioned is unjust. This tank is just so far out of the meta now because its armour is trollish at best and none of it is reliable enough. The Cent 7/1 has a much more reliable turret and a turret like that would make the M46 a monster, but it doesn't have that strong of a turret so it isn't a monster. The lack of armour combined with pen on the low side makes it not as effective as it used to be and undeserving of upvotes over the Obj 430, T-54 and maybe even Skoda. 
B-C 25t AP: 18
Skoda T50: 21
Leopard PTA: 20

Object 704: 20
Object 263: 20
WT Auf Pz. IV: 20

Object 430: 21
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: 8.
Object 257: 17
WZ-132A: 17
WZ-120: 17
Object 705: 17
Jagdtiger: 17
T54E1 : 12
Conway: 14
Foch: 14
WZ-111G FT: 15
VK 4502 (B): 9

Type 61: 8
AMX 50 120: 8

Emil II: 5
M103: 5
RU 251: 14 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Archaic_One said:

 

@nabucodonsor Lies, damn lies, and statistics my friend! I don't care what your stats say about the T95, the IS-4, the Ferdi, etc.  If I put $1k on the table and said "pick a tier 9 and win the first game you play and its yours", not a single player in this room would pick the T95.  Not one.  A good tank has carry potential on every map, whether top or bottom tier, regardless of the platoons or arty or how the lemmings roll.  A good tank puts the player in a position to determine the outcome no matter the circumstance.  The T95 is just not that dumptruck.  

You are so wrong here. Your "game" has one basic error in it. It doesn't chose the best tank, it choses what is PERCEIVED as the best tank. So it is very prone to bias and since we all talk a lot here those biases get amplified. This is what I am talking about. I'm not saying t95 is the best tank t9 (though I'd argue for people <55% it is) but I am saying it is overvalued because people on wotlabs and people on this forum tend to value other qualities than what makes t95 good. They are right to value those qualities, they just value them too much relative to their influence on the game. This is why I mentioned IS4 and Ferdi and Richard Nixon. What was shown in that data wasn't that IS4 wasn't trash. It was. It was just less trash than people claimed it is (back then). Also people hate the Ferdie yet even for purples it performs strong after HP buff. Eliminating bias is important. This is why declarative studies without any other data are shit and not to be believed. To give you an example a national cinema organization studied cinema goers in Poland. Because it was only declarative acording to them an average movie goer goes regurarly to theater, gym, reads many books, is cooking a lot and is basically the perfect intelectual. You don't need to be a genius to know that's not true. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Masterpupil2 said:

I had to do it the long and hard way (slowly replacing each tank on the list) because the spacing is retarded and wants to double space and I can't seem to fix it

I had that problem just making the list as well, which is why I used a bullet list. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can only vote for what I have played so the list is short for me.

 

M103 5-3= 2  I've not played it in years, but I hated it even before the super heavy meta.  After moving from the super comfy T32 this thing was just Aids! Even with the top gun unlocked it was still shit. Poke it's big fat fucking head over a ridge and you got murdered by almost everything same tier or higher than you. The cheeks were easy to hit and gold is almost auto pen, the commander hatch is easy to hit,  the hull is dog shit, the tank is slow. There are tier 8 heavies that are better than it ffs!  I don't own the Emil but I agree with others that it's probably worse than the M103, based on experience fighting them.

 

 

Jagdtiger 17+1= 18. I'll stay away from the obvious finalists for now. But this is a solid TD imo. I think it does well in the corridor meta too. The gun is fantastic and packs a punch, ok the armour profile isnt tye best but it can bounce stuff if you wiggle. Mobility isn't great,but if you're driving it to the front line it's the wrong place for it imo. Saying super heavies shit on it is a little harsh as super heavies shit on everything anyway.  If you can find the right position with views onto a couple of different lines this tank can be devastating. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Archaic_One said:

 

@Kolni made reference to a Mercedes Formula 1 race car and its elite driver.  Ha, Mercedes builds less than a half dozen F1 cars per year - what they do build a lot of are dump trucks.  There are no unicum dump truck drivers.  In most games on NA there are no unicums, frequently even at high tiers you're lucky to catch a teal.  Most games are decided by a mixture of chance and the decision making of a horde of yellows.  

When I am evaluating the start screen I am looking at XVM (yes, I'm cancer) and at the ratio of OP/UP tanks.  The evaluation process is a simple binary sorting.  If I could rearrange just by tanks, which ones do I want my yellows driving and which ones do I want their yellows driving.  Do that top to bottom sorting enough times and patterns start to show up.  This thread is all about how each of us sorts dumptrucks.

It doesn’t matter how many are built. When talking about things as optimization you can’t judge on generalizations and absolutely not the average. That’s how you end up with really shitty minmaxing and at the top you’re now out of the loop. 

The example was more directed at Hamilton rather than Mercedes because he was still on top after the brand switch, and obviously you want him to spend some time with it for data that is useful. For a sample of WoT quality data I’d just put 50 minors without any sort of license on the F1 track and let them race it out. Everyone sucks a la WoT playerbase but the results give you absolutely no value in terms of how the car performs. 

You can’t look at average, they’re too bad. You can’t look at super unicums either, also too bad. If you want something seen in its true colours then the driver shouldn’t be part of the equation (and the gameplay needs to approach perfection) or you simply don’t get anything useful out of it. 

There are way too many factors to even bother with XVM->skill level->tank choice->deployment stuff dude. XVM isn’t doing you a single favour with this and is only presenting averages, that legit don’t matter because this 1 game isn’t the same one. How can you possibly assume things when you don’t take people doing stupid shit and out of character into account? You can’t. The only constant every battle will give you is your own choice of tank and what to do with it. Everybody else playing OP tanks matters less to me than me playing something bad. They are improving their general odds of winning by picking high WR tanks in their WR-area but those tanks aren’t the same everywhere and when those high WR avg tanks end up winning less than other tanks when crossing that skill treshold it the higher avg is not only now the worse tank, but it has always been. A tank is judged on its characteristics where a player has no influence, and not on tank performance from players because players have flaws and screw up literally a million times per game so that’s why the most objective PoV on the matter is simply putting the scope at the the place where mistakes are the least common. 

 

I’m done with this argument now, I’ve known that I’m right from the start but apparently it’s a concept too difficult because people don’t understand the positive sides of elitism or what it does when literally all top stats support it. A player averaging 509 avg dmg in his Leo 1 being a casual tanker on his free time not caring about performance is not a player worth using when evaluating the tank. He doesn’t understand the game, the tank, mechanics, maps, or anything the game has to offer. What possible information about the tank could this player give you? Absolutely nothing. A tanks true self is revealed the higher up the ladder you go. This really isn’t a difficult concept nor a new one at all. It’s how good games balance theirs and how you have healthy gameplay quality..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

T-10: 30 
T-54: 26
AMX M4 51: 24
T49: 25
WZ-111 1-4: 25
Conqueror: 23
Type 4 Heavy: 23
E50: 21
E75: 22
AMX 30: 22 - fits nicely in my playstyle, i like dpm and gun depression
T30: 20
T95: 21
M46 Patton: 19
B-C 25t AP: 18
Skoda T50: 21
Leopard PTA: 20
Object 704: 20
Object 263: 20
WT Auf Pz. IV: 20
Object 430: 21
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: 8.
Object 257: 17
WZ-132A: 17
WZ-120: 17
Object 705: 17
Jagdtiger: 18
T54E1 : 12
Conway: 14
Foch: 14
WZ-111G FT: 15
VK 4502 (B): 9
Type 61: 8
AMX 50 120: 8
Emil II: 2 - just crap, crap armor, crap dpm, and shit gun
M103: 2
RU 251: 14 

 

TBH, id just remove emil2, m103, leopta, 50 120 and these shitty tanks from the vote.. i mean... cmon fellas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kolni said:

If you want something seen in its true colours then the driver shouldn’t be part of the equation (and the gameplay needs to approach perfection)

!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kolni said:

It doesn’t matter how many are built. When talking about things as optimization you can’t judge on generalizations and absolutely not the average. That’s how you end up with really shitty minmaxing and at the top you’re now out of the loop. 

The example was more directed at Hamilton rather than Mercedes because he was still on top after the brand switch, and obviously you want him to spend some time with it for data that is useful. For a sample of WoT quality data I’d just put 50 minors without any sort of license on the F1 track and let them race it out. Everyone sucks a la WoT playerbase but the results give you absolutely no value in terms of how the car performs. 

You can’t look at average, they’re too bad. You can’t look at super unicums either, also too bad. If you want something seen in its true colours then the driver shouldn’t be part of the equation (and the gameplay needs to approach perfection) or you simply don’t get anything useful out of it. 

There are way too many factors to even bother with XVM->skill level->tank choice->deployment stuff dude. XVM isn’t doing you a single favour with this and is only presenting averages, that legit don’t matter because this 1 game isn’t the same one. How can you possibly assume things when you don’t take people doing stupid shit and out of character into account? You can’t. The only constant every battle will give you is your own choice of tank and what to do with it. Everybody else playing OP tanks matters less to me than me playing something bad. They are improving their general odds of winning by picking high WR tanks in their WR-area but those tanks aren’t the same everywhere and when those high WR avg tanks end up winning less than other tanks when crossing that skill treshold it the higher avg is not only now the worse tank, but it has always been. A tank is judged on its characteristics where a player has no influence, and not on tank performance from players because players have flaws and screw up literally a million times per game so that’s why the most objective PoV on the matter is simply putting the scope at the the place where mistakes are the least common. 

 

I’m done with this argument now, I’ve known that I’m right from the start but apparently it’s a concept too difficult because people don’t understand the positive sides of elitism or what it does when literally all top stats support it. A player averaging 509 avg dmg in his Leo 1 being a casual tanker on his free time not caring about performance is not a player worth using when evaluating the tank. He doesn’t understand the game, the tank, mechanics, maps, or anything the game has to offer. What possible information about the tank could this player give you? Absolutely nothing. A tanks true self is revealed the higher up the ladder you go. This really isn’t a difficult concept nor a new one at all. It’s how good games balance theirs and how you have healthy gameplay quality..

Kolni the thing is formula cars are good at one thing. It isn't even going fast. It's going fast in very specific scenarios. Also there is a serious logic flaw in your post. You want to judge a tank with the driver taken out of the equation yet you then procede to talk about positive sides of elitism and judge the tank by how good they are for the best drivers. 

Also remember no one here is asking 500 dmg players for their opinion. Some people simply want to evaluate how those tanks influence their gameplay. Also we are not really talking about tanks working for tomatoes. We are talking about tanks working for blues, purples and deep purples. Those are much smaller groups. Also you didn't specify in which scenario - pure t10 games/ranked or pubs or cw. You didn't say pure gold spam + food or not since many people would argue a tank needing food + goldspam is worse than a tank that doesn't need it even if the tryhard setup makes it the best on the server.

 

My main gripe with your reasoning is you didn't clearly state the definition of best for you, you just simply argue that only 1 player on the server can judge tanks (since he is the best and anyone worse knows less) and that we should evaluate all tanks from his pov. 

T-10: 30 
T-54: 26
AMX M4 51: 24
T49: 25
WZ-111 1-4: 25
Conqueror: 23
Type 4 Heavy: 23
E50: 21
E75: 22
AMX 30: 22
T30: 20
T95: 21
M46 Patton: 19
B-C 25t AP: 18
Skoda T50: 21
Leopard PTA: 20
Object 704: 20
Object 263: 20
WT Auf Pz. IV: 20
Object 430: 21
ST-I: 20
Tortoise: 20
AMX 13 90: 20
Mauschen: 20
STRV 103-0: 20 +1 = 21 (I know this will trigger Kolni and there are like 10 tanks better than it but I like vision games and I like the strv)
50TP: 20
Standard B: 20
Centurion 7/1: 19
T-54 LW: 8.
Object 257: 17
WZ-132A: 17
WZ-120: 17
Object 705: 17
Jagdtiger: 18
T54E1 : 12
Conway: 14
Foch: 14
WZ-111G FT: 15
VK 4502 (B): 9
Type 61: 8
AMX 50 120: 8
Emil II: 2-3 = -1 - Die you frustrating one trick pony.
M103: 2
RU 251: 14 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

T-10: 30 

T-54: 26

AMX M4 51: 24

T49: 25

WZ-111 1-4: 25

Conqueror: 23

Type 4 Heavy: 23

E50: 21

E75: 22 +1 Old German school works after years and with little buffs this tank is still a worthy opponent. Played it this week and I'm amazed how good it is. Non-braindead armor, punchy gun and that hull traverse speed. 

AMX 30: 22

T30: 20

T95: 21

M46 Patton: 19

B-C 25t AP: 18

Skoda T50: 21

Leopard PTA: 20

Object 704: 20

Object 263: 20

WT Auf Pz. IV: 20

Object 430: 21

ST-I: 20

Tortoise: 20

AMX 13 90: 20

Mauschen: 20

STRV 103-0: 21 

50TP: 20

Standard B: 20

Centurion 7/1: 19

T-54 LW: 8.

Object 257: 17

WZ-132A: 17

WZ-120: 17

Object 705: 17

Jagdtiger: 18

T54E1 : 12

Conway: 14

Foch: 14

WZ-111G FT: 15

VK 4502 (B): 9

Type 61: 8

AMX 50 120: 8

M103: 2 - 3 = - 1 Allow me to finish my old friend. My first ever tier IX tank and also first keeper sold. In good old times it was a proper all-rounder but after first HD model it lost every advantage. In current state it's just bad E50. 

RU 251: 14 

Share this post


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

It doesn’t matter how many are built. When talking about things as optimization you can’t judge on generalizations and absolutely not the average. That’s how you end up with really shitty minmaxing and at the top you’re now out of the loop. 

The example was more directed at Hamilton rather than Mercedes because he was still on top after the brand switch, and obviously you want him to spend some time with it for data that is useful. For a sample of WoT quality data I’d just put 50 minors without any sort of license on the F1 track and let them race it out. Everyone sucks a la WoT playerbase but the results give you absolutely no value in terms of how the car performs. 

You can’t look at average, they’re too bad. You can’t look at super unicums either, also too bad. If you want something seen in its true colours then the driver shouldn’t be part of the equation (and the gameplay needs to approach perfection) or you simply don’t get anything useful out of it. 

There are way too many factors to even bother with XVM->skill level->tank choice->deployment stuff dude. XVM isn’t doing you a single favour with this and is only presenting averages, that legit don’t matter because this 1 game isn’t the same one. How can you possibly assume things when you don’t take people doing stupid shit and out of character into account? You can’t. The only constant every battle will give you is your own choice of tank and what to do with it. Everybody else playing OP tanks matters less to me than me playing something bad. They are improving their general odds of winning by picking high WR tanks in their WR-area but those tanks aren’t the same everywhere and when those high WR avg tanks end up winning less than other tanks when crossing that skill treshold it the higher avg is not only now the worse tank, but it has always been. A tank is judged on its characteristics where a player has no influence, and not on tank performance from players because players have flaws and screw up literally a million times per game so that’s why the most objective PoV on the matter is simply putting the scope at the the place where mistakes are the least common. 

 

I’m done with this argument now, I’ve known that I’m right from the start but apparently it’s a concept too difficult because people don’t understand the positive sides of elitism or what it does when literally all top stats support it. A player averaging 509 avg dmg in his Leo 1 being a casual tanker on his free time not caring about performance is not a player worth using when evaluating the tank. He doesn’t understand the game, the tank, mechanics, maps, or anything the game has to offer. What possible information about the tank could this player give you? Absolutely nothing. A tanks true self is revealed the higher up the ladder you go. This really isn’t a difficult concept nor a new one at all. It’s how good games balance theirs and how you have healthy gameplay quality..

This is quite literally an extremely convoluted way of saying 
 

"The best tank for a good player is likely to be different to the best tank for an average player"

 

I can go on further but that is basically all that it boils down to, not that its wrong. Quite the opposite. 

Share this post


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

My main gripe with your reasoning is you didn't clearly state the definition of best for you, you just simply argue that only 1 player on the server can judge tanks (since he is the best and anyone worse knows less) and that we should evaluate all tanks from his pov. 

No, but we don't have perfect play so the closest thing there is to it are the best players = their performance carry more weight. A shitty player will do better in another tank, and that's perfectly fine if he wants to play that since it'll likely be his best performer relative to where he is on the skill-spectrum. When you reach the end of the spectrum you can only compare with people below you, and the discrepancies are either some RNG or a gap in skill. That gap in skill means there are more to some tanks than 99% of the playerbase have been able to figure out and that they are missing something. (The tank is likely a lot better than what it seems) and that's how you end up with these things. Just watch Stanlocks stat page or something and tell me that the DPG/WR's on top players differ? How is it that 50Bs are stuck in the 60s for many players in winrate but as you start crossing over the 4,2k dpg treshold the WR shoots up to pretty rapidly all the way up 75%? The players pulling these types of high DPGs clearly know something else and it's all an issue of not knowing how to play but judging anyway and resulting in things as the hilarious tank guides made by 47%ers on the official forum. They're wrong, unqualified to judge in the first place and definitely not in a place to sway other people. That's why the bottom, middle and most of the upper part playerbase doesn't even matter when it comes to what really is objectively good or not. How do you know what is good when there's human error in the mix? Reduce it as much as possible and you get something that can come decently close. 

 

And no, I'm not saying the rank 1 player is king and what he says is law, what I said from the start is that the best tank will be the best tank for the best player because that combination is as close to perfect as you can come. If you instead pull stats for the top 100 players for every tank and measure them rather than the entire playerbase, the expected values would look so insanely different and would actually be sensible when comparing tank characteristics with performance. Some tanks have unique qualities, some are very general and this way you get values as close to true as they can be. It'd make sense for game health and it'd literally make sense everywhere. 

The issue of performance for averages players really won't matter either, either you care about performance and learn, or you don't and then the actual balancing situation won't even apply to you anyway. I genuinely don't understand how this is a concept that someone can even misunderstand or worse not even instantly see as the actual way of objectively measuring things like this. 

 

Pubbies give you plenty of information but that information doesn't matter because they don't try. If people aren't actively seeking better performance then balancing has no affect on them anyway, so just rid of that problem entirely and don't balance around them? It really isn't hard to understand. 

 

And no, people can vote for whatever they want. It's a subjective thread about each players' experience when it comes to what they percieve to be the best tank/worst. It's pretty healthy for it because people are different and have different opinions. Everyone is just sharing their own experiences from their side, it only turns into a problem when someone tries to argue with someone elses opinion without knowing what an objective approach is and the argument is just opinion vs opinion. The argument was for what is the actual best tank without player bias involved at all, and my way is the only way you'll ever get that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

T-10: 30 

T-54: 26

AMX M4 51: 24

T49: 25

WZ-111 1-4: 25

Conqueror: 23

Type 4 Heavy: 23

E50: 21

E75: 23 + 1 = 24 If I were a better player, I'd give more of my votes to the T-54 (and I'm honestly not horrible in the T-54), but reasonably mobile and versatile brick that can snapshot chunky alpha?  Yes please.

AMX 30: 22

T30: 20

T95: 21

M46 Patton: 19

B-C 25t AP: 18

Skoda T50: 21

Leopard PTA: 20

Object 704: 20

Object 263: 20

WT Auf Pz. IV: 20

Object 430: 21

ST-I: 20

Tortoise: 20

AMX 13 90: 20

Mauschen: 20

STRV 103-0: 21 

50TP: 20

Standard B: 20

Centurion 7/1: 19

T-54 LW: 8.

Object 257: 17

WZ-132A: 17

WZ-120: 17

 Object 705: 17

Jagdtiger: 18

T54E1 : 12

Conway: 14

 Foch: 14

WZ-111G FT: 15

VK 4502 (B): 9 - 3 = 6 Completely different from the E75 in all the ways that really matter.  Traverse speed that can be measured in lunar cycles.

 Type 61: 8

AMX 50 120: 8

M103: 2 - 3 = - 1 Allow me to finish my old friend. My first ever tier IX tank and also first keeper sold. In good old times it was a proper all-rounder but after first HD model it lost every advantage. In current state it's just bad E50. 

RU 251: 14 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no such thing as a perfect play in a vacuum that exists independent of the players' performance. A best tank without player 'bias 'doesn't exist and can't ever exist, because every play needs other players to farm and anchor positions, and because every good play is predicated upon the enemies (and allies) behaving in a certain way, that allows them to be farmed, or a position to be captured. A good aggressive play might be defeated by suicidal XVM focus; an otherwise bad passive play might be rewarded with good results if the enemies overpush. In such a way, WoT is based upon what I'd lamely dub a chain of countless actions and reactions, every one of which is based more or less on how players act and react.

Pardon my French, but objective my ass

Share this post


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

,WoT is based upon what I'd lamely dub a chain of countless actions and reactions, every one of which is based more or less on how players act and react.

Pardon my French, but objective my ass

So is chess, and the world around you. If you were to react perfectly to everything then you'd be without bias, regardless of how everyone else around you reacts. If it weren't for the flaws in chess computers with a finite amounts of computing, that'd literally be the very same action and reaction of perfection in a vacuum. Regardless whether it plays against another computer or an actual person. 

If you are the perfect player,´the perfect tank will be the one that the perfect player performs the best in, until something changes. 

We don't have a real way of finding out in WoT, because perfection can only be approached and never reached - but it's the closest thing we have so why it's not an axiom is beyond me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fucking hell, my head hurts reading this thread now. This is turning into tank philosophy:notlikethis:.

 

I've actually lost track of what the argument even was at this stage. I think @Kolni made a point along the lines of "he'd prefer to see a less skilled player in something like a T95" for all the obvious reasons.  I get that, it makes perfect sense.... Can we please put away the E-penis's and just carry on. Us shitters are taking notes here, if you could keep on topic that would be great.:kappaross:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, zbran said:

Fucking hell, my head hurts reading this thread now. This is turning into tank philosophy:notlikethis:.

 

I've actually lost track of what the argument even was at this stage. I think @Kolni made a point along the lines of "he'd prefer to see a less skilled player in something like a T95" for all the obvious reasons.  I get that, it makes perfect sense.... Can we please put away the E-penis's and just carry on. Us shitters are taking notes here, if you could keep on topic that would be great.:kappaross:

The topic at hand was about what the best tank is. (Has close to nothing do with the thread though)

Share this post


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

The topic at hand was about what the best tank is. (Has close to nothing do with the thread though)

Ahh ok. So what is the "best tank" is well above my pay grade. What is the best tank "in peoples opinion" is what the thread is about. Carry on them :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • T-10: 30 
  • T-54: 26
  • AMX M4 51: 24
  • T49: 25
  • WZ-111 1-4: 25
  • Conqueror: 23
  • Type 4 Heavy: 23
  • E50: 21
  • E75: 24
  • AMX 30: 22
  • T30: 20
  • T95: 21
  • M46 Patton: 19
  • B-C 25t AP: 18
  • Skoda T50: 21
  • Leopard PTA: 21 - +1, yall sleeping on this overbuffed tank guys
  • Object 704: 20
  • Object 263: 20
  • WT Auf Pz. IV: 20
  • Object 430: 21
  • ST-I: 17 - -3, For the sake of keeping as many tanks in the running for as long as possible I'll spread my votes around since I'll be doing these votes anyway, this tank is not good. Slow, shitty armour, shitty gun and literally everything but what I want in a tank
  • Tortoise: 20
  • AMX 13 90: 20
  • Mauschen: 20
  • STRV 103-0: 21 
  • 50TP: 20
  • Standard B: 20
  • Centurion 7/1: 19
  • T-54 LW: 8.
  • Object 257: 17
  • WZ-132A: 17
  • WZ-120: 17
  •  Object 705: 17
  • Jagdtiger: 18
  • T54E1 : 12
  • Conway: 14
  • Foch: 14
  • WZ-111G FT: 15
  • VK 4502 (B): 6
  • Type 61: 8
  • AMX 50 120: 8
  • RU 251: 14 

Share this post


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

Fucking hell, my head hurts reading this thread now. This is turning into tank philosophy:notlikethis:.

 

I've actually lost track of what the argument even was at this stage. I think @Kolni made a point along the lines of "he'd prefer to see a less skilled player in something like aInsert other media T95" for all the obvious reasons.  I get that, it makes perfect sense.... Can we please put away the E-penis's and just carry on. Us shitters are taking notes here, if you could keep on topic that would be great.:kappaross:

The spark that comes from clashing E-peens is what fuels this forum tho.......by far more incendiary than fags.

In the end it seems there's a broad consensus on tank opinion anyway :doge:
What a fruitful and productive use of time!

Anyway, not sure where the scores are at,

Conqueror 23+1? = 24?? most consistent performer among tier 9 heavies. this tank is where you go if you complain the AMX M4 51 is cheese against HEAT;
Foch 14-3 = 11??? an autoloading casemate TD - what a fucking masterpiece. You literally have to play like a turd to get clipped by this tank, and the rest of the French autoloading TDs.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Updated and ordered

I got two new tier 9s today oh boy here goes

T-10: 30 

T-54: 26

T49: 25

WZ-111 1-4: 25

AMX M4 51: 24

Conqueror: 24

E75: 24

Type 4 Heavy: 23

AMX 30: 23 (+1) Feels like a tier 10 med one tier lower, the AMX30B's meh penetration is actually alright at tier 9 which makes this a fun little package

E50: 21

Skoda T50: 21

T95: 21

Leopard PTA: 21

Object 430: 21

STRV 103-0: 21

Object 263: 20

WT Auf Pz. IV: 20

Object 704: 20

Tortoise: 20

Mauschen: 20

T30: 20

50TP: 20

Standard B: 20

Centurion 7/1: 19 

M46 Patton: 19

B-C 25t AP: 18

Jagdtiger: 18

AMX 13 90: 17 (-3) No matter how fun lights are to play, they are still lights and you have to be retarded not to see the handicap you have in a corridor meta, and they don't deserve to be high on this list (looking at you T49 *cough*)

ST-I: 17

Object 257: 17

WZ-132A: 17

WZ-120: 17

 Object 705: 17

WZ-111G FT: 15

Conway: 14

RU 251: 14

T54E1 : 12

Foch: 11

T-54 LW: 8

Type 61: 8

AMX 50 120: 8

VK 4502 (B): 6

-removed herobrine

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

T-10: 30 

T-54: 26

T49: 25

WZ-111 1-4: 25

AMX M4 51: 24

Conqueror: 25 (+1) This is slightly better at being a heavy than the E75.  I'm also trying to spread out my votes because I don't hold a grudge against any of the tier 9s TBH

E75: 24

Type 4 Heavy: 23

AMX 30: 23 

E50: 21

Skoda T50: 21

T95: 21

Leopard PTA: 21

Object 430: 21

STRV 103-0: 21

Object 263: 20

WT Auf Pz. IV: 20

Object 704: 20

Tortoise: 20

Mauschen: 20

T30: 20

50TP: 20

Standard B: 20

Centurion 7/1: 19 

M46 Patton: 19

B-C 25t AP: 18

Jagdtiger: 18

AMX 13 90: 17 

ST-I: 17

Object 257: 17

WZ-132A: 17

WZ-120: 17

 Object 705: 17

WZ-111G FT: 12 (-3) The 704 has been power creeped hard, so WG introduces a worse version of it to farm  ¥

Conway: 14

RU 251: 14

T54E1 : 12

Foch: 11

T-54 LW: 8

Type 61: 8

AMX 50 120: 8

VK 4502 (B): 6

Share this post


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

No, but we don't have perfect play so the closest thing there is to it are the best players = their performance carry more weight. A shitty player will do better in another tank, and that's perfectly fine if he wants to play that since it'll likely be his best performer relative to where he is on the skill-spectrum. When you reach the end of the spectrum you can only compare with people below you, and the discrepancies are either some RNG or a gap in skill. That gap in skill means there are more to some tanks than 99% of the playerbase have been able to figure out and that they are missing something. (The tank is likely a lot better than what it seems) and that's how you end up with these things. Just watch Stanlocks stat page or something and tell me that the DPG/WR's on top players differ? How is it that 50Bs are stuck in the 60s for many players in winrate but as you start crossing over the 4,2k dpg treshold the WR shoots up to pretty rapidly all the way up 75%? The players pulling these types of high DPGs clearly know something else and it's all an issue of not knowing how to play but judging anyway and resulting in things as the hilarious tank guides made by 47%ers on the official forum. They're wrong, unqualified to judge in the first place and definitely not in a place to sway other people. That's why the bottom, middle and most of the upper part playerbase doesn't even matter when it comes to what really is objectively good or not. How do you know what is good when there's human error in the mix? Reduce it as much as possible and you get something that can come decently close. 

 

And no, I'm not saying the rank 1 player is king and what he says is law, what I said from the start is that the best tank will be the best tank for the best player because that combination is as close to perfect as you can come. If you instead pull stats for the top 100 players for every tank and measure them rather than the entire playerbase, the expected values would look so insanely different and would actually be sensible when comparing tank characteristics with performance. Some tanks have unique qualities, some are very general and this way you get values as close to true as they can be. It'd make sense for game health and it'd literally make sense everywhere. 

The issue of performance for averages players really won't matter either, either you care about performance and learn, or you don't and then the actual balancing situation won't even apply to you anyway. I genuinely don't understand how this is a concept that someone can even misunderstand or worse not even instantly see as the actual way of objectively measuring things like this. 

 

Pubbies give you plenty of information but that information doesn't matter because they don't try. If people aren't actively seeking better performance then balancing has no affect on them anyway, so just rid of that problem entirely and don't balance around them? It really isn't hard to understand. 

 

And no, people can vote for whatever they want. It's a subjective thread about each players' experience when it comes to what they percieve to be the best tank/worst. It's pretty healthy for it because people are different and have different opinions. Everyone is just sharing their own experiences from their side, it only turns into a problem when someone tries to argue with someone elses opinion without knowing what an objective approach is and the argument is just opinion vs opinion. The argument was for what is the actual best tank without player bias involved at all, and my way is the only way you'll ever get that. 

But how do you define best players? One best player? top5? top 20? Top 1000? Depending on how you define it voting will be different

Also you again missed my point and think that I suggested we should listen to bad/worse than you players. I didn't I said we need to observe how different tanks influence different players. Since the worse the player the bigger the bias. The problem is you are basically coming here suggesting you have no bias.

 

Also again you have not defined best - best for pubs is differnt to best for CW or ranked. Also if the meta changes different tanks may become best. This is why the f1 comparison was also silly because you could as well make a claim le mans or wrc is "best". Especially given how much thought is put into WRC suspension. Also as much as I like you and how often I agree with you your view of the best is skewed by your experience in WoT and frustration with bad players. Not so long ago I was doing consulting in downhill bike design, especially suspension. There was no "this one bike is the best". Hell it was even accepted that different bikes were best for world cup pros and for regular riders (even if some magazines overstated the difference) no one said "what's best for the pro is the best". 

Not to mention the best performance depends on how you measure performance. No one defined if best here means "highest wr", "highest dpg", most consistent or just the most fun. What you want is a purely scientific analysis of max skill celling tanks. This is why I'm arguing about. You want a different thing that what is being done in this elimination thread. A thing that could probably be done with an excell spreadsheet. Also your opinion kinda suggest even most purples here should not speak because they are sub 67% wr. 

 

Also theoretically you could assume best tank is a tank that performs best with a player of random skill. You know - you not knowing if your allies are good or not but are happy that they have a type64 over a churchill gc type of thing. 

4 hours ago, lavawing said:

The spark that comes from clashing E-peens is what fuels this forum tho.......by far more incendiary than fags.


 

I don't think we are comparing e-peens with Kolni here. He is clearly way better than me. Especially since I stopped playing regurarly and got even worse in the last few weeks. It's just an engaging discussion, at least for me. 

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.