Average Damage Comparison at tier 10

[swisstika 21]

All this is collected from vBAddict (filtered for t10 machines only) which by no means is 100% correct but i think it gives an indication of tank class comparison quite nicely

 

Heavy         - 1,959.1 Avg. Dmg.

Medium      - 2,027.8 Avg. Dmg.

SPG            - 1,677.9 Avg. Dmg.

TD              - 1,965.1 Avg. Dmg.

 

**halfway throug this I started thinking about XP distribution for roles.

 

** As you can see the classes are pretty much the same across the board except for ary which averages significantly less but who am I to judge a person for taking up a t10 slot with a useless RNG slot machine. Anyways the point of this was to look at the shiny numbers and talk about general class balance based solely on damage output. Should the classes be averaging about the same damage per game or should it be significantly different?

 

1. I think that TD's should be doing the most, at least 15% more than the second place contender simply because that is their primary purpose (dishing damage = more xp).

 

2. Heavies should be at the forefront of the battle in most cases and should be able to tank for their team and deal a lot of damage simply because of their proximity to enemy machines (tanking = more xp than damage)

 

3. Mediums have their place in dishing damage but I am one of the few that think they are a bit more like MBTs than "mediums" simply because of their ability to flex around the map and deal damage comparable to heavies with the bonuses of having better cammo, better penetration values, better maneuverability, better speed, and in some instances higher dpm which makes them more useful than a lot of heavies

 

4. No arty opinion because of all the feels.

 

** Seeing all of this is it fair to welcome a Class rebalance or just leave it as it is because these numbers just show the current meta and that changes with time?

 

** I welcome criticism of my opinions and I feel that most comments will help me formulate a better understanding of tank classes on a whole. Thank you.

[Xen 805]

As you say, T10 MTs are more like MBTs than MTs. MBTs are superior to HTs and TDs which is why IRL we abandoned most of the other classes in favour of MBTs. I see no problem here.

 

Who cares about bush- and skycyncer?

[Burdenedfungus 773]

It doesn't matter what the numbers are on vbaddict because there are so many shit players out there that will tank the damage of each class. If you could only take the damage for unicums meds will probably have the highest dpg due to ability to escape bad positions or cross the map for more damage. I feel like heavies and TDs would be close together but TDs might be a bit higher just because the ability to do so much damage in a single shot.

 

Basically what the numbers already say.

[Tman450 210]

As you say, T10 MTs are more like MBTs than MTs. MBTs are superior to HTs and TDs which is why IRL we abandoned most of the other classes in favour of MBTs. I see no problem here.

 

Who cares about bush- and skycyncer?

 

This. Screw all other classes. Medium is the reallife.

[swisstika 21]

As you say, T10 MTs are more like MBTs than MTs. MBTs are superior to HTs and TDs which is why IRL we abandoned most of the other classes in favour of MBTs. I see no problem here.

 

Who cares about bush- and skycyncer?

 

I don't have a problem with it but since WG wants to implement this whole class thing its reasonable to think that "MTs" would have lower alpha or lower pen. Don't get me wrong, I love my meds more than any other class but I do feel like I have a huge advantage over any other class when I'm in a t10 med   but thats just me and no1 will agree with me and neg me for no reason cuz they don't want their meds changed 

 

EDIT: not that i want them changed. I don't, but heavies could use a little love

[swisstika 21]

It doesn't matter what the numbers are on vbaddict because there are so many shit players out there that will tank the damage of each class. If you could only take the damage for unicums meds will probably have the highest dpg due to ability to escape bad positions or cross the map for more damage. I feel like heavies and TDs would be close together but TDs might be a bit higher just because the ability to do so much damage in a single shot.

 

Basically what the numbers already say.

 

This is true and shows that MTs are the more flexible class thus "better" players will tend to use them more or do better in them. Wouldn't you then think that HTs could use some buffs to compensate for being XP and WN8 milking cattle for meds? I believe its better to buff HTs rather than nerfing MTs simply because players would welcome slight buffs over nerfs of any degree.

[Xen 805]

It doesn't matter what the numbers are on vbaddict

 

[...]

 

Basically what the numbers already say.

 

The contradiction is real.

I don't have a problem with it but since WG wants to implement this whole class thing its reasonable to think that "MTs" would have lower alpha or lower pen. Don't get me wrong, I love my meds more than any other class but I do feel like I have a huge advantage over any other class when I'm in a t10 med   but thats just me and no1 will agree with me and neg me for no reason cuz they don't want their meds changed 

 

EDIT: not that i want them changed. I don't, but heavies could use a little love

 

The thing is, T10 MTs in WoT aren't MTs.

[Gryphon_ 541]

I recommend you look at the expected damage values from WN8 if you want to get a better view of what each tank delivers once corrected for player skill. 

 

Averages just dont give the true picture, for the reasons you mentioned. The only worse way of doing it would be to look at tank winrate, which is of course what WG does and much is explained by that.

 

I am hoping that someone in the WG 'balance department' is looking at wnefficiency.net and realizing that there is a lot of useful information there that they should be using... but hope is what you have when there is nothing else...

 

[GehakteMolen 2,063]

As you say, T10 MTs are more like MBTs than MTs. MBTs are superior to HTs and TDs which is why IRL we abandoned most of the other classes in favour of MBTs. I see no problem here.

 

Who cares about bush- and skycyncer?

 

Well, thats because IRL cost / effectivness > anything else, full scale war is a numbers game, so havign super expensive tanks like IS7 make little sense, hence heavy tanks became obsolete, while TDs are not flexible enough, and offer no real advantage (no need for huge guns, since nothing has armor anyway)

 

Also, stuff like WTF-E100 wont work IRL

 

ps: modern MBT`s are more like heavy tanks as mediums, will try to find back the (100 pages long) discussion about it

[swisstika 21]

Well, thats because IRL cost / effectivness > anything else, full scale war is a numbers game, so havign super expensive tanks like IS7 make little sense, hence heavy tanks became obsolete, while TDs are not flexible enough, and offer no real advantage (no need for huge guns, since nothing has armor anyway)

 

Also, stuff like WTF-E100 wont work IRL

 

ps: modern MBT`s are more like heavy tanks as mediums, will try to find back the (100 pages long) discussion about it

 

Okay so in WOT do T10 HTs compare favorably in any way to T10 "MT's/MBTs"?

 

** Personally I prefer accurate, high pen guns with high DPM over high alpha machines.

[Tman450 210]

Well, thats because IRL cost / effectivness > anything else, full scale war is a numbers game, so havign super expensive tanks like IS7 make little sense, hence heavy tanks became obsolete, while TDs are not flexible enough, and offer no real advantage (no need for huge guns, since nothing has armor anyway)

 

Also, stuff like WTF-E100 wont work IRL

 

ps: modern MBT`s are more like heavy tanks as mediums, will try to find back the (100 pages long) discussion about it

MBT's combine the best traits of heavy and medium tanks. the majority of modern MBT's are pretty dang fast, while having really, really good armor, and really good guns.

 

Also in World of tanks, the tank classification doesn't really matter. it's per-tank basis. (50b more like a med, IS-8 more like a med, low-tier french "lights", Tier 5 Crusader "light" tank

[MrsmilieyfaceC8 668]

It doesn't matter what the numbers are on vbaddict because there are so many shit players out there that will tank the damage of each class. If you could only take the damage for unicums meds will probably have the highest dpg due to ability to escape bad positions or cross the map for more damage. I feel like heavies and TDs would be close together but TDs might be a bit higher just because the ability to do so much damage in a single shot.

Basically what the numbers already say.

wait so the almost 5k dpg TD stats from unis don't beat out dpg from meds?

hell I padded 3.4k dpg in E4 when I had a shit purple (2800-3000)recent compared to 2700dpg in RUmeds. I might need to do an E4 challenge...lol

[Garbad 10,517]

I recommend you look at the expected damage values from WN8 if you want to get a better view of what each tank delivers once corrected for player skill. 

 

Nah.  This is a "by greens, for greens" comment.  Why is 1565 wn8 a good point to set the scale at, as opposed to average, unicum, or anywhere else?  Its a well known flaw that wn8's single point system makes mediums look insane in high levels and TDs look mediocre.

[Masta_kam 167]

As you say, T10 MTs are more like MBTs than MTs. MBTs are superior to HTs and TDs which is why IRL we abandoned most of the other classes in favour of MBTs. I see no problem here.

 

Who cares about bush- and skycyncer?

exactly my thoughts

[GehakteMolen 2,063]

Okay so in WOT do T10 HTs compare favorably in any way to T10 "MT's/MBTs"?

 

** Personally I prefer accurate, high pen guns with high DPM over high alpha machines.

 

I would say yes, the heavy-mediums of medium-heavys are most of the time among the best tanks in-tier tanks (E50, Wz-111-1/4, E5, IS7, 50B) while a bit broader, the mediums with some armor are almost always better as those without (T62 vs leopard)

 

ps: but imo``flexing`` and ``flexibility`` are vastly over-rated, its not that beiing fast comes at an (often) heavy price. And a good, slow, tank, can easy win as much as a fast tank, its just that you need to play ``smarter``, with r-r-r, brawl, and hoping the other side wins, you will never win a lot. Sure, lack of mobility will make you loose, but so will having no armor make you loose, or beiing too weak to fight in the area that matters (the brawl), its just you can see more easy: crap im too late to decap, we loose, while its hard to see, crap im stuck in this useless position due to no armor.

 

(my slow tanks win equal much as my fast tanks, there is for me no relation whatsoever between mobility and winning, the only reason i win more with meds as with heavys is that i always grind heavys before meds, since stock heavys are less terrible as stock meds )

[Garbad 10,517]

Tier 10 is not well balanced.

 

Let's compare it to tier 8, which is widely considered the most balanced tier.  Take for example speed -- fastest t8 heavies are ~35ish, slowest are ~25.  Mediums are ~50.  In tier 10, the heavies get slower (30 to 15) but the mediums get quicker.  But consider firepower.  Where a t10 heavy probably has less firepower than a t8 heavy, relatively, a t10 medium has drastically more.

 

T10 mediums are extraordinarily powerful.  They are as quick as their lower tier brothers, or quicker.  They have great camo/vision -- typically as good as a top tier light.  They often have workable armor (T-62A turret, etc), at least for some situations.  They have punishing DPM, good pen, and acceptable alpha.  In short, they have no weaknesses AND have all the advantages of speed, armor, and firepower.  By contrast, the heavies get slower and slower.  This makes them even more inflexible, more vulnerable to flanks/cap fast, more vulnerable to cancer (even as the clickers get more and more cancerous).  Their firepower gap is gone -- typically they have only ~67% of the dpm, worse pen, and not so great alpha.  And even their armor is less effective given fantastic t10 medium penetration, fire control, and gold spam.

 

So in sum, the t10 mediums become essentially the perfect tanks -- without flaw, good at everything and still flexible.  Meanwhile, the heavies retain their flaws, and see them magnified for no benefit.

 

P.S.  And it all starts with the OP T-54.  Because WG decided not to nerf the obviously OP soviet fantasy tank, they have to power creep every other t10 medium up to insane levels.  Cancer obscured this for a time, but now its plainly obvious...especially after WG nerfed heavies/tds and left meds alone.  T10 tanks in general are way too powerful, especially considering the map sizes, and way too stronk compared to lower tiers.  Mediums are the worst of this.

[GehakteMolen 2,063]

Tier 10 is not well balanced.

 

Let's compare it to tier 8, which is widely considered the most balanced tier.  Take for example speed -- fastest t8 heavies are ~35ish, slowest are ~25.  Mediums are ~50.  In tier 10, the heavies get slower (30 to 15) but the mediums get quicker.  But consider firepower.  Where a t10 heavy probably has less firepower than a t8 heavy, relatively, a t10 medium has drastically more.

 

T10 mediums are extraordinarily powerful.  They are as quick as their lower tier brothers, or quicker.  They have great camo/vision -- typically as good as a top tier light.  They often have workable armor (T-62A turret, etc), at least for some situations.  They have punishing DPM, good pen, and acceptable alpha.  In short, they have no weaknesses AND have all the advantages of speed, armor, and firepower.  By contrast, the heavies get slower and slower.  This makes them even more inflexible, more vulnerable to flanks/cap fast, more vulnerable to cancer (even as the clickers get more and more cancerous).  Their firepower gap is gone -- typically they have only ~67% of the dpm, worse pen, and not so great alpha.  And even their armor is less effective given fantastic t10 medium penetration, fire control, and gold spam.

 

So in sum, the t10 mediums become essentially the perfect tanks -- without flaw, good at everything and still flexible.  Meanwhile, the heavies retain their flaws, and see them magnified for no benefit.

 

P.S.  And it all starts with the OP T-54.  Because WG decided not to nerf the obviously OP soviet fantasy tank, they have to power creep every other t10 medium up to insane levels.  Cancer obscured this for a time, but now its plainly obvious...especially after WG nerfed heavies/tds and left meds alone.  T10 tanks in general are way too powerful, especially considering the map sizes, and way too stronk compared to lower tiers.  Mediums are the worst of this.

 

+1

 

Tier 10 is the outlier in terms of ``wot-balance`` (and imo not for the good) mediums keep their strengths and become even better, while heavy are just a continuation of the previous stuff....

 

Iis  the same crap that tier 10 TDs used to have almost no cons, on tier 8 a TD has low hitpoints and either armor, or mobility or camo, but never all, but tier 10? they all had a railgun, with massive armor, good camo, way too much hitpoints, turrets, autoloaders, even bigger autoloaders or 1750 alpha dmg, because why not?

 

ps: i still dont like tier 10 mediums much though, mostly due to all the autoloaders, the mega camp and the general terrible gameplay, it just doesnt *click*, meainwhile WG is ``busy fixing``, but it goes so bl00dy slow... (how many months / patches to fix tds? and the medium rebalance got also already cancelled again, the balancing department are suchs cowards when it comes to major changes or popular OP mobiles like KV-1s or Hellcat....)

[Dragos_CS 284]

Tier 10 is not well balanced.

 

Let's compare it to tier 8, which is widely considered the most balanced tier.  Take for example speed -- fastest t8 heavies are ~35ish, slowest are ~25.  Mediums are ~50.  In tier 10, the heavies get slower (30 to 15) but the mediums get quicker.  But consider firepower.  Where a t10 heavy probably has less firepower than a t8 heavy, relatively, a t10 medium has drastically more.

 

T10 mediums are extraordinarily powerful.  They are as quick as their lower tier brothers, or quicker.  They have great camo/vision -- typically as good as a top tier light.  They often have workable armor (T-62A turret, etc), at least for some situations.  They have punishing DPM, good pen, and acceptable alpha.  In short, they have no weaknesses AND have all the advantages of speed, armor, and firepower.  By contrast, the heavies get slower and slower.  This makes them even more inflexible, more vulnerable to flanks/cap fast, more vulnerable to cancer (even as the clickers get more and more cancerous).  Their firepower gap is gone -- typically they have only ~67% of the dpm, worse pen, and not so great alpha.  And even their armor is less effective given fantastic t10 medium penetration, fire control, and gold spam.

 

So in sum, the t10 mediums become essentially the perfect tanks -- without flaw, good at everything and still flexible.  Meanwhile, the heavies retain their flaws, and see them magnified for no benefit.

 

P.S.  And it all starts with the OP T-54.  Because WG decided not to nerf the obviously OP soviet fantasy tank, they have to power creep every other t10 medium up to insane levels.  Cancer obscured this for a time, but now its plainly obvious...especially after WG nerfed heavies/tds and left meds alone.  T10 tanks in general are way too powerful, especially considering the map sizes, and way too stronk compared to lower tiers.  Mediums are the worst of this.

I think the general consensus is that meds are waaay too bad until tier 9. I really dont see the point of those tanks with exception of some outliers like T34-85, 416, Cromwell. To me, those should be the staple of their respective tiers, not all the other "grind me please to get to better stuff" tanks. I guess thats just general vision on the game. While GM and Garbad like to see heavies being in the spotlight, i dont, i like to see every class useful AND equal in terms of capabilities. And thats not the case at tiers 5-8.

For example comparing a T62/140 with a Maus/IS4 is non-sense. Why dont you compare it with E100/IS7 and the Maus/IS4 with the Fatton. Every class has slight overperformers and bad apples at T10. Dont victimize the HTs because they cant own like they did when they were the only tier 10s.

[Garbad 10,517]

I think the general consensus is that meds are waaay too bad until tier 9. I really dont see the point of those tanks with exception of some outliers like T34-85, 416, Cromwell. To me, those should be the staple of their respective tiers, not all the other "grind me please to get to better stuff" tanks. I guess thats just general vision on the game. While GM and Garbad like to see heavies being in the spotlight, i dont, i like to see every class useful AND equal in terms of capabilities. And thats not the case at tiers 5-8.

For example comparing a T62/140 with a Maus/IS4 is non-sense. Why dont you compare it with E100/IS7 and the Maus/IS4 with the Fatton. Every class has slight overperformers and bad apples at T10. Dont victimize the HTs because they cant own like they did when they were the only tier 10s.

Well, I think they are slightly underpowered at tier 7/8, but not huge.  But remember they theoretically get a MM weight advantage too, so its not intended to be apples to apples in tank strength.  If I were in charge of WOT balancing, I would drop the reduced MM weight on mediums and buff them either by 1) improving bloom values to make mediums better at moving combat, and more similar to t10 meds) or 2) increase dpm and other random stats.  But I would buff most t8 meds to some degree to be equal to a typical heavy.  (T69 and 416 and such obviously aren't getting buffed).

 

But even without that, t8 meds have some advantages on t8 hvys, or tds.  Each class has strengths/weaknesses/roles that get blurred in tier 10.  E4 = a td with the hp of a heavy, the armor of a heavy, the mobility of a heavy, the view range/camo of a medium, a turret, and twice the alpha.  Where is the balance in that? 

 

And I was comparing class to class.  There can be no discussion that mediums > heavies in t10.  There is likewise no dispute that the best meds > the best heavies.  This is despite the fact that we are in a corridor tank meta!  That's obviously a problem.

[Dragos_CS 284]

Well, I think they are slightly underpowered at tier 7/8, but not huge.  But remember they theoretically get a MM weight advantage too, so its not intended to be apples to apples in tank strength.  If I were in charge of WOT balancing, I would drop the reduced MM weight on mediums and buff them either by 1) improving bloom values to make mediums better at moving combat, and more similar to t10 meds) or 2) increase dpm and other random stats.  But I would buff most t8 meds to some degree to be equal to a typical heavy.  (T69 and 416 and such obviously aren't getting buffed).

 

But even without that, t8 meds have some advantages on t8 hvys, or tds.  Each class has strengths/weaknesses/roles that get blurred in tier 10.  E4 = a td with the hp of a heavy, the armor of a heavy, the mobility of a heavy, the view range/camo of a medium, a turret, and twice the alpha.  Where is the balance in that? 

 

And I was comparing class to class.  There can be no discussion that mediums > heavies in t10.  There is likewise no dispute that the best meds > the best heavies.  This is despite the fact that we are in a corridor tank meta!  That's obviously a problem.

MM weight is definitely a stupid balance factor. It is like telling the driver "your tank is shittier than most stuff in its tier" so that really needs to be looked at. Also consider that for the average pubbie, heavies still perform much better than mediums, because of the higher skill floor, so it kind of makes sense to give mediums a higher skill ceiling to compensate for how much harder it is to play them with decent results.

[GehakteMolen 2,063]

MM weight is definitely a stupid balance factor. It is like telling the driver "your tank is shittier than most stuff in its tier" so that really needs to be looked at. Also consider that for the average pubbie, heavies still perform much better than mediums, because of the higher skill floor, so it kind of makes sense to give mediums a higher skill ceiling to compensate for how much harder it is to play them with decent results.

 

Its a left over from beta / early game, heavys were always better as same tier meds of tds, except on tier 9, were meds were (supposed to be... *cough* IS4 *chough*) better as tier 9 heavys (but there were tier 10 heavys)

 

To compensate, heavys got worse mm weight, so if you get many meds, you get more high tier tanks.

 

The idea behind this was (i think):

- joe avg tries heavy tanks first

- heavy tanks are the easiest for joe avg

- its for the meta game the best of all joe avg are in heavy tanks

 

While for a good player having all the reds in heavy tanks is way better as in meds or tds, when they are in TDs they will camp while in meds they will suicide, or yolo rush into a lone tank and rek him.

 

Also whe you are bottom tier, its better to face an enemy heavy tank as TD, when im E8 or T-34-85, and i meet an tier 8 med, i get just mowed down, im too slow to run and to weak to fight, a heavy tank might be even thougher to fight, BUT it cant outrun you. A MAUS vs tier 8 tanks is much more balanced and fun as an E50m, the E50m will just gun down anything and everything, and nothing you can do, no tier 8 tank has the armor or firepower to kill it, and nobody will be able to outflank or outrun it, but a Maus, you can drive him stuck, perma track him, outcap him, etc etc etc

 

Having all the bad players in heavy tanks is for the game as whole by far the best ``solution`` for many problems, and once all the bad players are driving heavy tanks again, you can look for open maps and other stuff, but getting them in heavys (and not TDs or bat chats...) is essential...

[evacmybore 60]

3% delta between Meds, Heavies, and TD's, as a class, for the entire T10 game count

 

The avg dmg spread is 63 points, which is, (as a swag) about 10% of one pen's damage between T10 meds/heavies/tds average alpha.

 

 

 

I'd say that is pretty damn even across the board, and the wins per T10 tank class would be an interesting point to match up.

[Tigernos 375]

I have yet to reach tier 10 so cannot comment in any meaningful way to game balance at that level but I do know a bit about history and I would say past most tanks at tier 8, at least historically speaking, there isn't a divide between heavies and mediums anymore at least in any obvious way.

 

Take the British tanks of that tier/time (only because I know more about them than other countries) the Caernarvon/Conqueror variants were slightly up-gunned versions of the Centurion who's purpose was to provide long range anti tank support for the Centurion while the Cent did the close quarters work. It wasn't until the Chieftain that the split vanished entirely (and that hopefully will be the new Tier 10 at the end of the British tree and not that god awful prototype) and if I remember correctly they will be putting the Chieftain in as the top tier "heavy" for the British line when it was developed off the back of the Centurion.

 

The problem WG have and the one they have failed to address properly is that the real world "meta" changed in the 50s and 60s to more MBT universal all rounder tanks and they have tried to preserve their class based system of tanks and so have added in whatever prototypes and half baked ideas the engineers had committed to paper after the war.

 

What you end up with is for those engineers who put some decent ideas down on paper you end up with 3 MBT variants with good potential, Obj 140, 430 and T-62A (although the two objects were just prototypes of the T-62A anyway iirc) or if they didn't and instead followed the British way of "put a bigger gun on it!!" you end up with the medium, heavy and TD variations in the game that are literally the same chassis from tier 8/9 (centurion conqueror) with increasingly silly guns and lacking armour and mobility entirely.

 

What you end up with is endgame content that is almost entirely unbalanced in favour of the MBT style tanks that run rings around the tanks that were prototyped with second world war designs as their base.

 

TL;DR fuck arty and tier ten will likely never be balanced without leaving historical representation out entirely

[Lionsgotswag 7]

meds are broken and should not have the best of everything, if anything makes this game bad its the imbalance of medium tanks not arty which is also imbalanced but not to the same degree. 

[evacmybore 60]

meds are broken and should not have the best of everything, if anything makes this game bad its the imbalance of medium tanks not arty which is also imbalanced but not to the same degree. 

 

So the rundown is;

 

Armor is broken

Maps are broken

Mega HEAT pen is broken

Waffles are broken (Clip fed killers)

Autos in general are broken

Meds are broken

Spotting is broken for Lights

RU Meds are broken

Type 59's are broken

9.6 accuracy is broken

8.6 (8.5?) accuracy is broken

Arty is broken

MM is broken

etc, etc

 

My fav tank doesn't rule on all map types, so its broken..........

 

Damn, all this unhappiness and breakage on a computer game.  I hope we all don't just pack it in!