Jump to content
RichardNixon

WN9 candidate prototype

Recommended Posts

 

Furthering RN's point about the achievement vs skill metric thing: WN8 unintentionally became the achievement metric thanks to the deluded groups of players who didn't read the wiki (not that this will change with WN9). Have a look at the number of shitters on this forum (or browse the IDEAL clan app archive) who think recent <3, 4 or 5k> rWN8 puts them on <X> level of skill.

Regardless of the accuracy of the metric, tuning WN9 to the implementation of a reward is a fools gambit, it encourages the player base to learn how to pad a metric, not learn how to play the game better - this *should* be the forefront of all unica's priorities tbh. Three digit scale is nice and unique as pointed out above, I'd strongly suggest keeping it.

Tier 1-4 are irrelevant for me, you and your friends maybe, but again changing WN9 to focus on this is an implementation for the high skilled players, not for the whole player base or in-fact, the facts of the dataset.

WN9 and WR working completely independently = bad idea. If you can't win but have good WN9 you're still a shitter and should be laughed at.

If you want to measure how much a guy gets out of lost games where the team is shit and not even god-king Garbad could carry it - check their average exp on the tank. 67% and 1200exp is a very, very good result. 75% and 1300 probably platoons more but is still sick (I'd say the latter is the better player overall though). I fear that having the two work together is only a problem for the elite players to measure between who's 99.96% and 99.99% (this goes for the above too).

I assume that by scrapping the overall part of the metric we would get rid of the problem of the exclusion of low tier games.

What RN said about this matter makes me incline towards this quite heavily. Its not worth the effort and it wont be accurate anyway because of how much this game has changed in time.

The argument of having WR and WN9 work completely separated is that they will not pollute eachother, and will be more reliable when actually used together. Having WR as part of a metric which has the purpose to validate one's ability to win through personal contribution (A.K.A winrate) is counterproductive. Its well known WR is not reliable on its own, no matter how much you try. Platoons pollute it, tank selection does as well.

XP is also invalidated (like completely invalidated) by premium account bias, not to mention the case of arties and lights. Some tanks also have XP multipliers (Churchill 3 comes to mind).

 

One big problem that WN8 has inflicted on the game is that players don't cap any more, even when they really should. Its crazy how many games are lost because everyone wants more damage.

Every metric has had a HUGE impact on how people played the game:

- WR as main metric = 3-man platoons spam

- eff = cap fiesta

- wn7 = hellcat/kvas spam

- wn8 = damage farm/tank selection

Thats why im trying to advise care upon implementation. Everybody says they dont care, yet everybody does.

 

I noticed that too. This is kind of a silly comparison, but my avg cap is currently 1.75/game. While very high in general, it's almost triple the average of the active top WN8 players. You'll also see this when comparing older and newer top players. The ones that quit (or just rarely play nowadays) while WN8 was a younger metric tend to have higher cap/game, usually between 0.75 and 1, while newer/more active top players tend to have around 0.5. The current top WN8 player in NA has 0.1 cap/game, which is absurdly low. I'm sure Eff and WN7 have a lot to do with this, of course.

I'm not entirely sure this is a bad thing (WN8 is not the only thing rewarding this - XP/credit income for farming damage is far better than a safe cap), but it does seem to tell me that there's a seriously massive amount of empty damage farming going on in almost all purples.

To me all those cap points of older players smell like eff farm to be honest as well as WR farm (as in, capping even if killing all to win is completely plausible).

Well, technically, any damage you do after you trigger the snowball on the enemy team is empty damage. Its a broad term and also quite subjective, but everybody, not only purples, have *some* so-called empty damage in their stats.

 

3. It's primarily a way to lessen the impact of earlier noob battles in lower tier tanks. Bear in mind that the standard way to pad achievement metrics is to reroll, so methods are needed to level the playing field. The WG-PR battle-count adjustment is also an option, although it gets a bad press.

4. Actually two reasons:

a) The skill metric argument: Concentrating battles in a small number of tanks means that you have better crew skills, you're playing a smaller proportion of stock grinds and you may not be as broadly skilled as a player who plays a wide range of tanks.

b) The achievement metric argument: More tanks == more achievement. It's primarily a grinding game, after all. Overall metrics already reward playing further battles with no improvement.

Discussing achievement metrics always feels like a reductio ad absurdum to me though. Leaving that junk to WG might be the sane option, but it feels like an adoption barrier not to have an overall value, as other metrics have them. Very annoying.

Im quite convinced. Leave wn9 as a recent-only metric. It retains most of its validity this way. Whether you want to introduce it as an afterthought or not is your choice, although i would suggest not doing it at all if its not valid/only a consolation for autists.

Personality rating for overalls i guess then. WG *do* have the best database after all.

 

I struggle to care about the community or the success of the metric, but I'm not sure it'll ever sell. There are two related problems:

a) Lack of assisted damage. In practice it's still much better than any of the other metrics, partly because spots are a better discriminator than they look, but it doesn't matter. Missing obviously desirable feature => auto-loss.

b) Anti-damage propaganda. There's a common view that the biggest problem with WN8 (and hence WN9) is that it's damage-based. The case is overstated, but contains enough truth and truth-sounding to be appealing. Again, assisted damage would help.

I've never been in contact with the RU guys. I imagine they'll stick with xTE in the record. I don't know what they use for in-battle stats by default now, but they should just use WG-PR if they're not going to collect recent data. At least it's cheap.

I hope the two posts merge.

Community feedback is important in my opinion. It would be a shame to leave this crusade where it is after all the effort.

Convincing all the autists will not be easy, but i can take on that responsability if necessary and if you dont wish to deal with the petty part of the implementation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

To me all those cap points of older players smell like eff farm to be honest as well as WR farm

Eff has a lot to do with it, but it would seem to me that it's normal to get that ~.8 cap points/game (a bit higher or lower depending on your skill level) while playing completely normally. My kind of cap is the kind of cap you'd see from a eff padder, not their 0.8.

"WR farm" is a bit of a silly term. There's absolutely nothing wrong with capping when killing all is plausible. In fact, it makes you a better player. The line only gets blurred when you're capping when losing is virtually impossible, which would mean you aren't farming winrate anyway since it's unlikely to ever win you a game.

@RichardNixon Isn't the average cap points for a purple much lower than other groups? I'd be surprised if not, but it would also seem to me that the logical conclusion of the higher survival and win rates of purple players is that have more opportunities for capping. Wouldn't that mean purples should have higher cap/game than yellows even if everyone is farming empty damage at the same rate?

Obviously, everyone farms empty damage to some extent, my point was more that purples seem to do an extraordinary amount of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Wn9 is recent only, and the problem with cap points in WN8 was that many players had huge cap points on their accounts, as long as capping has strong correlation to winning it might be worth bringing it back.

(Cue: Folt having a cow)

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Isn't the average cap points for a purple much lower than other groups?

This was actually a pain because I don't store overall caps on my account/tanks data:

KpWStMt.pngxyGLqrP.png

Well, that was pretty disgusting.

Note that the levels are still low. If you sat in the cap zone at the end of most survived & won games you'd expect 10+ rather than 2. I suspect it's mostly heavies and slow TDs parking up because someone else will get to the damage first.

 

 

If Wn9 is recent only, and the problem with cap points in WN8 was that many players had huge cap points on their accounts, as long as capping has strong correlation to winning it might be worth bringing it back.

I run the WN9 correlations constrained by tier & class, so true recent data is probably too thin. Cap points are currently a positive discriminator, although only a marginal one. Slightly better than defense though. Probably wouldn't hurt as a 4th root, although I'm not sure it's worth it.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the fact that caps seem to thin towards the end of the graph (for the recent one) might also be a problem of mentality. I like killing all. I like letting people kill all. I like running for damage. Even if i cant get any more damage i will either wait outside of the cap until all are dead or simply keep driving for that last magic shot of damage/kill. There are enough "kep or loose" people around.

I could pad like 3-4 or even more caps/game without much damage loss if i wanted to. Why dont i do it? Because unlike damage i get nothing for them.

Please, for the love of god, dont incetivize useless capping.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you still get cap points if the win is by elimination? If so, I agree with Dragos; if not, I dont....

If cap points were in WN9 as a minor term, right down there with DEF, that would be perfect, as it might reverse the meta problem we have inflicted on wot by taking it completely out

Example, game today, other team had it in the bag and drove straight through our cap to come kill us, then failed and lost - the only reason they do that is WN8 / xp gain

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Do you still get cap points if the win is by elimination? If so, I agree with Dragos; if not, I dont....

If cap points were in WN9 as a minor term, right down there with DEF, that would be perfect, as it might reverse the meta problem we have inflicted on wot by taking it completely out

Example, game today, other team had it in the bag and drove straight through our cap to come kill us, then failed and lost - the only reason they do that is WN8 / xp gain

Problem with pubs on EU is that you cant really pinpoint why they didnt cap. Sometimes i incline to think they are just stupid. Then ive heard people say they would rather lose than win by cap. You have those too.

While wn8 has undoubtedly affected the way people think about capping, i dont think it applies for anything lower than light blue, since thats where the obsession about stats usually starts and you get individuals that throw games for damage. There are some outliers like in any other case but the bulk of the #throwfordamage mentality is among the top 10% stats-wise most probably. Outside of that, its mostly lack of knowledge, lack of interest or straight up stubborness ("unicorn said cap, must kill all to demonstrate dominance" "oh fuck he was right and we lose now RIP RIP").

Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, the perfect metric should eliminate rerolls, stock grinds, newbie times, stat-padding. It should be recent (last 100 battles/tank) and selective (apply only for competitive tanks + all tier X). Who cares about the WN8 you get on an ARL v39? There can easily be made a list with the tanks used in CW6, CW8, ESL, etc.. Add all tier Xs over that and you have your tank pool. If you want to show up your stats, do it in some proper and useful tanks... Individual stats for the rest of the tanks can still show up but not add to the overall.

Skill is measured mostly for competitive play: to initially get accepted in a clan or a team. Or this is how I see it... From my point of view, I want higher stats just for the chance to get in better clans. For e-peen, there is session stats.

Class values should also be adjusted. It's harder to hit 4k in a TD than in an MT... and so on.

If you're afraid this will change the meta and there will be only IS3s and T54lts in tier VIII meta, than this can be a concurrent metric with WN8-9. Just place this selective metric next to it: Let's call it competitive efficiency (CN)... a selective WN8-9.

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

I noticed that too. This is kind of a silly comparison, but my avg cap is currently 1.75/game. While very high in general, it's almost triple the average of the active top WN8 players. You'll also see this when comparing older and newer top players. The ones that quit (or just rarely play nowadays) while WN8 was a younger metric tend to have higher cap/game, usually between 0.75 and 1, while newer/more active top players tend to have around 0.5. The current top WN8 player in NA has 0.1 cap/game, which is absurdly low. I'm sure Eff and WN7 have a lot to do with this, of course.

I'm not entirely sure this is a bad thing (WN8 is not the only thing rewarding this - XP/credit income for farming damage is far better than a safe cap), but it does seem to tell me that there's a seriously massive amount of empty damage farming going on in almost all purples.

Anything below ~1.2 caps / game means you lost games by not capping (and 1.2 is bare minimum, since that already includes games won because some1 else capped (me) )

How i know?

http://www.noobmeter.com/recent/eu/vODkjha/500187929/500187929_00015910_20121121_050921/500187929_00031493_20160101_145213

The biggest cap hater of the game, and even he has 1.2 cap / game last 15k games, lower as 1.2 is simply not possible, period (perhaps on NA its different, but on EU 100% not, and i know super unicum with like 0.3 cap / game, but all it shows is they trow wins for dmg....)

Im at 2.08 cap / battle overall and 1.96 for ``recent`` 25k, and i dont like capping much, and never ever fast cap or do crap like that, capping is last resort or when the win is at stake.

I also often tend to die at the end,  further reducing cap points

TL:DR: anyone with less as 1 cap/battle has a lower winrate as they should have, you cant cap so little and still say you care for a win...

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Who cares about the WN8 you get on an ARL v39?

What's the point in playing the ARL V39 if you don't want to see how well you can play it? It's not like there are any decent tanks later in the line.

Filtering to competitive tanks is within the scope of the metric, provided that tanks/stats is used. You can do tiers, classes, clan wars tanks or whatever. It's down to what websites want to show.

Filtering stock grinds is possible (I do it when calculating expected values), but sites would need to guess where the stock games end from the earned XP, and take very frequent tanks/stats snapshots. That's a lot of database capacity and a lot of bandwidth per player. The sort of thing you'd need to pay for, maybe.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that you now get cap points even if all enemy tanks are killed (checked it like 18 months ago) but I don't think it was like that during the efficiency era which would make the change in cap values even bigger.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Capping is less relative to when Eff or Wn7 was around because the meta has become faster with autoloading tanks, increased # of light tanks/battle, shift from HTs to MTs , capping doesn't work when your enemy can get back and rekt you in 30 seconds or less. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Anything below ~1.2 caps / game means you lost games by not capping (and 1.2 is bare minimum, since that already includes games won because some1 else capped (me) )

How i know?

http://www.noobmeter.com/recent/eu/vODkjha/500187929/500187929_00015910_20121121_050921/500187929_00031493_20160101_145213

The biggest cap hater of the game, and even he has 1.2 cap / game last 15k games, lower as 1.2 is simply not possible, period (perhaps on NA its different, but on EU 100% not, and i know super unicum with like 0.3 cap / game, but all it shows is they trow wins for dmg....)

Im at 2.08 cap / battle overall and 1.96 for ``recent`` 25k, and i dont like capping much, and never ever fast cap or do crap like that, capping is last resort or when the win is at stake.

I also often tend to die at the end,  further reducing cap points

TL:DR: anyone with less as 1 cap/battle has a lower winrate as they should have, you cant cap so little and still say you care for a win...

I'm admittedly not the best player in the world, but my cap rate is 0.60 (http://wotlabs.net/na/player/mackay) and I have nothing against capping for a win. Maybe has to do with my awful survival rate and a tendency return for defense rather than pushing the base after winning a flank.

Maybe I'm losing games by not having a higher score, but my recent wr matches up with recent win8 pretty closely (95% or more of my games are solo). 

Edit: Eff and WN7 were both before my time if that makes a difference

Edited by MacKay
switched link to wotlabs rather than noobmeter, cap shown in both
Link to post
Share on other sites
 

I'm admittedly not the best player in the world, but my cap rate is 0.60 (http://wotlabs.net/na/player/mackay) and I have nothing against capping for a win. Maybe has to do with my awful survival rate and a tendency return for defense rather than pushing the base after winning a flank.

Maybe I'm losing games by not having a higher score, but my recent wr matches up with recent win8 pretty closely (95% or more of my games are solo). 

Edit: Eff and WN7 were both before my time if that makes a difference

You can't really compare your cap rate to those of the top end players of whom Gehakte is talking about. If you did more damage and otherwise contributed on unicum level, then you'd also get the chance to cap more often. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking pretty good. Most tanks seem to convert over nicely to the new metric. One tank sticks out though. T28 HTC goes from 1800 WN8 (teal) to 378 (almost purple) any idea why this is?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Looking pretty good. Most tanks seem to convert over nicely to the new metric. One tank sticks out though. T28 HTC goes from 1800 WN8 (teal) to 378 (almost purple) any idea why this is?

Several reasons:

  1. The T28 HTC has very poor damage scaling (high skill players don't do that much more damage than mediocre players). WN8 assumes that it's just as easy to do 1.5x expected damage in every tank.
  2. WN8 also uses the T25 AT values, which are 7-8% high for the T28 HTC.
  3. WN8 uses winrate, so your bad luck in the tank makes more difference.
  4. WN8 caps your unusually high spots per game so you don't get much for them.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets, not rush the cook! I kind of wish we could have an alpha period to see if people can crack wn9.

Wn8 was implemented in a alpha state and this is the reason we are here to day for wn9.

 

I know for me if WN9 is recent only ,it will change how I play.

Why farm wn9 when it can always be fixed since its recent.

I will stop playing the lets farm wn8 while considering other metrics a little to just farming win rate, wg rating, xte, marks.

Its a grinding game and I wish to improve my stats, the best way to do that is to only farm overall stats.

When it comes time to find a clan or switch, ill just go into super wn9 pad mode for 1k games.

Is WN9 overall superior to the WG metric? If so, it should also be overall imho since the WG metric encourages

high tier damage dealer tanks. I don't want to play waffles all the time.

 

Thanks for that great experimental rating site Richard!

Is there a method to adjust an accounts win rate based on platoon padding?

If there is no brother in arms avoidance abuse, how would you compare these two tankers based only on this metric?

%57 win rate, %0 platoon padding vs

%60 win rate, %40 platoon padding

 

As a side note, why not incorporate platoon padding into the adjusted win rate? How easy is it to avoid brothers in arms?

I know its trivial in theory but it would require all platoon mates to be in on it to be fully effective, it has a rating cost associated,

would require being alert to the danger of getting a bia, you no longer get a cool medal, and your whole clan would know you do it.

I bet in practice it would be hard to avoid.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Lets, not rush the cook! I kind of wish we could have an alpha period to see if people can crack wn9.

Wn8 was implemented in a alpha state and this is the reason we are here to day for wn9.

 

I know for me if WN9 is recent only ,it will change how I play.

Why farm wn9 when it can always be fixed since its recent.

I will stop playing the lets farm wn8 while considering other metrics a little to just farming win rate, wg rating, xte, marks.

Its a grinding game and I wish to improve my stats, the best way to do that is to only farm overall stats.

When it comes time to find a clan or switch, ill just go into super wn9 pad mode for 1k games.

Is WN9 overall superior to the WG metric? If so, it should also be overall imho since the WG metric encourages

high tier damage dealer tanks. I don't want to play waffles all the time.

 

Thanks for that great experimental rating site Richard!

Is there a method to adjust an accounts win rate based on platoon padding?

If there is no brother in arms avoidance abuse, how would you compare these two tankers based only on this metric?

%57 win rate, %0 platoon padding vs

%60 win rate, %40 platoon padding

 

As a side note, why not incorporate platoon padding into the adjusted win rate? How easy is it to avoid brothers in arms?

I know its trivial in theory but it would require all platoon mates to be in on it to be fully effective, it has a rating cost associated,

would require being alert to the danger of getting a bia, you no longer get a cool medal, and your whole clan would know you do it.

I bet in practice it would be hard to avoid.

 

 

 It would be a lot easier than you think.

 

 All that needs to happen is one platoon member doesn't get 3 kills, or one platoon member dies. Suicide counts, hell you could tk your platoon mate at the end of the fight even.  Coordinate kill steals so that one player might deal damage but not get all the kills.  Plenty of ways to game it with little or no game difference.

 

i also still haven't heard anything about how platoon padding is calculated (what are the baseline numbers for bia rate coming from?) to judge how accurately it can specify the platoon rate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

i also still haven't heard anything about how platoon padding is calculated (what are the baseline numbers for bia rate coming from?) to judge how accurately it can specify the platoon rate.

I did detail that elsewhere in the thread, IIRC. The final method used replay data to determine how common platooning was at different tiers and skill levels, and cross-checked that against API data showing how many BIAs and CCs players achieved per game at the same tiers and skill levels.

It's not suitable for winrate adjustment for several reasons. You covered the exploitation problem. The randomness of CCs is also a problem for mid to low skill players. There's also the issue that you can get low-to-mid platoon ratios by platooning a lot with average players, or by platooning much less with very good players. The effects on winrate would be very different, as platooning with average players typically has a negative impact on winrate.

You could assume that players usually platoon with other players of similar skill (which is what the ratio calculation does), but that's common rather than universal. Any winrate adjustment would be grossly unfair to a substantial proportion of players.

 

 

Is WN9 overall superior to the WG metric?

In terms of tracking solo tank-adjusted winrate, yes. Even the account/tanks version is around 20-30% more accurate at unicum level, probably much better than that for platooners, and lacks the crazy outliers at the top (probably caused by a base XP bug).

For an overall metric it could be argued that the reroll penalty in WG-PR is more important than any accuracy advantage, however.

 

 

Lets, not rush the cook! I kind of wish we could have an alpha period to see if people can crack wn9.

Well, it's been alpha for a while and no-one seemed interested in trying. Feel free.

There's a padding trick for the account/tanks method where you mix Kuroialty's tier 1-2 spot padding idea with some hardcore damage-padding in your preferred tier 10. This also worked with WN8 but no-one bothered because tank selection was easier and more rewarding. It's probably worth +10% or so, but it's very visible in the profile.

Another option is to try to pad spots without hurting your damage output, probably by playing a fast tank and going on a quick spotting run before settling down to damage-padding. I don't know how well this would work.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

I'm admittedly not the best player in the world, but my cap rate is 0.60 (http://wotlabs.net/na/player/mackay) and I have nothing against capping for a win. Maybe has to do with my awful survival rate and a tendency return for defense rather than pushing the base after winning a flank.

Maybe I'm losing games by not having a higher score, but my recent wr matches up with recent win8 pretty closely (95% or more of my games are solo). 

Edit: Eff and WN7 were both before my time if that makes a difference

Capping, or rather ``sitting on the flag`` is a very powerfull tool to win the game, since you force the enemy to go back and defend the flag, its also good for killing arty, since hunting arty has the risk of dieing, if you simply cap you force him to come to you. 

The game below shows why capping wins games and why everyone should always take HE, no matter how low the ammo count ^^

http://wotreplays.com/site/2394219#malinovka-gehaktemolen-jagdpanther

For those too lazy, campinovka, im in base (drove back) i have 7 kills and its me + M44 vs M44 + tog, tog is halfway hill and i dont know how much HP.

I drive up the cap, load HE and start capping, after a while the M44 shows up, i kill him with HE (one shot), the tog starts shooting me, so i leave cap and kill him (m44 spotted him so i saw he was low hp) If the m44 hadnt spotted the tog i would have outcapped him, and if arty hadnt tried to reset, i would also have capped it, i wont try to hunt an arty if he can one shot me with HEAT

Win by cap once every 200 games and you already gained 0.5 cap points, so it goes fast this way :P

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

I did detail that elsewhere in the thread, IIRC. The final method used replay data to determine how common platooning was at different tiers and skill levels, and cross-checked that against API data showing how many BIAs and CCs players achieved per game at the same tiers and skill levels.

Would this be affected by the ad-hoc platoons that happen since a few patches back? When random people who need help with missions (I assume) invite others from their team to form temporary platoons.

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Would this be affected by the ad-hoc platoons that happen since a few patches back? When random people who need help with missions (I assume) invite others from their team to form temporary platoons.

No, because the replay sample slightly pre-dated that patch. I'd need to check what effect that has on the replay files if I re-ran the test. If ad-hoc platoons are rarely used compared to premade platoons then it wouldn't make much difference anyway.

There was an assumption that the platoon pattern for the replay sample was representative of that for post-8.0 accounts overall. For example, if players platooned substantially more than usual over the replay sample period then the platoon ratios would be underestimates.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

For me, the perfect metric should eliminate rerolls, stock grinds, newbie times, stat-padding. It should be recent (last 100 battles/tank) and selective (apply only for competitive tanks + all tier X). Who cares about the WN8 you get on an ARL v39?

Idk man, if you're good playing trash tanks, you're just good at this game in general. Funnily enough, ARL holds my top WN9 value, even though I never "padded" in it: the unusual game count is a byproduct of national events where you had to grind 100k damage per nation or something.

Because Frenchies suck all the way up to high tiers, and if you don't like autoloaders (like me), they suck all the way from tier 1 to tier 10.

So I just went with whatever was lowest possible tier to do it painlessly.

 

But enough about my ARL; I'm really not happy if the game is reduced to IS-3 and T110E5 metric or whatever. Competetitive meta is small and - for the majority - meaningless. You shouldn't be penalized for WG's lack of ability to balance tanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Neverwish
    Neverwish is creating WOTLABS

    97 patrons
    $88

  • Latest Articles

  • Topics

  • Recent Status Updates

    • Snoregasm2

      Credited with the Concept 1B tonight. Has anyone got theirs yet? Thoughts?
      EDIT: Nevermind - http://wotreplays.eu/site/5859757#karelia-snoregasm2-concept_1b 
      1 battle, 1 Ace tanker. Has insane armour, is fast as a medium, has no weakspots frontally from what I can tell, has insane gun handling. WTF WG?!
      · 3 replies
    • hall0

      The Panzer IV from the Girls und Panzer Anime seems to make it into the game.
      https://thearmoredpatrol.com/2021/04/19/update-1-12-1-🇩🇪-pz-kpfw-iv-ausf-h-ankou/

      Funnily enough. It is propably one of the most realistic premium tanks or tanks in general we got in a long time. Despide being from an Anime.
       
      · 2 replies
    • kolni

      Been struggling with tier 10 since coming back - jesus christ this is awful. If you don't play something OP you feel like a tier 9 in a tier 10 game. 
      Got an account with a 0 game FV215b that I marked (69 games, just barely 4k dpg lmao) - wound up running the equipment piece that prevents fires and the same directive after the same amount of fires as amount of games in a 10 game session (got lit 3 times in one game...) but after that I never got set on fire again. Totally worth putting those up and giving up vents so you can actually use the HP without a fuel tank fire. Been noticing that a lot of casemate TDs are running new equipment as well (7.5s was pretty much enough RLD to permatrack anything until it dies and it is not anymore. It's closer to 6, so I'm assuming it's the equipment since it also varies heavily.)
       
      907 yoloing with optics+directive is sort of working, I'm keeping 85 but getting good enough of a session without a derp to fall back down after climbing up is so rare with how common the absolutely worst maps are. I have played 8 times the amount of Erlenberg as I have Prokh (assault and encounter enabled), I also get a lot of Kharkov and Abbey that keep showing up too and these maps are just too poorly designed to get a good enough gameplan to fulfill the damage requirements. There's just no play that works well enough. 
       
      I tried tier 8 as well, and it's like a different game played on the same board. You get away with so much stupid shit because of gaps in view range and the overall skill level. It makes me feel like my mechanics are super clean as I can poke in to tanks pre aimed at me and fire, pull into safety/unpennable angle before they fire - but at tier 10 that is just wishful thinking. 
       
      Long way to go, I hate being this derpy in game quality which is what I'm going to work on but tier 10 is so ass..
      · 1 reply
    • GehakteMolen

      So, how many trees you cut down (WG send me some thing i could see funny stats)
      In total i fell 56811 trees and shot 21966 tracks and drowned 23 times
      (also mines my best map (i think?) which seems kinda right, in general i get good games there, hehe)
      · 0 replies
    • DrWeb7_1

      Starting with update 1.12.1, it's impossible to log in without Bullshit Center running in background. No reason to keep the game on the hard drive for me. Meh...

      · 1 reply
×
×
  • Create New...