Jump to content
Rexxie

Elimination: Tier 9 - Skoda Victorious! (COMPLETE)

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, hazzgar said:

Anectodal data is not data. 

Remember that time zeven got frontally penned by a HE t49 in his t110e3. Using that logic t110e3 has no armor.

Does not matter, ufp on T10, unless really well angled, cant bounce shit at tier 9, hell not even at tier 8 sometimes.

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

Anectodal data is not data. 

Remember that time zeven got frontally penned by a HE t49 in his t110e3. Using that logic t110e3 has no armor.

I remember... and I remind people at every occasion I get.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Snoregasm2 said:

Now, with WN9, they can be called out on their 'platoon padding' and judged accordingly for it, the same way someone with high WN8 can be called out if he plays 500 games in an ELC. It will make it easier to make a balanced comparison between someone like me (4% 3 man platoons, 7%  2 man platoons - and even that is on the high side, as those stats haven't changed for like 4 months on the WN9 calculator. EDIT: It's now 3% 3 man platoons and 6% 2 man platoons, I just checked) and someone who platoons 100% of the time.

The platoon ratio isn't part of WN9. It's just something else I wrote.

The idealised goal was to replace WN8 with WN9 (both damage-based metrics with little platoon influence), and replace winrate with tank-adjusted winrate plus platoon ratio. As it turns out, almost no-one understood the point of tank-adjusted winrate, so I didn't bother pushing it. Note that raw winrate is a cargo-cult metric even for solo players, due to the huge differences between tanks.

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

The platoon ratio isn't part of WN9. It's just something else I wrote.

The idealised goal was to replace WN8 with WN9 (both damage-based metrics with little platoon influence), and replace winrate with tank-adjusted winrate plus platoon ratio. As it turns out, almost no-one understood the point of tank-adjusted winrate, so I didn't bother pushing it. Note that raw winrate is a cargo-cult metric even for solo players, due to the huge differences between tanks.

Well on the WN9 calculator I appreciate that you can view both the platoon ratio and adjusted W/R. I think that once you launch the metric fully people will start using those two factors much more as a reference point, particularly once it spreads in popularity. I know clans in particular will look at how much of your W/R is padded and what the adjusted W/R is, as they're both very important metrics which I haven't seen anywhere else.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 04/06/2016 at 7:29 PM, Bobi_Kreeg said:

If you wanna claim that T-54 is the best vehicle, you better have some serious arguments or you'll just sound like a silly pub praising his favourite tank.

You know what, fine. I am a silly pub praising my favourite tank. I love my T-54.  IN MY PERSONAL OPINION (I E, ignoring all relevant stats proving otherwise) I prefer the T-54 at actually winning games to the Skoda. I can be more agressive, and more reckless. I can yoloswag and get away with it. When playing the Skoda I have to think and be methodical, when playing the T-54 I can be less careful and take more risks. The Skoda is OP as balls, yes, but at the end of the day, the Skoda isn't in my garage any more, but the T-54 is.

Also, the Skoda is ugly as fuck, which matters x1000 when choosing how good a tank is, obviously. 

7 hours ago, Snoregasm2 said:

I've seen that Rexxie, Bobi and RichardNixon have already done a good job of responding, but I thought I'd throw my 2c in here as well.

No. The stats don't lie, the T-54 is inferior, whether solo or platooned, to the T 50 for winning. End of story. Your account specific stats even prove this (72% to 70%), although they mean nothing in this wider debate.

Additionally, the T-54 may be able to, let's say hull down for a limited amount of time, or tank some tier 7s who can't aim, the way the T 50 can't. But you fail to take into account that the T 50 can kill 3 tanks on low enough hp in 3.5 seconds without taking any damage in return, whereas a T-54 would take at least 2 shots to do so. Or that the T 50 can yolo an 800 HP enemy after he fires with no chance of taking any return damage. Or a T 50 can clean up tier 9 and 10 arty with no chance of getting snapshotted whilst reloading. Or numerous other situations where the T 50 is flat out superior to the T-54.

This is what I love most about WN9.

As WN8 gained in popularity, W/R started to become highly prized by a certain subset of players who have historically considered themselves 'better' than damage farmers, padders etc (I am, in absolutely no way, accusing you of this @Assassin7 - I've never seen you disparage others' W/R).

The core argument usually revolves around 'I have X W/R, you have Y W/R, all other factors are irrelevant learn to win padder'. Whilst W/R is a useful statistic - just like WN8 is, or DPG - it is not without its flaws. It is, easily, the most 'paddable' statistic in the game. You put a tomato in a platoon with two unicums and he may get a yellow WN8, or green if he is lucky. He will also get a 60%+ W/R, probably more, regardless of how well he plays. The W/R elitists fail to either take this into account or even acknowledge this, whilst sitting pretty on their triple platoon, 64% W/Rs.

Now, with WN9, they can be called out on their 'platoon padding' and judged accordingly for it, the same way someone with high WN8 can be called out if he plays 500 games in an ELC. It will make it easier to make a balanced comparison between someone like me (4% 3 man platoons, 7%  2 man platoons - and even that is on the high side, as those stats haven't changed for like 4 months on the WN9 calculator. EDIT: It's now 3% 3 man platoons and 6% 2 man platoons, I just checked) and someone who platoons 100% of the time.

What Rexxie said. The metric takes those factors into account.

Yeah, agreed. I also saw an argument from Gehakte stating that if you take a T 50 to the hill on Tundra you can get pushed out easier than a T-54, which he stated without any irony at all, seemingly failing to realise that if you play a T 50 exactly like a T-54 you are a) an idiot, b) missing out on about 2k dmg you could do elsewhere if you use your monstrous autoloader like it was intended and c) bound not to win as much as you could.

The T 50 shouldn't be played like a T-54. It should be played like a T 50, and the W/R will come out higher because of it.

The fact of the matter is, I think, with that platoon thing, WN9 forces you to play in one way only to get good stats. I play literally only platooned, not to pad stats, but because thats how I have fun. But if I want to be considered "good" via WN9+platoon thing, I have to play pretty much only solo or I get punished. A metric that forces you to play in one way to get good stats is not a good metric, IMO.

Also, if anyone accuses me of having a padded win rate, I agree with them. I dont do it to pad, I do it to have fun. 

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

Does not matter, ufp on T10, unless really well angled, cant bounce shit at tier 9, hell not even at tier 8 sometimes.

A tank to be best or very good doesn't have to have a very strong facet. T95 has stronk armor, does it make a good tank? Not really. Tortoise and Obj430 have crushing DPM yet are considered mediocre, JPE100 and FV183 have crushing alpha yet are disliked 

The t10 is good because it's versatile. It's average to very good in every way possible. It is highly rated for the same reason the Pershing is highly rated in the current trier 8 elimination. It can fit many roles. First of all it can go to heavy spots while many meds can't and while it doesn't have st-I armor it has very good gun stats and agility so with lower aim time the probability to get damage may be similar. It is also the most flexible t9 heavy. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Assassin7 said:

The fact of the matter is, I think, with that platoon thing, WN9 forces you to play in one way only to get good stats. I play literally only platooned, not to pad stats, but because thats how I have fun. But if I want to be considered "good" via WN9+platoon thing, I have to play pretty much only solo or I get punished. A metric that forces you to play in one way to get good stats is not a good metric, IMO.

There's no evidence that platooning harms your WN9, except maybe for dominant platoons (mostly sealclubbers). A triple unicum platoon at tier 9-10 falls into the "no apparent effect" category. Hence there's no adjustment either way in WN9.

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

There's no evidence that platooning harms your WN9, except maybe for dominant platoons (mostly sealclubbers). A triple unicum platoon at tier 9-10 falls into the "no apparent effect" category. Hence there's no adjustment either way in WN9.

Then thats fine.

I admit I dont know much about it, hence being careful with what I say about it, so I dont know how it works, apart from that part where an anti platoon padding thing was put into an earlier version. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Assassin7 said:

I admit I dont know much about it, hence being careful with what I say about it, so I dont know how it works, apart from that part where an anti platoon padding thing was put into an earlier version. 

There was never an anti-platoon-padding thing. There was just some confusion because I put multiple new metrics on the same site and only explained WN9.

A platoon filter was used for deriving the formula, but that doesn't affect individual players. The formula just sets the relative importance of damage, frags, spots and defence in winning games.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Assassin7 said:

You know what, fine. I am a silly pub praising my favourite tank. I love my T-54.  IN MY PERSONAL OPINION (I E, ignoring all relevant stats proving otherwise) I prefer the T-54 at actually winning games to the Skoda. I can be more agressive, and more reckless. I can yoloswag and get away with it. When playing the Skoda I have to think and be methodical, when playing the T-54 I can be less careful and take more risks. The Skoda is OP as balls, yes, but at the end of the day, the Skoda isn't in my garage any more, but the T-54 is.

(first off, i really like both tanks)

And to had to what you said, i think the T-54 is EZ mode, when you don't whant to be bother with crucial thinking, wheareas the T-50 you have to be in full try hard mode to not fuck up and get yourself in a dicey situation or trade HP like a bot.. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, DHP said:

(first off, i really like both tanks)

And to had to what you said, i think the T-54 is EZ mode, when you don't whant to be bother with crucial thinking, wheareas the T-50 you have to be in full try hard mode to not fuck up and get yourself in a dicey situation or trade HP like a bot.. 

pretty much why I prefer the T-54.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No one is in any way shape or form saying the T-54 is bad. It finished 6th in what is without a doubt the strongest overall tier in the game. The only reason it didn't finish first is because it's no longer 2014 and a lot of tanks have been buffed so much that they went past it. It's still one of the most enjoyable tanks to play in the game and has a much lower skill floor than the T 50 so just about anyone can play it competently. The reason the T 50 won is because it has the highest skill ceiling in the game. A Super Uni who really gels in this tank can shit out unheard of amounts of damage and pretty much solo entire flanks every single game. I'm struggling to think of another tank that can do it's HP in damage in under 30 seconds. Even a shitter like me can put out 2700 average damage a game.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@hazzgar

But I think that it was you who said that you can bounce almost avery t10 tank in your T-10  when played properly...:kjugh:

I just said that its bullshit, not that its a bad tank.

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

@hazzgar

But I think that it was you who said that you can bounce almost avery t10 tank in your T-10  when played properly...:kjugh:

I just said that its bullshit, not that its a bad tank.

I didn't. That is bullshit. Vk4502, STI are way better at bouncing. T10 is better at not being hit.

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

I didn't. That is bullshit. Vk4502, STI are way better at bouncing. T10 is better at not being hit.

O rly?

On 5/27/2016 at 4:03 PM, hazzgar said:

You say like that's not a big list of advantages. 

Also it's not armor against some t7s and 8's. Some armor maybe if you stand in the middle of the field and do nothing. A properly played t-10 easily bounces trier 10 tanks. A properly played m46 patton bounces t7's 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Snoregasm2 said:

O rly?

 

I know school was long ago but There is a big difference between that sentence and 

"  you can bounce almost avery t10 tank "

I didn't claim it has the best armor. Only that it allows for low exposure so enemies have to take unaimed shots and wont hit your weakspots (unless you are a moron showing your hull to something with 260pen). If you find a good position and use the gun stats and agility to your advantage you will bounce. You know that sentence is right. You also should know that sentence is much different from the implied "I can sit like an idiot showing my hull to t10 tanks without moving and expect to bounce". 

 

Guys I know it's a fun internet stereotype but can we really not try to turn this into a shit slinging fest?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 27. 5. 2016 at 5:03 PM, hazzgar said:

You say like that's not a big list of advantages. 

Also it's not armor against some t7s and 8's. Some armor maybe if you stand in the middle of the field and do nothing. A properly played t-10 easily bounces trier 10 tanks. A properly played m46 patton bounces t7's 

No, you definitelly didnt say anything like that, Im terribly sorry....

oh wait :rngfu:

nice roast, 11/10 would do it again

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

Compare results to 2 years ago.

How much has changed?

That list is the starting point, this is the end results i think:

Tortoise, Amx-120 and Obj 704 are there way to high (even with ``old`` maps), ST-1, Conq and T30 are too low, most other changes are due to rebalance (T-10 was a sack of shit, till it got buffed 3x VK-P the same, Conq also got buffed, M103 a bit nerfed)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think the IS-8 was that bad. It had slightly worse gun handling, terrain resistance, and turret armor back then, but when you're rating the 111 top 6 and the IS-8 the 3rd worst T9 in the game there's something horribly wrong.

Most notable difference is that people hate TDs now. Autoloaders aren't as popular as they used to be, either - the 50 120 was nuked down to the bottom and the 54E1 dropped fairly hard too. I'm pretty sure the same would go for autoloaders in other tiers - the 50 100, T69, T57, 50B, etc. are all not as popular as they used to be.

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

That list is the starting point, this is the end results i think:

 

IIRC, these tanks were significantly buffed since then: IS-8/T-10, Conqueror, VK45B, PTA, Lorraine, Jagdtiger, 122-54, T95, WZ 1-4. The WT4 and T-54 were nerfed.

End list there isn't too bad for the state of the tanks at the time, but ST-I should have been the undisputed god-king of the heavies, and 430v2 should have been at least statpadder tier. IS-8 was actually pretty average on my historical data. 50 120 was badly overrated, WZ-120 is still overrated.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2016-06-01 at 2:22 AM, RichardNixon said:

Comparison with expected winrate at 400 & 500 WN9. Blue for tanks that come out higher than this thread, orange for lower:

place elimination uniwin superwin
1 Škoda T 50 T-10 Škoda T 50
2 M46 Patton Škoda T 50 E 50
3 T-10 ST-I M46 Patton
4 WZ-111 1-4 E 50 T-10
5 Conqueror Conqueror Conqueror
6 T-54 M46 Patton Obj. 430 II
7 E 50 Obj. 430 II ST-I
8 Obj. 430 II VK 45.02 B WZ-111 1-4
9 ST-I WZ-111 1-4 T54E1
10 VK 45.02 B Jagdtiger T-54
11 T54E1 E 75 VK 45.02 B
12 AMX 30 T54E1 E 75
13 T30 T-54 Jagdtiger
14 Jadgtiger T30 AMX 30
15 WZ-120 Tortoise Leopard PT A
16 Leopard PT A AMX 30 T30
17 WT auf Pz. IV Leopard PT A Tortoise
18 E 75 Obj. 704 Centurion 7/1
19 Obj. 704 M103 M103
20 Type 61 T95 WZ-120
21 Centurion 7/1 Centurion 7/1 Type 61
22 Tortoise WZ-120 Obj. 704
23 M103 Type 61 WT auf Pz. IV
24 Conway Type 4 Heavy T95
25 Lorr. 40 t WT auf Pz. IV AMX 50 120
26 SU-122-54 AMX 50 120 Type 4 Heavy
27 Foch Lorr. 40 t Lorr. 40 t
28 AMX 50 120 SU-122-54 Conway
29 T95 Conway SU-122-54
30 Type 4 Heavy Foch Foch

Nothing that far off at the 500 WN9 level. E 50 we know about. E 75, Tortoise and T95 might do worse on NA because HEATspam. Armour does relatively well at the 400 WN9 level as usual.

 

 

Does this data reflect the M103 before or after the latest HD model?

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.

×
×
  • Create New...