Jump to content
ZXrage

E 75 TS, Tier 8 Premium HT (Lootbox Tank)

Recommended Posts

22 hours ago, hazzgar said:

Yeah Lowe players suck dick but the tank itself is imho quite good. Much better than Tiger II. I know it's as far from your playstyle as possible but it's one of the most reliable guns in tier and the armor on that tank is actually workable. 

Hey hwy now I got 3 marks on mine bc that thing is great. \:doge: /

Share this post


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

Hey hwy now I got 3 marks on mine bc that thing is great. \:doge: /

Lowe? I love my Lowe. It was the 1st 3 mark I got in Wot. It's my first attempt at not being a shitter who pulls 51% WR and can't use O's

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, hazzgar said:

Better turret. 

Ah, right, so can we summarize it as a VK4502A with:

[much] Faster forward speed, much better turret armor, much better gun, but...
Turns slightly slower, slightly less effective UFP?


I actually like the VK4502A so this thing seems golden to me. Its like a 4502A/Lowe hybrid that mostly keeps the good qualities of both, except for the hull armor [which I guess isn't exactly a minor concession, but still...]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Tupinambis said:

Ah, right, so can we summarize it as a VK4502A with:

[much] Faster forward speed, much better turret armor, much better gun, but...
Turns slightly slower, slightly less effective UFP?


I actually like the VK4502A so this thing seems golden to me. Its like a 4502A/Lowe hybrid that mostly keeps the good qualities of both, except for the hull armor [which I guess isn't exactly a minor concession, but still...]

It's a decent comparison. You can also call it a t8 E50 that trades some hull armor for turret armor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because you do exceedingly good, in a tier 8 tank does not make it a good tank. 

Your picture shows a whole range of tanks that do well in. It doesn't make everyone single one a nice vehicle.

An avg 49% player, which represents the masses, will do roughly the same in KV4 compared to Tiger ll. Provided they are elite, because a stock Tiger ll does have considerable advantage. But when elite, the KV4 probably does more, because of the better DPM and armour. 

 

16 hours ago, hazzgar said:

Tiger II is not great but the gun isn't bad. This is it's main advantage over the tanks you mentioned. Bottom tier you can fight like a bitch and be effective.

Also STA1? 243mm ACPR pen vs t10s? With 0.38 ACC? Lowe has 298mm pen with 0.32 pen, good gun depression and a strong turret.

All the vehicles have the advantages in bold. The penetration to confront higher tier tanks, which normal tier 8s don't have  (25O-265pen vs 275+) T34 Heavy is a bad platform, but the gun is fine. KV4 and the Kres are bad platforms, but the gun is fine. object 416 has tier X 33Omm HEAT, and insane DPM, and insane camo too - probably the most reliable example here able to confront high tiers.

T1LPC and STA1 both have high pen HEAT. It is not 243mm. Both also have good enough characteristics to be bitchy and snipe. 

The point here is not how bad the platforms are. Because beleive me, Tiger ll no matter the layers of sugar coating, is a bad platform. Kols statement was, is there pen or not to confront higher tiers, assuming 265mm pen from normal tier 8 heavy tanks is insufficient. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

one of my strengths have been doing well in unconventional tanks, reinventing their gameplay style a bit for much better results

the average player is a great thing to balance a game around, but the average player knows jack shit about how the game actually works, so they are not capable of making any sort of judgmental call outside of how their gameplay feels, they can't limit test and if a tank isn't played at its limits how do you know its capabilities?

strong players decide what's good or not, not the average numbers

me outperforming the entire server on an already considered shitty tank (that screenshot is almost 4 years old) means i know something they don't about the tank, so they're just bad and the tank is in actuality better because me being able to do it

kewei did this with the JP2, and plenty of tanks and this is how you should value tank ability, the best performer of a tank knows it the best so that players opinion on it holds the most value

 

how can you not understand that averages are close to useless to a single player? for balancing masses it works well, but for single players it's worthless and a single outlier is all you need to change the meta, because this is how meta works. one player finds something out and proves the current meta wrong, starts playing it and other people pick up and eventually the meta changes. 

Poltto shared a Leo1 replay here on WotLabs on Mines where he played the pocket that has sideshots to the hill. That's the first time a good player ever shared that spot, and look at Mines now. Someone goes there every game now, because he shared it in a replay years ago and changed the meta. one person is all it takes to prove you wrong, your averages mean fuck all because they don't line up at all with performance at their limits.

When WoT was in its glory days on this forum was active, people like KT and X3N4, Kewei and Garbad were people that redefined how the game was being played. People here picked up on those things and it spread, the official forums were much more relevant back then too so this type of info got around fast. Are you going to tell me that Garbad's revolutionary KV-5 WR that defied the opinion of being one of the worst tanks in the game back then, doesn't matter? Because it did change. The game changed because of these things. JP2 meta came entirely out of WoTLabs because Kewei showed how to play mobile TDs in a different way. 

All those anectodes are close to useless for the masses, but for meta they are important building blocks of the games fundamentals. Some of them have been obsoleted because the game has developed further, but these type of things are everywhere. They are what the game developed into, and if you don't understand that single people can have a big enough impact to change things themselves you've got plenty of examples where that is what happened. I've done it too. 

One player found a boost, posts a YT vid on how to do it - 2 weeks and it's meta. Remember C7 on Fjords? That boost was always possible, even before physics. BPX showed that one to me, so instantly when the physics patch hit I knew about this spot beforehand and spammed it. Showed it on stream day 1 of that patch and that was used for the rest of that map until it got reworked. It was always there, people just didn't know about it. The same way they don't know about a maps limits they don't know about tank limits and are therefore very, very useless in judging capability and strength. They have feelings and preferences, but they don't actually understand the game. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stats and 3D model, afaik, tell the story. With extrapolation and detailed stats which were probably hard to get because fucking WG you could predict a tanks abilities pretty well.

Like for instance, just looking at the Tiger II you know that is one sweet gun. The armor forces people to aim while you can just snap them mercilessly.

While JPII... It's 490 alpha in tier 8 on a relatively mobile platform with superstructure armor. 

Just from the stats you can see plenty no?

 

I think the average player is a terrible thing to balance a game around since they don't have the ability to make proper calls.

group opinions are only as good as the sum of their parts. And when it's made by pubbie trash...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

to be honest i've never checked a 3d model ever, stats and 10 games are enough to judge it for me

my first 10 games in something tend to be abnormally strong because i play so cautiously, i wish i could keep the gameplay but you tend to autopilot once you're locked in and decided which is probably one of the hardest issues to get rid of in this game

it's also one that is entirely hidden to the average player and they'll never be able to care about it, it's one of the reasons they never improve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At a subconscious level you realize its not a game; its a shitty brainless job*

So naturally it shuts off when it realizes its not worth the resources.

 

Unfortunately the conscious mind didn't quite catch up to the dismissal.

 

Yeah, that among other things is why scrubs should be ignored and the good players the basis of balance and other such matters.

Share this post


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

Like for instance, just looking at the Tiger II you know that is one sweet gun. The armor forces people to aim while you can just snap them mercilessly.

While JPII... It's 490 alpha in tier 8 on a relatively mobile platform with superstructure armor. 

I think the average player is a terrible thing to balance a game around since they don't have the ability to make proper calls.

group opinions are only as good as the sum of their parts. And when it's made by pubbie trash...

Tiger ll has terrible armour, even if it forces people to aim. Because the places to aim at, are very large. This is the same shit as calling Fochs as a nicely armoured tank. Sure the hull is fine. But who shoots the UFP of Fochs? It is littered with large weaknesses, that cover large surface area of front profile. And in addition, gold ammunition muscles through its harder sections anyway. But Tiger ll is how heavy tanks should otherwise be. The problem is,  heavy tanks like Defender, TS5, Chrysler, 112, oho don't sport these weaknesses. Their armour is hardened, at what should be a weakspot, that for some reason is still like two-hundred effective or more. obj 7O3  II is alot of the same shit, as it takes 112, lowers the LFP a little but incredibly shrinks the cupolas and make the tank unable to be harmed, while hull down. 

Jag Panther ll sucks. And even though it sucks, WG still felt the urge to nerf it so it sucks more. It had mobility, now it has nothing, and you are better off using WZ12OG for nearly everything

The whole idea of using bad players, is to see the potential. An avg player will do better in Defender or Liberte, than they do in FCM5OT.  But because FCM is considerably faster, has more DPM, has better gun handling, in a better plays hands it may do exceedingly well as they are more flexible.  H0WEVER, it does not mean better players play like fucking shit in the tanks that avg people play better in themselves. Who the fuck thinks that, that is the most retarded shit ever. When lemmingrush streams in Defender, he still plays fucking good. When Garbad or truvoodoo played IS7 years ago, they played fucking good. That is like saying Circon playing his KV2 for some stream theme, and will suck shit, and he fucking does n't. or Skill4 3-marking the Type 5, and doing like sustained 3.4K dmg/game. Great players are very bad for balancing. First of all, because there are less of them. Second, they seem to do very well in everything, good or bad, so they mask the issue. Are great players great for pointing out serious game issues, For sure. Are they great for suggesting fixes? Yes as well. Like curbing RNG range, or fixing MM, or gold round ideas, or fixing armour models, Etc. 

Kols here, does well in a Tiger ll. I can see that. But you can clearly see, he does well in fucking every tank. It clearly does not mean, that if he were placed in a Defender, he would do poorly. That is idiotic. And on top of everything, balance regardless of players doing well or badly - need to resemble the tier and peers around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i do well in plenty of tanks, doesn't cement its performance in any way

i do bad in some tanks, doesn't cement its performance in any way

My KT is pretty good. I'll explain it this way.; If my KT suddenly performs similar to my IS-3 in damage numbers or higher this is statistically unlikely because most people won't outperform an IS-3 in a Tiger II. I do though. It's not that I do exceedingly well everywhere, I exceed in some areas and fall flat on others that is important here. The question really is about what's stronger. You're saying that a player can make anything look strong, which I agree on. But who is right the most often doesn't matter. The one who is the most right is however an entirely different matter and frankly the only important answer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, kolni said:

one of my strengths have been doing well in unconventional tanks, reinventing their gameplay style a bit for much better results

the average player is a great thing to balance a game around, but the average player knows jack shit about how the game actually works, so they are not capable of making any sort of judgmental call outside of how their gameplay feels, they can't limit test and if a tank isn't played at its limits how do you know its capabilities?

strong players decide what's good or not, not the average numbers

me outperforming the entire server on an already considered shitty tank (that screenshot is almost 4 years old) means i know something they don't about the tank, so they're just bad and the tank is in actuality better because me being able to do it

kewei did this with the JP2, and plenty of tanks and this is how you should value tank ability, the best performer of a tank knows it the best so that players opinion on it holds the most value

 

how can you not understand that averages are close to useless to a single player? for balancing masses it works well, but for single players it's worthless and a single outlier is all you need to change the meta, because this is how meta works. one player finds something out and proves the current meta wrong, starts playing it and other people pick up and eventually the meta changes. 

Poltto shared a Leo1 replay here on WotLabs on Mines where he played the pocket that has sideshots to the hill. That's the first time a good player ever shared that spot, and look at Mines now. Someone goes there every game now, because he shared it in a replay years ago and changed the meta. one person is all it takes to prove you wrong, your averages mean fuck all because they don't line up at all with performance at their limits.

When WoT was in its glory days on this forum was active, people like KT and X3N4, Kewei and Garbad were people that redefined how the game was being played. People here picked up on those things and it spread, the official forums were much more relevant back then too so this type of info got around fast. Are you going to tell me that Garbad's revolutionary KV-5 WR that defied the opinion of being one of the worst tanks in the game back then, doesn't matter? Because it did change. The game changed because of these things. JP2 meta came entirely out of WoTLabs because Kewei showed how to play mobile TDs in a different way. 

All those anectodes are close to useless for the masses, but for meta they are important building blocks of the games fundamentals. Some of them have been obsoleted because the game has developed further, but these type of things are everywhere. They are what the game developed into, and if you don't understand that single people can have a big enough impact to change things themselves you've got plenty of examples where that is what happened. I've done it too. 

One player found a boost, posts a YT vid on how to do it - 2 weeks and it's meta. Remember C7 on Fjords? That boost was always possible, even before physics. BPX showed that one to me, so instantly when the physics patch hit I knew about this spot beforehand and spammed it. Showed it on stream day 1 of that patch and that was used for the rest of that map until it got reworked. It was always there, people just didn't know about it. The same way they don't know about a maps limits they don't know about tank limits and are therefore very, very useless in judging capability and strength. They have feelings and preferences, but they don't actually understand the game. 

 

Kolni actually averages are not useless for a single player. They are not accurate but you will still find a high correlation between average vr and random single player performance in it. Yes there are other stats that are more useful, WR curves are especially useful here but also remember most people follow the meta which means they are reasonably close to an average player.

Overall I agree, the "average human" phenomenon that has been popular 30-40 years ago was a fiasco but averages as a predictive tool are still somewhat decent. 

 

Also I think we first need to agree on a definition of what a "good" tank is. Your definition is - what's the possible peak performance but another one, much more common, even on wotlabs is how much does it help a wider group of players, not only unis or not only total morons. 

Your definition while important should not be part of our decision about tank balance since you can't balance tanks around the top5 players on the server. You need to balance them against the general population. This is why the 2nd definition is useful. You balance the tank so that it's presence doesn't create unbalanced team and here average WR is very useful.

 

Also while I agree that top players performance has the ability to influence the meta remember that JPII and KV5 Win Rates did not really go up despite those efforts. Tank popularity, meta and how tanks perform overall are different things. Remember the tank math corner on Wotlabs? Many tanks considered shit on wotlabs actually heavily overperformed even for players with wr in the 60-65%. Ferdi post HP buff was a great example despite JPII was still considered meta back then. Hell like 3+ years ago IS4 was actually undervalued on Wotlabs (which still sounds strange how that tank could perform decently but that was pre HE meta)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nope, if you don't balance around potential AND the average you won't ever have a competitive game

averages are good for keeping the population relevant, but the truth is they aren't relevant to anyone above them. they don't mean anything if you prove them wrong. one outlier is all it takes to prove people wrong. if it's possible to get a KV-5 above 70%WR then too many players simply couldn't play it. its limits were never properly tested because of a lack of balance for the top. 

it doesn't break the game, but it's important because it honestly means the tanks are too hard. a tank like m60 and m48 for example are not really more than average tier 10s unless you hit a benchmark where their traits and limits let you outperform other tier 10s. that really doesn't matter for more than maybe 1k people, but those players are going to roll over games with it because of how good they really are. 

just watch a MOBA balancing team, keeping overall balance at 50% is important but you also have to balance the stuff that good players can abuse the living shit out of once it hits a certain treshold. 907 is another good example, it doesn't scale properly. There is a huge gap between good players playing one and bad players. bad players still do better in it because of its armour so it has higher wr. that needs to be balanced. i'm not disputing that. i'm just saying that the breakable and abuseable stuff needs to be balanced too. 

okay, KV-5 can actually solo-win flanks when people thought it was an XP-pinata. how is that not super important for a balance team to know? they could be looking into how someone did this and take their gameplay as a building block to that tanks balancing to make it more intuitive or at least show some gameplay of how you play unconventional way that was so successful. Now the KV-5 is trash again, but it had a pretty long period of being ridiculously strong with ridiculously low expectations. that's a problem to a balance team, how is it not?

 

I went 55-1 in the KV-5 in a two man platoon with a blue player. X3N4s KV-5 replays showed me how to play it well and it was very weird at first but you sort of got into it. Reverse sidescrape in chokepoints was something people never did but holy god it was so strong. Defenders weren't in the game then so you could pen almost everything you faced frontally and that DPM just fucked people over before they could reach you at the chokepoint. I played like that for 56 games and I honestly thought I could have done 100 with a third platoonmate at that time, it was so goddamn strong that I think that it in a platoon with good players to support it could win all 100 games regardless of the MM on our own. That's how strong it was.

Share this post


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

nope, if you don't balance around potential AND the average you won't ever have a competitive game

averages are good for keeping the population relevant, but the truth is they aren't relevant to anyone above them. they don't mean anything if you prove them wrong. one outlier is all it takes to prove people wrong. if it's possible to get a KV-5 above 70%WR then too many players simply couldn't play it. its limits were never properly tested because of a lack of balance for the top. 

it doesn't break the game, but it's important because it honestly means the tanks are too hard. a tank like m60 and m48 for example are not really more than average tier 10s unless you hit a benchmark where their traits and limits let you outperform other tier 10s. that really doesn't matter for more than maybe 1k people, but those players are going to roll over games with it because of how good they really are. 

just watch a MOBA balancing team, keeping overall balance at 50% is important but you also have to balance the stuff that good players can abuse the living shit out of once it hits a certain treshold. 907 is another good example, it doesn't scale properly. There is a huge gap between good players playing one and bad players. bad players still do better in it because of its armour so it has higher wr. that needs to be balanced. i'm not disputing that. i'm just saying that the breakable and abuseable stuff needs to be balanced too. 

okay, KV-5 can actually solo-win flanks when people thought it was an XP-pinata. how is that not super important for a balance team to know? they could be looking into how someone did this and take their gameplay as a building block to that tanks balancing to make it more intuitive or at least show some gameplay of how you play unconventional way that was so successful. Now the KV-5 is trash again, but it had a pretty long period of being ridiculously strong with ridiculously low expectations. that's a problem to a balance team, how is it not?

 

I went 55-1 in the KV-5 in a two man platoon with a blue player. X3N4s KV-5 replays showed me how to play it well and it was very weird at first but you sort of got into it. Reverse sidescrape in chokepoints was something people never did but holy god it was so strong. Defenders weren't in the game then so you could pen almost everything you faced frontally and that DPM just fucked people over before they could reach you at the chokepoint. I played like that for 56 games and I honestly thought I could have done 100 with a third platoonmate at that time, it was so goddamn strong that I think that it in a platoon with good players to support it could win all 100 games regardless of the MM on our own. That's how strong it was.

I didn't say you only balance against average. I've just said average WR is useful for balance though again not as useful as WR curves. Potential should too be taken into an account but overall WR potential for large groups of players not potential for top5 on the server and that's basically forecasting. People are notoriously shit at forecasting.

 

Overall I think we agree. This is why I mentioned WR curves above Average WR - they speak more about how tanks perform at different skill levels. You should also look at other stats - dpg, spots, kpg, blocked, etc. Good players can show you cases like you mention the 907 where there is a huge gap between yellows and purples. This is why we need other stats. It's just we shouldn't balance tanks against how top players play. No matter what positions tomatoes adopt from Kewei none of them will ever play using his strategy of losing focus. No tomato will use Zeven's map strategy or Illia Red light tank strategies (sorry for not using you here but I don't think you pushed a very specific mindset outside of git gud scrub. Though If I'm wrong correct me since I'd really like to learn)

Share this post


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

Post moar rplz then. 

i normally dont save replays because of disk space, broke student with other interests so I'm not looking to upgrade

I also don't play very much, the guy on the account I'm using managed to get himself banned for a while too so I'm grinding League right now instead. Playing ADC as a Shaco one-trick with like silver level ADC skills facing plats cuz of my MMR is pretty omegalul but I'm seeing noticeable improvement every day now so I'm putting WoT on the shelf until I hit a wall in League (diamond 4 sounds real fucking bad)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/14/2019 at 5:43 PM, kolni said:

one of my strengths have been doing well in unconventional tanks, reinventing their gameplay style a bit for much better results

the average player is a great thing to balance a game around, but the average player knows jack shit about how the game actually works, so they are not capable of making any sort of judgmental call outside of how their gameplay feels, they can't limit test and if a tank isn't played at its limits how do you know its capabilities?

strong players decide what's good or not, not the average numbers

me outperforming the entire server on an already considered shitty tank (that screenshot is almost 4 years old) means i know something they don't about the tank, so they're just bad and the tank is in actuality better because me being able to do it

kewei did this with the JP2, and plenty of tanks and this is how you should value tank ability, the best performer of a tank knows it the best so that players opinion on it holds the most value

  

how can you not understand that averages are close to useless to a single player? for balancing masses it works well, but for single players it's worthless and a single outlier is all you need to change the meta, because this is how meta works. one player finds something out and proves the current meta wrong, starts playing it and other people pick up and eventually the meta changes. 

Poltto shared a Leo1 replay here on WotLabs on Mines where he played the pocket that has sideshots to the hill. That's the first time a good player ever shared that spot, and look at Mines now. Someone goes there every game now, because he shared it in a replay years ago and changed the meta. one person is all it takes to prove you wrong, your averages mean fuck all because they don't line up at all with performance at their limits.

When WoT was in its glory days on this forum was active, people like KT and X3N4, Kewei and Garbad were people that redefined how the game was being played. People here picked up on those things and it spread, the official forums were much more relevant back then too so this type of info got around fast. Are you going to tell me that Garbad's revolutionary KV-5 WR that defied the opinion of being one of the worst tanks in the game back then, doesn't matter? Because it did change. The game changed because of these things. JP2 meta came entirely out of WoTLabs because Kewei showed how to play mobile TDs in a different way. 

All those anectodes are close to useless for the masses, but for meta they are important building blocks of the games fundamentals. Some of them have been obsoleted because the game has developed further, but these type of things are everywhere. They are what the game developed into, and if you don't understand that single people can have a big enough impact to change things themselves you've got plenty of examples where that is what happened. I've done it too. 

One player found a boost, posts a YT vid on how to do it - 2 weeks and it's meta. Remember C7 on Fjords? That boost was always possible, even before physics. BPX showed that one to me, so instantly when the physics patch hit I knew about this spot beforehand and spammed it. Showed it on stream day 1 of that patch and that was used for the rest of that map until it got reworked. It was always there, people just didn't know about it. The same way they don't know about a maps limits they don't know about tank limits and are therefore very, very useless in judging capability and strength. They have feelings and preferences, but they don't actually understand the game. 

 

I read this and I disagree about some stuff, there is no way to tell if someone did something for the absolute first time. I never saw anyone in that mines spot, I found out myself. (Maybe that's why I was a pubbie until my 20k games lol) I was playing the 54-122? That tier 9 TD exceptionally without having watched even one other player's replays and I wasn't even very good then. You might be overestimating the gravity of one player on the meta. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, kariverson said:

I read this and I disagree about some stuff, there is no way to tell if someone did something for the absolute first time. I never saw anyone in that mines spot, I found out myself. (Maybe that's why I was a pubbie until my 20k games lol) I was playing the 54-122? That tier 9 TD exceptionally without having watched even one other player's replays and I wasn't even very good then. You might be overestimating the gravity of one player on the meta. 

Look at the micropositioning thread, it really had an impact. Single players posting their spots. I'm correctly estimating the gravity of one player on the meta.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, kolni said:

i do well in plenty of tanks, doesn't cement its performance in any way

i do bad in some tanks, doesn't cement its performance in any way

My KT is pretty good. I'll explain it this way.; If my KT suddenly performs similar to my IS-3 in damage numbers or higher this is statistically unlikely because most people won't outperform an IS-3 in a Tiger II. I do though. It's not that I do exceedingly well everywhere, I exceed in some areas and fall flat on others that is important here. The question really is about what's stronger. You're saying that a player can make anything look strong, which I agree on. But who is right the most often doesn't matter. The one who is the most right is however an entirely different matter and frankly the only important answer

I did presume critical thinking, so it is not an entirely black and white matter.

Blanket sayings like 'a player can make anything look strong' holds true as long as your competition is braindead pubbies, and even then it won't work if the tank is unbelievably shit like... idk prebuff Churchill GC? 

All your examples have been listing tanks which can be quickly evaluated to have potential if you look at the stats. Whether or not its practical has to be demonstrated of course, since people take liberties real life doesn't when thinking.

7 hours ago, kolni said:
  1. nope, if you don't balance around potential AND the average you won't ever have a competitive game
  2. averages are good for keeping the population relevant, but the truth is they aren't relevant to anyone above them. they don't mean anything if you prove them wrong. one outlier is all it takes to prove people wrong. if it's possible to get a KV-5 above 70%WR then too many players simply couldn't play it. its limits were never properly tested because of a lack of balance for the top. 
  3. it doesn't break the game, but it's important because it honestly means the tanks are too hard. a tank like m60 and m48 for example are not really more than average tier 10s unless you hit a benchmark where their traits and limits let you outperform other tier 10s. that really doesn't matter for more than maybe 1k people, but those players are going to roll over games with it because of how good they really are. 
  4. just watch a MOBA balancing team, keeping overall balance at 50% is important but you also have to balance the stuff that good players can abuse the living shit out of once it hits a certain treshold. 
  5. okay, KV-5 can actually solo-win flanks when people thought it was an XP-pinata. how is that not super important for a balance team to know? they could be looking into how someone did this and take their gameplay as a building block to that tanks balancing to make it more intuitive or at least show some gameplay of how you play unconventional way that was so successful. Now the KV-5 is trash again, but it had a pretty long period of being ridiculously strong with ridiculously low expectations. that's a problem to a balance team, how is it not?
  1. Is that really true though? Problems tend to bear out in data. It can perform unfairly well in the hands of good players indicating imbalance, but poorly in the hands of scrubs. I don't think that is good balance. Since it indicates disproportionate amount of skill required to make it work compared to other tanks, and too much performance when it does.
    1. Sounds like time for a rework
  2. 3rd block from the top.
  3. Idk the stats but both are armor cancer in a corridor game and the actual amount of skill required for that is not very high.
    1. I say that to comfort myself over the blue stats I have.
  4. I think the reason for that is addressed in #1. 
    1. 907 is again another tank whose stats explain everything.
  5. Depends on what its facing. 

TL:DR

Muh fuckin stats are OP. Feelz don't matter. Exceptions don't break the rule. Scrubs are retarded. Can't work what isn't there.

Obligatory "fuck armor its a corridor game and I should be able to bleed you if you can bleed me"

Share this post


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

I did presume critical thinking, so it is not an entirely black and white matter.

Blanket sayings like 'a player can make anything look strong' holds true as long as your competition is braindead pubbies, and even then it won't work if the tank is unbelievably shit like... idk prebuff Churchill GC? 

All your examples have been listing tanks which can be quickly evaluated to have potential if you look at the stats. Whether or not its practical has to be demonstrated of course, since people take liberties real life doesn't when thinking.

  1. Is that really true though? Problems tend to bear out in data. It can perform unfairly well in the hands of good players indicating imbalance, but poorly in the hands of scrubs. I don't think that is good balance. Since it indicates disproportionate amount of skill required to make it work compared to other tanks, and too much performance when it does.
    1. Sounds like time for a rework
  2. 3rd block from the top.
  3. Idk the stats but both are armor cancer in a corridor game and the actual amount of skill required for that is not very high.
    1. I say that to comfort myself over the blue stats I have.
  4. I think the reason for that is addressed in #1. 
    1. 907 is again another tank whose stats explain everything.
  5. Depends on what its facing. 

TL:DR

Muh fuckin stats are OP. Feelz don't matter. Exceptions don't break the rule. Scrubs are retarded. Can't work what isn't there.

Obligatory "fuck armor its a corridor game and I should be able to bleed you if you can bleed me"

I did play the Churchill GC when it was ridiculously bad. Due to me accidentally using the stock gun for 30 games and noticing my dpg wasn't anything special (1300 with stock gun, but the top gun made it feel unbelievably good for such a bad reputation). Same thing with the ISU-130, that one has some stuff to abuse but no one ever did it because the playerbase of it is so small. Took me pretty long to figure it out it too. It is possible to do well in anything as long as you're better enough than your competition to make it seem that way. I will obviously do well in tier 6 regardless of the tank because at that tier I likely won't be facing anyone good enough to stop me. I will say that even when you can make things look good they still feel really bad to play. Churchill GC is still really shit. Sure it tops out at similar levels to much of the other tier 6s (that really was a surprise to me) because of HP pools and map rotation hardcapping you a bit, but the amount of times you just straight up died because of tank limits obviously were way more often. It was much more frustrating to play, but I wouldn't say it was any worse than playing other tier 6s when you can roll over the competition, when you can't though it sucks. The problem is that you are still able to, even if its inherently bad. It goes unnoticed and that's bad for balancing.

KV-5 didn't feel bad to play. It was so strong that I believed I could win every single matchup with 2 other people. For winning it was stronger than anything in the tier, the stats really don't show that. Enough players have made use of the tank in that way to show that stats don't tell the full story, or not even useful statistics to use since they don't apply at all to minmaxed situations. Huge balancing issue. 3k dpgable (X3N4) and easily 90%able (most tier 8s with SMM were barely able to do 80 unless you were CarbonWard) when the tank really was considered shit by everybody. That opinion didn't change ever through-out, and now it is bad because of the game changing. That issue solved itself, but not because of being aware of this, they fucked pretty much the entire tier releasing those premiums that the KV-5 can't fight at all. It did not depend on what I was facing, SMM meant that I can fight half the team on minimum and with a Mutant + Type59 or basically anything else with SMM that can fight well in close engagements and it was winnable. Every single game. The one game we lost, we lost because we trolled. I wanted to try yoloing the KV-5 across the middle of Swamp and it didn't work, with an extra platoonmate I think we could have won it, but we wanted to try duo because we were doing so well right from the get-go. That's how easy it was to lose a game, but it was almost equally easy to win if you could just pick a flank and automatically win it by just.. going there. That's oversimplifying it because you had to play it well enough to be able to play the rest of the game too if your team sucked hard, but on maps like Siegfried Line where you could just run over the heavy flank quickly enough to make it never have an impact, you basically couldn't lose that map because you got such a big advantage 2-3 minutes into the game. That's the stuff I'm talking about. Imagine facing that shit, you basically couldn't do anything to stop it. Tier 9s could pen you and deal some damage but your DPM still made you able to fight back. Having tier 10 medium tank HP helped too. Those tank stats might indicate some potential but nowhere near a 90%able tank. I really want to stress that people haven't reached 90%+ in basically anything above tier 5. Pz II J and BT-SV are 90%able tanks, and their stats show and explain why. I just want the tanks who are but don't show it to be balanced. 

Yes, 1. holds true. That's what I've been trying to say. Not that you should just get good to understand the game or otherwise you can't (still sorta true but not what I mean). This needs to be balanced too, it just goes unnoticed because the stats don't show them. If stats were of merit to that degree, then the T57 Heavy would be arguably one of the most insane overpowered tanks in the game. It was way back when, but even after the nerfs that DPM on an autoloader should let you outplay so many situations. It doesn't though because autoloader focus is not a stat measured and is almost entirely the reason for why it's not.

 

'So when... exactly does the M48 go from a good tank to the best tank in the game? I really want you to show me the stat that explains why. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, kolni said:

i normally dont save replays because of disk space, broke student with other interests so I'm not looking to upgrade

I also don't play very much, the guy on the account I'm using managed to get himself banned for a while too so I'm grinding League right now instead. Playing ADC as a Shaco one-trick with like silver level ADC skills facing plats cuz of my MMR is pretty omegalul but I'm seeing noticeable improvement every day now so I'm putting WoT on the shelf until I hit a wall in League (diamond 4 sounds real fucking bad)

Lets play some blind pick games together! :doge:

It feels pretty good to not be the only one shelving WoT for a game like League. This happened pretty much in 2016 when my old notebook got worse and kept crashing while trying to play WoT. After buying a new PC I never rally came back to WoT, it never felt the same not playing on a 15" screen anymore. I never got back to my old levels of skillfull play and thats not satisfying at all, so Im stuck to League.

Btw me talking to myself to never ever spend any money on WoT again because I rarely play it anymore but buying 150 lootboxes a few seconds later. Fck this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ESL games are a different game mode so much obviously changes, but it's a good indicator because you have a leveled playing field. Every player is good. If stats showed the full story, this would be similar to when everyone is bad. It wasn't. Bad teams can't innovate on the spot or come up with good strategies because they have no idea about limits. And while I don't think problem-solving as a team has much to do with random battles (it's really different) you picked up good things from it and some stuff originated from there. 

FV4005, an ESL staple on Himmelsdorf for close to a year, and before it got buffed was still present in so many games. The worst tank in the tier, with a gimmick obviously helping it in that specific situation, saw ESL play more often than good tanks because the role it could fill benefitted the situation so well. Afterwards people tried it in randoms, and guess what? It was strong because the situation you had to create for it to be wasn't too hard to pull off. People just needed to know how to do it. I had a fucking blast playing that tank. 

Gameplay would obviously be worse if player skill is out of the equation, but innovation is too. If stats really did show the full story the possibility to innovate basically doesn't exist.

27 minutes ago, Wurstsoljanka said:

Lets play some blind pick games together! :doge:

It feels pretty good to not be the only one shelving WoT for a game like League. This happened pretty much in 2016 when my old notebook got worse and kept crashing while trying to play WoT. After buying a new PC I never rally came back to WoT, it never felt the same not playing on a 15" screen anymore. I never got back to my old levels of skillfull play and thats not satisfying at all, so Im stuck to League.

Btw me talking to myself to never ever spend any money on WoT again because I rarely play it anymore but buying 150 lootboxes a few seconds later. Fck this.

I don't play blind pick because I want a draft. I just enjoy the game more if I can control my matchup. I'm not at a level where people constantly trade picks, but at least close 50% of the time I get to see the enemy player in my role's pick before I do. Botlane obviously complicates it with two picks being relevant and supports having such a huge impact (hf playing Sivir against Pyke or Alistar, spell-shield basically useless and your flash is your only form of mobility outside of R) especially early on. 

I'm spamming ranked games, but I'd be up for some normal draft games. My nick is ΑAAAA (the first A is not a normal A so just copy it), if you're down to play ranked I'd be up for that too once my MMR settles to a normal number for my rank. To put it into perspective I skipped ranks straight from S4 to S2 without having to play promos and my winrate is 40%. It's pretty fucking bad :serb: (I can basically only play Tristana against better botlanes, sort of negates them a bit with wave prio built into the kit unless I get stuck facing Caitlyn/Draven and have to wait for late or ganks to fight. I'm learning Quinn ADC right now and I'm going to try Conqueror Cassio and Miss Fortune, tried her in practice and damn she's so easy to play and SOOO STRONG, gonna practice her a bit more before torturing my team with picking something I haven't played a lot of)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, kolni said:

ESL games are a different game mode so much obviously changes, but it's a good indicator because you have a leveled playing field. Every player is good. If stats showed the full story, this would be similar to when everyone is bad. It wasn't. Bad teams can't innovate on the spot or come up with good strategies because they have no idea about limits. And while I don't think problem-solving as a team has much to do with random battles (it's really different) you picked up good things from it and some stuff originated from there. 

FV4005, an ESL staple on Himmelsdorf for close to a year, and before it got buffed was still present in so many games. The worst tank in the tier, with a gimmick obviously helping it in that specific situation, saw ESL play more often than good tanks because the role it could fill benefitted the situation so well. Afterwards people tried it in randoms, and guess what? It was strong because the situation you had to create for it to be wasn't too hard to pull off. People just needed to know how to do it. I had a fucking blast playing that tank. 

Gameplay would obviously be worse if player skill is out of the equation, but innovation is too. If stats really did show the full story the possibility to innovate basically doesn't exist.

I don't play blind pick because I want a draft. I just enjoy the game more if I can control my matchup. I'm not at a level where people constantly trade picks, but at least close 50% of the time I get to see the enemy player in my role's pick before I do. Botlane obviously complicates it with two picks being relevant and supports having such a huge impact (hf playing Sivir against Pyke or Alistar, spell-shield basically useless and your flash is your only form of mobility outside of R) especially early on. 

I'm spamming ranked games, but I'd be up for some normal draft games. My nick is ΑAAAA (the first A is not a normal A so just copy it), if you're down to play ranked I'd be up for that too once my MMR settles to a normal number for my rank. To put it into perspective I skipped ranks straight from S4 to S2 without having to play promos and my winrate is 40%. It's pretty fucking bad :serb: 

Sure I think Im always ready for draft but whenever possible I stick to blind pick - possibly because I want to get into the match as fast as possible (WoT-syndrome) and my fingers are fast enough to type that preferred position. Because we all know that draft games where someone dodges right before the game starts - let this happen 3 times in a row and after you finally got into game its a remake because someone is afk. :feelsbad:

 

Btw noones ever gonna ban my most played champs because they are all off-meta :serb:

 

Btw dont flame me for being bad because I only play my 10 ranked games per season and I dont know how far I could possibly get - I just cand handle the emotional stress. :look:

 

Creative nickname - im wondering what AAAAA batteries would look like :doge:

Share this post


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...