Jump to content

Lower/mid tier match making post 1.95 patch


12 minutes ago, Deranger79 said:

But hey, if you really have never seen it low to mid then fair enough. It is a matter of trust (or not) to consider that these observations are more than just one offs but do follow trends, trends that seemed to show issues of win rate at these BRs.

I don’t say I have never seen totally passive teams, but they can be found on all sides. A US heavy team sometimes gets stomped at the caps and is passive for the rest of the match with their respawns. These things happen from

time to time but it isn’t unique for German teams being passive. My observations.

I also saw US light teams all going for one flank. Unfortunately for them, the Soviets did the same and they got thrown out quickly. They never recovered  because of no aircraft being spawned and heavies pinned down at the spawn. But there is no bigger problem behind that. It just happens.

 

30 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

I want to see Germany do better. Screaming "Germany suffers!" will not make Germany better.

I don’t care about Germany suffers, but the usage of that term for itself is wrong for any open discussion.

And to the quote: Cato used it at every situation, although being totally out of context, even after the final Punic war started. The more often something is expressed with passion, the less I believe it.

  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Deranger79 said:

Understood. But myself and many others I have seen in other parts of the forum suggest not going for caps and whole teams hanging back. And from playing alot of RU and Japan before I quit I came across this A LOT.

 

Again, ask Miragen, in these situations I describe he had a good reflection on it (people not willing to push with certain vehicles because of what "keeps happening").

 

Unfortunately because it is an important point and some have observed it as the norm around mid BRs it will always be a sore point.

 

The direction I come from is noticing that I DO see it and think people breaking from it would improve matches (because they are losses). But if you don't see it then it all goes back to just "Allies always OP", which in many cases is just lame... And now we have a 4.0-5.0 black hole to contend with.

And again there can be 100 people seing that but without a proof its only their opinion and personal observation which happens to that 100 people but maybe not for many others.

 

When I said I don't see it I meant I don't see it regurarly to remember it (speaking of Germany) as people claim it happens thats why it seems there is nothing to see.

 

What black hole?

Here is 4.0-5.0 battle spread which is pretty even without full uptiers

4-0-5-0.jpg

 

And here is 4.7-5.7 battle spread. It seems there is still many 5.7 vehicles being used (M18 is still the most played vehicle) which drag 4.7 to 5.7.

4-7-5-7.jpg

 

Even 5.0-6.0 shows biggest number of 5.7 games

5-0-6-0.jpg

 

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


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

German players go for the objectives as much as everyone else.   It's simply risky business moving into the objective zones when the opposition is more agile and has already secured them and dug in to ambush positions.   That's it.

 

The cases I speak of are where my team is sat at spawn the entire match (basically) and I am in the middle or face to face with a bunch of enemy. This rarely happens in an Allied mix, whereas I can pretty much recall all my Axis above 5.7 having the same feeling of "what is my team doing?". I can recall enough matches where no effort is made at all. Though a few do fall into the "wait enough and let the enemy impale themselves" tactic, which does work quite well if the enemy are up for it.

 

The question is, apart from truly awful players, when Germany + others do really well what are they doing to achieve it? Rather than the doom and gloom that Axis can't compete when speed and agility is concerned. Which is odd since Axis get M18s, M24s, T-34s, KVs (very mobile for heavy compared to UK, before you find the Jumbo which isn't super maneuverable either, but better than a Churchill), Pumas (low and mid tier it is still viable, just not as higher BR friendly as the AEC but that's now behind an 80 quid+ paywall). However, axis do win, and removing the easy stomps that might occur it is still generally the same vehicles that would previous not be able to win.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


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

And again there can be 100 people seing that but without a proof its only their opinion and personal observation which happens to that 100 people but maybe not for many others.

 

When I said I don't see it I meant I don't see it regurarly to remember it (speaking of Germany) as people claim it happens thats why it seems there is nothing to see.

 

Exactly. But I do see it a lot and makes me enjoy Germany less than I used to now I notice it as a possible issue. Just as I see Allies having a tendency to lemming or cap and rush more than when on an Axis team (which is hard to classify fully since many matches are Allies v Allies such as Germany v Russia, or US v Russia, or UK + France v Russia).

 

I see that you do not understand the "black hole" analogy I am referring to.

 

Also, my point that WWII logs is used to show trends here but the same use of this data elsewhere is deemed not accurate enough (by the very same people who are on your "side of the fence" here.. but for some reason not willing to call you up on it). But I am sure both of is can understand its value as at least a hint of things.

 

By black hole I mean some teams cannot field the same as others by lack of number of vehicles. By just linking the same numbers again it sort of hints you missed what I asked. So on a US team sub 5.0 what are you bringing to a match at your 4.0, 4.3, 4.7 lineups? I'd be intrigued. And as we know gaps aren't always filled correctly, or are you denying the chance of broken  MM where German teams of full 6.7s are facing a team with multiple 7.0+ to 7.7 (which we have all seen evidence of)? In the sense that these logs do not show this information at all (only displays the last vehicle used? I can't remember but I know my OS reports do lack some important pieces of info).

 

To spell it out, for pure "Allies" until 5.0 US have nothing now filling certain BR matches other than the M6A1, that's it. Then UK having 2 4.0s (one being a heavy, the other a sluggish TD with awesome gun for pen), a great 4.7 lineup however (though to be fair that's just the Avenger since the Sherman does have an extra wonky gun with poor depression in comparison to others). Now I know they compliment each other (as Italy should do for Germany, but needs more love so population increases), but they only do this in "perfect conditions" as generally lower down the 4 top BR and equal rest pattern seems to apply. So just because on paper there should be enough vehicles to compete it does not mean match to match this is what people are seeing. For example if it's a 4.7 match but all 4 top Allies are in M6A1s then once they are downed there might not be any more 4.7s, as opposed to if UK were the top BR and could field in theory 3-4 4.7s each. That makes a difference but the stats don't show this. Unless someone reviews every match in detail there are aspects that exist that will always be lost and might come down to personal observation.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Deranger79 said:

I see that you do not understand the "black hole" analogy I am referring to.

Sorry for me "black hole" is analogy for extreme gravity which sucks everything in. Thats why I misunderstood it.

 

Yes I agree that US now doesn't have proper (almost none) 4.7 lineup and raising of M4A1 (76) wasn't necessary if only because of this situation right now. Maybe they are planning to fill this US gap with some new vehicle which would be nice.

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, warrior412 said:

The Panzer IVs slaughtered and won. The Allies just played the objectives. There's a difference there.

The difference is that the US tanks were uptiered, means even GJ understood there was an issue. Maybe their data is a little bit more complex than your "just playing objectives" fairy tale. These is the proof that they clearly didn't need an uptier and I'm sure their above average stats are just the result of playing the objectives, not that they are extremely powerful vehicles.

Immagine.thumb.png.07f44653a1c6e5dab2693

 

  • Like 1
medal medal medal medal

Share this post


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

Yes I agree that US now doesn't have proper (almost none) 4.7 lineup and raising of M4A1 (76) wasn't necessary if only because of this situation right now. Maybe they are planning to fill this US gap with some new vehicle which would be nice.

 

The stabilized 76mm M4 Sherman gun is a very powerful late war development, which came far too early at their former BR.... It rendered most of the KV-1 line useless, since 76mm APHE lolpenned and OSKed everything, even well armored soviet heavies from '41. It was 1944 vs. 1940/41. I guess thats why gajin moved it up the ladder. Early Soviet and GER WW lineups suffered alot to this time traveling. Now they're out of reach of most e.g. KV-1 variants and Panzer IVs. They even lowered the basic KV-1 to 3.7 to make its armor matter again. 

 

I feel the 75mm Jumbo is still to low BR'ed with just BR 5.0. The armor is just far too extreme, gun is stabilized, 50 cal, quite mobile....this tank shouldn't be at 5.0. Winrates of 80%(!!!!!!) prove that it doesn't belong there. It should be 5.7.... The first jumbos arrived in France end of 1944 and the first battle deployment was during the Battle of the Bulge at the very end of the war. There's no sane reason this thing should club early war tanks as its currently is. Most 4.0 lineups have to face this ....beast.

Edited by Thodin
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


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

US now doesn't have proper (almost none) 4.7 lineup

A lot of nations don't have proper lineups at certain BRs.

Italian 6.7?

Russian 6.7?

Japanese 5.7?

German 5.0?

 

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

8 minutes ago, Thodin said:

The stabilized 76mm M4 Sherman gun is a very powerful late war development, which came far too early at their former BR.... It rendered most of the KV-1 line useless, since 76mm APHE lolpenned and OSKed everything, even well armored soviet heavies. It was 1944 vs. 1940/41. I guess thats why gajin moved it up the ladder. Early Soviet and GER WW lineups suffered alot to this time traveling. Now they're out of reach of most e.g. KV-1 variants and Panzer IVs. They even lowered the basic KV-1 to 3.7 to make its armor matter again. 

 

7 minutes ago, NoodleCup31 said:

A lot of nations don't have proper lineups at certain BRs.

Italian 6.7?

Russian 6.7?

Japanese 5.7?

German 5.0?

 

True. Thats why I also wrote maybe they are planning to add some new vehicle more suitable for 4.7.

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, aBrumz_suFFers said:

The difference is that the US tanks were uptiered, means even GJ understood there was an issue. Maybe their data is a little bit more complex than your "just playing objectives" fairy tale. These is the proof that they clearly didn't need an uptier and I'm sure their above average stats are just the result of playing the objectives, not that they are extremely powerful vehicles.

Immagine.thumb.png.07f44653a1c6e5dab2693

 

 

Lmao, you’re using the same data source but calling it reliable to handle the Americans with but not the Germans.

 

 The Panzer IVs’ four years of 60+% WR on TS and higher than peers’ exchange rates were definitely not indicative of them being deadly—nope. :016:

 

The double standards people stoop to to make excuses for German clubbing...it’s amazing.

Edited by warrior412
  • Confused 4
  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, warrior412 said:

 The Panzer IVs’ four years of 60+% WR on TS and higher than peers’ exchange rates were definitely not indicative of them being deadly—nope. :016:

 

PzIV players and in general Axis players at those BR's simply play objectives more than other nations, it's obvious there is no need to raise their BRs...

  • Upvote 5
medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, aBrumz_suFFers said:

PzIV players and in general Axis players at those BR's simply play objectives more than other nations, it's obvious there is no need to raise their BRs...

 

It’s embarrassing that you try to use different situations like this to falsely claim things like this.

  • Haha 2
  • Confused 2
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NoodleCup31 said:

A lot of nations don't have proper lineups at certain BRs.

Italian 6.7?

Russian 6.7?

Japanese 5.7?

German 5.0?

 

 

Well done, because these exist it means no BR "gaps" should be looked at?

 

And you picked the wrong examples, we are talking about gaps, not individual weak spots.

 

For example:

 

So Germany 4.0/.3 to 5.3 (minus TD/SPGs since I feel these vehicles are more niche to players than standard light/med/heavy tanks).

 

US 3.7-5.0 if you understand the M6A1 is in limbo where lineups are concerned. Not saying changes were not with some justification, but that the gap here might effect the balance of games.

 

UK 5.3-6.7 then 6.7-7.7. I am being rather lax here as there are vehicles in-between, but main lineups will probably not revolve around these TDs as the Charioteer and Conway are not the most popular, but not impossible to see players making use of them.

 

This does not negate a look at singular BR gaps/limited options. The recent BR changes have just exposed areas that might or might not effect the game.

 

Though the more low/mid vehicles the bigger the grind and a new player might look at all the vehicles and despair if they came for the nirvana that is modem MBTs.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

It’s embarrassing that you try to use different situations like this to falsely claim things like this.

Its exactly the same when you claim that Allies play objectives more than other nations at those BRs.

  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Allies play objectives is just BS, if compare after every battle zones captured between both team, Axis (germany) cap practically the same or even more than Allies teams.

In the forst pic my team captured 6 zones and Axis 5 zones. The Axis lose the battle for camp??hell no, just was massacred.

In the second pic the Axis team captured 7 zones and Allies only 1... BuT allIED play more objECtives....

BDBei1D.jpg

KyDS2gA.jpg

 

 

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


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

Its exactly the same when you claim that Allies play objectives more than other nations at those BRs.

By Allies that means every nation in game, however. Apart from Italy/Germany.

 

For my "Allied" teams (US/UK alone or at least US the main composition of any Allied make-up) I would go for the Uber lemming tactic or pushing too quick and disintegrating to reinforcements/rear support. Again, situations that any nation/side can be guilty of, just some do it more than others, possibly due to vehicles limitations (or an enemy's advantages, as people seem to just focus on that element. Half the story so half the solution).

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Deranger79 said:

By Allies that means every nation in game, however. Apart from Italy/Germany.

Or Japan which was also in Axis during WWII.

 

Image was TS data about US Jumbos and similarity with TS data about PzIVs. And claim was that high WR is because Allied teams play objectives more than other nations at that BR. So if numbers are the same logical conclusion is that PzIVs als play objectives more than other nations at that BR if we take numbers as fact.

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Deranger79 said:

By Allies that means every nation in game, however. Apart from Italy/Germany.

 

Leave Italy out of this. 4.7 is crap now for Italy since it's almost always an uptier now. With too many "Tiger aces" in the team it's almost impossible to win. They rush the caps, win 2/3 and head to spawn camp the enemy. Meanwhile the allies who won the 1/3 circle back and wipe the spawncampers from behind. Every single freakin' game I have played today it's been like this. And camping at spawn in a freakin' Panther when you are top br?

And now that US was moved up from 4.7, there are almost no 4.7 games to play.

  • Like 1
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, KH_Alan said:

Or Japan which was also in Axis during WWII.

 

Image was TS data about US Jumbos and similarity with TS data about PzIVs. And claim was that high WR is because Allied teams play objectives more than other nations at that BR. So if numbers are the same logical conclusion is that PzIVs als play objectives more than other nations at that BR if we take numbers as fact.

 

I'm using the actual Allies/Axis situation of the game. Axis means everything but US/UK. Pointing to the huge mix of compositions we have to consider. (In rep to Sarcastic too)

 

But the information was not used as the basis for all those saying German vehicles have a habit of suddenly putting in the brakes at certain BR areas. If that was the case then fair enough, the initial idea is years old and based upon observation. No stats really show tactics employed, just the result of those "tactics" with a few rid bits like kills, caps, exchange, wins/losses.

Edited by Deranger79
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Deranger79 said:

No stats really show tactics employed, just the result of those "tactics" with a few rid bits like kills, caps, exchange, wins/losses.

Exactly and its the only thing which is a fact. Everything else is just an opinion based on personal observation and not a fact unless it can be proved. Using two different explanations for same numbers without any proof is plain wrong.

Edited by KH_Alan
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Play the objectives" and "tiger syndrome" are just two sides of the same "germans are just inexplicably worse than the rest of the playerbase" fallacy.   If the germans play aggressively and get torn to shreds by dug in opponents and tanks better suited to brawling, then they have tiger syndrome and thought that they were invincible because they watched too much history channel.   If germans play cautiously and loose too much ticket bleed due to not securing the points fast enough, then they don't play the objectives.   Just move the goalposts depending on whichever fallacy suits you best at any given point in time.

 

 

And ofcourse, if they happen to win then it's because their panzer IVs and panthers are undertiered.

  • Confused 2
  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, GeneralArmchair said:

"Play the objectives" and "tiger syndrome" are just two sides of the same "germans are just inexplicably worse than the rest of the playerbase" fallacy.   If the germans play aggressively and get torn to shreds by dug in opponents and tanks better suited to brawling, then they have tiger syndrome and thought that they were invincible because they watched too much history channel.   If germans play cautiously and loose too much ticket bleed due to not securing the points fast enough, then they don't play the objectives.   Just move the goalposts depending on whichever fallacy suits you best at any given point in time.

 

 

And ofcourse, if they happen to win then it's because their panzer IVs and panthers are undertiered.

Is a long list of senseless attack to all people play Germany, just another example of this nosense :

psnqK18.png

:facepalm:

  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Deranger79 said:

 

Well done, because these exist it means no BR "gaps" should be looked at?

No

 

Just pointing out that its not a big deal if the US has no real lineup at a certain BR for some time.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...