Normalization changes the “effective protection”.
The formula is correct, Gaijin does tell us actual thickness of the armor in the protection analysis, only “effective protection” which applies normalization to rounds.
@Grossaaaa
“Statshark/Thunderskill/etc are not to be used in arguments about vehicle capabilities.” - Statisticians, Thunderskill, and Statshark.
It doesn’t matter if it’s 1 or millions if the players are different skill.
Good players control the game, and they have done this previously with Type 90s, Abrams, T-80BVMs, Leclercs, and so on.
Its only correct if you dont include normalization values. Like “under normal circumstances” text in physics which just excludes some minor factors but in this case factor isnt really minor. Also I think there are more factors than just normalization. Materials of armor and sabot are both included in formula as well. 3bm4 performs bit worse than m735 despite being faster and heavier because 3bm4 is made of steel and doesnt have tungsten alloy core.
@Grossaaaa
Me: “Mirage 2000 beats Mig-29 in 1v1s.”
I’ve been saying that since 2021:
Wow, it’s been 5 years since I started doing 1v1s in Mirage 2000.
So, are you going to double down and claim those statements are wrong?
I’d love for you to prove them wrong, but I doubt you will.
You’re not going to “gotcha” a Mirage fan.
Also:
The only proof of something being OP or not will involve cross-analysis.
Otherwise OP vehicles aren’t OP if players universally misuse them, and balanced vehicles are OP if good players use them.
And according to your own argument, Typhoon AESA is the most powerful jet in the game:
BMP-T is far more survivable you could put it at 17.0 with the super tanks when they are added and as long as the damage model remains the same the tank will be a broken mess. It’s like facing a Falcon at 7.0 that when you shoot it’s turret it smiles and keeps shooting you.
Then with how Gaijin code autocannons (poorly) you will eventually hit something be it a turret basket a barrel maybe the gunner and that tank is dead while it repairs or in most cases is finished off by the BMP-Ts team mate.
The damage model isn’t unique.
It’s the identical parameters we’ve been dealing with for years.
Server frequency causing issues with bounces when shooting near two plates.
Overlapping plates.
T-72/90 derivative chassis.
There’s a reason I ammo rack them as easily as all other Soviet tanks on CQC maps.
The only maps I can’t do much to them on are long-range maps, which I find eh cause they can’t do much against myself either due to being too far away.
More distance = more stalemate.
CQC = Clear 11.3+ MBT advantage.
Medium range… Probable 11.3+ MBT advantage.
In a Battle match where tanks don’t really have to move, sure, hull-down tanks are stronger than better tanks in survivability, but most maps don’t allow that, let alone that mode not being as common as-is.
This is what I see in most matches: And yes, server frequency has had me bounce 1 round out of 5+ other successful penetrations of the side ERA.
All the ERA does on the premium is guide me where the ammo is stored.
If Gaijin can figure out how to fix server frequency “vibrating” tanks in a manner that has rounds bounce shots, the side shots on the ERA of tech tree BMPT become extremely consistent for any gun firing DM23 and higher. Right now, I think it’s only consistent with DM33 and higher due to that reality.
When those tanks came out in December, I quit the game. Today, four months later, I tried playing again to see how things were, and it didn’t matter whether I used Abrams or Challengers—every match was full of BMPs, and they won about 80% of the games. War Thunder is a game that’s over for me; I’m having fun playing other games now.
Lol I am playing mostly MK4B t90 is easy kill even T80 is harder to kill but bmpt… shot from side nothing, shot underbelly nothing, shot in driver hatch, nothing… shot random on 600m kill… like wtf? See I know when I shot T80 or T90 in some spot its just blow up, bmpt, burning in fire still managed to kill me frontally with 30mm gun, which is physically impossible heck even from side, there is literally 0.5m of steel equivalent
This can pen my side…
In other words, you had the opinion that the M2K was worse than the 29. And only after 10 other people insisted that it was not worse than the 29 AND you dueled someone in said matchup; you changed your moronic opinion.
You can now go and report the one and a bit year old post again, at which point I will go and edit it again to make it visible.
As for that moronic statement, we are not talking about ThunderSkill, we are talking about Statshark. We are also not talking about vehicle development, we are talking about the statistical performance of vehicles.
This is nothing but a strawman.
As for this strawman, you aren’t really showing anything, except that event or removed vehicles like the Maus, Panther 2, 10.5 Tiger and Coelian have higher than average statistics due to them being removed and generally only being played by experienced players. The F1 is a clubber and can be uptiered, same with the Ho-Ri and Chi-To. I have nothing against uptiering vehicles that perform better than average.
This is contradictory to you actual argument, as the BMPT is neither rare, nor an event vehicle, much rather it is a premium that is typically more likely to be played by newer players.
So I ask you once again:
How is it that the entire MBT line of russia at 11.3-12.0 sits at roughly 0.7-0.9 kills per spawn while the oh-so-bad BMPT has nearly twice as good stats?
@Grossaaaa
Nope, I had the opinion that Mirage 2000 was a better dogfighter with a better flight model for 1v1s/dogfights.
You didn’t include my entire quote:
“In acceleration, and at specific speeds relevant to air RB, Mirage 2000 is slightly worse.” is the full quote.
You intentionally left out the acceleration and specific speed part.
So prove that I am wrong about Mirage 2000 being a better dogfighter.
You can’t, cause you know I am right.
Again, stats are different player groups. Different player groups have different skill levels. This understanding is taught to you in Statistics courses.
So yeah, enjoy thinking Mig-29 is superior to Mirage 2000 in dogfights, Grossaa.
I’ll prove you wrong like I proved people wrong back then.
Man, this is a forum, not a gaslighting competition. You know that people can use sites like wayback machine to see that you edited your posts, right?
These are, once again averages. Since you seem to have trouble understanding the meaning of the word average, here is a link for you that should explain it: Average - Wikipedia
Or, if you have trouble clicking the blue marked letters, here is the summary of said article:
In mathematics, an average of a collection or group is a value that is most central, common, or typical in some sense, and represents its overall position. In mathematics, it most commonly refers to the arithmetic mean, but may also refer to other measures such as other types of mean or the mode.
I would like you to explain, once again, why the acorrding to you better T80U has worse average statistics across the board than the BMPT.
Keep claiming that better players = vehicle is more OP, all you’re doing is defending Russia…
You claim the Russian BMPT is better than superior Soviet MBTs, and you claim anyone that says Mirage 2000 is a better dogfighter than Mig-29 is wrong…
