Yes and both of those are true.
When I ask you “Which part was a fabrication?” it’s implied that you’re also supposed to give a reason/argument of some sort why you think that.
In a more reasonable forum with more reasonable people, sure!
It’s much better to survive for another engagement than have to give your enemies tickets for your death, waiting until you can respawn, and taking a long time driving back to good positions.
Because it’s easier to get shot when you’re in the middle of nowhere than in the city where there are max four areas people can shoot you from?
Read the rest of the quote:
I was saying the nation and the nation’s vehicles at a particular BR is a factor and that the statement “if you meet the same mix of players across situations, whatever their various skill levels, the skill of your average opponent is the same across situations,” still depends on the nation you play.
How? What evidence do you have to show that Gaijin doesn’t use the algorithm? Or what it even entails? Whatever ends up happening behind the scenes to determine a vehicle’s BR is not infalliable. For example: Ariete WAR/PSO/AMV, 2S38, Strela, ZSU-23-4M4, SKR-7, XP-50, R3, B-29/Tu-4, BI, Type 81 (C), HSTV-L, etc.
If a nation does not have enough vehicles for a full lineup, it is the nation’s (tech tree’s) fault, not the player. Try telling a mid-tier US player to just spawn their useless SPAA, or a mid-tier Russian player to spawn their non-existent light tank, or a top tier Italian player to spawn in a viable MBT (before this recent update, 2A7HU time let’s go). Additionally, players don’t get to decide what type of map they spawn in on.
In a more reasonable forum with more reasonable people, sure!
Not having a point or an argument, and instead of just admitting it going “Nuh uh!” “Yeah well I’m rubber you’re glue!” multiple times, is you being the unreasonable one. Literally: “un”-“reasonable” means “without reason[s]”, not giving any for your position.
So you’re bad at flanking, then… or using it in the wrong situation (sometimes it just can’t be done well in some places). You should be flanking from cover like anything else
“[It’s harder because you have to stay alive while everyone can see you and hit you]” No… that means you already failed the hard part. Once that happens you’re already dead and if you aren’t, it’s 100% luck. The actual skill part here is moving WITHOUT exposing yourself to everyone in the first place, so that it’s not luck when you don’t hit, but the movements you chose and the limiting of the sight lines.
Some vehicles are designed under the CQC doctrine → because CQC is objectively easier, they will rely on CQC → they become less skilled than the players of nations that focus on movement or long-range fighting, which is objectively more difficult.
Replace “vehicles designed under the CQC doctrine” here with “light fast vehicles with punchy guns” and it applies equally to flanking. Equally badly, it’s a bad argument for both, precisely because it applies to both, and you were trying to make an asymmetry based argument as if it didn’t apply to both.
What evidence do you have to show that Gaijin doesn’t use the algorithm?
…Since I only claimed this about max and minimum BR: obviously the evidence is that they never move a single vehicle above or below their max or min BR… things move up and down from 3.7 all the time. Nothing has EVER. ONCE. gone below 1.0. Because it’s the minimum BR, and they ignore the algorithm if it suggests 0.3 BR for a vehicle or -1.0. Nor gone above the maximum without them announcing that they’ve decided to raise the maximum manually as a decision overall.
If a nation does not have enough vehicles for a full lineup
All nations have enough vehicles for a full lineup relevant to a maps discussion.
USA’s useless SPAA
This is a maps discussion, what specific map do you need SPAA for over a different map?
USSR’s light tanks
What specific map do you need a light tank for over a different map?
Really agree, they too away all the spots I can exploit with sniper vehicles.
But you’re still vastly more exposed when doing that (if you can, since the recent map changes have tried to limit flanking), which means you have to pay attention more, have more map knowledge, and get lucky - all of which make flanking harder.
Some vehicles are designed under the flanking doctrine → they can do both flanking and CQC with their vehicles, but worse in CQC → they focus on flanking → because flanking requires more skill, they gain more skill.
You claimed that the only problems regarding the algorithm are at 1.0 or 11.7/12.7, which is blatantly not true.
No? What? French 11.7 lineup, Israel 11.7 lineup, Italian 11.7 lineup, Britain 11.7 lineup where? And those are just the incomplete 11.7 lineups, there’s massive gaps in all trees except for the USSR and Germany.
It’s an example of not having a full lineup.
It’s an example of not having fast vehicles to be able to flank, which is directly relevant.
then
You claimed that the only problems regarding the algorithm are at 1.0 or 11.7/12.7, which is blatantly not true.
Bro… you asked me for evidence, but then when I gave evidence, you got upset about me not going BEYOND the evidence? Wat? Do you want to base things on evidence, or not? What’s YOUR evidence for them not following the algorithm for other BRs in mid ranges between 1.0 and 11.7? I restricted my comments to those because that’s all I have clear evidence for, which I thought you wanted…
Some vehicles are designed under the flanking doctrine → they can do both flanking and CQC with their vehicles, but worse in CQC → they focus on flanking → because flanking requires more skill, they gain more skill.
ALL playstyles have a wide variety of vehicles suited to them. So “XYZ playstyle has vehicles suited to it” doesn’t mean anything here. It’s true of all of them. So it doesn’t explain any playstyle being easier or harder than another, since both have this going for them.
But you’re still vastly more exposed when doing that (if you can, since the recent map changes have tried to limit flanking), which means you have to pay attention more, have more map knowledge, and get lucky - all of which make flanking harder.
You have to move while CQC’ing as well, during which you are more exposed than when staying still, as well. If you are good at it, you do it under as much cover as possible, exactly like flanking. All of this applies to both.
No? What?
-
I said: All nations have enough vehicles for a full lineup relevant to a maps discussion.
-
I did not say: All nations have enough vehicles for a full lineup relevant to a maps discussion, at one specific third of a BR that you happen to fancy playing.
The second one would require having literally (11 2/3 * 3 = ) 35 different full sets of each vehicle role = like 2 hundred vehicles per nation per tree. And if you want to have any repeats ever, for flavor or just historical completeness, that’s extra: 300 or 400 now each.
This is obviously impossible. In reality, when you play a given nation, you should skip certain BRs and play the lineups that actually exist in that nation. But there ARE good lineups that exist, in every nation, like I said.
It’s an example of not having a full lineup.
The USA has full lineups including SPAA, at various BRs in its tree, like I said. But this also has nothing to do with maps, so is off topic anyway. All maps can be seen by airplanes, so it’s not map specific.
It’s an example of not having fast vehicles to be able to flank, which is directly relevant.
But the mid tier USSR DOES have fast vehicles able to flank. You didn’t say that. You said “light tanks”. There are various fast nimble discreet tank destroyers and “SPAA” (that are actually tank destroyers) that can be used to flank perfectly fine in mid tier USSR. T34’s, T44’s and such can also flank fine in almost all cases.
You initially never specified “just 1.0 and 11.7/12.7”:
The rest of the responses to the above
Then I respond with:
Then you respond with this, limiting it to only 1.0 and 11.7/12.7 for some reason:
Then I respond with this:
Then you respond with:
Then I respond with:
It explains why some nations are more skilled than others, which is why I said it:
But CQC has vastly more cover than flanking, meaning flanking is harder. Yes, you use cover in both CQC and flanking, but that does not mean there is an equal amount of cover nor difficulty.
Those are one in the same, but even if we look at a 1.0 BR spread at only 11.7, there are still full lineups missing:
- Japan - Light tank (not a fast MBT - a small, speedy autocannon or very speedy normal cannon; for flanking), and a heavily armored MBT (for CQC)
- US - A heavily armored MBT
- France - Light tank (same caveat as Japan), heavily armored MBT
- Italy - A heavily armored MBT (coming with the 2A7HU)
- Britain - Light tank
- Israel - Light tank
They’re virtually the same, and regardless the “fast” T34s and T44s aren’t actually very fast.
Not really, unless you count 51mm of pen enough to be a “tank destoyer.”
Tell me where to find a brawler in the tier 3 german tech tree without premium captured vehicles.
UK has a bit of a better chance, but even it suffers from solid shot needing more engagement distance to balance out dying from being shot in an empty space and blown up by the sphere of death.
I particularly miss small Poland in its original style. Really if the fields in between the tree line and the north edge of the town were cleared of all the small bushes, especially the hedgerows on either side of the gravel road leading from the forest to the A cap, it would make the map 10x better.
I also have fond memories of Old Kuban, Old Kursk, and many, many, many others.
Most maps these days are either cities or they are so shaggy with bushes and small trees they may as well be cities as the visibility is so bad. I get some of the French countryside was like this and required specialized tanks to cut through it, but even so, why should every single area of partially open field be so riddled with these?
Ideal maps give all tank classes some portion of the map to excel at. Small Poland used to be my favorite because it did just that. I also used to enjoy Large Maginot when it was in rotation at lower ranks, because it too also did just that.
One thing I remember is the activation of a D point at certain times on some maps. Whatever happened to that?
Wirbelwind and Pz IV H (yes, including brought to tier 3) are decent brawlers if you want nimbleness.
Tigers are perfectly fine in CQC too if you angle well and have some brain wrinkles to think ahead a few seconds.
And yes, premiums as well. Premiums are part of the game, sorry.
Regardless, even if there weren’t any options at all, “Omg this ONE tier in ONE nation annoys me” then don’t play it…? I have no issues in tier 3 Germany, I think it’s generally a little OP if anything for an experienced driver, because the bad players there have dragged it down and BR favors it.
The PzIV bit really should be written down somewhere in that case as everywhere one googles, they find themselves told you should never include tanks in line-ups more than a a downtier from your higher BR tank if you don’t want to be accused of being a troll or such.
For tigers and the rest, I do not yet have them unlocked - just vk3002 and D.
For premiums, they should at best be treated as icings on cake rather than anything you consider for a nation’s viability or usefulness. They’re bloody expensive too, unless you live in a western nation where burgerflipping pays more than being an MSc chemist.
As for the one nation bit - I did end up doing that by going back to focus on my british tree and have had consistently better teams and games where I was facing brits vs germans, even if uptiered.
Written down where? I’m not sure I understand that part. Anyway, it’s a glass cannon (even at it’s own BR), and glass cannons work very well in cases like this even when like +2 from their BR. You can’t really get more glass than glass: an enemy killing you with 3x overkill with their higher BR big guns isn’t any worse than someone killing you normally.
It’s nimbleness and turret traverse speed still help in uptiers, though, and if anything the bigger opponents having slower reloads makes them in some cases LESS scary than things at the Pz IV’s own BR. It’s gun is almost as good as a Sherman 76 (less filler), common in tier 3, for example.
Eventually the gun stops penning most things though at like +3 BR, and this stops being true. (it still does from the side etc. even up to top tier, but it becomes a meme/challenge tank. At +2 I think it’s actually competitive)