They aren’t copied from War Thunder. Thunderskill, on request of a player, scrapes that player’s personal data & then compiles it into a relative skill to compare with other Thunderskill users.
Note, it’s comparing to other Thunderskill users, not to all players of all time.
It is not a random distribution of players.
If one is going to use data for anything one at the very least needs to know how that data was gathered and what sample biases it may have.
Sæas far as ive understood Thunderskill gathers player data on those who are signed up and uppon request. Does one need to point out the flaws of using that dataset to draw broad conclusions extrapolated to the playerbase?
Yeah, but we’re not talking about relative skill, because that’s a nonsense statistic anyways, we’re comparing vehicle performance and winrates.
Which can’t be done because Thunderskill doesn’t even have a notable amount of players, and they’re not random players, they’re mostly try-hards & people comparing themselves to tryhards.
Thunderskill is not, and has never been, a source for determining if vehicles are powerful or not.
And then consider the fact that for every person who signs up, it also includes their entire squadron.
So if you want to suggest that it’s mostly sweaty players or whatever, which still wouldn’t invalidate the statistics, it’s negated by the fact they make up less than 1% of the database as it adds up to 127 other players as the majority of players are part of a squadron, and possibly even a whole bunch of squadrons as it also has records of previous squadrons.
If you are a sweaty player and look yourself up, you add another 68 players that are in your squadron, it also adds your previous squadron which in this case consists of 4 players so an extra 72 players for looking you up.
If I look up RazerVon as well, who, coincidentally, is in the same squadron, it doesn’t add extra players from that squadron, but it does add his previous squadrons, which is 72 + 93 + 189 + 45 + 64 for another 463 players… so by just looking up 2 players, there are an extra 535 players added to the database, so it doesn’t matter if you are the sweatiest of sweaty sweatlords as you make up less than 0.2% of the data.
Enough evidence to prove Thunderskill wrong:
KV-1E:
F-104A:
F-5E:
ALL identical vehicles, and should statistically have identical statistics, yet don’t.
Cause Thunderskill can’t be used to determine if vehicles are OP or not.
Why in the world would they have identical statistics? That doesn’t make any sense.
In order to determine if a vehicle is OP or not, you have to lose the human factor of the vehicle.
Meaning you have to eliminate player skill. Thunderskill is primarily an analytical tool to determine player skill, not if vehicles are OP.
It physically cannot be used to determine if vehicles are OP.
You eliminate player skill by having a large sample size, the chances that 1000 players are all elite skilled top tier players who get all get a k/d of 5+ on pure skill is non-existent, and zero reason to assume this over the idea that the KV-1B and 1E are obscenely OP vehicles.
KV-1E, and M4A2 aren’t OP as much as they’re being used by players that know how to use them very well against newer players. Especially since most KV-1E players on Thunderskill will be the good players.
Determining if a vehicle is OP or not needs to be done by looking at players that have all 10 tech trees unlocked, and analyze the differences in performance between like-vehicles.
If I look at my M1A2, M1A1HC, BVM, Type 10, Type 90, Chally 2, all will have similar performance because they’re well balanced.
If I look at my Jadgpanzer IV, it’ll have superior performance to Stug III, etc because it’s OP.
If I go to Defyn’s profile I can determine what aircraft are OP and which aren’t after half an hour to a few hours of analysis, namely the newer aircraft as older aircraft might have inflated numbers on Defyn’s profile before BR changes.
Why would a KV-1E not be OP and somehow different from the KV-1B if you earlier suggested they should have identical stats.
Determing a vehicle is OP by looking at the sweatiest of sweaty players and most likely Moby Dick himself doesn’t sound like a logical conclusion either after dismissing TS statistics for try hards.
I’m calling both KV-1B & E “KV-1E” for fast typing.
You don’t have to look at the best players, just players that play all 10 tech trees, or even 7 of them.
If they have consistent KDR/KMR across all same-type vehicles, then all the vehicles they play are balanced.
Of course, that relies on them being consistent in all vehicles.
I for one am not consistent in M1A2 SEP & Leclerc like I am everything else at the top end.
They’re running obscene k/ds of 5+ it doesn’t get a lot more OP than that, that’s in the same league as a 279s, IS-7s and KV-220s.
I’d much rather look at the performance of a 1000 players than a few individuals.
Looking at different players brings skill back into it, and you can only eliminate the skill factor by looking at singular players.
Good players being good doesn’t make the vehicle OP.
My 9:1 KDR in Sea Vixen doesn’t mean that vehicle was OP when I played it. It just means I was extremely skilled in a one-off plane that has no equal in War Thunder.
My 3:1 in Object 279 is within range of my normal heavy tank KDR.
2.4:1 in IS-4M, 4:1 in KV-1E & M4A2, 3:1 in KV-122, 4:1 in M6A1, 3:1 in Matilda III, 2.5:1 in Object 248, 3:1 in Tiger H1…
Heavy tanks are potent if people don’t know how to deal with them.
How does looking at single players eliminate skill factor? If we went by your stats the Sea Vixen would be considered OP based on it’s performance and we have no other comparison to conclude otherwise.
Only by looking at more players do we see that the performance of the Sea Vixen is significantly lower than 9:1 and yours is the anomaly and not the rule.
You’d need an aircraft that I’ve used to compare Sea Vixen to, but since WT has no other aircraft like Sea Vixen that’s impossible.
My performance in Sea Vixen was purely down to my skill in positioning & engagement, as the missiles were easily dodged by aware opponents.
Yes, I’m more skilled than most Sea Vixen players in the Sea Vixen.
So looking at an individual player is a bad idea by your own example.
Looking at multiple players will mostly show skill difference, that’s it.
It will average out of a large enough sample size, that is the point… if I fly the Sea Vixen is my performance going to be close to yours, a singular random individual, or is it going to be close to the average result of 200 matches? Which is still a small sample size but the k/d of 3.8 is going to be more indicative of the vehicles performance than your k/d,
who signs up
You mean “who sign-ED up, 3 years ago or earlier, since their signup page has been literally just broken since then”?
One of about a dozen obvious bugs on that site and the overlaying heatmap one that is based on it.
Thunderskill is garbage.
OP: We don’t know what the win rates are, full stop.