Does anyone know what winrates are for nations at toptier?

Game Discussion General Discussion
61

Yes, almost as if that’s why my very first comment in the thread said “We don’t know what the win rates are, full stop.” “We” being a word that includes myself.

Cool, so we’re back to he said she said, what an amazing step forward where individuals will make bold claims about super OP vehicles because they once experienced it without any sort of proof or evidence because you refuse to accept a sample size.

Tell me more about how I don’t understand statistics. Actually, please don’t.

I will.

I’ve taught university statistics, math, AND research methods, but yes, tell me more about how I don’t understand statistics.

I highly doubt that, you fail to understand how a T-80 BVM can have a 60% winrate whilst a T-80 UK has a 50% winrate, that makes no sense to you, but somehow your skills and knowledge about statistics, maths and research methods don’t allow you to come up with a logical explanation for this, it just makes no sense to you.

How is that supposed to make any sense whatsoever

Yes… and the other people in a sweatlord’s squadron are also sweatlords.

Is that the argument now? All players in the database are just sweatlords, every single one of them, first it’s because they are somehow the only ones that use them but not it’s because they are only ever in a squadron with other sweatlords.

Your squadron has everything from 79% efficiency to 3.79%, as most squadrons will, the few that are going to be extremely picky in their players are 99.9% outweighed by all the squadrons that accept everyone, which is the logical baseline because squadrons don’t give you options to recruit on arbitrary skill levels, something I’m sure you understand with all your experience.

You also qualify as a sweatlord with 80% efficiency, of course that is just because you farm new players in OP low tier crap but that’s how statistics work.

62

Very few people play like that, and everyone who looks themselves up will also look up their entire squadron and all their previous squadrons meaning they make up less than 1% of the new entries.

The only part of the population that it’s missing are the brand new players because they won’t be familiar with TS to add themselves and less likely to be in a squadron to be included in other searches, which is why the bulk of the statistics will be at higher BRs and thin out the lower of a BR you get.

Also why the average k/d and winrates will be above 1.0 and 50%.

63

It doesn’t have to be like that. When you add someone it takes all the tanks played. Low tier included.

64

Yeah, but TS are stats for the last 30 days, it’s not about lifetime vehicle performance, which would be a big waste of time anyways with the amount of changes the game goes through.

It doesn’t add any new players unless you look them up.

65

“We don’t know” on one side is not what “he said, she said” means. That would be “He said, she chose not to weigh in”

“you fail to understand how a T-80 BVM can have a 60% winrate whilst a T-80 UK has a 50% winrate, that makes no sense to you”

Uh, no, I gave you an exact scenario where it would happen. Maybe try actually reading people’s comments before replying. Curiously, meanwhile, YOU didn’t give any counter-theory yet.

“Is that the argument now? All players in the database are just sweatlords, every single one of them”

TIL “People in a sweatlord’s squadron” = “Everyone in the database”

“the few that are going to be extremely picky in their players are 99.9% outweighed by all the squadrons that accept everyone”

No because as you yourself already admitted, new players don’t join thunderskill. Sweatlords don’t join those squadrons, and new people don’t join Thunderskill. The very fact that Thunderskill has 1% or whatever of the playerbase, not spiderwebbing out to 30% or something, is also enough to establish that if you hadn’t already agreed.

“I highly doubt [your personal history]”

Anyway I’m muting you now since you’re just calling me a liar for absolutely no reason like a muppet. So all of the above will have to simply be rhetorical, I’m afraid.

66

Okay bye.