I havent bothered with your profile on stat shark - didn’t know people could downvoting profiles there. Also, I have a lot of time in game and did statistics in college and for business… so I think I have a fairly strong grasp on how statistical averages are used and applied in the real world.
You can disagree all you want, but doesn’t mean your opinion magically has more value. Average performance represents the majority - and that’s typically what’s being measured in statistics. Not you. Ciao.
This only comes into play if you survive initial shot and can return fire.
What the hell does me playing arcade more than RGB have to do with this?
I pointed out specs from the WIKI that a jumbo 76 - 1 step down from Tiger 2 H - has to be about 10m from the T2 to pen it.Are you also of the opinion that the average encounter distance in RGB is 10m?
Good thing the Jumbos have low speed stabs and can fire first 90% of the time, to snipe the muzzle break with ease, then track it and hit it in the side before it can repair.
It can, but will have a much harder time due to the lack of a stab, and, because its reload is so long, it may not get the opportunity to even track a tiger, in which the tiger may be able to flee.
Additionally, the jumbo gets Smoke shells which are great for blinding enemy targets with.
That is incorrect, even averages have outstanding kd compared to rest of 8.3/8.7 roster. And it still has decent stats and excels over rest. Unlike bmpts btw.
First off, I claimed more than college courses. I claimed real life experience using business statistics, projections, etc.
You make a good point - Good players will ALWAYS do well. The BR is used to handicap that… which models my point exactly.
It makes vehicles less accessible to the majority of players - which is the main portion of the parabola when looking at skill distribution.
So thanks for making my point for me? The best players have a disproportionate impact on a vehicle which elevated it to a place where it is some what under powered. HENCE why we remove the top and bottom performance outliers when doing statistical averaging.
Nice try being snarky with the college remark, weird flex going and unironically supporting my point without realizing it and then calling my logic circular.
Have you considered a career in accidental stand up comedy?
Again, circular logic, which has nothing do with being snarky.
You said previously or, someone said previously, that those of us whom understand these vehicles best shouldn’t be considered when it comes to vehicle br discussion. Which make 0 sense
You say your correct or I’m proving your point, which merely means you are just agreeing with me that:
The most educated and experienced on a vehicle, doesn’t get a say? Meanwhile the average should have total say?
Which makes the least amount of sense possible.
For example,
The Kv-220 is good in 6.3 and under matches. Has plenty of counters from 4.7+ and can even be penned by some 3.7s.
It severly underperforms in 6.7 and 7.0 because it lacks:
pen
reload
mobility
turret rotation
Etc.
The Tiger II at 6.7 suffers little in a full uptier to 7.7 because it has a still very capable gun, usable armor, and decent mobility additionally smoke grenades are good at any br.
I was thinking about the 5.7 jumbo… but both outload the kv-220.
Both are ever so slightly faster, have smoke shells, etc.
Both have a faster reaction time to targets. So all my previous points still stand.
But merely talking about not being able to front pen tanks being the problem is not the correct way to think about that…
But let’s go with your idealism.
The T26e5/e1 the t30/34 and so on are all monsters of armor.
Tiger II
Etc…
Non of which are on the Russian team, and generally when I play the Kv-220 I always seem to face a USA / Germany match up.
It’s not, but like I said, it doesn’t really need a reload buff to begin with. It’s already good at 6.0 with a 7.4s reload.
Besides, that won’t really make it any easier against the Tiger II H anyways.
If anything, that would just let KV-220s stomp in downtiers even more.
That and trying to move it back down to 5.7 (even though the Jumbo 75mm, the Tigers, the Panzer IV/70, and the Panthers all were moved up along with the KV-220).
Just move up the Tiger II Hs to 7.0. End of story.
Yes, but manual reloading is dependent on how Gaijin balances tanks.
The 2A7 doesn’t have a 5s reload (even though it’s very much possible) because it’s already very strong with a 6s reload.
The Tiger’s ammo is much closer to the loader than the KV-220:
But I don’t disagree that the Panther’s ammo distance from the loader is quite similar to the KV-220’s, and yet has basically the same reload.
I think a 6.5s - 6.7s reload buff would be reasonable considering it has two loaders, or have its first stage be located in the turret bustle (15 rounds for the first stage, maybe with a 5.5s - 5.9s reload.)
Either of which would be fine at 6.3.
Great. So you understand that each of these vehicles have very good features that make them meta at their respective BRs. The KV-220 is similar in which it has very strong armour (even better than the Jumbo’s, while having just as good mobility as them), as well as a good enough gun against most vehicles frontally at 6.3 and lower.
Yeah, I think it should go to 4.3, maybe 4.7 since it got access to decent APHE.
Maybe not 6.0 but definitely at different BRs.
The KV-8 can’t do anything to the Excelsior frontally (0.3 BR uptier).
The IS-4M / IS-6 can’t pen the MAUS / E-100 frontally (same tier), unless you’re really lucky with volumetric.
None of these vehicles should go down in BR though…
If we go that route, my opinion should be taken very seriously then 😂
Centurion is very easy to kill since its turret armour is only ~128mm thick, and the entire tank has only 4 crew members (so it’s very easy to one-shot through the turret, or kill it in one shot in general):
That is true, though shooting the breech won’t kill the KV-220.
Even the Tiger II’s gun does little to no damage to the KV-220’s crew, which you can’t really say the same for any other tank at 6.0:
Well, at 8.3 their armour is useless, just like if the KV-220 went to 6.7.
In uptiers, E-100’s / Maus’ armour is pretty bad, but in a downtier their armour is extremely good – just like the KV-220’s.
I have 28k games, so I must be even better!
Therefore you should respect my opinion more than your own.
So I must have even more wisdom, and so I can clearly see that the KV-220 doesn’t need to be buffed, while you want to buff things unnecessarily.
Hell, if you want to go off of statistics, it’s not even doing that much worse than the T18E2, a notoriously underBR’d tank that only recently went up from 3.0 to 3.3 (and I’d say should even be 3.7):
Both are rare vehicles (though the T18E2 is arguably even more rare, at least from my experience), so both have good players playing them, though the average KV-220 player is worse than the average T18E2 player, the sample size of KV-220 matches is much larger than that of the T18E2, and yet the KV-220’s KPS is almost just as good as the T18E2’s.
I’ll give you another example:
The USSR Type 62 is a very rare event vehicle (arguably even more than the KV-220), which, as a result, only good / experienced players really have. Its sample size is much smaller, and yet its KPS is only 240th place (which is much better than the Chinse Type 62’s 967th place, but nowhere near as good as the KV-220’s 8th place).
Does this mean that the Type 62 is even more abysmal than the KV-220 at its own BR of 6.7, and so it should go down to 6.3 / 6.0?
The gunner-side cheek has a small area where it’s only around 160mm - 170mm thick:
Much worse mobility, gun depression, survivability, and gun handling. No thermals either, nor LRF.
Though I’d say the T-64A (with its new 6.0s reload) is fine at 9.3, and it’s the Chrysler that should be moved up from 9.0 to 9.3.
My problem with balancing tanks purely based on the best performance is that all vehicles have different kinds of skill floors and skill ceilings.
If we go off of only skill ceilings, you’d probably see the regular M1A1 being the same BR as the T-90M / T-80BVM. Could that be fair? Maybe.
Would it be fair if both players are mediocre at the game? Hell no.
The M1A1 player is obviously going to have a harder time in general. It’s exactly why you see people complain about T-Series armour and how NATO tanks supposedly have little to none.
What would be fair amongst top players is different to what would be fair amongst typical players.
Similarly, if we go off of only skill floors, you’d probably see the M109A1 being the same BR as the Pz.Bef.Wg.VI P (or something along those lines). The bad M106A1 player would struggle to understand how to use the M109A1 properly while the Pz.Bef.Wg.VI P is pretty straight-forward (with all things considered).
But using the 155mm properly allows you to kill practically any tank frontally in one shot, given enough aim and patience.
So instead of looking at one or the other, I think it would be better to look at both of the extremities, and the average (to act as a weight).
I’d say it’s similar to how in FPS games, assault rifles are generally good and easy to use, but sniper rifles are much harder but can be extremely powerful in the right hands. Does that mean that the sniper rifle is objectively overpowered? On average, probably not.
The armour is definitely not as good.
100mm+ rounds start to become a lot more common past 4.7, which then the Excelsior’s turret armour becomes completely useless.
