the armor is more than made up for by the much much better maneuverability. You don’t have to W+M1 in the Excelsior like you do in the VII, you have the ability to do other things
But what about “camping vehicles” which are excellent at long range engagement, but are suboptimal for close range? Like Jagdtiger, Jaguar, raketenjagdpanzer2 HOT.
Gaijin doesnt balance of win rate, they balance based on SL earned per match. Its even dumber than you could possibly imagine. Unless there is some massive up roar or some blatantly obvious game bracket ruining thing they do not care. i.E 8.0 PUMA or 7.7 T58
Game should be balanced by play rate, if tanks dont get used they go down until they are, then pushed up when they are too low ect ect… Or balance with someone who actually knows what they are doing and plays the game, who can make informed subjective changes based on played experience.
1 Like
That would show up in the winrate curve as them underperforming overall (probably), but specifically for worse players, however you could control for that by having some game sense and knowing that a vehicle is inflexible and thus taking it’s raw stats with a grain of salt.
There will never be a single magic metric for a vehicle overperforming or underperforming that tells the whole story. You always need to apply game sense to the stats, and pull a bunch of different stats, if you want to actually make sense out of the noise.
1 Like
It’s actually one of the better ways to use stats as it encompasses all of a vehicles performance, and I assume gaijin uses the raw value before any modifiers like rank/premium/boosters. Plus they do use other metrics, but we ultimately don’t know what they use for sure.
That would put the TTD down to 9.0, and it’s already OP for 10.0
True, but it usually does dictate how powerful the tank will be played in most games.
Balancing vehicles is tricky, I won’t deny that. You have some good points about the KV-220, and others have good counter arguments too.
But in the end, in my personal opinion, a vehicle is best balanced by the average players. This game is already running a fine line between enjoyment and frustration in most regards, and that tricky balancing act should be respected.
Therefore, I believe a vehicle is in the best spot it can be if:
-The good players will do well with it, sometimes maybe even completely dominate a match almost solo
-The bad players will do bad in it, since you should only hold a player’s hand up to a certain extent and no further or they’ll never learn
-The average player can do anything between bad and good in it, so long as it stays enjoyable enough to play the vehicle
If a vehicle is balanced by the merit of the better players for the most part, or even only based on their skill, than you’ll inevitably end up with the vehicle maybe being a spot where it’ll be fun challenge to play to those with thousands of hours and thousands of games, but it’ll be an uphill struggle, or maybe even worse, for the average players.
As Rainy said, always take both the skill ceiling and skill floor into account, but don’t forget that there usually exists something between a ceiling and a floor that’s called a room. (Note that I mean this last part mostly as a joke I just came up with, I mean nothing condescending with it)
1 Like
Overall doesn’t reflect your current performance nearly as good as monthly since overall includes past skill issues. It seems like you haven’t played enough matches throughout this month to have a monthly either.
Yes, you have (for the most part), but I don’t think it’s fair to dismiss other people’s arguments just based on the difference in number of matches you have with another player. Sure, more battles played generally means more experienced but I’ve seen a lot of people with many more matches than either of us and still have bad stats / uninformed opinions.
Even the average player can still give a useful and unique perspective on a topic that more experienced players may not have thought of.
Some opinions are formed from biases, blissful ignorance, and skill issues of the past (and present), which can happen to even the best of us.
Not sure where you got that the IS-7 is 8.7, but it’s 8.3 in GRB:
0.7 BR difference because the IS-7 has:
- Better armour
- Much more usable mobility
- 2x 14.5mms
- Much better gun handling
- 10s reload (instead of 18.2s).
But the Maus is more survivable from my experience.
I think that’s reasonable.
I wouldn’t say the MAUS / E-100 need to move up because it’s in the same predicament as other very well-armoued Heavies. As soon as their armour means nothing (which is their only real gimick), they don’t perform well anymore. I’d say 7.7 is the most suitable BR since they suffer at 8.0, 8.3, 8.7 but they do well at 7.3, 7.0, and 6.7. Same goes for the KV-220 at 6.0 (although I’d say it only starts having issues at 6.7+).
That’s why I’d just keep it as it is.
It’s 8th place in terms of KPS, and its average user isn’t even better than other rare event vehicles like the T18E2 (because of how much more common it is and easier to get):
KV-220:
T18E2, for example:
If anything, it seems like it should get a nerf instead.
Again, just because I don’t have a vehicle I’m talking about, doesn’t mean my opinion should be automatically invalidated.
You don’t need to have played the Excelsior to know that it is way too good for 4.0 (I think you’d agree with me here), just like you don’t need to have played the BM-8-24 to know that it’s practically useless even at the BR of 1.3.
That being said, I’d say the bare minimum is having experience fighting against said vehicle, watching others use it, and analyzing its capabilities. Of course, actually using it yourself would be ideal.
1 Like
Not if you’re thinking of putting it at 5.3. The armour is basically useless beyond 4.7 (unless you angle the turret while reloading, like with the Maus):
You’d be a medium tank with a potato gun and unreliable armour (even against tanks 0.7 BRs lower than you). So at that point, why wouldn’t you just run something like the Challenger, which has a better gun, similar reload, even better mobility, and even better gun handling?
The T14 is also at 4.7, with access to APCR, a vertical stabilizer, and very similar hull armour (though worse turret armour).
This should largely be dependent on how rare the vehicle is to attain as well. That and how fun its gameplay is to begin with.
I wouldn’t say the ISU-152s are that bad for 4.7 but I’d would rather play other vehicles at 4.7.
I think a lot of other people share this same sentiment:
Spoiler
The biggest problem here is that everyone has some sort of biases, and trying to accomodate everyone (the average player, and the best of the best) is very hard.
I think the Cromwell V is fine at 3.7, just compare it to the M4A2. Worse armour, no stab, no .50 cal, and no APCR. The only thing the Cromwell has is speed.
1 Like
The Cromwells do have better gun depression as well (-12 instead of -10).
I think the Cromwell V’s equals are the 3.7 M4, the Cromwell I, and possibly the Panzer IV H & T-34 (1941).
I’m still trying to buff the mantlet. Should be the same 3.5 inches (maybe even 6 inches) as the Churchill. Just depends on which universal gun mount it uses.
The gun mantlet is already 3.5 inches (88.9mm):
Unless you are talking about the turret cheeks instead?
I really don’t value the APCR and the Cromwell is also much smaller than the Sherman which makes the speed more exploitable
hot take of the century: the Cromwell is better than all T-34-76 variants. It’s faster, has a much better gun and gun handling, and actually outreloads everything it can see. Granted, it’s also much easier to pen, especially with slow or small rounds, but that’s not something I factor in because 9/10 times when you get penned in either of these tanks you just die.
Ok - the gunner sight area “weak spot” exists.
But it is pretty damn small - how often you think an average player can hit that in battle conditions?
Average player, probably not. But at the same time, the average player doesn’t really take APCR either 😅
I’m just saying that it’s possible.
1 Like
Maybe, though I think for the average player, the T-34-76’s hull armour makes it surprisingly good – especially at range.
but then you get the churchill VII problem where your armor is good at range but your gun is actual garbage at that same range. T-34s are supremely overrated by this playerbase
Well, their mobility is much better than the Churchill VII’s, so you can usually get to a good side-flanking position where your round (which has better explosive filled and angle pen than M61 shot), while still having good hull armour if needed.
Really depends on which T-34 you’re talking about.
The T-34-85s are extremely good for their BRs, and I’d say the T-34-57s are also really good.
The T-34-76s are mediocre in my opinion (especially those that got moved up), but can still be very good in the right hands.
1 Like