I calculated Russian bias. Shocking results. Please Read

Game Discussion General Discussion
1

Test results from T80BVM vs Leopard 2A6 in custom battles. Both tanks used best apfsds rounds
and had full ammo. Shot distance 300m. Each testing tank receive I shot and if the tank doesn’t die, the player J out.

If you call bs and don’t believe me, do the experiment yourself.

DM53 vs T80BVM middle lower plate: 15 attempts, 86% first shot kill rate

DM53 vs T80BVM side, center of mass right below turret (passing right through ammo storage area): 23 attempts, 48% first shot kill rate!!!
.

Only 1 broken breach from tests where bvm survived first shot in the experiment above. All injured bvm can still shoot back since the lack of spall caused breach and turret ring to be undamaged.

3BM60 vs Leopard middle of hull: 9 tests, 0% first shot kill rate

Every of the 9 test resulted in at least 1 crew member death and a destroyed engine. 7/9 times the leopard was unable to shoot back due to damaged turret ring or breach.

3BM60 vs Leopard ammo area: 11 tests, 90.1% first shot kill rate

3BM60 vs Leopard side right below turret: 14 tests, 79% first shot kill rate

How come T80BVM has a 52% survival rate while Leopard 2A6 has 9.9% when shot In the ammo? The T80BVM is 5x more likely to survive a shot through a fully loaded ammo rack than the Leopard. The BVM can still shoot back while the leopard can’t.

The reason the leopard survived middle of hull shot is the sheer emptiness in the middle of the hull. Every test for “3BM60 vs Leopard middle of hull” resulted in a severely damaged leopard, with (21.7%) of the time the leopard being able to shoot back. The BVM can shoot back 11/12 (92%) of the times during the same experiment.

Leopard 2a6 early 2000
T80bvm 2021
There is less time between the Maus vs T28 (soviet land ship) than the time between t80bvm vs leopard 2a6
Russian bias at its finest. Russia needs to fight NATO tanks 20-40 years its senior to stand a chance. Only in Russian games and Russia win against NATO. Continue the cope, continue the cope.

76 Likes
2

Hyperbole aside, this is a decent analysis on Russian protection, I’d say the solution here would just be to give the “Rest of the world” tanks better protection.

The main issue here is the lowballed stats given to vehicles of other nations for seemingly no reason.

32 Likes
3

And yet, there is example of test. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0pQc_EllrY&t=222s&ab_channel=K2KitKrabiwe
And battle replay: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlnBWOg6l4g&t=147s&ab_channel=K2KitKrabiwe
So your test have flaws in it or you straight up making up the results.
And yeah, date of introduction means nothing (And well, you wrong even with them), specially considereding the fact, that this gap exists because of actual history (You know, collapse of soviet union… Literally almost two decades of no money to make an upgrade for tanks… Actually, Gaijin could introduce T-72B2(2006), which is way better than B3 )

5 Likes
4

You didn’t test turrets, and if you did test turrets you’d find that DM53 pens everywhere but the Relikt placement disabling the turret for a minimum of 12 seconds, and allowing you to finish the tank off by killing the other crew member.
T-80BVM is 2017 BTW, not 2021.

You need to adhere to the scientific method & apply tests in as many areas as possible.

6 Likes
5

This is the problem with the game, there are an impossible amount of variables and a stupid amount of RNG and bad game design, on top of crappy servers with frequent packet loss, dead BRs where you play on servers with higher ping.

I 100% believe there are things being manipulated behind the scenes, there are too many cases of tanks magically going from 30-40% winrates to 60-70% winrates from update to update without a single reasonable explanation, just like the opposite also happens.

The evidence exists that they manipulated APDS performance to massively favor Russia, as well as screw over Germany with a line of code that gave them a chance to catch fire randomly from MG fire.

It’s way too easy for Gaijin to manipulate vehicle performance, you chance the ammo rack chance from 60% to 40% chance, you increase the crew HP so that they’ll survive more, or lower it so that they’ll frequently die, increase HP for various modules, change hitboxes to be a bit larger or smaller, increase or decrease spalling etc.

There is no way for anyone to notice the difference between a 40% or 60% ammo rack chance, but in the long run it’s going to have a significant impact.

13 Likes
6

lol Calm down with the conspiracy theories, 80% of the playerbase are not really good bots as you imply.
Any alleged winrates change because players move around, players stop, other players start, etc.
RNG is only a thing with ammo cook off.
Servers having packet loss themselves is rare, more times than not it’s underlying infrastructure connecting you to the servers.

“Russia” doesn’t use APDS that much, so why would the many APDS “buffs” benefit “Russia” more than Britain & Sweden that use APDS far more?

Ammo rack chance is 0.15 for all top tanks except Chally 2 & Abrams, where it’s 0.5.
Which means War Thunder isn’t following percentile math if that’s the case.

The only time a hitbox changes is if the vehicle model changes or a bug with the hitbox occurs.

14 Likes
7

It’s not a conspiracy when it’s factual they manipulated APDS performance and made it so they exclusively German tanks would catch fire.

Russia has sloped armor at 60 degrees, so when APDS was scaling from 75 to 70 to 65 to 61 to 60 with a massive drop at 61… that was rather questionable.

But I’m sure they accidentally added in a whole line of code there, finger slipped of the keyboard surely.

22 Likes
8

APDS & fire are two entirely separate things.
On top of that, every tank can catch fire.
Soviet armor IRL slops at 45 until T-44 when they improved things.
APDS being corrected to its more correct performance as to IRL is not a bad thing.

5 Likes
9

Never said they were the same thing.
And really? Does any tank randomly catch fire when being shot at from MGs, are you sure about that?

T-54s are not 45
image

image

What are you even saying, APDS being artificially nerfed at a very specific angle by an additional line of code to cause a massive drop in performance is not a bad thing and somehow realistic?

I get that you’re the most unreasonable and biased person on this forum and I fully expect to be amazed by your thought proces and desire to defend this game every time I make the mistake of engaging with you in a conversation, but the extend you go and the hoops you jump through keeps baffling me.

20 Likes
10

APDS was never artificially nerfed. It was buffed this year.
The fact you call reasonable & unbiased players insults proves everything.

11

I am not sure how the spalling of US shells have against sides of bvms. I did 23 tests in total while the video did 14. In statistics, usually having 20+ sampling size from a population is an acceptable size. 14 is a bit low. Also, a lot of tanks in the video didn’t have relikt era, which according to gaijin decrease apfsds pen by around 100 and perhaps lower shrapnel. If the guy in video had a bigger sample size and kept the variables constant, ie all tanks have same upgrades, crew skills…etc, then I would consider the result to be acceptable.

1 Like
12

Lmao, yeah this is realistic.

“slopeEffect10deg”: [10.0,15.0],

“slopeEffect15deg”: [15.0,10.24],

“slopeEffect20deg”: [20.0,7.2],

“slopeEffect25deg”: [25.0,3.72],

“slopeEffect29deg”: [29.0,2.76],

“slopeEffect30deg”: [30.0,2.46],

“slopeEffect35deg”: [35.0,2.24],

“slopeEffect40deg”: [40.0,2.064],

Imgur

Imgur

Yeah nothing going on here.

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/278677870103101440/339601262259601408/unknown.png

Vehicles affected:

image

16 Likes
13

I didnt test turret is because my experiment assumption is most players will not be able to shoot the thin lines between the relikt during the intense game. I tested center of mass because that is where a shot will most likely land.

2 Likes
14

“Thin lines”. The distance between ERA & hull roof is significantly larger than M1A1’s turret ring, and people seem to hit that ring just fine.

3 Likes
15

russian bias does not exist and im a usa main russian b ias is a exuse from dying
but the 2s38 is very underteired

3 Likes
16

i hope you are joking

3 Likes
17

Thank you for your testing, which exposed Gaijin’s bias towards Russian vehicles
What is frustrating is that German players using DM53, the game’s most thick ammunition, cannot penetrate most of the frontal armor of the T72B3 or T80BVM, and even if it does, it is mostly not fatal. And even 3MB42 can pose a serious threat to L2A6, let alone 3BM60, which gives Russian players the ability to kill L2A6 without having to open their sights and carefully aim
Among Chinese players, we have given bvm the title of “wheelchair”, which means that operating bvm in a game can achieve victory by holding down the “W” button. This is somewhat exaggerated, but it indicates that we believe the strength of the bvm is superior to other tanks.

13 Likes
18

My pleasure. I kept on seeing debate between “russian bias is real” and “skill issue”. Since opinions doesn’t mean much in a factual debate, i decided to use some things I learned in stats class and see how it goes. Unfortunately, the bias is real and I’m sad. I played 2000h of Germany so I know the pain.

5 Likes
19

russian bias might be in armor pen salightly but russian tanks ahve to much draw backs to be clissified as broken but in close quarters somtrimes its noticable

20

So tell me what are these drawbacks and what statistics do you have to prove them? They have the best in everything except pen, but 3bm60 can pen what dm53 can. The only drawback is reverse speed, but why reverse when you can just hold w and win 80% of the games?

5 Likes