But yeah, balancing BRs by winrates and then arguing on how powerful a vehicle is based on win rates alone is problematic.
Then again, there’s times that they’ve started a machine at a BR that was insane (PT-76-57 at 7.0 for the first, what, 4 months?) and now sits 1.3 BRs higher and can still fight at top tier.
Here’s the other problem.
It’s not just about win rates, it’s about win rates and the amount of times a vehicle is played.
Because if a unit is played lots of times but is repeatedly holding at a 50-60 percent win rate, it’s balanced.
The Abrams has been consistently sub-40 percent, all the way down to 32 percent at one time.
PT-76-57 went up not because of win rates though, but because of how players performed in it [kills, captures, assists] compared to the other light tanks they were using.
After all, if you check my stats of PT-76-57, you won’t see a particularly notable win rate despite the fact I stopped using it after it moved from 7.7 to 8.0.
It’s 55% with a KDR of 2.5:1, which yeah obviously OP from the KDR alone cause I played it prior to me ever learning how to use auto-light tanks.
You know what has higher win rates for me?
248, Black Prince, Tiger 2, T26E5, Challenger Mk3, etc have higher win rates for me.
Nice citing team skill. That’s not how it works.
And you don’t know the Abrams win rate.
No one knows how often vehicles are used, nor their win rates.
Your post is claiming that Abrams players have a skill issue…
I know that these are the following numbers for 11.7 US Ground Vehicles in BR Heatmap as of 8-17:
Battles: 6828
Win Rate: 35.45%
11.7 Germany
Battles: 27450
Win Rate: 61.71%
11.7 USSR
Battles: 39380
Win Rate: 65.59%
Unless you give incentive to the Abrams players to bring more than 1 tank (which I think a lot of bot accounts and Chinese accounts do so with malicious intent)?
The simplest answer is often the correct one.
But it does make one wonder how most line-ups can keep it close to 55 percent win rates while US is sub-36 percent again, and with multiple times less the number of battles played.
Also, much to your surprise and the surprise of those who previously wanted to hack me off, I never argued that fact to you. Y’all presumed my mindset. I said corrections and additions like this and that would incentivize players to stick around in the US line at top tier.
But hey, I guess if you’re only selling to Europe and want to treat the North American continent like a wallet, you can.
Those numbers are incorrect.
There are over 100,000 battles per month per namesake vehicle.
All those stats prove is the playerbase that chooses to use Thunderskill, an entirely opt-in system that attracts the better players of War Thunder, is that their preference is Germany and Soviets.
And of the skilled players playing USA, they’re being shafted by their worse team mates 65% of the time.
Your post keeps claiming Americans have skill issues, which is the simplest answer to the anecdotal evidence in your posts.
I never mentioned you nor your mindset; I’m addressing the posts, which you may or may not be writing to portray your views accurately.
It’s up to me to critique your posts, and it’s up to you to determine if your posts are written well enough to portray your views correctly.
If not, I recommend you change wording to better illustrate what you intend to portray your position as.
Not Americans. Anyone playing US line. Stop being nationalistic on that, along with anyone who agrees with you the Abrams is ‘just fine’, because we both know there are corrections that need to be made.
Clear?
Further, 100,000 battles played with each vehicle, so why aren’t we seeing the totals? Why so many of these US players aren’t even uploaded in Thunderskill? What is being hidden, and why?
@Dinfire
Countless people do agree with me that Abrams can be improved to be more accurate.
What’s the problem?
Do you not agree with us?
Cause that information can be used by groups to pray on groups of players they deem less skilled.
It’s correctly kept secret to keep nation v nation a thing, and to prevent abuse.
Cause if it is ever made public, all matchmaking has to be like arcade battles from that point onward.
Frankly that shows that War Thunder should move away from a realistic setting in matchmaking and go ahead and make it arcade in Realistic RB, and leave realism to Sim settings.
In my opinion.
Because the nation v. nation thing isn’t a thing unless USSR is going against USSR.
the CQC maps imo are more fun 90% of the time, some LD maps are good but most of the players have them banned like Pradesh (which I love but never play), but most of the reworks have cooked a lot of maps like tunisia, that big mountain was fun to play around but now is trash
Well, two CQC maps with flanking routes is how I got many frags with Abrams cause of how fast it is to just weasel around the urban environment appearing behind people.
And need to be one or another? I think its both. The same time noobs is part of the problem i think the ring and the hydraulic pump inst helping either (that could and will help the noobs if fixed and rising the WR consequently)
And with that you have a thermometer that indicates how good/bad any nation is doing, is not the final answer, but an indication (note that I’m not talking about a specific tank but about a nation, more specifically BR 11.3 and 11.7).