I have been seeing this tank a lot lately. A whole lot, so I figured I would look up the stats. As of today in Realistic Battles it sits at a 5.8 kills per match and climbing. If this doesn’t scream that vehicle is at the wrong tier, I am not sure what does. Anything that averages numbers like this, clearly needs a BR adjustment at a minimum.
Also the vehicle is currently selling for $650+ on the marketplace, just goes to show you how silly it is.
I know it isn’t easy for the devs to make an adjustment to something russian, and that russian bias is just a part of the game, but this should probably be addressed.
Thunderskill is full of fake data to the brim. I mean, some vehicles literally outperform top 10 players stat wise by a good margin. Or at least they used to.
f.e. G55S - 4.48 kills per battle and 4.68 kills per death.
Can you see the issue? That would mean someone has probably THE BEST KPB in game (I think you need 3,1 for top 10) but dies almost every battle.
Makes sense? Nope.
It doesn’t take that much skill to sit at 5:1 KPB, which is better than Thunderskill metric. But 4.48 KPB is waaaay beyond capabilities of basically all but a few players, and even then - in some of the most OP aircraft in game, and G.55S is far from “some of the most OP”.
Thunderskill even has a disclaimer that their stats may be very off from the actual amount too. They only get stats from players who register their account with the site. When you have a rare vehicle and you are only looking at stats for those who both have it and know about thunderskill, that will filter out a lot of the ‘not so good’ players.
I do think it would be interesting to see the official stats of vehicles every time they announce br changes.
These stats make no sense. Do you really thonk some god of WT would die almost every batrle and yet kill 4,5 enemy planes on average. That’s absurd. You will not be able to find any player in game who has insanely good kills per battle yet dies all the time. With 2,5 KPB your K/D will be always at least twice as good.
So for 4,5 KPB the guy wpuld have around 9:1 K/D. Yet no such luck.
And 4,5 KPB in G.55S is basically impossible to get over more than a handful of battles (in such case luck may help, but that’s it).
Thunderskill is simply fake data. Compare the nimbers to in-game leaderboards and you’ll understand.
Thunderskill or not, the 278 is simply too strong for it’s tier. I’ve also been meeting it a lot and it’s impossible to beat it with solid rounds while some HEAT also do no damage.
I have this tank thx to the event and I played it quite a lot and I find its situation to be very similar to the Maus’s one.
This thing isn’t possible to balance correctly because when top tier it’s invincible but when downtier it gets wrecked by darts or missiles.
But then the question is, why was it added in the first place ?
Same problem as thar Brezhnieviak-Istaliniev rocket plane. It"s 6.7, ut outturns every prop, it outclimbs every prop by a ridiculous margin, acceleration is insane. Basically it’s untouchable if played by someone with at least 2 working brain cells.
But it locks up at mach 0.7 or something and locks up horribly. So basically if you go over 740km/h the plane becomes unresponsive. So fighting jets in it is not exactly v. fun (but it still can deliver hard blows during initial climb or via energy traps).
And 90 RPG used to be problem, but after nukereal shatter 2 shells are often enough to down enemy plane.
Anyway, Gaijin loves introducing planes and tonks impossible to balance, even though the problem is obvious from the very beginning.
I am literally agreeing with you that thunderskill number are not trust worthy. I would say their numbers are ‘fake’ though. The numbers are real but they are such a small, usually much better on average, set of players. There is probably only like a dozen players who have the tank and use thunderskill and they probably are pretty good at the game and/or only play it when in downtiers.
Dude, just no. These numbers do not make sense. Look at the top.of KPB leaderboards players. Look at their K/D. Damn when I was playing Fw 190F8, I got as high as top 7. Could do better f.e. if ai played Ki-44-II before it got moved to 3.7 where it’s still an awesome plane.
And I’m telling you, the numbers not only are godlike (as in - better than top 3 players who are stat padding HARD, while G.55S is not a stat-padder’s plane for a reason). but also do not make any sense (K/D barely higher than KPB is simply ridiculous).
These are fake. And most likely tank numbers are just as fake.
Optics on all tanks eat shells.
Soviet tanks do spall ammunition.* Much like Abrams, if ammo hits a fuel tank it doesn’t spall.
ERA is not over-performing, it was tested by NATO directly to prove its capabilities except for Relikt.
And real life politics has no bearing, you’re also wrong about that too.
Unless you call NATO testing “propaganda”.
Don’t ask why people get hostile after that …
Russia bias absolutely exists and it’s even in the game code with the ammo blowing up %age.
“Just” an improved IS-7 which is already a very good tank. The armour on the thing is weirdly shaped and chemical round often does nothing. And yes for APFDSD as I said.
The armor is not weirdly shaped at all, what’s “weirdly” shaped is the structural steel, which isn’t armor.
And I will always ask why people get hostile, cause there’s no evidence of nation bias in the game.
I wished, but no. Even got the proof by one of the devs answering my bug report. Something like 70% for russia, 80% for germany and 100% for everyone else.
T-80 ammo detonates with a 100% rate with my involvement.
Leopard 2 & Abrams is above 95%, but below 100% for me, largely cause it was 1 - 3 fragments compared to most of the penetrator.