Then so do the Chally Mk3, T-80B, T-72AV, Chally Mk2, Vickers Mk7, etc. and we’re back at square one.
Like I said, things are fine as they are.
Gaijin can implement a Leopard 2A4 C-technologie /w DM33 at 11.0 at a later date.
5 Likes
Are the M1s suffering?
all of these “buffs” should happen if there are any applicable (shell types, appliqué armor packages, etc). Because they should try to represent the vehicles with what they actually have/do and not because of game balance. There should be zero artificial nerfs or buffs to any of the vehicles represented in game.
2 Likes
No a 40% win rate is ideal.
2 Likes
Firstly, does that include them only facing historical opposition?
Secondly, that wouldn’t work.
Thirdly, vehicles served for decades and usually saw numerous itterations, additions and upgrades across their service lives. How do you select the appropriate moment in their service history?
1 Like
I agree.
the iterations are usually listed as a different variants. i wouldn’t mind historical opposition. and it would work.
KV-1 and T-64A players be like:
It would not for countless reasons.
No, they are not.
Leopard 2A4 is a Leopard 2A4 regardless of whether it’s in 1985 or 2024.
The T-80BV is in service as we speak, how are you going to determine what year best represents this vehicle?
1 Like
that’s not true because production runs exist lmao they are even numbered as the 5th - 8th production batches of the leopard2 (they stopped production of the A4 in 1992 and A5 upgrades started in 1995) if there isnt something similar add the most common version of the variant.
we can see this also with the f16 having different blocks of production for different packages
You’re missing the forest for the trees here mate.
The 5th production batch can still be in service in 2024.
That last part seems to be the major dilemma for those who are against my suggestion.
What breaks the meta by lowering the skill floor for the M1?
and at disadvantage to newer models so what. Italy used the f104 until 2004 where it would be absolutely creamed by other fighters of the time
in the case of m833 this round was made for Abrams a whole year before m1ip existed there’s no reason m1 shouldn’t have it
A good statement.
To wit, on most CQC maps in high tier I can bring a BMP-2, T55AMD1, T64A, T64B, T72A, T72B, all of which are lower BRs than even the M1, and pawn 11.3 Clickbaits.
The skill ceiling to do the same with a Sheridan or M60A3 Beast is doggedly higher.
That’s thanks to the historically accurate rounds those Soviet guns carry.
So it’s not implausible to lower the skill floor of the M1 with the M833 for the same reason.
5 Likes
As Casino_Knight already pointed out, you’re at the mercy of the company for that to occur, and I frankly don’t see it happening anytime in the next 3 years (if ever).
Win rates are on players.
1 Like
So couple things with the “human” factor.
Yes win rates are because of people, of players using the nation’s vehicles. Otherwise the fancy digital models are just for show. Part of the balance is also based of how effective players are in said vehicles.
If every single US player is as bad as this game as the win rates show, then what. Why are all of them bad, its statistically impossible for it to be only US players as bad players. Is it only because of the Click-Bait, or KVT? Most other nations have a premium MBT for 10.7 and 11.3. Why do these not cause a drop in win rates? Only idiots drive the US MBTs?
I’m spading the top tier US line right now. Going off my bias, the Leo 2s and T-80s and T-90s are overpowered pieces of stuff. Is that because they are, or is it because I can’t be killed by an Abrams? Have you only been fighting US teams of late and therefore the tank most likely to kill you is an Abrams? Does that make it overpowered?
No it doesn’t, looking at winrates from the 3rd party sites we can see Russia is currently the worst at 10.3. It does look like the site hasn’t caught up to the BR increases. But since we have no other means of seeing how nations are doing its the best we have. I take it with a pile of salt, but can give some idea.
There’s an option on WT Data Project to see how many battles are fought at the BRs. How many kills per battle, kills per death, etc. There’s even an option to sort by BR. That one can really tell you more about an BR than a BR range. BR changes doesn’t seem to have shown up yet so everything is still per increase. At 10.3 where the M1, Leo2-4, and T-80 sit both each have a different winrate vs number of battles. US has 10344 battles at a winrate of 53% at 10.3. Germany 19949 battles with a winrate of 55%, Russian 11228 battles at 49% winrate. Germany has nearly twice the amount of battles with 10.3 vehicles than the other two major nations, and even more than the minors.
Is it because all of the German players are better, while using inferior tanks? Surely if the tanks at the BR were terrible there would be less players playing it.
The original post was asking to add the M833 round, a 392mm penning round. To a BR of tanks that all can pen above 400mm. Which I argued both wouldn’t be a huge change to the BR. As well as options to make the M1 grind a little easier.
Either explain your reasoning, or quit just telling people your frustrations. Is the Leo2A4 suffering? How is it, why is it, and how could you fix it. Don’t just be “no your tank should suck cause I think mine sucks.” Its why every nation feels like shouting into the void, and why every other main sounds whiney. I haven’t gotten to the Leo2 yet, I’m not aware of its faults or failures. On paper and from what I’ve seen its basically a slower firing M1 with more pen.
5 Likes
The limited data pool of thunderskill / WTdata should be sufficient to derive relative trends, but not the scale of them. Which limits its true usefulness as a dataset.
I’m sure there would be a way to use the map data to create a “Line of Sight” field and so approximate where said shell improvements would actually make a difference, since at what ranges a shell will penetrate an array is known.
Could you explain what you mean by this?
Basically a shell with higher penetration increases the range at which the penetration fails, this is effectively the functional difference between improved shells. which would able to be empirically mapped onto each map in game to find the actual difference that it would make.
Ok so the first step would be to figure out for any given shell, for each armor array (for simplicities sake assume that impact angle is equal to the construction angle of the array) what is the distance at which it will fail to penetrate, that is the first step.
Then take all points in the playable space for each map and compare the furthest visible point also within the space at said distance from each point, for each permutation of shell and armor array in the game.
What this would do is create a heatmap of penetrating engagements allowing for a more direct useful data set to be derived than a pure player based statistical approach, since it would allow for a focus on map control as an effective empirical analysis tool. ( it would also allow for unbalanced maps and power positions to be exhaustively discovered).
it wouldn’t be particularly hard to set up, but much harder to maintain due to how often things change.
3 Likes
Sounds interesting.
I think the angle of attack against the enemy plate should also matter, if something like this were to be made.
T-80UD, for example, may not be directly facing head-on with an M1 Abrams, at 500m out.