Most of which are obscure vehicles that were event ones a decade ago. As I said, it proves RU got the most event vehicles back in the day.
46.29% vs 45.95%
Bias confirmed.
0.948 vs 0.928
Bias confirmed.
They are decent tanks.
Also, your data shows how a country that supposedly have help from malicious bias coding throughout the tiers have stats within the margin of error of others. Funny how the propaganda vehicles aren’t so dominant after looking at stats.
You proved yourself wrong buddy, it’s actually hilarious at this point.
So far you haven’t put out any concrete evidence of bias, and everything you’ve presented is nothing more than personal experience/opinion. Millions of games worth of stats don’t show any bias, but yet here you are, still adamant it’s real.
I guess you haven’t took into the account the most probable thing, that this bias thing is all in your head. How about you ask yourself that for once ?
Margin of error stats proves nothing.
Win rates are team skill and proves nothing about tanks.
@Alpharius11348
AH-64D’s is a pod.
AH-1Z’s is likely not ready.
AH-6M doesn’t have the modules modeled in-game, and the one image of it with it posted didn’t have the RWR modules. The in-game one does have an RWR.
MH-60 doesn’t have the sensors in-game and I haven’t found pictures.
And as i said this is an aspect of ‘‘russian bias’’ since there wasn’t an equality in quantity and quality of the given premiums / event vehicles among the nations from the first time.
Ofcourse bias is confirmed if we believe you saying how ‘’ bad ‘’ Russian tanks are…then how on earth they have even slightly the higher winrate and K/D ratio among the big 3 ?
Two answers:
GJN making them overperform in many ways …
They are indeed very good tanks and you just have some ‘‘opinion issues’’ …
Few posts later … (after SS data doesnt comply with what you said)
I bet that if i continue processing SS data they ‘ll become for you ‘’ very good tanks’’ after some posts …
The only concrete evidence that you could believe is an official announcement of GJN admiting Russian Bias in the game and again im not sure of it…
Just like it’s bias when Germany received a whole lineup of fakes back in the day ?
Never said they are bad.
So do point me to the bias when looking at the stats, as I can’t see it.
You have some language issues I see.
As I said, you’re basing all of your bias claims on personal opinions and experiences.
I’m inclined to not believe in stuff like “waaah my bomb didn’t kill a RU tank, bias confirmed”, as those things happen on pretty much every tank/nation.
If RU vehicles were some propaganda, bias machines that’d definitely show in stats. Guess what, it doesn’t.
If RU vehicles were some propaganda, bias machines that’d definitely show in stats. Guess what, it doesn’t.
I think you’re getting the wrong end of the stick. Nobody is saying that Gaijin have decided to do their bit for Mother Russia by making Russian tanks super-stronk in a video game. Well, maybe some people are - but most reasonable posters aren’t.
The claims of bias are more down to one set of rules being for the RU tech tree and then seemingly totally different rules for other tech trees. In British English we call that favouritism. Bias even.
You can scream all you want but a good chunk of the playerbase see it in some form. That perception does not come about on it’s own - Gaijin if anything fuel it every time they pull dodgy Object-12842824 out of their archives, add a daft OP Kamov or break an entire game mode by adding a Supership.
I would however be wary of waving the stats around too much.
Looks at your rather impressive 63% winrate in a certain T-80BVM and then at the Leopard 2A7 45% winrate below it…
What was that about stats showing vehicles to be more OP than others?
To put things in perspective.
People cited T-80’s HHR armor. Said armor exists in Germany, Italy, Sweden, etc.
The lower-spalling armor is not unique to Soviet tech tree and never was, yet people claimed it to be Russian bias.
People complained that Soviet vehicles follow identical rules to everyone else, and lied about those rules being different, and claimed that fan-fiction was Russian bias despite it not existing.
Soyuz was added alongside Iowa and Bismark, no Russian bias.
No Objects are OP, and HSTVIL as well as the EBRs dismiss all claims of Russian bias in that regard.
Kamovs haven’t been OP in ground battles since 2019, but most helicopters were OP then too.
ADATS, etc got added which ended the reign of helicopters.
Win rate will never be evidence for anything other than team skill.
Rules are far from strict for all nations.
Why did Germany/Japan received so many fakes during the years ?
Why did Sweden receive something they never procured ?
Why would you ?
My Leopard 2A4 from Germany has 67% WR meanwhile T-80B has 55%, is this all the evidence you need lmao ?
Plenty of people that complain about the performance of RU vehicles in the game aren’t great players themselves.
It is what it is, mostly NATO mains who hadn’t touched anything outside NATO will say something like this
Hello the GOAT Jon Jones of WT @PompousMagnus, can you rank MBTs from best to worst? I would take it from someone with a wealth of personal experiences and accumulated knowledge that they can draw upon to provide insights.
Moslty comes down to what mechanic is added and how imo
One example :
They denied ̶L̶O̶B̶L̶ LOAL/Man in the loop for spikes (mechanic tested back in the April 2077 event) using the balance argument, which is logical and quite sound to me. I think nobody will argue the fact that being shot by something you can’t see is not exactly balanced.
They did the same thing with F&F Radar Hellfires, which is still sound, but already less since modern tanks usually have chaffs in their smoke grenade, so it would be equivalent to the current IIR missiles we already have anyway
Then they add the IRCM to the russian and chinese helis, which basically blocks any IIR missile. In addition to that, blade return on helicopters is not modelled, which means a standing heli is untargettable by both IIR SAMs (IRIS-T) and ARH SAMs (CAMM, Aster-30, SLAMRAAM). They even acknowledged it was in an unfinished state and needed tweaking, as the IRCM can act on every missile at once, which does not respect the simple laws of physics, yet they added it anyway. Considering the 2 points about ̶L̶O̶B̶L̶ ̶ LOALand F&F Hellfires stated above, one might wonder why ?
The Soyuz is also an interesting point. Unfinished ship, with different ways of implementing it based on how you process the suppositions made at the time. Yet they consistently chose the best supposition in every category, leading to a ship outshining known, practical and iconic ships despite it having never existed
Russia had undeniably the best CAS + SPAA combo till last update in June, and is about to get it back with BUK and the KH38 buffs + F&F missiles on helis, and while the tanks are not as good as they used to, they’re still average. It’s not really a matter of individual vehicles, but overall strong line up benefiting from… interesting mechanics implementation shall we say.
Then there’s the inability of some to recognize bias. Basically everyone is biased and that’s fine. Some to Russia, some to China, some to Germany, some to the US, you name it. I for my part am biased towards France, but it doesn’t stop me from acknowledging when something is unbalanced in game (The Rafale + MICA example in air RB comes to mind, and it is my personal opinion it came far too early). Yet we don’t see that when it comes to the KH38 (missile that was twice as fast as the rest of the competition), IRCM implementation, The Ka-50 outranging the best SPAA at the time (ADATS), Soyuz’s implementation, etc, etc…
Combined with the best helo, the best CAS and the best SPAA along with the best backup lineup where it dominated for the best part of two years, yes.
The Leo 2A7, strong as it is - has not had the odds stacked quite so much in it’s favour for as long before it was supplanted by better things.
I do note however that whenever people raise the T-80BVM dominating top tier with it’s magical shell-eating rubber - the invariable argument in return is ‘Yeah, but Leopards are better. Yeah, but Abrams are stronger.’
Look up the actual stats of those people and often it doesn’t really align. If all tech trees were equal, you’d surely find them doing FAR better in the Leopards, et al than the poor old, terribly unplayable Russian vehicles we keep hearing about.
I guess you meant LOAL as Spikes already have Lock on before launch.
I doubt chaff in smoke is implemented in the game.
If I’m correct 38s will receive a nerf to their average speed, which should be a net negative for them even with more range available.
You having BUK, SLM or Aster doesn’t really matter that much while you’re still using something like AGM-65D. All those systems are extremely dangerous to you, with SLM probably being the best one.
I don’t think I should mention a mechanic that would seriously impact any non-autoloaded tank in the game, as it’s convenient it’s still missing.
My Strv122 plss have 57 percent WR while T-80BVM have 65 percent WR
apply your logic here
wait that’s mean
Strv122 PLSS worse than T-80BVM?
okay make sense.
