Yes but in case of a completely broken or jammed carousel auto loader, reloading rate is expected to increase
jams wouldnt happen in game as reliability is not moddeled in game and completley broken autoloader will most likely also never happen
I know that and I dont support the idea of adding autoloader jamming or anything like that. It’s just some people wanted to consider crew fatigue and open blast door, so if they want that they should accept autoloader jamming as well.
Necrons, quit stonewalling.
Even with the 5 second reload Abrams are not being played much and are now at 33 percent WR on average.
Your personal performance in a single 11.0 beating on T72 TURMS newbies doesn’t count here.
When you can do that in 11.7, then we can talk.
5 Likes
Not with any of the T series tanks or any modern MBT with bustle rack protection, unless you want to cope and have your loader spend minutes on end trying to fish a round out of a autoloader drum that is only accessible from a external panel.
And no, you cant use a “semi-automatic procedure” on any modern autoloader if someone has shot a round straight through it, its inoperable because its been torn apart, you cant brutane your way through broken or missing components.
Fatigue is not modeled in game because loader reliability is not modeled in game.
Two can play this game.
1 Like
‘‘I’m not sure why the topic suddenly moved to loader fatigue when nobody talked about that.’’
If you’re not going to read replies, and then just invent arguments that the other party never made to begin with, I’ll simply block you.
Thunderskill currently does not have the M1A1 Click-Bait listed, so I’m very curious how you can claim that the M1’s aren’t played much, especially since over 50% of the teams at 11.3 are Click-Baits.
Someone literally asked for my stats.
Read context please.
Furthermore, Thunderskill shows the M1A1 being on a 60% winrate and climbing rapidly, this is based on 4000 recorded battles.
The regular M1 is on a 57% winrate and the M1 KVT on a 61% winrate, the latter has a sample size of 12000 battles.
Current USSR battles number over 70,000.
Current Germany battles number over 50,000.
Current US battles number 30,000.
All 11.0 and above.
USSR WR: 52%
Germany WR: 62%
US WR: 37%
You are tallying win rates only. I’m tallying off popularity of playing with win rates included.
See the difference now?
3 Likes
How many battles have been played in the M1A1 Click-Bait?
You’re clearly attempting to dodge this issue, so I’ll keep repeating it until you answer.
No, I’m not dodging the issue.
Address the point I made. If you won’t, I’ll ignore you. You’re not so important or glorified in my experience that you’re the end-all be-all authority or tanks or aircraft or this game.
You’re just a stonewaller.
Prove me wrong, address my points, and behave, or take the other route. Choice is yours.
2 Likes
Continues to dodge the issue
This isn’t going anywhere productive, so I’ll just block you.
Likewise, blocked.
3 Likes
WT Data Project (controlnet.space)
Its very easy to see the current state of US top tier, WTDP is irrefutable proof that the entirety of US top tier is going down.
But of course, its always just “its the premium’s fault”
Please tell me how US 10.3 to 11.3 has somehow been pulled down by a whopping 10% when the clickbait almost exclusively queues at 11.3+. Thats also the bracket that the supposedly god tier base M1A1 resides in, yet it too is rapidly slipping down, or are we just going to blame that on the M1 KVT or the Stryker MGS premium.
I have to admit though, it is truly amazing to see Sweden sit firmly at a 71% overall win rate at top tier.
2 Likes
My dude every single BR from 7.3-8.3 to 10.3-11.3 is hanging out roughly around 50%, then all of a sudden at 10.7 it drops to 37-39%. It’s almost like top tier tanks never get full downtiers ever so the 10.3-11.3 BR bracket isn’t going to be affected much.
Looks like somebody did not check out other dates in the drop down. 10.3 to 11.3 in the US tree was sitting around 59% back in September, and has now tanked to 49%. You’ve already sated what I have, it should not be effected by the clickbait much if at all, but here it is regardless, with a tank that is supposedly god tier at said BR, with the WR dropping as well.
It’s easily refutable though. It’s based on thunderskill iirc which is a very incomplete dataset.
Okay, let’s see your evidence. If you can easily refute what most regarded as the only available source to avg performance, let’s see it.
There isn’t. That’s the entire problem.
However just because there is no alternative available source for performance doesn’t mean that thunderskill is suddenly objectively correct and that we can’t point out the massive flaw with it’s data.
It’s like saying that religious books like the bible and quran are objectively correct just because there is little to no other written sources from that time.
1 Like
That’s fine to say but you clamed it to be Easily refutable. For that you have to have something to refute the information provided.
Now saying it does not provided a complete picture is fair. It would not have the exact data that gaijin has. But it is the closest we can get. And again you can’t actually refute what it claims unless you can pull gaijin data.
3 Likes
Fair point. However until we know how many people TS bases their data on we also can’t say how much of the picture it shows.
For all we know it could only show 30% of the picture, meaning it’s not very reliable data.
1 Like
I 100% agree with you. But as of right now it’s all we have. And i don’t think gaijin is going to let us see their data because we could use it against them.
3 Likes