Its not unsourced because it takes data directly from player accounts. StatShark shows the same if not even worse SPAA stats.
Both sites take data from player accounts.
2 Likes
Dont bother, these people base their arguments on their egos, not statistics.
Yeah, so? Your premise is true; your argument is valid, but not sound.
An unfounded generalization without any statistics. I would say the same about aircraft if I were biased like you. Start with some confirmation bias, randomly pick aircraft, and unconsciously manipulate myself into believing aircraft all suck.
Ironic, isn’t it?
Tell me where, specifically, in the website does it ever say that the Gepard has 0.26 kills per death. Maybe give a screenshot, because it might not be loading well on my end.
We have statshark data. You have your own sense of superiority.
According to Thunderskill it does not (N.B.: Thunderskill is majorly biased, as it only can use the data of registerd users of its website):
Only ground stats, my bad
The same holds true for Statshark (Stashark has been shown to be nearly identical to the numbers published by Gaijin themselves):
Which site? SharkStat? Thunderskill produce data on monthly basis while StatShark produce whole data. On ThunderSkill in last month Gepard was playeed 4662 times and in that time it produced 0.26 kills per battle. StatShark shows much more data but even there Gepard is not OP with 0.70 kills per spawn.
No. It registers users someone looked up on site. So if I look some player ThunderSkill will pull his data. And as I have said data is on monthly basis. Also you showed ground kills not air kills.
So you think having 0.7 kills per spawn is OP?
I was baiting him because the Gepard has 0.8 ground kills per spawn + 0.26 air kills per spawn average (he stated an overall K/D of 0.26, being as intelligent as he is)
The Gepard was designed for both SPAA and anti-tank duties, so both should be taken into account.
w-what?
Gepard having belt for self defense does not in any way mean it was designed for antitank duty.
3 Likes
We are talking about SPAA being OP against air assets. Ground kills are irrelevant here.
Game Design to frustrate the player’s balance does not exist
Rock
Paper
Scissors
Mr Ragebait when he realizes things can be designed for multiple purposes:
The problem there is that people use them for both in this game. The gepard is both an excellent SPAA and an anti-tank vehicle.
What I mean that they specifically added anti-tank capabilities and quick switching between both ‘duties’ (sorry my english), which is evident by the dual munition feeds per 35 mm gun.
Yeah for self defense. Which is obvious by the fact that the self-defense APDS belts only hold 20 rpg.
Sure, but you can still use those 20 rounds and the normal AP rounds extremely effectively in Ground AB/RB/SB.
Self-defence is still anti-tank.
1 Like
Why is that a problem? Air kills against spawns show how many air assets Gepard kills per spawn. So in total Gepard has 0.7 kills per spawn which consists of .36 air kills and 0.34 ground kills. Even if all those kills were air kills 0.7 kills per spawn doesn’t make vehicle OP.
We can argue here to infinity but Gaijin cares only about statistical performance. Nothing else matters.
1 Like
You are right hat it can use regular belt for ground targets.
But just because it can be used that way doesnt mean it was designed to fight ground targets regularly. Its primary role, both IRL and in-game, is to engage airborne threats to ground units.
Following the same logic, any top tier MBT that has commander MG can engage air targets. Does that capabiliy mean their anti-air effectivness needs to be taken into account when cosindering their BR?
If so, following the same line of logic, any top tier MBT has extremely poor anti-air capability relative to the capability of CAS and thus they need to be lower in BR.