I am not seeing vehicle or even line up quality reflected in the chart as I would expect.
Japan has next to nothing at top tier and as I say Germany is terrible.
Maybe this would be more relevant if the teams fought alone but they don’t do they?
Win rate does not reflect a good player having a good game in a good vehicle. The stats even if they are correct are open to interpretation.
Top tier is very different from low tier I would not compare the two.
Germany has the highest player base for low tiers to my understanding, hence the poor performance. There is also an argument to be made that their vehicles aren’t great. The Tiger and Panther are okay, but the Panzer IVs are slow with middling armor. The gun is good but you need knowledge to get to a position to use it effectively not to mention where to aim.
It takes the data from Thunderskill and compiles it.
They have 3 capable MBTs the best F-15 in the game and the Type 81C which is effective against low flying targets.
Yes I am stating how I interpret them.
I think for the chart you have to compare them as it means the same thing irrelevant of BR.
I don’t see how having a huge choice of players makes it poorer ,it would be the opposite surely.
Again that is a matter for debate and in GRB you have CAS to consider.
The other areas of the chart really pour water on your conclusions.Actually they pour water on my conclusions as well.
The OP is muddled but I see mostly mixed nations in games and rarely single nation vs nation.I also dont see the chart play out when I play .I mean who does apart from those who say they play the USA?
I am not seeing Germany at low tiers losing every time ,far from it.Unless you can make a convincing argument for Germany at mid BR then you can’t make one for the USA at top tier.
US CAS is dominant throughout all tiers. It’s a very convenient control group.
The question for nations is whether their CAS is equal to or better than US CAS and whether their ground lineup is better.
For low tier Germany there isn’t a clear dominance. For high tier their ground lineup now after the addition of spall liners is clearly better. The Leopard 2A6 / 7 is better than the current Abrams modeling ingame. The Flakrakrad although the worst of top tier NATO SPAAs armed with the VT-1 missile is capable of engaging targets out to 11KM, the ADATs struggles against targets at 8KM.
German air is much less potent. But Russian air outranges available SPAA options for all nations. Combine the best ground lineup ingame (ignoring Sweden) with the best CAS options and voila you have the dominance OP’s opening statement is complaining about.
There is much to support the USA having trouble at top tier even if you don’t play it that much.
I have seen many videos from content creators struggling with the USA due to how the vehicles are implemented. They simply dont work as they should like Odbawls failure to gain lock with the A10 and general surprise when using the M1 and getting killed so easily.
It’s all kind of off topic,not that I am even sure what the OP means.I just can’t get my head around that chart,I could if Germany were not so poor all the way up.
Are the conclusions just assumptions? Anybody can show a chart but it is open to debate what it means and if the info was collected correctly.I’m not convinced that anybody has explored what the chart means in any detail.
Simply put ,anybody could say it’s player skill issue and or player reliance on vehicles ,could be player IQ per nation or poor internet,player base age or the amount of consoles used or anything and what evidence would we have to say it is not?
The main issue with that chart, and why it’s annoying to constantly see it used, isn’t data-related but that someone decided to put the “neutral” colour point (pure yellow, halfway between red and green) at 55% instead of 50%… which makes everything look worse than it actually is, especially things close to the middle.
Italian top tier line-up isn’t that bad now: one of the best mbts in WT (2A7HU), Centauro I 120 (and or RGO) - scouting can be used to decrease the cost of CAS spanwing + it’s firepower similar to top mbts (+ RoF is very good), Ariete AMV (below average, but overall good thermals, mobility and shell make it a decent backup), OTOMATIC (not comparable to SAMs in terms of AA capabilities, but universal enough, can be used as a last stand spawn + very good CAS (both fighter - Gripen and attacker - AV-8B+ and Spike equipped helicopter as an alternative).
When you’re grading win rate it does make sense that 40% is seen as very bad. Dark green means overpowered. It seems poor but it’s legible.
Makes you wonder why the hell they included them in the first place. They can’t get enough players and they can’t even complete the line ups.
Really not sure. See all the trouble you have to go to submit a suggestion. All the research, the debate, all the BS for want of a better phrase,
Yet they allow a nation to be implemented presumably knowing full well they will be having nothing to put in it. Why do that? Why so uptight in one area and utterly braindead in another? Why be so fanatical about vehicle detail when creating a vehicle only to throw it in a game facing a vehicle it would never have faced on a map it would never have been on for maybe even a different era. Hours spent for no reason.
I know the game of old is not what many relative newcomer think it was but there must have been a time when there was only the big 3 with similar line ups/tech trees. It must have been a time of relative balance and common sense surely ? Before all the lesser nations. Before endless prototypes and copy paste?
Do any original guys have any idea where it began to unravel or is that a misnomer in itself?
I asked for this. I am genuinely interested and I am not asking veterans to give info only to tear it down,I wasn’t there in 2015 so its about listening to those who were whether I like it or not.It is interesting to hear of Gaijin not doing things properly.Seems like a theme.
What?
What?
You liked a post which dismisses the data. I explained why this data is relevant.
Imho there is nothing wrong with the data. Whilst i do agree that the used colors are rather misleading i see the main flaw of the chart rather connected to the confidence level of the results.
Why?
Example A:
If a vehicle is overpowered (due to whatever reasons) and therefore recommended by yt ccs and subsequently highly popular within rookies, they might get good results with those vehicles but they won’t get the results shown in the table as the way more experienced guys (attached to thunderskill) are producing way better results.
Example B:
If a vehicle is objectively overtiered (best example Israel Avia S-199) and not competitive, way less thunderskill users will fly it, so the abysmal low WR of 29% in the 3.0 to 4.0 Air RB brackets is in reality much lower - or much higher as just a few hard core guys try to push stats with a S-199…so the 29% is just an indicator but not the absolute truth.
So the data regarding WR, frags per battle or individual vehicle statistics show a imho rather proper picture on vehicle level but they have to be seen in context - meaning the values are either too good & mostly out of reach for the average player or they are too bad as almost no experienced / stat driven player will use them or is active in certain BR ranges - or they are totally outnumbered by players not considered by thunderskill.
Assumptions? I would say no, it simply depends on the context and the data are imho a solid foundation for educated guesses…