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.
4 Likes
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?
1 Like
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…