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.
I would very much prefer matchmaking in Realistic to be one nation on one team and one nation on another. But some nations with lower average playerbases would hardly get games or constantly be matched against the big three (US/GER/RU).
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.
Bottom-of-barrel scraping perhaps? Attempting to satisfy the ultranationalists that exist in every nation with players in this game?
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.
Because those ultranationalists will line up with fistfuls of cash saying “shut up and take my money!” if their favorite is added?
That’s been the gist of my opinions over the years on this. Some nations are (in)famous for their actions in wars (US/UK/GER/RU/FR/JP/ISR), but others, not so much (IT/CN/especially SWE). Famous machines exist for everybody, sure, but at least half has not actually been used in any conflict.
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’ve been around since 2015, and on the forums since 2016.
Based on everything from people talking about years prior to me I read, I can conclude things began going downhill when:
-
the gameplay, designed for the likes of Shermans, Panzer IVs, T-34s, KV-1s, Tiger 1s, T-44s, IS-2s, Pershings, etc in Combined Ground, the likes of Spitfires, Bf-109s, Fw-190s, Typhoons, P-39s, P-63s, P-47s, F6Fs, F4Us, Yaks, La-5/7s, I-185s, etc in Air RB, and the likes of various PT boats and DDs in Naval were not properly updated to handle more and more powerful guns. The SU-122-54 was the first machine to bring HEATFS to the game, actually.
-
CAS was never implemented properly from the very beginning, and the whole “TO movement” wasn’t properly squashed like the pests such folk are early on. “Squashing” doesn’t mean “just saying no” - it means removing the excuses of such folk to complain in the first place so they cave in on themselves. Which means making SPAAG work well with minimal practice, making their use intuitive, NOT making them totally helpless vs most tanks, and removing the entire TO problem by copying Naval’s default planes into everyone’s deck so TO players don’t exist except by their own stubborn refusal to learn. The shitshow bled into every goddamn game mode and inflicted untold damage at all ranks. And the threat of more such shitstorms still rumbles in the distance due to not stomping it out for good yet by the above changes I specified. CAS is 50% an implementation problem of it being a half-baked revenge weapon, and 50% a player opinion one presuming its too hard/impossible to counter.
You can’t rely on something to dislodge people from commanding map spots one day, then nerf it into oblivion to appease onesided whining, and then the third day still expect it to do its half-baked job. Now we have modern tech with downright absurd ranges that are a headache in their own right, but most of the problems date back to years before such tech arrived. Modern tech is merely the push comes to shove.
-
Onesided whining leading to whole classes of ammunition being neutered for [insert whatever specific reason], and the old neutering sticking around far longer than it needed to be. APCR once was as strong as APFSDS is today - the only thing overperforming about it back then was its sloped pen, but snail proceeded to nerf sloped pen (good), nerf vertical pen (bad), and obliterate any shred of useful postpen (terrible), all at once. APDS has gone through a similar series of changes more recently, though that came with historically correct penetration numbers, at least. HEAT still hasn’t been rebuffed much ever since counter-whining from IS-6 whales killed it when the M46 was slaughtering them en masse. HESH still hasn’t recovered from those same IS-6 whales continuing to whine after all the people spamming HEAT jumped to HESH that still worked to kill the IS-6. HE was buffed to glorious status by overpressure initially, then every single HE round and bomb in the whole game was gutted because of the Sturmtiger and presumptive fear of it multi-killing people from splash damage. Solid AP was always in the gutter due to interactions with ammo and especially fuel tanks, and only recently was changed for the better to not be soaked on those so much. It’s a xxxxing mess.
-
Instead of starting to diversify the objectives on maps in all modes, maps were gradually shaved down to make all the square pegs attempt to fit the round holes. This is seen with generally disastrous results for many tanks, mainly turretless SPGs, and much moreso with Air RB attackers and bombers.
-
Similar to point 2, failure to properly stomp out the “fighter mafia” from utterly wrecking Air RB so much that a flood of CAS machines get diverted to Combined and all the bombers flood Sim. “Wrecking” in this case meaning removing all relevance for planes that aren’t fighters except when someone is aggressively airbase-camping or climbing to orbit. In tandem with the CAS weapon nerfs from point 2, the objectives such planes were meant to perform were implemented badly early on and not properly expanded upon to give such craft useful flavor in a non-game-breaking way. Now Air RB, once the pride of the game, is a broken shell of itself, and the “toxic fighter mains” are STILL finding reasons to complain about bombers and attackers, even though its about as onesided in fighters’ favor as they could ever ask for… And only now after the introduction of F&F missiles do most people see how stale the mode is? It took this long?
Surely you see how I am drawing the connections between these points, right? You may disagree with some of them, but this is my summarized gist.
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.
A better explanation would be ignoring longstanding problems until something goes up in flames, and then going absolutely ape with the fire extinguisher so much that someone dies of suffocation from the thing meant to fix the problem.
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…