I’ve seen the chick many times, a few times from the Obroms but the thread quickly got deleted by steam mods. I exaggerated a bit but there always a references to it.
2 Likes
Because tanks with higher skill ceilings are objectively better and only people that are bad at the game see more armor/pen as the only important pros of a tank and conclude that Ru MBTs must be OP from that
2 Likes
Both arent russian tank forte btw. 2a7 has both better armor and gun for example
1 Like
People tend to complain about 3BM60 at 11.0 and their frontal armor coverage at most high BRs
Fully agree. And yes thats also what i wanted to add. Realizing the same thing after having played through multiple tech trees thats exactly what it is and why i can see how soviet tanks can be perceived as too strong: They reward enemies making mistakes and wiffing shots under pressure situations as in the whole horde is pushing due to better frontal armor profile than lots of other nation’s options. You can do well in it by “mindless” rushing without the need to audio queue (ofc it helps) or having to precisely shoot first. because the likelyhood of an enemy wiffing on you is higher than vice versa. You rely on enemies to make mistakes. If they dont: Then you are in big trouble. And if the probability of you making a mistake is low (positional, in a 1v1, with aim, with situational awareness, with teamwork) then you can take much more advantage of that in a M1 abrams or a TKX/type ten.
In a t80/90 you rely much more on enemies to make that mistake. If you stop relying on enemies to do something wrong but start to do more things right yourself then something highly maneuverable with 4 second reload suddenly outperforms a t80 and not by a small margin. (though calling the abysmal modelling of the Type 10s highly maneuverable is a bit of a stretch…)
2 Likes
I guess that makes some kind of sense… if we forget about reload, gun handling and reverse speed of course
I mean, I don’t feel like I should be something abnormal in how people would be playing. I know statshark has me at 97% for ground RB but I just do things you should like check corners, use my audio, set up where they have to overexpose when being pushed, etc. Maybe I’m wrong and that isn’t an average player thing to do. See ironically, I’m doing better with my Russian tanks as they usually can take a hit or two. Been grinding minor nations lately but I need to finish off Germany to see how they play personally. They seem to play pretty well when I’m fighting them/alongside them but as to exactly why that is, no idea outside of Abrams abilities but minus the turret ring trap.
I can’t speak about the comp players (I never watch the matches). Is it the same kind of gamemode as what we play or is it usually down to who caps?
And it can be anecdotal to use broad stats as evidence (by Merriam-Webster it’s defined as “based on or consisting of reports or observations of usually unscientific observers”). Reason being is if you get a player who runs a high tier tank for a little bit but never goes far with it (like I did when the Leopard 2A4 dropped), they’re going to artificially make it look bad as they, more than likely, got smoked in it (I do wish it showed a weighted curve for length of use/spading v all the stats). We use this as the end all, be all based upon our past experience of using it for said evidence. However, realistically, it’s far from being actually accurate for determining if a vehicle does well and I’m guilty of it as well.
I’m pretty sure I made it clear I don’t have those tanks yet but if I didn’t, I run that BR bracket with them all the time. From what I’m seeing, it isn’t the tank lacking but the players using it. Seeing how I’m doing well using worse vehicles, I’m actually excited to get them and see how they do.
Gun handling really isn’t an issue with the 40/40 bs that came to gaijin in a vision or something
The ones i have watched are the smaller 3 cap maps (Domination). Maybe theres also different setups but i havent watched too many top tier tournaments…or almost top tier bc afaik the end of the line tanks werent available to chose. Might be wrong here tho…Still, basically no one played the russian tanks. Abrams was the meta for as long as i can remember, but maybe someone can verify that who actually watched lots of tournaments.
True. theres different things that play a role, especially in the Winrate of a vehicle. But players making vehicles look worse than they are happens independent from in which nation it sits in. And it flattens out over time, though with time vehicles modelling, lineups and sometime BR changes.
Being excited to get a vehicle thats quite different to the ones youre used to and do well in is good. Different vehicles let you do different things. and excell at another thing while being weaker at something else. Just dont get your hopes too high for the end of the line russian ones. Most of the complainers never played them, and when they do, reality hits hard bc its a quite different (as far as top tier goes where everything is rather similar) playstyle, or way you need to play to do good. And then they do worse in the “op vehicles” they spent the last months complaining about than in their Leos or abrams. Takes getting used to and has undeniable and very real downsides that can and will get you killed. a lot.
Like, feel free to check my profile, that might be somewhat textbook example. (just dont post that stuff here, take it to pms if you want to further discuss, its getting a bit offtopic i think) Ive got like what? Something like 7 nation top tier mbts and lineups, all played quite a lot. except for russia the first nation in top tier years ago and thus t80bvm still having learner’s stats and having grinded US right when the clickbait epidemic hit so hard that the teams were…well not teams, just lemmings without ears and eyes. Almost all my tanks have very comparable stats. Theres absolutely nothing that stands out exceedingly. And certainly not the russian ones. I can play well i can play bad, i can make different playstyles somewhow work somewhat reliably. But in the end it all comes around somewhat similar (at least for MBTs)
1 Like
Interesting. I’ll have to give them a gander next time they go live to see how they play (apparently, we can get stuff for watching). I wonder if that makes total top speed more important to stop caps/uncap as I know they aren’t as large as a standard team (quickly just looked at the YT prequels).
Tbh, that’s why I don’t even look at WR. Like you said, that’s so team and lineup specific that it honestly means nothing for a vehicle.
I haven’t enjoyed top tier US much and the only one I’ve got left is the SEP v2 to get. Granted, I get the work done in them, but it’s just so squishy to me (both playing as and fighting against). I have more of an issue with the Japanese tanks just because the stupid fast autoloader they get. Correct me if I’m wrong for the 12.3/12.7 Russian MBTs, but they look like they would play like the ones right before them but with better ERA? I’m already fighting top of the line ammo and armor at 11.0/11.3 so idk what’s exactly different in regards to negatives that don’t already exist. Granted, that’s excluding the BS from CAS but that’s a whole other ballgame.
Its 24 and 3.5 on t90a which is 11.0 that guy was talking about I think. Also gun depression is bad.
@exeisdefeatable something like this:
First 2 methods do the job in most cases, 3rd one is unreliable because nato cockpit display doesnt give precise info unlike one on mi28 which outputs exact rockets range and distance to point on map (last clip).
1 Like
Mirriam- webser is a pretty poor dictionary. it gives extremely vague definitions wth poor examples.
Oxford is the best dictionary to use for the English language, and You cannot debate me on that as it’s my profession to teach it to others xD
Anecdotal : possibly not true or accurate because it is based on personal accounts rather than facts or research.
Anecdotal means it is based around personal accounts of events, not based around backed up statistical evidence, which is what he is doing.
“of unusually scientific observers” ah so every statistic viewed by say an economist is anecdotal?
no.
Hence why I’m even bothering to write this.
So them stating it’s ancedotal evidence your first hand account versus the general population, is very much correct by the Oxford standard.
1 Like
Survived 6 JAGMS just like that XD (custom battle btw)
7 Likes
Not to be that guy, but the guy who started this thread has said multiple times he doesn’t want it to get locked for veering off topic.
3 Likes
Well, I’m American so Merriam-Webster is the main guiding dictionary and quite frankly, I’m not going to pay to use the Oxford Dictionary online nor buy one.
So do tell, what’s the weighted KD of any of the tanks based upon player use? Is it shifted down due to many players quit using it early on due to poor placement/lineups or shifted up due to using it a lot by seasoned players? Yes, it is unscientific because it’s just raw numbers with no nuance to it. And yes, the information economists use are anecdotal because the economy is driven by live human factors, not scientific rules. They can assume what changes will do but will never be able to tell you when, how much or why exactly the economy will change except for predictions using past experiences.
That’s wild
Does sound like weakspots to me and not point and click.
1 Like
You don’t need to pay to use an oxford dictionary.
As well as that not many if any countries bar the united States use the MW dictionary.
The standard it sets for use of English is extremely low and it is reflected even now in the definition you just gave for anecdotal evidence.
There very much is nuance to it, however do you know what nuance actually is? or are you just trying to use various words to try and attach some point to your erroneous statement?
The nuance to it is, that these statistics are overall compiled from every player, good, bad, mediocre, and above average.
The meaning this conveys is that the tanks themselves are not as overpowered as you are making out as they are, even when used by good players, not performing very well.
*using the entire playerbase stats is also called “statistical evidence”.
correct use of the word nuance would be BTW to say something along the lines of “While player base numbers are statistics, using only a subset (like just Steam numbers) to represent a console-heavy game can lead to misleading conclusions, similar to how anecdotal evidence fails to show the whole picture”.
Which Funnily enough is what you are doing.
Not what @H_ngma was doing.
that is not what anecdotal means, at all mate.
Also on the MW webster dictonary, anecdotal evidence comes up as this.
not what you quoted
You really do believe they just assume and wing it?
it is statistically based, and calculated, how they predict it based on previous and current expendatures.
they have been pretty accurate as of the past 25 years lol.
So to not take this any further off topic.
please if you’re gonna try tell people how the English language works, make sure you do it properly, not just using the american dictionary, as the general standard set by Cambridge English , TEFL etc across Europe and the world is not done with Merriam websters. It’s done through various British English, Or more defining dictionaries like colins,.
MW is a descriptive and largely incorrect in many ways dictionary. And you cannot argue that with me as it’s literally my profession to get non native speakers up to standards of proficiency and fluency in the language.