No, you can’t. Things like nation of choice, BR selected, etc have far greater results on win rate than individual skill does. This game does not have symmetrical matchmaking for skill expression to be the driving factor in win rate determination. You can be better than the baseline win rate that can be expected of any given lineup/plane etc but you cannot make a vehicle that globally trends at 30% have a 70% win rate purely through exceptional solo play.
1 Like
While my comment wasnt meant to have any deeper thought put behind it and was meant simply as jab at OP…
Judging by the map selection, hes talking about ground RB (abandoned factory, american desert, test site 2271), and while teams, BRs etc. do have impact on personal winrate and there are BRs where, no matter what you do, you are destined to lose since low level premium spam, you can very much influence the winrate through your own performance.
While Ill admit I play the french 7.7 with friend occasionally, my M1 Abrams, Sherman (Hell), as well as others, were played entirely solo. the 20% difference on Sherman (Hell) cant be explained purely by luck.
I never said otherwise. Read what I said carefully.
Fair enough, I understood your comment as “does not heavily impact win rate” as “has low impact”. My bad.
Been playing 8-9 years now, sometimes they make it too obvious, other times I need to double check.
Regardless gaijin gets the “report” and acts on it if it’s found to be true or not.
But over the last 3-4 years the events are a hotspot for that despicable activity.
It’s not like I can send the logs on console, we don’t get access to half the things PC users do
Again, if you log in to the main War Thunder website and report using the Server Replay Report function then the logs are automatically attached. It has nothing to do with console or not.
-
Yes I’m a Russian main, but barely play USSR anymore. I have been grinding down other trees. I just finished Italy, being my 3rd top tier nation, next I’m doing Japan.
-
T-72s lack advantages that the Abrams has, so they’re relatively even, both having their own pros / cons.
-
There is no leniency for Russian vehicles, some are over Br’d and others not. If you want to go down that road, USA / GERMANY are by far worse offenders. Nor does the 2s38 have the same effectiveness/ survivability like the hstvl(s) or ags since the hstvls got buffed twice.
1 Like
Okay.
Really. Flagged as spam. Man, people have an vendetta against me
1 Like
Check whether you have used the 500% card.XD
Sorry mate but Ive got a better comparison for you… Imagine a judge who constantly gives the person who broke into your house early release to the point people stop reporting him… Then he does someone harm finally and then that same judge who has been constantly releasing the criminal then blames the public for not reporting him to police… Thats a better example…
No. No it isn’t.
Good argument you win the Internet mate…The Irony is so dense be carefull tho you might need more mass to keep it together…
your the one who brought examples dont deny others if you start it
The 40% win rate of Abrams actually got me laughing. Oh dear this game
I’ve got a common line that goes: ‘‘Poor/inexperienced players can be easily identified by them overrating the importance of armour’’.
War Thunder meta = Mobility + First hit kill/cripple, not who’s got the thickest frontal armour.
Even if changed to the correct armour values, it’d still be penetrable to 95% of projectiles regularly fired at it.
I fail to see how that would significantly impact the gameplay experience.
There’s no reason to use Thunderskill when Statshark exists.
The M1A1 at 11.7 is superior to any MBT in the entire Russian tech tree, let alone the T-72B3 which is among the lower end of MBT’s in terms of overall capability for it’s BR.
2 Likes
Well, I’m glad we established that. But isn’t there an argument to be had that after 8 years you’d have some bias, albeit unintentional?
Reload, gun depression, reverse speed are the drawbacks which are compensated for by an unbelievably strong protection map for the BR? I’d be happy keeping the T-72 where it is if the Abrams got its historical armor. This goes for later versions too, as they all inexplicably use the same 10.7 hull despite weighing many tons heavier. For example, the M1A1 (11.7) weighs 6 tons less than both the M1A2 and M1A2 SEP (12.0/12.7, respectively) despite having the exact same armor. It even has the exact same engine and transmission. The only notable difference is the ammo. Where does the extra weight come from? It isn’t reflected in the armor, apparently. Refer to this bug report (which I posted before) for more proof about the turret ring specifically.
“No leniency”
- BMPT/BMPT-72
- 2S38
- KH-38MT (existing thread about this)
- Winrates (specifically top tier)
Just to jog your memory.
I agree the T-58 needs a nerf (reload/ammo). What do you have in mind about Germany?
I’d also like to see you take on the arguments of ahistorical armor and winrates.
I don’t care enough or have enough energy to entertain this bias.
You also forgot the fact the T-72s turret traverse and elevation drive are much slower, among the fact it’s far more likely to be one hit killed.
1 Like
Armor sure does help, especially when your MBT is ahistorical and a copy-paste that can be killed through it’s turret.
Mobility is a good point – it’s how you have to play the Abrams. It is by no means a spearhead vehicle ingame.
First hit kill/cripple is definitely the meta, which is why it plays into the Russian tech tree. Imagine a head-to-head where both players are either aware of the enemy or run into each other unexpectedly. Equal skill levels. The T-72 can shoot the LFP, the turret ring, or a good chunk of the turret itself. The Abrams can shoot the driver’s hatch, LFP, or small areas of the breech/roof. By area alone, the T-72 will have an easier time, and thus, a better chance at getting a successful penetration. Armor plays a part, no matter how you slice it.
This is better illustrated when both players are hulldown and at range. The Abrams’ only option is either the breech (which will soak most of the damage) or pixel weak spots on the roof. The T-tank can shoot the turret ring, the breech, or small parts of the turret, with a much higher likelyhood of a kill.
A game that prides itself in realism should make an attempt to follow it. Improved armor, and consequential survivability, would make a difference. Why not add it if it’s so inconsequential?
Knit-picking at this point, and I made my original post before I was aware of statshark.
Upon further review of stats I see that these stats check out. I’ll admit my loss there, but how do we go about addressing winrates when both nations have a huge influx of wallet warriors?
My main backing for all of this is to see why winrates are so skewed (and have been for a while now). Plenty of new players buy top tier premiums across the big 3 nations, so this can be factored out. Good points as well.