Jump to content


Is the 252 still OP?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
739 replies to this topic

Tr0gledyte #681 Posted 16 July 2017 - 10:58 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 16275 battles
  • 1,059
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    07-12-2011

View PostGekkoGordon, on 16 July 2017 - 10:54 AM, said:

 

List of tanks with a vulnerable LFP and NOT INVULNERABLE UFP

Lowe (UFP 230, LFP 140)

T32 (UFP 180, LFP 190)

Tiger II (UFP 210, LFP 160)

 

and many many others, even the IS-3 (UFP 190-220, LFP 180)

 

what makes the Defender qualified for a 300mm+ UFP at Tier 8?

 

The next strongest UFP at Tier 8 is the VK 100.01P, and even that has a weaker LFP (170-190) and it's easier to hit because it's a relatively flat square

 

and it's about 4 times slower than Defender

 

The UFP is actually pretty small. The LFP is almost as big as the UFP + Turret combined. That's what makes it okay because it really is a HUGE weakspot, the problem is they made it too thick so it's only a weakspot against higher tiers.

 

A hulldown Lowe is actually much stronger against higher tiers than a hulldown Defender, but when top tier the Lowe is mediocre. So yeah..  different tanks can be good in different situations *gasp*.

 

And the T32 has other strengths, like an almost impenetrable turret combined with excellent gun depression allowing it to dominate ridgelines. 

 

Tiger II is crapnow.


Edited by Tr0gledyte, 16 July 2017 - 11:01 AM.


ZlatanArKung #682 Posted 16 July 2017 - 11:00 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 1529 battles
  • 2,450
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-20-2014

View PostTr0gledyte, on 16 July 2017 - 10:48 AM, said:

 

It's okay to have an invulnerable part of a tank (the UFP) when you have a huge, vulnerable LFP. The problem is the LFP isn't vulnerable (to tier 8 and below). It's not the alpha or the mobility that allows you to press W and mow down tier 8 and below, it's the LFP. This is something you can't deduce from stats, you need to play the tank.

 

The LFP is not that huge. An ISU-152 miss 50% of the times at 400m.

LFP has 220mm+ armour.

Show me a T7 or T6 tank with that amount of standard pen.

 

I don't have to play the forking op machine to know it is ridiculously op and the best T8 tank against T8, T9 and T10 opponents. Also, e very stay support my claim.

 

It also has low profile and 6 degrees of gun depression, which even makes it rather simple to hide that LFP. 

 

But I suspect it is not good against T8 because you managed tof pen QB in one with AP...



GekkoGordon #683 Posted 16 July 2017 - 11:01 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 2303 battles
  • 275
  • Member since:
    04-17-2012

View PostTr0gledyte, on 16 July 2017 - 11:58 AM, said:

when top tier the Lowe is mediocre. 

 

:facepalm:



Tr0gledyte #684 Posted 16 July 2017 - 11:05 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 16275 battles
  • 1,059
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    07-12-2011

View PostZlatanArKung, on 16 July 2017 - 11:00 AM, said:

 

The LFP is not that huge. An ISU-152 miss 50% of the times at 400m.

LFP has 220mm+ armour.

Show me a T7 or T6 tank with that amount of standard pen.

 

I don't have to play the forking op machine to know it is ridiculously op and the best T8 tank against T8, T9 and T10 opponents. Also, e very stay support my claim.

 

It also has low profile and 6 degrees of gun depression, which even makes it rather simple to hide that LFP. 

 

But I suspect it is not good against T8 because you managed tof pen QB in one with AP...

 

Yes because an ISU is the pinaccle of sniping LFP on tanks at 400m. :trollface: Guess what, the ISU goes through the Defender turret quite easily so it's not all that bad if the shell is a little off.

 

Funny that you mention the gun depression and my kill on QB. 6 degrees is not enough to hide the LFP, you need an obstacle in front of you. QB was using his gun depression to go "hulldown" on a ridge and I just shot his LFP anyway because it's so huge, that's how the kill happened.

View PostGekkoGordon, on 16 July 2017 - 11:01 AM, said:

 

:facepalm:

 

It's too slow to carry games most of the time. Or are you going to post OP stats about the Lowe as well?


Edited by Tr0gledyte, 16 July 2017 - 11:06 AM.


ZlatanArKung #685 Posted 16 July 2017 - 11:11 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 1529 battles
  • 2,450
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-20-2014

View PostTr0gledyte, on 16 July 2017 - 10:58 AM, said:

 

The UFP is actually pretty small. The LFP is almost as big as the UFP + Turret combined. That's what makes it okay because it really is a HUGE weakspot, the problem is they made it too thick so it's only a weakspot against higher tiers.

 

A hulldown Lowe is actually much stronger against higher tiers than a hulldown Defender, but when top tier the Lowe is mediocre. So yeah..  different tanks can be good in different situations *gasp*.

 

 

Hulldown Löwe can't turn turret without getting penned.

And frontally it can get penned at the top of turret.

 

Defender can turn turret way more and be safe.



Tr0gledyte #686 Posted 16 July 2017 - 11:13 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 16275 battles
  • 1,059
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    07-12-2011

View PostZlatanArKung, on 16 July 2017 - 11:11 AM, said:

 

 

Hulldown Löwe can't turn turret without getting penned.

And frontally it can get penned at the top of turret.

 

Defender can turn turret way more and be safe.

 

Safe? The Defender's gun mantlet is only 250mm effective, even tier 8 TDs can go through that with standard ammo. However, people haven't figured that out yet it seems, they simply don't shoot it. /shrug

 

The reason why I said a hulldown Lowe is stronger against tier X is because it gets a lot more gold pen, enough to actually pen the enemy frontally, along with accuracy to hit the right spot.


Edited by Tr0gledyte, 16 July 2017 - 11:14 AM.


brumbarr #687 Posted 16 July 2017 - 11:25 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 33205 battles
  • 3,146
  • Member since:
    07-30-2012

View PostTr0gledyte, on 16 July 2017 - 10:36 AM, said:

 

 

I actually do. Empirical evidence is data. And it's at least as important as global stats that do not accurately reflect where the true issue lies with this tank (remember how everyone complains WG doesn't seem to play their own game?). If you only look at global stats, like everyone here and WG is doing, you'll be inclined to hit every aspect of the tank with a nerfbat and thus making it useless, which has happened countless times in the past.

 

Look at what they're planning on doing to the Batchat, for example. Or why they're not buffing the IS-6. It's because they only look at stats.

First off, you have even less data than we do to show defender is UP in high tier battles. Using your logic i would like to see you disprove that its the best tank for tier 10 battles.

Second off all, if you use empircal evidence as data, so can we, and as a player who has played the defender more than you I can tell you it is the best tank for tier10 battles.  See, there is my empircal data , and on top of that i explained why in a previous post you ignored.

 

Btw, I am a 21 year old university student doing engineering and have passed multiple statistics courses.

 



Tr0gledyte #688 Posted 16 July 2017 - 11:28 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 16275 battles
  • 1,059
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    07-12-2011

View Postbrumbarr, on 16 July 2017 - 11:25 AM, said:

First off, you have even less data than we do to show defender is UP in high tier battles. Using your logic i would like to see you disprove that its the best tank for tier 10 battles.

Second off all, if you use empircal evidence as data, so can we, and as a player who has played the defender more than you I can tell you it is the best tank for tier10 battles.  See, there is my empircal data , and on top of that i explained why in a previous post you ignored.

 

Btw, I am a 21 year old university student doing engineering and have passed multiple statistics courses.

 

If you have passed multiple statistics courses you should know that polluted data equals no data. I don't know you or the university you go to but I sure as hell know that whatever papers you handed in, included proper data.

 

So it's your experience vs. mine. Maybe I'm just better in a mobile tank rather than a heavy when facing higher tiers? Maybe it's personal preference? Maybe your opinion isn't fact?

 

I already stated that there is no way to prove or disprove either side of this argument. Unless WG keeps statistics of how tanks perform in different matchups, but I don't want to overestimate them.


Edited by Tr0gledyte, 16 July 2017 - 11:30 AM.


brumbarr #689 Posted 16 July 2017 - 11:35 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 33205 battles
  • 3,146
  • Member since:
    07-30-2012

View PostTr0gledyte, on 16 July 2017 - 11:28 AM, said:

If you have passed multiple statistics courses you should know that polluted data equals no data. I don't know you or the university you go to but I sure as hell know that whatever papers you handed in, included proper data.

 

So it's your experience vs. mine. Maybe I'm just better in a mobile tank rather than a heavy when facing higher tiers? Maybe it's personal preference? Maybe your opinion isn't fact?

 

I already stated that there is no way to prove or disprove either side of this argument.

The graph isnt poluted data, its perfect data but you have to know how to interpertate it. For example you cant read of the graph that it sucks or does well in a particular tier.

Although a reasonable assumption would be that it does do better if it outperforms other tanks with the same MM.

 

Yes, thats the core of it, what you prefer or do better in cant be extrapolated to the whole population, and the whole population is what matters when looking at tank performance.

My opinion isnt fact no, neither is yours. The arguments of why it does better are facts though.

And if its your word vs mine, fine, I know who forumites are going to go with.

 

There is no hard data to prove either side, not your side either, but there is indirect data like a lot of players experience, high general wr, the tanks features etc that points in the direction it does well in high tiers.

 

 

 



ZlatanArKung #690 Posted 16 July 2017 - 11:44 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 1529 battles
  • 2,450
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-20-2014

View PostTr0gledyte, on 16 July 2017 - 11:13 AM, said:

 

Safe? The Defender's gun mantlet is only 250mm effective, even tier 8 TDs can go through that with standard ammo. However, people haven't figured that out yet it seems, they simply don't shoot it. /shrug

 

The reason why I said a hulldown Lowe is stronger against tier X is because it gets a lot more gold pen, enough to actually pen the enemy frontally, along with accuracy to hit the right spot.

 

So a Löwe in an ideal position is possibly stronger then Defender in same position. 

Thus, Löwe is better against T10???



brumbarr #691 Posted 16 July 2017 - 12:01 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 33205 battles
  • 3,146
  • Member since:
    07-30-2012

View PostZlatanArKung, on 16 July 2017 - 11:44 AM, said:

 

So a Löwe in an ideal position is possibly stronger then Defender in same position. 

Thus, Löwe is better against T10???

Was temted to buy lowe today, then i looked at its stats, it has bad dpm, bad gun hanling and bad speed. Nvm, ill keep money.



Tr0gledyte #692 Posted 16 July 2017 - 12:19 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 16275 battles
  • 1,059
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    07-12-2011

View Postbrumbarr, on 16 July 2017 - 11:35 AM, said:

The graph isnt poluted data, its perfect data but you have to know how to interpertate it. For example you cant read of the graph that it sucks or does well in a particular tier.

Although a reasonable assumption would be that it does do better if it outperforms other tanks with the same MM.

 

Yes, thats the core of it, what you prefer or do better in cant be extrapolated to the whole population, and the whole population is what matters when looking at tank performance.

My opinion isnt fact no, neither is yours. The arguments of why it does better are facts though.

And if its your word vs mine, fine, I know who forumites are going to go with.

 

There is no hard data to prove either side, not your side either, but there is indirect data like a lot of players experience, high general wr, the tanks features etc that points in the direction it does well in high tiers.

It's not perfect data. You want data of the Defender being bottom tier, instead you have data of all of its games with no way to filter out the games you want. Your "reasonable assumption" is just as plausible as my assumption that its near-invulnerability when top tier causes the spike in global average winrate. Top tier? Almost nothing pens and you carry hard. Not top tier? Completely different story. I would love to be able to prove this but sadly I can't. However, your point is in no way better than mine.

 

As for the second bolded part, I find that remark to be rather immature. I'm not here to win a popularity contest and as you may have noticed, I'm not the type of person who hops on the bandwagon and starts bashing someone just because everyone else is (not going to mention any names here).

 

Can you honestly say that my explanation is not plausible? Defender roflstomps top tier games because it's nearly invulnerable but doesn't perform exceptionally well when bottom tier where the armor doesn't hold up, hence why the global average winrate spike can be explained largely by its OP effectiveness as a top tier tank. What is your opinion of this explanation? Keep in mind that we are not talking about you or me (I'm not a unicum but I am above average and can sort of make the armor work when bottom tier), but the entire playerbase, including tomatoes that turn green in a Defender without even knowing how to sidescrape.

 

View PostZlatanArKung, on 16 July 2017 - 11:44 AM, said:

 

So a Löwe in an ideal position is possibly stronger then Defender in same position. 

Thus, Löwe is better against T10???

Lowe can penetrate all Tier X tanks frontally with APCR. Defender actually can't penetrate many of the armored tier X tanks because it lacks the accuracy to hit their weakspots and in some cases even the penetraton to go through them. In my hands a Lowe is more effective against tier X. Doesn't matter if it has worse DPM or speed than the Defender, it can actually do damage to every tank it meets and if you play support while hulldown or sidescraping you can really mess up a tier X heavy's game. The Defender needs to flank to achieve this. Or it can try bullying meds but tier IX and especially X meds have no issues fighting a Defender either.


Edited by Tr0gledyte, 16 July 2017 - 12:28 PM.


jabster #693 Posted 16 July 2017 - 12:23 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 11936 battles
  • 17,546
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostTr0gledyte, on 16 July 2017 - 10:28 AM, said:

If you have passed multiple statistics courses you should know that polluted data equals no data. I don't know you or the university you go to but I sure as hell know that whatever papers you handed in, included proper data.

 

So it's your experience vs. mine. Maybe I'm just better in a mobile tank rather than a heavy when facing higher tiers? Maybe it's personal preference? Maybe your opinion isn't fact?

 

I already stated that there is no way to prove or disprove either side of this argument. Unless WG keeps statistics of how tanks perform in different matchups, but I don't want to overestimate them.

 

I can see describing you as creationist is more accurate than I thought. Make a statement, deny that you ever said it and then slowly try to move your position, and the whole argument, to one where however silly and ridiculous your new argument is it's unlikely someone go to the effort to disprove it while at the same time providing no more than the feels yourself. Claim that makes it as equally valid as any other opinion.

 

Chess and pigeons comes to mind.



Tr0gledyte #694 Posted 16 July 2017 - 12:26 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 16275 battles
  • 1,059
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    07-12-2011

View Postjabster, on 16 July 2017 - 12:23 PM, said:

 

I can see describing you as creationist is more accurate than I thought. Make a statement, deny that you ever said it and then slowly try to move your position, and the whole argument, to one where however silly and ridiculous your new argument is it's unlikely someone go to the effort to disprove it while at the same time providing no more than the feels yourself. Claim that makes it as equally valid as any other opinion.

 

Chess and pigeons comes to mind.

 

So far Brumbarr is the only other person in this thread who understands how statistics works, so please don't disrupt the conversation with more troll posts.

jabster #695 Posted 16 July 2017 - 12:32 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 11936 battles
  • 17,546
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostTr0gledyte, on 16 July 2017 - 11:26 AM, said:

 

So far Brumbarr is the only other person in this thread who understands how statistics works, so please don't disrupt the conversation with more troll posts.

 

Lol ... yeh right. You just carry on trying to pretend that you haven't changed your argument and claim victory. Really pathetic.

 

Lets be honest here, If the win-rate curve had supported your opinion you would have used it but as it doesn't you've just dishonesty claimed it doesn't matter.


Edited by jabster, 16 July 2017 - 12:35 PM.


SovietBias #696 Posted 16 July 2017 - 12:37 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 34047 battles
  • 1,072
  • [DIRE] DIRE
  • Member since:
    06-10-2013

View PostTr0gledyte, on 16 July 2017 - 10:28 AM, said:

If you have passed multiple statistics courses you should know that polluted data equals no data. I don't know you or the university you go to but I sure as hell know that whatever papers you handed in, included proper data.

 

So it's your experience vs. mine. Maybe I'm just better in a mobile tank rather than a heavy when facing higher tiers? Maybe it's personal preference? Maybe your opinion isn't fact?

 

I already stated that there is no way to prove or disprove either side of this argument. Unless WG keeps statistics of how tanks perform in different matchups, but I don't want to overestimate them.

 

 

Yes there is. Your own stats already suggest that your claim is wrong. I stated this pages ago. But if you are so sure, please use "WoT Replay Analyzer" to breakdown those battles played with tier 8 mediums and show us how they perform better in a tier 10 match up. Until then, stop making stuff up or diverting, basically what you have been doing all along with all these claims. From there on, maybe with enough data from other users one could see whether there's any truth to that claim.
 

Spoiler


 

And remember, this disproves nothing on Defender being OP as we would be only analysing your performance on tier 8 mediums while we already have server wide numbers strongly suggesting that 252 is OP, plus WG have said it themselves. This is just a strawman that you insist on debating while providing no relevant data.
 


Edited by SovietBias, 16 July 2017 - 12:47 PM.


Shnuks #697 Posted 16 July 2017 - 12:42 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 31789 battles
  • 4,950
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    06-16-2012

View PostTr0gledyte, on 16 July 2017 - 12:26 PM, said:

 

So far Brumbarr is the only other person in this thread who understands how statistics works, so please don't disrupt the conversation with more troll posts.

 

He just said the exact same thing we all told you 1000x times.

 

I also love the fact that you completely changed your argument from Defender isn't OP to Defender isn't as OP as people say to now yes the Defender is OP, but its not the best against tier 10. Priceless. Please continue, its hilarious watching you scramble to save face. 

 

 


Edited by Shnuks, 16 July 2017 - 12:43 PM.


brumbarr #698 Posted 16 July 2017 - 12:43 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 33205 battles
  • 3,146
  • Member since:
    07-30-2012

View PostTr0gledyte, on 16 July 2017 - 12:19 PM, said:

It's not perfect data. You want data of the Defender being bottom tier, instead you have data of all of its games with no way to filter out the games you want. Your "reasonable assumption" is just as plausible as my assumption that its near-invulnerability when top tier causes the spike in global average winrate. Top tier? Almost nothing pens and you carry hard. Not top tier? Completely different story. I would love to be able to prove this but sadly I can't. However, your point is in no way better than mine.

 

As for the second bolded part, I find that remark to be rather immature. I'm not here to win a popularity contest and as you may have noticed, I'm not the type of person who hops on the bandwagon and starts bashing someone just because everyone else is (not going to mention any names here).

 

Can you honestly say that my explanation is not plausible? Defender roflstomps top tier games because it's nearly invulnerable but doesn't perform exceptionally well when bottom tier where the armor doesn't hold up, hence why the global average winrate spike can be explained largely by its OP effectiveness as a top tier tank. What is your opinion of this explanation? Keep in mind that we are not talking about you or me (I'm not a unicum but I am above average and can sort of make the armor work when bottom tier), but the entire playerbase, including tomatoes that turn green in a Defender without even knowing how to sidescrape.

It is perfect, those graphs where never supposed to show performance by tier. They show wr in function of player wr in that tank. Thats it, no more.  

I would say my assumption is more reasonable , i said the reasons why in my previous post.

What is wrong with your explanation is that its quite unlikely that a defender wins 75% of games when toptier played by an avg player, I would say even I ( 65% wr recents) would get max 75% when toptier.  And then you say it gets an avg wr when there are just 3 or 5 tier9s in the game? So a 25% wr drop because 3 tanks it fights are a bit stronger. Unreasonable.

 

And i already explaned that the armor does hold up very well in tier10 btw.

 



ZlatanArKung #699 Posted 16 July 2017 - 12:49 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 1529 battles
  • 2,450
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-20-2014

View Postbrumbarr, on 16 July 2017 - 12:01 PM, said:

Was temted to buy lowe today, then i looked at its stats, it has bad dpm, bad gun hanling and bad speed. Nvm, ill keep money.

Me too. But then I dislike WG balance to much. ..



jabster #700 Posted 16 July 2017 - 12:54 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 11936 battles
  • 17,546
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View Postbrumbarr, on 16 July 2017 - 11:43 AM, said:

It is perfect, those graphs where never supposed to show performance by tier. They show wr in function of player wr in that tank. Thats it, no more.  

I would say my assumption is more reasonable , i said the reasons why in my previous post.

What is wrong with your explanation is that its quite unlikely that a defender wins 75% of games when toptier played by an avg player, I would say even I ( 65% wr recents) would get max 75% when toptier.  And then you say it gets an avg wr when there are just 3 or 5 tier9s in the game? So a 25% wr drop because 3 tanks it fights are a bit stronger. Unreasonable.

 

And i already explaned that the armor does hold up very well in tier10 btw.

 

 

Considering that a well know stat padder uses a lower tier tank with pref. MM in a platoon and manages about 80% I think you may be on to something.




3 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users