Jump to content


innacurate information on tanks statistics.


  • Please log in to reply
32 replies to this topic

Kevon_Le_Tonque #1 Posted 06 July 2017 - 03:42 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 23932 battles
  • 239
  • Member since:
    06-30-2013

so i've had the churchill 3 for some time now, and generally it has been quite a nice tank. with the exceptions that its weak against arty, field maps and tier 5/6 japanese heavy tanks.

when i bought the tank i looked at the ingame tank details to see it gun characteristics, armor values, power to weight ratio and so on. details here:

 

but in a battle a few days ago i faced off against a kv-1 with the 122mm derp gun and he managed to get a 140mm pen heatshell straight trough my angled sloped 176 frontal armor.

now before i release my inner tomato and report the guy 10 times for hacking i decided to actually look up the armor values on an external website called tanks.gg

 

heres what i found:

 

the turret armor is accurate at 88mm of armor, as it is shown in the ingame details.

the orange plate is flat: 114mm but because its sloped it reaches about 120 effective.

the green part is 38mm flat, but sloped at a very good angle giving it 80mm of effective armor (wich is where the kv-1 penned me)

above that it the flat yellow part wich the same armor as the turret at about 88mm of armor.

the little light green squares in the yellow and red part are flat 63mm of frontal armor.

the red part, is the only part that actually has 176mm of armor. but its less than 20% of the entire front of the tank(excluding the turret)

 

so why is it acceptable to sell a tank saying it has 176mm of frontal armor when in reality 80% of armor is 114 or less.



1ncompetenc3 #2 Posted 06 July 2017 - 04:26 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 36897 battles
  • 11,490
  • Member since:
    03-18-2013
Because they just list the highest nominal armour value on the tank and call it a day. Why bother properly informing players/customers when you can just oversimplify things things to the point of being misleading because the vast majority of these people is unaware of third party websites/applications that show actual armour profiles and hidden stats?

HunterXHunter8 #3 Posted 06 July 2017 - 06:15 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 33149 battles
  • 942
  • Member since:
    04-27-2013
oh thats nothing you should see STB-1. on paper it looks like the best medium in game until you factor in soft stats that make it pretty damn bad.

RamRaid90 #4 Posted 06 July 2017 - 08:06 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 20586 battles
  • 6,286
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-14-2014

View PostHunterXHunter8, on 06 July 2017 - 05:15 AM, said:

oh thats nothing you should see STB-1. on paper it looks like the best medium in game until you factor in soft stats that make it pretty damn bad.

 

And yet It's still one of the best medium tanks in the game.

Geno1isme #5 Posted 06 July 2017 - 09:40 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 41470 battles
  • 7,225
  • [TRYIT] TRYIT
  • Member since:
    09-03-2013

View Postkevinthetank1996, on 06 July 2017 - 04:42 AM, said:

so why is it acceptable to sell a tank saying it has 176mm of frontal armor when in reality 80% of armor is 114 or less.

 

Because it's tricky to compress a complex armor layout in a single number, so they generally just list the highest nominal armor value. You could specify a range of course, but that doesn't really give you that much more information either. And once you start considering angles you're screwed anyway trying to specify that statically.



Nishi_Kinuyo #6 Posted 06 July 2017 - 02:28 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 7484 battles
  • 3,919
  • [GUP] GUP
  • Member since:
    05-28-2011

Would you rather that they'd do it like in Warships, and say that your Citadel Armour is between 45mm and 320mm, which leaves you guessing just how much of it is where if it weren't for the in-game armour viewer? And imo, that is one of the few things that WoT still lacks; an in-game armour viewer.

 

Imo, since almost all of the armour thiccnesses are based on historical/blueprint values, a little knowledge about the tank your driving might be helpful.

Doesn't work, of course, then WG screws with the historical values, isn't that right; O-I, Maus.



Kevon_Le_Tonque #7 Posted 09 July 2017 - 07:38 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 23932 battles
  • 239
  • Member since:
    06-30-2013

View PostNishi_Kinuyo, on 06 July 2017 - 02:28 PM, said:

Would you rather that they'd do it like in Warships, and say that your Citadel Armour is between 45mm and 320mm, which leaves you guessing just how much of it is where if it weren't for the in-game armour viewer? And imo, that is one of the few things that WoT still lacks; an in-game armour viewer.

 

Imo, since almost all of the armour thiccnesses are based on historical/blueprint values, a little knowledge about the tank your driving might be helpful.

Doesn't work, of course, then WG screws with the historical values, isn't that right; O-I, Maus.

 

the armor viewer is quite a good feature, they should implement it into wot. at least i dont have to visit multiple independant websites to get accurate information since the game developers decided it was easier to give the entire front a single number on paper

RamRaid90 #8 Posted 09 July 2017 - 07:56 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 20586 battles
  • 6,286
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-14-2014

View PostNishi_Kinuyo, on 06 July 2017 - 01:28 PM, said:

Would you rather that they'd do it like in Warships, and say that your Citadel Armour is between 45mm and 320mm, which leaves you guessing just how much of it is where if it weren't for the in-game armour viewer? And imo, that is one of the few things that WoT still lacks; an in-game armour viewer.

 

Imo, since almost all of the armour thiccnesses are based on historical/blueprint values, a little knowledge about the tank your driving might be helpful.

Doesn't work, of course, then WG screws with the historical values, isn't that right; O-I, Maus.

 

View Postkevinthetank1996, on 09 July 2017 - 06:38 AM, said:

 

the armor viewer is quite a good feature, they should implement it into wot. at least i dont have to visit multiple independant websites to get accurate information since the game developers decided it was easier to give the entire front a single number on paper

 

They are implementing the armour viewer into the garage.

malachi6 #9 Posted 09 July 2017 - 11:16 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 49264 battles
  • 3,238
  • Member since:
    04-14-2011
You honestly think the shiny new car you bought does 50 mpg and has a 125 hp engine?  These kinds of figures are a guide.  If you were to sell a thing would you use it's worst features to advertise it?  I have an MX5 it has really bad skid marks on the drivers seat do to a scary moment?

Spurtung #10 Posted 09 July 2017 - 06:09 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 61594 battles
  • 5,900
  • [GW-UP] GW-UP
  • Member since:
    07-05-2013

View Postkevinthetank1996, on 06 July 2017 - 04:42 AM, said:

so why is it acceptable to sell a tank saying it has 176mm of frontal armor when in reality 80% of armor is 114 or less.

You are absolutely right, they need to show that information differently.

Front, sides, rear? Naaahaa, they should list the armor of every pixel of each tank AND its variations with the cone angle, euclidean angles aren't sufficient. That will make everything much simpler.

 

While they're at it, review the rest of parameters, like the penetration of the shells by the milimeter, 50m, 200m and 500m is very incomplete.

 

And reloads. We should know how stun affects it, and adrenaline rush, and all the other parameters and skills.



BP_OMowe #11 Posted 12 July 2017 - 11:31 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 24764 battles
  • 2,047
  • [-GY-] -GY-
  • Member since:
    01-08-2013

View Postmalachi6, on 09 July 2017 - 11:16 AM, said:

You honestly think the shiny new car you bought does 50 mpg and has a 125 hp engine?  These kinds of figures are a guide.  If you were to sell a thing would you use it's worst features to advertise it?  I have an MX5 it has really bad skid marks on the drivers seat do to a scary moment?

 

No, I don't expect the standardized values to correspond exactly with my daily usage of the car.

I do however expect the values to be relevant, as in the mileage not being measured in the 1 km slope on a 100 km test course, nor the horsepower calculated from the acceleration with a hypothetical storm-strength tail-wind.

 

View PostSpurtung, on 09 July 2017 - 06:09 PM, said:

You are absolutely right, they need to show that information differently.

Front, sides, rear? Naaahaa, they should list the armor of every pixel of each tank AND its variations with the cone angle, euclidean angles aren't sufficient. That will make everything much simpler.

 

While they're at it, review the rest of parameters, like the penetration of the shells by the milimeter, 50m, 200m and 500m is very incomplete.

 

And reloads. We should know how stun affects it, and adrenaline rush, and all the other parameters and skills.

 

For sarcastic dorks like you, there are the simplified values. The rest of us would like to have accurate and relevant values given.

Spurtung #12 Posted 12 July 2017 - 11:43 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 61594 battles
  • 5,900
  • [GW-UP] GW-UP
  • Member since:
    07-05-2013

View PostBP_OMowe, on 13 July 2017 - 12:31 AM, said:

For sarcastic dorks like you, there are the simplified values. The rest of us would like to have accurate and relevant values given.

And exactly how could that be done?



1ncompetenc3 #13 Posted 13 July 2017 - 05:40 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 36897 battles
  • 11,490
  • Member since:
    03-18-2013

View PostSpurtung, on 09 July 2017 - 06:09 PM, said:

You are absolutely right, they need to show that information differently.

Front, sides, rear? Naaahaa, they should list the armor of every pixel of each tank AND its variations with the cone angle, euclidean angles aren't sufficient. That will make everything much simpler.

 

While they're at it, review the rest of parameters, like the penetration of the shells by the milimeter, 50m, 200m and 500m is very incomplete.

 

And reloads. We should know how stun affects it, and adrenaline rush, and all the other parameters and skills.

 

Why exactly are you mocking OP when he makes a perfectly reasonable point? What WG is doing is essentially false advertising.

Spurtung #14 Posted 13 July 2017 - 07:07 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 61594 battles
  • 5,900
  • [GW-UP] GW-UP
  • Member since:
    07-05-2013

View Post1ncompetenc3, on 13 July 2017 - 06:40 AM, said:

 

Why exactly are you mocking OP when he makes a perfectly reasonable point? What WG is doing is essentially false advertising.

 

Again, how should it be displayed in game?

 

And what about everything else? The soft stats, the modules, the crew, their HP, etc, etc.



HunterXHunter8 #15 Posted 13 July 2017 - 07:31 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 33149 battles
  • 942
  • Member since:
    04-27-2013

View PostRamRaid90, on 06 July 2017 - 08:06 AM, said:

 

And yet It's still one of the best medium tanks in the game.

 

lol you're joking right

 

not even close better op mediums take huge dumps on stb-1



RamRaid90 #16 Posted 13 July 2017 - 08:01 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 20586 battles
  • 6,286
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-14-2014

View PostSpurtung, on 13 July 2017 - 06:07 AM, said:

 

Again, how should it be displayed in game?

 

And what about everything else? The soft stats, the modules, the crew, their HP, etc, etc.

 

To be perfectly honest it should be displayed as an average.

 

If the highest armour on the turret is 176m and the lowest is 88mm then the armour value displayed should be

 

176+88/2 = 132mm average armour value.

 


Edited by RamRaid90, 13 July 2017 - 08:02 AM.


1ncompetenc3 #17 Posted 13 July 2017 - 08:03 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 36897 battles
  • 11,490
  • Member since:
    03-18-2013

View PostSpurtung, on 13 July 2017 - 07:07 AM, said:

 

Again, how should it be displayed in game?

 

And what about everything else? The soft stats, the modules, the crew, their HP, etc, etc.

 

They could use the value of whichever part of the tank's front is the largest unified armour zone, or list minimum/maximum values for example. It's not like there's no options besides being outright misleading.

 

Frankly, all stats and an armour viewer should be available in-game. It's ridiculous that people have to use third-party applications to actually get relevant information on something that costs money.



tankqull #18 Posted 13 July 2017 - 08:05 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 20542 battles
  • 1,477
  • [-FD-] -FD-
  • Member since:
    08-31-2011

View PostGeno1isme, on 06 July 2017 - 08:40 AM, said:

 

Because it's tricky to compress a complex armor layout in a single number, so they generally just list the highest nominal armor value. You could specify a range of course, but that doesn't really give you that much more information either. And once you start considering angles you're screwed anyway trying to specify that statically.

 

well to deliver numbers of any value to work with they actually should either use the most prevelant or the lowest number

250swb #19 Posted 13 July 2017 - 08:07 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 21727 battles
  • 4,869
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-23-2015
I'm surprised the OP, or anybody else suffering the same difficulty, has got to 20,000 battles and not realised the figures are maximum figures. I mean I thought everybody knew that, no? So armed with that simple fact anybody can usefully do their own research as to how the armour is laid out. No need for baby talk explanations and micro managed graphs and diagrams in-game or before you buy it.

Spurtung #20 Posted 13 July 2017 - 08:10 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 61594 battles
  • 5,900
  • [GW-UP] GW-UP
  • Member since:
    07-05-2013

View Posttankqull, on 13 July 2017 - 09:05 AM, said:

 

well to deliver numbers of any value to work with they actually should either use the most prevelant or the lowest number

 

And then instead of the one getting shot complaining not having the armor that's declared, you'd have the one shooting at it complaining because it's too hard, unaware that number is for a weakspot. The lowest of a Defender, frontally, is 30mm...




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users