Jump to content


Why are medium tanks curves so pathetic?


  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

Japualtah #1 Posted 31 March 2019 - 05:27 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 29810 battles
  • 1,117
  • Member since:
    04-20-2012

 

T62A -6
Obj140 -3
Obj 430U -0
M48 Patton -1
Centurion -6
STB1 -9
Progetto -0
Leopard -4
50-M -3
Batchat -2
AMX30B -5
T50 51 -3
121 -7
   
Average -3,8

 

Progetto and 430U barely reach the 0 target, not a single researchable medium overperforms.

 

Some curves are truly disgusting like the 121 or the AMX30B with respectively 5 and 7% win ratio below average even for 55% players !

 

I was about to buy the 30B having elited the AMX30 today, but, seriously, who would want of such a piece of crap?



Nishi_Kinuyo #2 Posted 31 March 2019 - 05:32 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 8288 battles
  • 5,485
  • [GUP] GUP
  • Member since:
    05-28-2011
Sorry, but... context? Elaboration?

OMG_Abaddon #3 Posted 31 March 2019 - 05:32 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 11789 battles
  • 744
  • [BDCP] BDCP
  • Member since:
    04-19-2011

Yeah AMX 30B is worse than STB-1 which has a planned buff...

 

though I must admit that since you don't provide anything other than random names and numbers I'm clueless about what you mean.



azakow #4 Posted 31 March 2019 - 05:34 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 79352 battles
  • 4,940
  • Member since:
    05-23-2011

I know that in some languages the word tank is feminin and in some tank is maskulin.

 

Since  your are talking abour cruves one could be misstaken, that you are talking about curves on things line Ms. Lopez or simillar.

All my MT have have nice curves.

 

So what curves are you talking bout?

 


Edited by azakow, 31 March 2019 - 05:35 PM.


Nishi_Kinuyo #5 Posted 31 March 2019 - 05:36 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 8288 battles
  • 5,485
  • [GUP] GUP
  • Member since:
    05-28-2011

View Postazakow, on 31 March 2019 - 05:34 PM, said:

So what curves are you talking bout?

Probably these:

Except the site limits the periodic curve to 1000 "points" only. (no idea what those points are supposed to be)

And that skews the data hard.


Edited by Nishi_Kinuyo, 31 March 2019 - 05:38 PM.


XxKuzkina_MatxX #6 Posted 31 March 2019 - 05:53 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 53200 battles
  • 3,332
  • [SPIKE] SPIKE
  • Member since:
    04-02-2016

Plain and simple, playing a tier 10 medium requires a lot of game knowledge and awareness.

 

Some of them are crappy though like the ones you mentioned, the 121 and the AMX30B.

 

MM is kind of sensitive in tier 10 so if you're playing an AMX30B against a strong medium like the 430U, you'll have a problem! :)

 

Balancing tanks is an extremely slow process compared to meta changes so that makes win rates stabilize around pathetic levels.



Japualtah #7 Posted 31 March 2019 - 06:06 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 29810 battles
  • 1,117
  • Member since:
    04-20-2012

"Limit amount of games in points for period curves"

 

I would like to know too what it means.



HundeWurst #8 Posted 31 March 2019 - 06:17 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 73427 battles
  • 4,509
  • [FAME] FAME
  • Member since:
    02-06-2012

Besides the RASHA mediums most of the others are just pathetic, except the Patton and Progetto and to an extend the BC25t.

 

Also in general mediums require more skill to be played.

 



JocMeister #9 Posted 31 March 2019 - 06:26 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 26039 battles
  • 2,482
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    08-03-2015

View Postjaptank, on 31 March 2019 - 05:27 PM, said:

 

T62A -6
Obj140 -3
Obj 430U -0
M48 Patton -1
Centurion -6
STB1 -9
Progetto -0
Leopard -4
50-M -3
Batchat -2
AMX30B -5
T50 51 -3
121 -7
   
Average -3,8

 

Progetto and 430U barely reach the 0 target, not a single researchable medium overperforms.

 

Some curves are truly disgusting like the 121 or the AMX30B with respectively 5 and 7% win ratio below average even for 55% players !

 

I was about to buy the 30B having elited the AMX30 today, but, seriously, who would want of such a piece of crap?

 

MTs are 2016. Now they are mostly a meme.

tajj7 #10 Posted 01 April 2019 - 10:57 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 27070 battles
  • 14,656
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    03-30-2014

Most meds just don't work in the current meta, especially ones without armour. 

 

Corridor maps, super heavies, hull down monsters, Russian heavies that go as fast as you, TDs you'll never out spot, high alpha monsters that one shot you from OP camping spots, its a hard meta for mediums. 

 

430U aside most are underperforming and 430U basically has armour better than most heavies. 



Thornvalley #11 Posted 01 April 2019 - 12:01 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 38905 battles
  • 157
  • Member since:
    01-27-2015
I do well in T9 mediums, but fail badly in most T10 mediums after reaching a significant number of battles. Why is the difference so big? I imagine that the difference in player skill is really small between the tiers.

TungstenHitman #12 Posted 01 April 2019 - 12:42 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 26363 battles
  • 4,923
  • [POOLS] POOLS
  • Member since:
    08-28-2016

Because they're a compromise between a light and a heavy, you really need to have good experience and knowledge to use a medium tank effectively and I don't think a lot of player have that knowledge and experience so they will struggle with them. There aren't lots of maps in WoT and they're generally small too, so even if you don't have much experience, it becomes pretty obvious where you should go and what you should be trying to do with a light tank and heavy tank but with a medium, since they are not as good at being a light tank or heavy tank at what those tanks do best, it's not always that obvious and I see players pushing too aggressively with them, trying to scout like a light but lacking the speed to get out of jail when it invariably goes wrong and I see players taking their meds to fight with heavy tanks in choke points and while you can, you can't fight in the same way a heavy can, it needs more finesse and style. If pen and alpha and dpm is no factor, a med simply hasn't the amount of hp a heavy tank has so barreling into a brawn with your heavies isn't smart play. So I think it's just a case of inexperience really.



tajj7 #13 Posted 01 April 2019 - 03:02 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 27070 battles
  • 14,656
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    03-30-2014

View PostThornvalley, on 01 April 2019 - 11:01 AM, said:

I do well in T9 mediums, but fail badly in most T10 mediums after reaching a significant number of battles. Why is the difference so big? I imagine that the difference in player skill is really small between the tiers.

 

No there is less broken/OP crap on tier 9 than there is on tier 10, and tier 10 tends to see more all tier 10 games, so you see lots of that broken and OP stuff.

 

Whereas tier 9 MM you get more 3-5-7s, 5-10s so at worst you see 5 tier 10s, which means chances of getting Type 5s, 430Us, 183s etc. is lower and more often you are seeing tier 8s, 



lnfernaI #14 Posted 01 April 2019 - 04:09 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 30879 battles
  • 4,000
  • Member since:
    09-15-2012

View PostXxKuzkina_MatxX, on 31 March 2019 - 06:53 PM, said:

 

 

 the 121 

Wtf, lies. I hold a ''decent'' 55% WR in it. (could work on my DPG,though.) But it's playable. AMX 30 B isn't.

View Posttajj7, on 01 April 2019 - 11:57 AM, said:

 430U basically has armour better than most heavies. 

And yet,nobody cares when they dab "2".

 

On topic: The simple reason why 121 performs quite bad,is because first of all,it's not an idiot-proof tank,and requires alot of thinking, which generally the playerbase doesn't hold important and second,the MTs are quite out of meta. It's not 2014-2016 anymore.

Spoiler

 

All the decent maps have been removed,and all the broken and OP tanks have changed the meta to the point,where being on an idiot-proof  tank is going to bring you victory,or at the very least,shift the game in your teams' favor,especially if the opposing team is below-average. The battles in general require much less brain usage,than how used to be. And that in itself is a result of bad game design. Go figure.

 

 


Edited by lnfernaI, 01 April 2019 - 04:12 PM.


XxKuzkina_MatxX #15 Posted 01 April 2019 - 04:28 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 53200 battles
  • 3,332
  • [SPIKE] SPIKE
  • Member since:
    04-02-2016

View PostlnfernaI, on 01 April 2019 - 05:09 PM, said:

Wtf, lies. I hold a ''decent'' 55% WR in it. (could work on my DPG,though.) But it's playable. AMX 30 B isn't.

 

You might want to consider a more polite approach when quoting someone if you want a decent response. This edgy crap doesn't really work on adults, at least in a good way. Repeating the same thing and expecting different results and all that!

 

Also i don't care what's your win rate in it, the 121 got the 2nd worst win rate among tier 10 mediums at 49.06% with an average DPG of 1.8k. Your individual performance doesn't change facts.

 

View PostlnfernaI, on 01 April 2019 - 05:09 PM, said:

On topic: The simple reason why 121 performs quite bad,is because first of all,it's not an idiot-proof tank,and requires alot of thinking, which generally the playerbase doesn't hold important and second,the MTs are quite out of meta.

 

And that lots and lots of "thinking" yielded 2.2k DPG?

 

No, i wouldn't call that thinking or good game play by looking at the numbers, just carried by your teams but again 'you' and your performance in the 121 are not the topic here. Tier 10 mediums and their win rate are!


Edited by XxKuzkina_MatxX, 01 April 2019 - 05:54 PM.


lnfernaI #16 Posted 01 April 2019 - 04:44 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 30879 battles
  • 4,000
  • Member since:
    09-15-2012

View PostXxKuzkina_MatxX, on 01 April 2019 - 05:28 PM, said:

Also i don't care what's your win rate in it, 

That's the problem,you don't care. You don't analyze the context. The problem already lies within you.

View PostXxKuzkina_MatxX, on 01 April 2019 - 05:28 PM, said:

the 121 got the 2nd worst win rate among tier 10 mediums at 49.06%. Your individual performance doesn't change facts.

 It does in a small, hard-to-see way. Try looking on the positives. Sure, generally,it doesn't, but at least you see that someone is going to be ready to die for improving a pretty-out-of-meta medium tanks' winrate.

View PostXxKuzkina_MatxX, on 01 April 2019 - 05:28 PM, said:

And that lots and lots of "thinking" yielded 2.2k DPG?

 I reap what I sow. Over 90% of players rely on others for it. 

View PostXxKuzkina_MatxX, on 01 April 2019 - 05:28 PM, said:

No, i wouldn't call that thinking or good game play by looking at the numbers, 

Yeah,look at replays instead. That ought to enlighten you more,than theory. 

View PostXxKuzkina_MatxX, on 01 April 2019 - 05:28 PM, said:

 just carried by your teams 

*edited

 

View PostXxKuzkina_MatxX, on 01 April 2019 - 05:28 PM, said:

 Tier 10 mediums and their win rate are!

 And the performance of 121 by individual players doesn't account for winrate, and the 121 isn't a medium, judging by this sentence with flawless logic.

*edited


Edited by m_nick, 01 April 2019 - 05:18 PM.
insulting


XxKuzkina_MatxX #17 Posted 01 April 2019 - 05:06 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 53200 battles
  • 3,332
  • [SPIKE] SPIKE
  • Member since:
    04-02-2016

View PostlnfernaI, on 01 April 2019 - 05:44 PM, said:

That's the problem,you don't care. You don't analyze the context. The problem already lies within you.

 

There is no context whatsoever in the nonsense you replied with. There is only delusion, bias and personal preference!

 

View PostlnfernaI, on 01 April 2019 - 05:44 PM, said:

It does in a small, hard-to-see way. Try looking on the positives. Sure, generally,it doesn't, but at least you see that someone is going to be ready to die for improving a pretty-out-of-meta medium tanks' winrate.

 

There are no "positives" in using the inappropriate tool, it's a mundane and inefficient task!

 

View PostlnfernaI, on 01 April 2019 - 05:44 PM, said:

 I reap what I sow. Over 90% of players rely on others for it.

 

Choosing WOT random battles or forums to prove how intellectual a person you're is kind of looking for the emperor in a cheap tea shop!

 

View PostlnfernaI, on 01 April 2019 - 05:44 PM, said:

Yeah,look at replays instead. That ought to enlighten you more,than theory.

 

Doing "1" more shot of damage than the global average damage doesn't leave much room for theorizing!


Edited by XxKuzkina_MatxX, 01 April 2019 - 05:23 PM.
provocation


cicis2016 #18 Posted 01 April 2019 - 05:38 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 749 battles
  • 65
  • Member since:
    07-10-2016

View Postjaptank, on 31 March 2019 - 05:27 PM, said:

 

T62A -6
Obj140 -3
Obj 430U -0
M48 Patton -1
Centurion -6
STB1 -9
Progetto -0
Leopard -4
50-M -3
Batchat -2
AMX30B -5
T50 51 -3
121 -7
   
Average -3,8

 

Progetto and 430U barely reach the 0 target, not a single researchable medium overperforms.

 

Some curves are truly disgusting like the 121 or the AMX30B with respectively 5 and 7% win ratio below average even for 55% players !

 

I was about to buy the 30B having elited the AMX30 today, but, seriously, who would want of such a piece of crap?

wat do u mean?



DeadLecter #19 Posted 02 April 2019 - 11:10 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 28812 battles
  • 1,395
  • Member since:
    05-28-2016

View PostOMG_Abaddon, on 31 March 2019 - 08:02 PM, said:

Yeah AMX 30B is worse than STB-1 which has a planned buff...

 

though I must admit that since you don't provide anything other than random names and numbers I'm clueless about what you mean.

 

AMX 30B in my opinion is the worst tank among all TX MTs. It's not possible for a tank to be worse than 30B.

1) It has the worst gun package. Lowest penetration. Worst velocity for APCR. Accuracy doesn't exist. Gun handling is Meh. Gun depression is not even 10. Any target behind 200 meters and you must be the luckiest man to even hit the target.

 

2) Armor is a joke. No hull armor. There is a slight turret armor which won't matter because you have a cupola that is so big and weak, it is impossible for anyone to miss it. Plus that small armor on the turret is a HEAT guard so tanks like E4 or S.Conq can easily go through with no problem at all. Plus arty can pen you.

 

3) Mobility and camo are good but it won't matter since it is not a scout.


I have a 5 skill crew in this tank. I have even tried playing it with food. The entire tank is a bad bad joke. Get close to targets, they rape you. Try sniping, you won't do anything. All I can do is at the start of the game I snipe and at the end if we are winning, I go cleaning up the remaining tanks and if we are losing I try to take down as many of them as I can. You have 0 impact on the game. The tank is a 100% downgrade from T9 and even the T9 is nothing special. The only reason it's good is that it has all the features of TX at T9.

And the reason WG doesn't care about 30B is that they have in their own mind, re-balanced the tank. It was in 9.20, the tank was very identical to Leo 1 so in order to make them different they did the following:

 

Nerfs:

1) Standard pen: from 260 to 248

2) Premium pen: from 320 to 300

3) Shell velocity: from 1525 to 1100 and also the shell velocity of HEAT shells from 1000 to 800

4) Dispersion: from 0.29 to 0.35

 

Buffs:

1) DPM: from 2741 to 3128

2) Aim time: from 2.01 to 1.92

3) A turret HEAT guard

 

Now you look at this re balance and you will see exactly what they will do to all the other tanks on their re balance list. In a sentence, they killed the gun and gave it DPM and an armor that fails 99% of the time.

It's like removing all the tires and the wheel and the gear from a car and instead giving it a better engine. Now you have a great engine but good luck moving the car. This is what WG does. To solve the problem of Leo 1, they ruined the competition. Now whenever WG says they are going to re balance a tank, wait. Because there is a 99% chance that they nerf 99% of the tank, give it 0.5 second better aim time and call it balanced.


Edited by DeadLecter, 02 April 2019 - 11:47 AM.


LordMuffin #20 Posted 02 April 2019 - 02:34 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 50000 battles
  • 12,189
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    06-21-2011

View PostNishi_Kinuyo, on 31 March 2019 - 05:36 PM, said:

Probably these:

Except the site limits the periodic curve to 1000 "points" only. (no idea what those points are supposed to be)

And that skews the data hard.

I guess that the 1000 points mean that each dot on the curve have at least 1000 input data.

So for the 50% WR point, you got at least 1000 battles played by 1000 (different) players with 50% WR and then you check the outcome for each battle and then you get how many times it won, and then the point is put there.

 

Though not certain that it is 1000 different players, could be 1000 battles with the tank from a player of that WR.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users