Jump to content


British Light Tanks


  • Please log in to reply
44 replies to this topic

feoffle3 #1 Posted 05 September 2019 - 03:26 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 11959 battles
  • 59
  • [CIRC] CIRC
  • Member since:
    05-24-2015

After watching Jingles' latest youtube video covering a replay with the Tier X Manticore, I decided to go onto one of the statistics sites that covers world of tanks, to take a look at how the tanks are performing statistically.

 

It suddenly occurred to me when I was browsing the stats of the various machines, that we are in a predicament whereby wargaming will not buff the tanks, because the stats on the Tier 8, 9 & 10 look good.

 

The reason for this being, the only people that are playing the tanks, are good players. Streamers, people going for new tanks to get MoE on, etc.

 

The only tank which is performing in line with how you believe the stats to reflect, is the Setter. Presumably because more people went out to try the Setter upon release, and then quickly realised what garbage they are, and promptly stopped playing them.

 

However, I am a bit of a dunce when it comes to statistics sites. The only one I've used will only show me total lifetime stats, not recently, to see if old stats are biasing things.

 

Can anyone display the recent stats (say last 30-days) for all the vehicles at their respective tiers, to see what the stats are, and how many total battles of each vehicle are being completed, for a fair comparison.



OmniWalou #2 Posted 05 September 2019 - 03:41 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 452 battles
  • 552
  • Member since:
    04-13-2019

View Postfeoffle3, on 05 September 2019 - 03:26 PM, said:

After watching Jingles' latest youtube video covering a replay with the Tier X Manticore, I decided to go onto one of the statistics sites that covers world of tanks, to take a look at how the tanks are performing statistically.

 

It suddenly occurred to me when I was browsing the stats of the various machines, that we are in a predicament whereby wargaming will not buff the tanks, because the stats on the Tier 8, 9 & 10 look good.

 

The reason for this being, the only people that are playing the tanks, are good players. Streamers, people going for new tanks to get MoE on, etc.

 

The only tank which is performing in line with how you believe the stats to reflect, is the Setter. Presumably because more people went out to try the Setter upon release, and then quickly realised what garbage they are, and promptly stopped playing them.

 

However, I am a bit of a dunce when it comes to statistics sites. The only one I've used will only show me total lifetime stats, not recently, to see if old stats are biasing things.

 

Can anyone display the recent stats (say last 30-days) for all the vehicles at their respective tiers, to see what the stats are, and how many total battles of each vehicle are being completed, for a fair comparison.

 

Did you just go to wotlife and checked the global winrates for the tanks? Do you really think that WG themselves are only watching global winrates on tanks?

 

wot-news provides the tank curves for tanks that gives WRs in the tank based on the WR of the account, granted AFAIK it's comparing the overall winrate of an account instead of a recent winrate, but I think the curves are pretty accurate regardless. It's although to be expected that WG has much more statistics than players can gather freely from the game, so why wouldn't they use those statistics to make decisions? It would be nice to see the same as the devs do, as it could provide some insight to decisions the player base finds weird.



8126Jakobsson #3 Posted 05 September 2019 - 03:46 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 78842 battles
  • 5,242
  • Member since:
    12-20-2014

I have marked the Setter and LHMTV and their battle stats looks pretty good compared to their peers, even though they are rolling with worse tank stats. I think the answer as to why is the same as I was thinking of back when the ELC Even came: they encourage a more passive/conservative playstyle since you don't really want to engage in any fights (because why would you when you have the smallest peen of all...). Which translates to longer survivability. Which translates to higher numbers of various sorts. You see where this is going, ja.

 

I have not played the Manticore but I think that the tanks up to it are fine. As long as you don't want to play Rambo. :child:  



Schepel #4 Posted 05 September 2019 - 03:46 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 65859 battles
  • 3,721
  • Member since:
    05-13-2013

View PostOmniWalou, on 05 September 2019 - 03:41 PM, said:

 

Did you just go to wotlife and checked the global winrates for the tanks? Do you really think that WG themselves are only watching global winrates on tanks?

 

wot-news provides the tank curves for tanks that gives WRs in the tank based on the WR of the account, granted AFAIK it's comparing the overall winrate of an account instead of a recent winrate, but I think the curves are pretty accurate regardless. It's although to be expected that WG has much more statistics than players can gather freely from the game, so why wouldn't they use those statistics to make decisions? It would be nice to see the same as the devs do, as it could provide some insight to decisions the player base finds weird.

 

They might not even look at w/r per se. It might be that they compare specific stats such tanks spotted, duration of spotting and damage upon spotting. If they are *only* interesed in its main 'role' of passive spotter, it could very well be that they see those tanks as competitive. We look at w/r and see something entirely different, these things can't carry if the entire enemy team decides to drown, but it would explain a number of things - at least, it would for me.



XxKuzkina_MatxX #5 Posted 05 September 2019 - 03:50 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 53231 battles
  • 5,320
  • Member since:
    04-02-2016

View Postfeoffle3, on 05 September 2019 - 06:26 PM, said:

It suddenly occurred to me when I was browsing the stats of the various machines, that we are in a predicament whereby wargaming will not buff the tanks, because the stats on the Tier 8, 9 & 10 look good.

 

The reason for this being, the only people that are playing the tanks, are good players. Streamers, people going for new tanks to get MoE on, etc.

 

Win rate curves don't work like that. The curve displays each segment (win rate) of the player base and how they perform in a particular tank in a certain number of battles (20k).

 

The number of these tanks/battles is low in EU so most of the curves didn't form yet. Below are the performance of the tier 7, 8 and 9 tanks from the RU cluster.

 

WG also have access to more data that just some player doing +1% or -1.5% in a tank. They do know and analyze how many of these players played the tank stock and how many used free XP to elite the tank before playing it. Because they have to actually balance the tank not just prove if it's good or bad.

 

Setter

 

LHMTV

 

GSOR

 


Edited by XxKuzkina_MatxX, 05 September 2019 - 04:07 PM.


PointZero #6 Posted 05 September 2019 - 03:56 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 46229 battles
  • 1,280
  • Member since:
    02-03-2011

During Gamescom 2019 they held a Q&A with the devs around August 24th so I'll repost the Brit LT section

 

Why are British light tanks so weak? Do you plan to improve them?


Alexey Ilyin: I’ll start from another side: This year we released several vehicles and we didn’t want to repeat from previous lines and clone previous vehicles. We want something new, fill the options in the game where there have been loopholes so far. For example, when releasing Swedes – a new suspension was a curiosity. The same with wheeled or Swedish medium tanks. In British light tanks everything is based on a passive spot, because this sphere may not have been empty, but …


Andrey Biletskiy: Not full enough. What Alexey talks about are different styles of play. Swedish tank destroyers allow an interesting approach to the verticality of maps. Swedish heavy tanks are a different approach to magazines, in a different role. The taxi drivers are ultimately active scouts, as we saw in the 3v3 tournament a moment ago. Yes, the wheelers were created so that they could not be easily stopped, encouraging active gameplay.


In turn, British light tanks are for this group of players – whom we know because we have statistics – who prefer passive meeting. We don’t want to create one line for everyone, because it would be a failure for us. We don’t want players to say “I will stop playing my style because everyone is playing it”. Interestingly, we have different wheeled vehicle pickups on different servers. Some say they are OP, while others are much less. The same with British light tanks. We have opinions from the world that they are OP. It’s very subjective.


Alexey Ilyin: I will be very boring talking about numbers, but they are quite popular. Players who can and want to play them play them. There are quite a lot of them, and the efficiency is not bad at all, because they are at the level of the best light tanks. The number of Manticore spots is similar to the AMX 13 105, T-100 LT and wheeled vehicles. They are quite good, not for everyone, but they manage in a passive spot.

 

TL;DR; They have their own idea how the tanks should be and don't care what the community is saying to the level of making stuff up to justify things staying that way.



OmniWalou #7 Posted 05 September 2019 - 04:11 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 452 battles
  • 552
  • Member since:
    04-13-2019

View PostPointZero, on 05 September 2019 - 03:56 PM, said:

During Gamescom 2019 they held a Q&A with the devs around August 24th so I'll repost the Brit LT section

 

Why are British light tanks so weak? Do you plan to improve them?


Alexey Ilyin: I’ll start from another side: This year we released several vehicles and we didn’t want to repeat from previous lines and clone previous vehicles. We want something new, fill the options in the game where there have been loopholes so far. For example, when releasing Swedes – a new suspension was a curiosity. The same with wheeled or Swedish medium tanks. In British light tanks everything is based on a passive spot, because this sphere may not have been empty, but …


Andrey Biletskiy: Not full enough. What Alexey talks about are different styles of play. Swedish tank destroyers allow an interesting approach to the verticality of maps. Swedish heavy tanks are a different approach to magazines, in a different role. The taxi drivers are ultimately active scouts, as we saw in the 3v3 tournament a moment ago. Yes, the wheelers were created so that they could not be easily stopped, encouraging active gameplay.


In turn, British light tanks are for this group of players – whom we know because we have statistics – who prefer passive meeting. We don’t want to create one line for everyone, because it would be a failure for us. We don’t want players to say “I will stop playing my style because everyone is playing it”. Interestingly, we have different wheeled vehicle pickups on different servers. Some say they are OP, while others are much less. The same with British light tanks. We have opinions from the world that they are OP. It’s very subjective.


Alexey Ilyin: I will be very boring talking about numbers, but they are quite popular. Players who can and want to play them play them. There are quite a lot of them, and the efficiency is not bad at all, because they are at the level of the best light tanks. The number of Manticore spots is similar to the AMX 13 105, T-100 LT and wheeled vehicles. They are quite good, not for everyone, but they manage in a passive spot.

 

TL;DR; They have their own idea how the tanks should be and don't care what the community is saying to the level of making stuff up to justify things staying that way.

 

TL;DR rather is that some players want the British LTs to be like something and the devs want them to be like something else. Can you really blame anyone in this? It's a fact that these tanks won't suit everyone, same as not all tanks in the game are for everyone. The different tanks are filling different roles. Honestly if someone doesn't want to play British LTs, then they shouldn't play them.



feoffle3 #8 Posted 05 September 2019 - 04:23 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 11959 battles
  • 59
  • [CIRC] CIRC
  • Member since:
    05-24-2015

View PostXxKuzkina_MatxX, on 05 September 2019 - 03:50 PM, said:

 

Win rate curves don't work like that. The curve displays each segment (win rate) of the player base and how they perform in a particular tank in a certain number of battles (20k).

 

 

 

 

 

I appreciate that, however if the amount of players at the higher end of the curve significantly outweigh the number of people playing at the bottom of the curve, the overall winrate for the tank across the server looks superior.

 

If you have 50 super unicums playing a tank at 58% wins, and then only 10 other players from 57% down to 48% and they play 1 game each, that averages to 57% overall. Which clearly wouldn't be representative, but it would still produce a winrate curve that looks normal.

 

Statistics can obviously be manipulated to show what you want, which is why I was curious to compare directly between recent games against contemporary tanks.



Balc0ra #9 Posted 05 September 2019 - 04:26 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 72848 battles
  • 20,704
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

View Postfeoffle3, on 05 September 2019 - 03:26 PM, said:

The reason for this being, the only people that are playing the tanks, are good players. Streamers, people going for new tanks to get MoE on, etc.

 

We see this with each new line. As a majority of the people that skipped it was good players and CC's for content etc the first week or so to make heads or tails of anything. And the stats differ vs when the rest gets to them later to even it more out.

 

But this time it might be different. As this is a line CC's have told others to avoid, as it's a line not the majority will like. And it shows in the early population numbers on even the tier 7 vs say the wheels after a few weeks. And tbh most I see in them are good players vs bad. But as WG have said, WR aside. They still do the same assist and damage pr game as the rest, not way less. And I suspect many have great games in them. As the LHMTV when I left it, anything less then 800 XP was not even 3rd class.

 

But regardless it's still early for solid data. WG might see the data "even" out over time the more that get to them and grind the line to leave it as is, or make adjustments.

 

View Post8126Jakobsson, on 05 September 2019 - 03:46 PM, said:

I have not played the Manticore but I think that the tanks up to it are fine. As long as you don't want to play Rambo. :child:  

 

Personally, the tier 7 and 8 were fine for the most part tbh.  But 200 more DPM on the tier 7 and 8 would not hurt. And the stock tier 7 gun definitely needs a ROF buff. Tier 8 mobility was fine, but the tier 7 could use a minor traverse and ground resistance buff. Ammo load was an issue on the tier 8, less so on the tier 7. TIer 8 had a few fights that made me a gold spamming n00b as I ran out of HE and AP. Only ran out of ammo twice in it tho for it to be a huge issue on that one.



OmniWalou #10 Posted 05 September 2019 - 04:39 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 452 battles
  • 552
  • Member since:
    04-13-2019

View Postfeoffle3, on 05 September 2019 - 04:23 PM, said:

 

 

I appreciate that, however if the amount of players at the higher end of the curve significantly outweigh the number of people playing at the bottom of the curve, the overall winrate for the tank across the server looks superior.

 

If you have 50 super unicums playing a tank at 58% wins, and then only 10 other players from 57% down to 48% and they play 1 game each, that averages to 57% overall. Which clearly wouldn't be representative, but it would still produce a winrate curve that looks normal.

 

Statistics can obviously be manipulated to show what you want, which is why I was curious to compare directly between recent games against contemporary tanks.

 

Winrate is not the only statistic to look at, if it even is one. There are other statistics to pay attention to in determining how a tank is performing compared to it's counterparts or it's expected performance based on the role.



XxKuzkina_MatxX #11 Posted 05 September 2019 - 04:49 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 53231 battles
  • 5,320
  • Member since:
    04-02-2016

View Postfeoffle3, on 05 September 2019 - 07:23 PM, said:

I appreciate that, however if the amount of players at the higher end of the curve significantly outweigh the number of people playing at the bottom of the curve, the overall winrate for the tank across the server looks superior.

 

If you have 50 super unicums playing a tank at 58% wins, and then only 10 other players from 57% down to 48% and they play 1 game each, that averages to 57% overall. Which clearly wouldn't be representative, but it would still produce a winrate curve that looks normal.

 

Statistics can obviously be manipulated to show what you want, which is why I was curious to compare directly between recent games against contemporary tanks.

 

Each point on the curve which represents a certain group of players (50 or 55 percenters of example) can't form without 20k battles played by that group. The LHMTV curve for example, 51% players do their exact overall win rate in this tank while players above that will have an advantage by playing the LHMTV and players with less than 51% overall will perform worse than their overall in the tank.

 

What you need to look for in these curves are:

 

  • The crossing point (or the offset).
  • The slope (or how fast things change).

 

51%, which is the crossing point for the LHMTV, is above the server average win rate so that means it's a slightly hard tank to play. You also need to compare that curve to other tanks of the same class and tier to know what these numbers actually mean.

 

Lastly, WG have their own parameters/equations to balance tanks so you won't exactly know where you stand in that range just by looking at these curves. Stats can not be manipulated, their meaning/interpretation can be for sure. :)



TankkiPoju #12 Posted 06 September 2019 - 08:37 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 23680 battles
  • 7,238
  • Member since:
    05-20-2011

View Post8126Jakobsson, on 05 September 2019 - 03:46 PM, said:

I have marked the Setter and LHMTV and their battle stats looks pretty good compared to their peers, even though they are rolling with worse tank stats. I think the answer as to why is the same as I was thinking of back when the ELC Even came: they encourage a more passive/conservative playstyle since you don't really want to engage in any fights (because why would you when you have the smallest peen of all...). Which translates to longer survivability. Which translates to higher numbers of various sorts. You see where this is going, ja.

 

I have not played the Manticore but I think that the tanks up to it are fine. As long as you don't want to play Rambo. :child:  

 

Tanks like EVEN 90 have qualities which people often overlook, like how small it is. And while the gun is a true potato launcher, it's still a three shot autoloader.

 

Also when it comes to light tanks, people don't seem to value gun depression.



SuNo_TeSLa #13 Posted 06 September 2019 - 08:58 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 48511 battles
  • 470
  • [SWEPH] SWEPH
  • Member since:
    07-07-2013

View PostTankkiPoju, on 06 September 2019 - 08:37 AM, said:

 

Tanks like EVEN 90 have qualities which people often overlook, like how small it is. And while the gun is a true potato launcher, it's still a three shot autoloader.

 

Also when it comes to light tanks, people don't seem to value gun depression.

 

Exactly, add to that that the Average WoT-player is an Average marksman at best :)



NUKLEAR_SLUG #14 Posted 06 September 2019 - 09:05 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 34085 battles
  • 4,415
  • [FISHY] FISHY
  • Member since:
    06-13-2015

View PostTankkiPoju, on 06 September 2019 - 08:37 AM, said:

 

Tanks like EVEN 90 have qualities which people often overlook, like how small it is. And while the gun is a true potato launcher, it's still a three shot autoloader.

 

Also when it comes to light tanks, people don't seem to value gun depression.

 

This, the little bastard can be really hard to find and even when you do you still have to hit it and it is not a large target at range. Also, it may have a terrible gun, but it still hurts if it gets in close and dumps a clip into you.



8126Jakobsson #15 Posted 06 September 2019 - 09:06 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 78842 battles
  • 5,242
  • Member since:
    12-20-2014

View PostTankkiPoju, on 06 September 2019 - 08:37 AM, said:

 

Tanks like EVEN 90 have qualities which people often overlook, like how small it is. And while the gun is a true potato launcher, it's still a three shot autoloader.

 

Also when it comes to light tanks, people don't seem to value gun depression.


What you really learn to appreciate when playing British lights is that obscure thing called gun elevation - the silent BLT killer. Many awkward moments have been had due to its extreme lack of that:D



Dr_Oolen #16 Posted 06 September 2019 - 09:26 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 23509 battles
  • 1,915
  • [IDEAL] IDEAL
  • Member since:
    03-13-2012

View PostSchepel, on 05 September 2019 - 03:46 PM, said:

 

They might not even look at w/r per se. It might be that they compare specific stats such tanks spotted, duration of spotting and damage upon spotting. If they are *only* interesed in its main 'role' of passive spotter, it could very well be that they see those tanks as competitive. We look at w/r and see something entirely different, these things can't carry if the entire enemy team decides to drown, but it would explain a number of things - at least, it would for me.

Based on what one person that is not be be named wrote on the forums that seems to be precisely how WG balances tanks and considers them "competitive". They basically create a tank and choose some arbitrary stat that it ought to be good at and then they completely ignore all the stats and opinions of players if the random stat that in itself means nothing at all shows the tank does what it was supposed to do. And it would seem to me that it is precisely stats like "average length in seconds for how long an enemy tank is spotted by the vehicle when it is stationary". WG simply dont care that the tanks are god awful or op as hell overall. But if a terrible tank spots another tank for average of 20 seconds while its bushwanking they consider it a great success (if indeed 20 seconds on that stat was their goal) despite the tank having actually less spotting damage, damage, winrate, hitrate, penrate (or what have you) that all other similar tanks and in general just being unfun to play and impossible to play in any other way than to indeed fap in a bush and be useless spotting tanks that dont get damaged anyway. Just as WG dont care tanks like 268v4 are still op and broken as hell with 52-53% global WR, because for all we know they might have chosen a stat like "is this tank the tank at t10 that is on average the first one to deal damage to an enemy vehicle while at the same time bouncing at least 2 shots within 5 seconds of dealing its damage?" And while such stat has literally nothing at all to do with anything in terms of general balance of the game thats simply the fantasy WG chose to achieve for the tank and its enough for them that the tank does that to consider it perfectly balanced...

 

EDIT: more generally on the topic - its funny that in my case i often do better in terrible tanks than in good ones because i simply dont tend to play to the maximum of all ability, but just play in such a way as to reach some for me acceptable level of achievement. So some terrible tank will have to be tryharded to achieve that level while an op tank can be played in "RRR" and brain-off mode to achieve that level. So bluntly put i play the op tanks like a total r****d expecting to get away with everything which often results in me getting rekt hard, while i will play a bad tank extremely carefully resulting in me just surviving long enough to farm enough damage and to get into situations where the game can actually be influenced in late game.


Edited by Dr_Oolen, 06 September 2019 - 09:31 AM.


kaneloon #17 Posted 06 September 2019 - 10:03 AM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 30964 battles
  • 3,657
  • [RHIN0] RHIN0
  • Member since:
    11-18-2011

View Post8126Jakobsson, on 06 September 2019 - 08:06 AM, said:


What you really learn to appreciate when playing British lights is that obscure thing called gun elevation - the silent BLT killer. Many awkward moments have been had due to its extreme lack of that:D

 

Swedish Emils are a pain in that regard ;(

 

On subject : lights tanks always were difficult to play for an average player with an average crew.

But with time those players will learn how to best use the british ones.



FatigueGalaxy #18 Posted 06 September 2019 - 10:16 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 21678 battles
  • 2,313
  • [SPIKE] SPIKE
  • Member since:
    02-09-2011

View PostOmniWalou, on 05 September 2019 - 04:11 PM, said:

 

TL;DR rather is that some players want the British LTs to be like something and the devs want them to be like something else. Can you really blame anyone in this? It's a fact that these tanks won't suit everyone, same as not all tanks in the game are for everyone. The different tanks are filling different roles. Honestly if someone doesn't want to play British LTs, then they shouldn't play them.


That's not the problem.

They wanted to make them exceptional at passive spotting - and that's fine. But they did it by nerfing to the ground combat capabilities instead making them good spotters. So other LTs are as good passive spotting as british LTs AND they can do a lot more.

In other words, WG castrated them to force passive spotting gameplay instead making them the best passive spotters in the game which would naturally encourage players to do more passive spotting.



Balc0ra #19 Posted 06 September 2019 - 12:15 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 72848 battles
  • 20,704
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

View PostFatigueGalaxy, on 06 September 2019 - 10:16 AM, said:


That's not the problem.

They wanted to make them exceptional at passive spotting - and that's fine. But they did it by nerfing to the ground combat capabilities instead making them good spotters. So other LTs are as good passive spotting as british LTs AND they can do a lot more.

In other words, WG castrated them to force passive spotting gameplay instead making them the best passive spotters in the game which would naturally encourage players to do more passive spotting.

 

The issue most have with the UK lights, is that it kinda contradicts the balance reasons done on other lights. Wheels had speed to compensate for their DPM. These have camo to compensate for their DPM... but wheels have the same camo % to name one. Yes they are great passive spotters. Not arguing that. And yes I get the point of lacking combat points if you will. But still... my Swedish Leo can spot as well as my Setter tbh. Even get there faster.



Space_Vato #20 Posted 06 September 2019 - 12:27 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 2896 battles
  • 91
  • Member since:
    02-08-2019

View PostFatigueGalaxy, on 06 September 2019 - 10:16 AM, said:


That's not the problem.

They wanted to make them exceptional at passive spotting - and that's fine. But they did it by nerfing to the ground combat capabilities instead making them good spotters. So other LTs are as good passive spotting as british LTs AND they can do a lot more.

In other words, WG castrated them to force passive spotting gameplay instead making them the best passive spotters in the game which would naturally encourage players to do more passive spotting.

 

Exactly.

Why play a tank which performs the same in one factor as others in the class, but lacks the combat capabilities of the others?

British LT"s are not BETTER in passive spotting compared to the others. Not better in any way... Not more camo, not more viewrange, no special ability (like how they mention the suspension of the Swedish tanks, nothing like Veiled Wehicles...) just NOTHING in which they excel.

 

 


Edited by Space_Vato, 06 September 2019 - 12:27 PM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users