Jump to content

Highest Reputation Content


Posted General_von_Falkenhayn on Jan 07 2014 - 21:28

Since 2011, I have had a relationship with World of Tanks.  Like few other games in my long gaming career (which dates back to the 1980s), I have poured my heart, energy and even money into this one.  I have had many, many good times, and many, many bad times ensconced in this digital world.   WoT has given me great pleasure and great frustration.  Until recently, I have felt it has been worth continuing the relationship because the good generally outweighed the bad. 


Now, in a new year, I have taken a good hard look at WoT and must conclude that the bad outweighs the good.  And when that happens--as with any relationship--it's time to consider whether it's smart to continue it.


I cannot commit to abandoning WoT.  It has been a part of my life for so long that it's inconceivable to turn my back on it completely.  But I can say that it is time for me to downgrade our relationship status from "lovers" to "friends," at best.


I do this because I simply do not feel good playing the game anymore.  There are too many issues, both new and old, that drain my enjoyment and make playing the game seem more a chore than a joy.  To be fair, I have played many other games in my life for long periods, and I have moved beyond them, too.  But WoT strives to keep me hooked over the long haul through constant updates and new content.  Despite this, though, the game has failed to correct longstanding problems, and has actually created new ones through its patch process.


My morale and faith in WoT have fallen for specific reasons.  I never make a decision to part from a game I've played for years without a well-grounded rationale, and I've been pondering that rationale for quite some time.  I have identified ten major flaws that have soured my enthusiasm for WoT, and for my own mental clarity--and for those interested--I will present them here.


1. The Vision System: Noobs recoil from WoT's elaborate (and counterintuitive) vision system with the simplistic complaint: "I got invisitanked, no fair!"  We veterans understand that the vision system is a tool to be exploited, not to complain about.  For better or worse, WoT attempts to simulate real-world battlefield vision disparities through its "view range/camo value/draw distance" matrix, which even seasoned players have trouble fully grasping.  Those who scout well virtually guarantee a win for their team, since they provide their comrades (and arty) the luxury of shooting at fully-silhouetted red targets without fear of return fire.  In higher-tier games, where focused fire from TDs and arty can vaporize any tank in an instant, vision control determines the outcome almost every time. 


Yet vision control is never a given in most randoms; either your team has a competent scout or it doesn't.  If it doesn't, you are blind and you are destroyed without ever seeing your foe, even if he's just 100 meters away.  If it does, you can pulverize your hapless opponents without a scratch.  But you either have a good scout or you don't.  Your skill does not change what teammates the matchmaker provides.


I have several complaints about the vision system. First, it does not give its gifts equally.  Either your team has a good scout or it doesn't.  That fact is not determined by skill.  Second, camo and vehicle height are overly critical stats that confer their blessings on only a few tech branches.  Camo values determine which tanks can abuse the vision system and which tanks get abused by it.  It makes scouts and low-height TDs the rulers of the high-tier game, while rendering many heavy tanks and no-camo-TDs almost irrelevant.


In sum, vision control is more important than almost any other game mechanic.  And unless you're a scout or medium, you can rarely provide it for your team.  In WoT, you often can only see what others see (a strange sensory dilemma, especially when you can magically see things through thick brush, as long as someone else 300 meters away sees it), and if others don't do your seeing, you see nothing. 


When I have spotting, I usually win.  When I don't, I usually lose.  I've gotten tired of betting my enjoyment on whether someone on my team understands how important spotting is.


2. The Maps: I sometimes wonder who tests WoT's maps before they are released.  In almost every case, they suffer from systemic problems that grant great advantages to one side (like the north side of Highway), or can be exploited by one side making the right move at the beginning of the game (like a competent scout lighting the base on Malinovka).  WG has revived horrible maps like Komarin (a mutual campfest where nothing can happen unless someone understands the vision system) and allowed perennially detested maps like Malinovka and El Halluf to remain in the game.  It has removed maps like Province and Dragon Ridge, as if admitting that they were broken.  And it has rushed out new maps like Severogorsk and Sacred Valley (again, maps that only can work when there are competent scouts), as well as Hidden Village (a horrible one-lane slugfest with a no-man's-land everywhere but the lane). (This list is not meant to be exhaustive...)


WG seems determined to make maps that force players to meet at specified zones of contention and hammer it out at pointblank range.  It has made a few key rocks, huts and bushes the subject of all the fighting, and allowed artillery to play a significant role because everyone basically knows where the contention will be. 


This has gotten very old.  There are only a couple maps I really like, and far too many that make me groan when I see them on the loading screen.  Too many depend on advanced vision system knowledge, and you can never count on your teammates having that knowledge in randoms.


3. The Matchmaker: Everyone complains about the MM.  WG made some progress many patches ago when it generally guaranteed that many tank types would only face enemies two tiers above them.  This was certainly an improvement over the days when VK 36.01s could fight Tier 10s, but as time (and power creep) have marched on, even a two-tier spread is excessive.  It's no fun playing a stock Caernarvon with a 171 pen/150 damage gun against Tier 10 TDs.  In short, WoT has introduced so many powerful new tanks (at such dramatically higher capabilities with each successive tier), that it is a tall order to fight enemies two tiers above you in many cases.


My first Tier 9 heavy was the E-75.  Even with my nooby skills back in 2011, I managed a 60% win rate with it.  How was this possible?  It had everything to do with the matchmaker in the old days.  The only Tier 10s were the E-100, Maus, T30 and IS-7.  No one fired gold rounds (effectively trolling the E-100).  There were no autoloaders.  You even faced M4 Shermans, and maybe one or two other Tier 9s.  It was easier to win under those circumstances.  Now at Tier 9, you face all manner of overpowered Tier 10 TDs, mediums and heavies--all slinging gold--that can vaporize you in an instant.


My major complaint about the "spread" element of the matchmaker is that it is disheartening to face the current rogue's gallery of OP Tier 10 tanks with a Tier 8.  Obviously, there are several lower tier tanks that hold up well in higher tier fights (the T29 at Tier 7 and the IS-3 at Tier 8 come to mind).  But for most tanks, being the low man on the totem pole is not a recipe for fun.  Generally, you're going to have to either be lucky enough to have a good team or carry impossibly hard.  If it's the latter, your heart will beat fast and your game will be more an ordeal than a pleasant way to pass the time.


Matchmaking problems do not end with spread issues.  In recent times, there have been more and more lopsided matchups, with one side getting far more higher tier tanks than the other side.  Because of the massively better capabilities of each higher tier, this severely impacts the shortchanged team's chances to win.  We've all been on the team that has 4 less Tier 10s than the enemy team, and we all know how it will turn out.  True, there's always the chance that the other team will squander their advantage through incompetence.  But that's not a safe bet; in most cases, the team with more higher-tier tanks will win.  It's like playing golf against someone with a massive handicap.


As mentioned, everyone intuitively knows that these are serious issues.  Yet patch after patch, WG does nothing about them.  In the New Year, I have had enough of it.  I am tired of being the low man on the totem pole, and I'm tired of being matched up against teams with substantial Tier advantages.  It is not fair and skill can only take you so far in countering it.


Afterthought on MM: One reason premium tanks with preferred matchmaking are so popular is that they reduce the amount by which matchmaker can screw them.  It bears note that one of the winningest tanks in the whole game is the Pz B2, which is always top tier.  It never has to fight tanks with vastly superior combat characteristics, and thus can win much more consistently.  Tier spread makes all the difference.  And the Pz B2's record proves why.


It's almost a perverse admission by WG about how bad the matchmaker is that a premium tank's selling point is: "You won't be the low man on the totem pole as often!"


4. RNG : Very few things induce rage more than the +/- 25% spread assigned to every single shot with regard to accuracy, penetration and damage.  It is not enough that you let the aiming circle fully close and take your time to make a shot: RNG might decide it's time for your shot to hit the dirt, not the weakspot.  Or RNG might decide that you can't have that kill shot by making you miss, roll low or bounce an impossible bounce.


Apparently, one of WG's objectives in developing WoT was to create "uncertainty of outcome" in every game.  Well, if that was an objective, they've achieved it beyond anyone's wildest dreams.  You never quite know whether your shots will go where you aim them, whether your 420 pen HEAT shell will actually go through or your last shot will do enough damage to polish off that pesky scout.  By the same token, sometimes a completely unaimed shot will go dead center, or an arty shot will miraculously land behind a rock it shouldn't have been able to hit. 


These RNG vagaries often determine games.  WG seems to think these "uncertain results" should be celebrated, even making a video about them every month with--appropriately--a slot machine icon.  But when you get down to it, how much does skill really have to do with these results?  RNG implies that you need some luck to do well, just as you need luck to hit three 7s on a slot machine.  All the skill in the world--and all the best habits, like fully aiming--don't make a difference when RNG decides your shot will fail for one reason or another.


For me, RNG has been a major reason why I've downgraded my relationship with WoT.  I am simply unwilling to peg my enjoyment on whether I roll high or whether my shots go where I aim them.  I even ran a study last month where my data showed I rolled low 16% more often than average or high. 


I do not like the "uncertainty of outcome" that RNG has created, and I do not like the role luck plays in determining those outcomes.  If I wanted to play a luck-based game, I'd go to the casino.


5.  The Lack of Correlation between Merit and Outcome: WoT's XP reward system is severely flawed because it pegs a 50% bonus on victory.  Ostensibly, this provides an incentive to win, but as any WoT player can tell you, your own efforts often have no impact on whether your team wins.  That is not to say that an individual player with great skill cannot turn a losing game into a win.  But it is to say that in most cases your team has no chance to win and your efforts against that inevitable conclusion will not be rewarded.


I like to think I have decent stats.  I'm not a super-pro, but I almost always place in the Top 3 XP earners of my team, win or lose.  When they were running the mission that gave 0.2% more crew XP to the Top 3 XP earners on a team, I earned that distinction 90% of the time over 500 games.  I almost always pull my weight and more. 


But in my losing games, I rarely had much to show for it.  In the old days, you didn't even get a bonus for achieving battle hero status on a loss.  WG clearly improved the game when they allowed that (ie "Courageous Resistance"), but even that does not fully address the issue.  Sometimes getting Sniper or Top Gun on a loss isn't possible, yet you vastly outperform both your own team and the enemy team.  And you get nothing to show for that in the XP column. 


I think this system discourages merit and places excessive value on the team winning, which is all too often beyond your control (especially in solopubs).  I also think there's something Soviet about it, namely in the way it punishes the individual but rewards the herd.  No matter what other think of it, though, I'm tired of working hard in losing matches without receiving a suitable reward for my efforts.


6. Power Creep: I've already mentioned power creep with regard to matchmaking.  It deserves fuller explanation.


WG's quest to constantly introduce new content has led to a power crisis in WoT.  It started in 7.5 with the introduction of Tier 10 TDs and mediums.  Since then, every new patch has brought more and more powerful tanks and TDs--all with progressively higher penetration, damage, camo, speed and view range.  Every time, the older tanks sank further into irrelevance.  The stats that used to make the older tanks relevant could no longer compete at the higher stat plateau.  From time to time, WG would "rebalance" old tanks to keep them competitive with the new ones.  But that was (and is) an imperfect system that leaves many tanks without any practical use.


Worse, power creep provides WG an infallible way to milk customers for money.  New tanks are always the most powerful, which leads to a rush to buy them (through gold purchases for free XP or gold rounds to make grinds easier).  We all know the cycle, and the inevitable nerfs that befall once-chic new tanks.  It is a cynical and dishonest business model that wastes people's time and dashes their hopes.


Power creep also manifested itself when WG made premium ammo available for credits.  Personally, I am ambivalent about this development.  On the one hand, gold rounds are essential for tanks shafted by the broken MM to have a chance when they are bottom tier.  On the other hand, when everyone slings gold, armor takes a back seat to firepower and mobility in the Holy Trinity of tank balance.  All in all, gold rounds for credits crossed a Rubicon that WG cannot reverse.  Combined with the newer OP tanks that emerge every patch, they have made higher tier play a disheartening proposition: Everyone can pen/kill you in the blink of an eye, often without even really aiming.  And once again, the team with superior vision control in a game allows their team to focus this ever-increasing, devastating firepower on the enemy without fear of collateral damage.


7. Artillery: Mentioning arty in the forums often leads to disputes.  My purpose here, however, to outline my subjective reasons for distancing myself from what WoT has become, and artillery is part of that. 


Very few gameplay aspects provoke as much emotional outpouring as artillery.  I, for one, am a very amiable guy.  Yet I can turn into a homicidal maniac when arty kills me, especially after gallantly fighting off half a dozen tanks in a choke point, breaking through and getting nuked the minute I start advancing. 


In my early days playing WoT, arty was much more powerful than it is now: It aimed faster, it fired faster, it was more accurate and it could easily defend itself with snap shots in close combat.  Originally billed as a way to prevent "tactical stagnation" (ie, camping) in games, arty came to dominate the game, leading to far more camping than ever before.  After all, moving from hard cover would lead to instant arty death. And back then, there were often 5 or more high tier arty on each team.  If you think the TDs are bad now, you should have seen arty at its wretched apex.  I nearly left the game because of it.


Patch 8.6 ostensibly crippled arty's effectiveness with numerous nerfs.  In the aftermath, fewer people played arty and I recall having more fun than ever before in all-tank/TD battles.  Sure, once in a while you would still get derped by the occasional lucky arty shell.  But because it happened so much more infrequently, I could handle it.


But as the patches progressed from 8.6, arty made a slow recovery.  Sure, it was nothing as devastating as it was pre-8.6, but it once again took a significant place on the battlefield.  It became rarer to see arty-free games.  And because WG's map design encourages slugfests at well-known chokepoints, arty had a bigger role to play.  As you stood there slugging in the pre-arranged spots, arty had the time to aim in and do damage.


I have never been tolerant with arty, and now that I'm seeing it again in ever-greater numbers, I am not enthused.  I often have to lead horrible random teams in my heavy tanks.  When I do, it's my head on the chopping block for arty.  I often am the one with the cajones to push a flank, and that puts me right in the clickers' aiming circle. 


Arty kills me very often, and it's not because I don't know where the "arty safe" places are on a map.  You can't win a game sitting in hard arty cover the whole time, and that's why I take arty hits.  I get to hull down positions and engage as necessary.  Normally it's only arty that has a chance to hurt me, and they do.


More often than not, my tactics are successful.  I die to arty, but we break through the enemy team and win.  But that doesn't stop me from resenting arty.  I often think about how I risked my neck fighting and struggling on the front line, trying to make something happen for my team, while they sat 1000m away and clicked on me as I writhed around in an effort to throw off their aim (fighting around the northern hill on Westfield comes to mind).


I have always hated it, and I still do.  Nothing upsets me more.  And combined with the other ills in WoT, I have zero patience for arty anymore.  I've had it!  Very few things spoil my mood--and enthusiasm for this game--more than getting wrecked by a lucky arty shot despite valiantly leading a team.


It adds insult to injury to know that WG purposely included arty in the game to "give weak players the chance to kill the strongest player."  Yet another Soviet, anti-individualist principle at work and I hate it. 


Sorry 46%er arties... you won't be clicking me again for a while.


8.  Penetration Mechanics: For better or worse, WoT has enshrined armor angle--not thickness-- as the key element of protection against incoming shells.  If a shot hits a tank at 70 degrees or more after normalization, it will bounce, no matter how much penetration force it has on paper.  Greater armor angles, in turn, grant greater effective armor ratings, so the more sloped a target, the higher a penetration roll you need to get through it.  Think of the Foch: The whole front is 180mm at nearly 60 degrees: 304mm effective armor.  You need a high pen roll even with gold, and that's assuming you don't autobounce.


Combined with RNG accuracy problems, the primacy of armor angles in WoT leads to disheartening bounces against targets that simply shouldn't be bouncing anything as a matter of common sense.  It also leads to certain Soviet tanks with rounded turrets getting insane bouncing capacities, especially while they are moving.


Tracks and spaced armor are another issue.  Who knew that a little band of steel outside the tank's hull could stop a 183mm HESH shell from penetrating?  What a concept!  Or that a little bitty track on a Bat Chat could stop a 170mm HEAT shell from going through? I find it galling that WG actually raised the price on HEAT shells while making them dramatically less effective against anything with a track, rounded angle or "GSSA" (Glorious Soviet Spaced Armor).  How many times has an IS-6, IS-3 or Object 704 trolled you when you hit their side?  Case closed.


Penetration issues must be considered in light of RNG accuracy.  It is one thing to know where weakspots are.  It is another for RNG to actually allow you to shoot them.  Sometimes you fully aim your 6000 credit HEAT shell for that luscious E-100 lower plate, only to see it careen a meter left or right into his track... 0 damage.  Then he shoots and kills you without aiming.  It is aggravating in the extreme, related both to RNG and penetration mechanics.


I'm certain WG can offer detailed rationales explaining why its penetration system is sound.  But in practice--combined with RNG--it's frustrating, undependable and counterintuitive.  It has aggravated me so much that it's driven me away from the game.


9. Tier 10 Games : When I first got a Tier 10 tank in 2011, I thought I had reached the pinnacle of the WoT experience.  I had a big, bad E-100... who could touch me?!?  I quickly found out that plenty of people could touch me, and that was even before Tier 10 TDs, mediums or French autoloaders.  Back in those early days, arty used to completely dominate the Tier 10 landscape; games were slow, campy and grueling.  I spent my time clinging rocks, hoping that T92 wouldn't obliterate me as I moved the 75m to another rock.  In short, Tier 10 was a major letdown, an anticlimax if there ever were one.


Yet there has always been a certain prestige about Tier 10 tanks, and I have not refrained from pursuing that prestige.  I have 12 Tier 10 tanks/TDs and 2 Tier 10 arties.  I generally got them all because I wanted to give my clan a variety of possible choices for clan wars, as well as the person satisfaction of "collecting the best."


Still, I never enjoyed playing Tier 10 matches alone, or even with platoon mates.  As power creep advanced, Tier 10 became even less palatable.  So many things can kill you so fast at Tier 10 that even one false step will get you vaporized.  And sometimes you just have no chance when you are outscouted, lit up and wrecked in the game's opening minute. 


Every problem with WoT is magnified at Tier 10.  You are more reliant on your teammates at Tier 10 than at any other Tier, and once again, vision control determines the win, not your big bad Tier 10 heavy.  If anything dominates Tier 10 games now, it is competent scouts/mediums that allow the devastating Tier 10 TDs and arty to eviscerate the opposition without taking return fire.  It's WWI tactics: World of Spotting, stay in your trench and go over the top once the enemy is weakened.


Last month, I played 100 solopub games at Tier 10 as an experiment with all 12 of my Tier 10 tanks/TDs.  I knew it would adversely affect my morale, and it did.  I tempered it by saying I "was doing it for science," and to an extent that was true.  Subjectively, it was a grueling experience.  Most games were decided by scores greater than +/-8, and 10% were 15-2, 15-1 or 15-0 routs.  I won 56, lost 39 and drew 5.  I averaged 2800 damage over those games but never really felt I was determining the outcome myself.  My wins came because my team knew how to play and I provided some margin to our overall capacity.  We had vision control, knew how to push as a unit and stayed in cover as needed.  In my losses, we did not have vision control, we did not know how to push as a unit and we did not stay in cover... and that led to routs against us.


Tier 10 solopub gameplay is quite simply not enjoyable.  It is an ordeal.  You have the responsibility to lead, but often teammates without a firm grasp on what must be done, especially with regard to vision control.  This leads to frustration and pressure in losses, and a sense that winning had less to do with you than with the fact that your enemy had more noobs than your team did.


It amazes me that some people tout Tier 10 as the ultimate expression of the "WoT experience."  For me, it is a broken mess that should be avoided as much as possible.  Every negative aspect about the game finds magnified expression there (vision control, RNG, penetration mechanics, matchmaking, arty), and the feeling of hopelessness that comes with being on the wrong team is especially painful.


I had parted from solopub Tier 10 gameplay long ago.  But I mention it here because it has really become a poster boy for all the ills in the game.


10. Fun is getting harder to harvest; I'm tired of carrying: I have never been one of those players who says: "I play for fun!"  I am competitive and I always contribute as much as I can to staying alive in a match and hopefully winning.  To be clear, though, I wouldn't have played this game as much as I have since 2011 if it didn't give me significant pleasure.  It is a lot of fun when your team clicks, your shots go where you aim them and you don't get BS bounce after BS miss.  It is also a lot of fun when you are in the top spot of your matchmaking spread and can realistically affect the battle without cowering behind your (possibly very incompetent) higher tier teammates.


Yet I've been finding the fun harder and harder to harvest.  I don't get enjoyable games as much as I used to.  I get overly fixated on the glaring problems with game mechanics, as well as the luck-based vagaries inflicted upon me by RNG and MM.  I resent my incompetent teammates and bitterly envy opposing teams for actually having a core of good players against my pack of idiots.  I weary of fighting tooth and nail to reverse losing battles.  I carry way more often that I'd like to, and as proud as I am to carry some games, it's not something I'd prefer to do all the time: It's too emotionally taxing.  If I wanted more responsibility in my life I'd get another job.


And that's just it: WoT feels increasingly like a job to me.  I feel pressured to do well, pressured to carry, pressured to show up and take advantage of doubles and specials.  It's a burden to sit through fail teams and it's a burden to fight hard carrying noobs every other battle.  There's little joy in it for me, and sadly, it's usually RNG that lets me occasionally feel happy: My shots went where I aimed; I had good damage rolls; I bounced a shot; the arty missed me.  It's not my skill that leads to feeling good: It's whether RNG cooperates and matchmaker gives me a team I can work with.

To some extent, platooning helps me alleviate some of the most depressing aspects of random play in WoT.  But even then, sometimes RNG, matchmaking and failteams make even a triple purple platoon lose more than it wins.  And when that happens, platoon mates get angry and start pointing fingers, further poisoning the atmosphere that comes with a loss.  That isn't pleasant, and it makes you wonder why you're even playing in the first place.


Conclusion: WoT has given me so many good times over the past two and half years.  I have met many wonderful people and had many excellent experiences.  But I can't escape my growing dissatisfaction with both old and new issues with the game, and the fact that WG seems not to care about them.


This game could be truly wonderful if they would just make a few critical changes, or give players the option to eliminate certain maps from the rotation.  But these are just fantasies.


I have not said good bye to WoT.  But I unfortunately must say "I am no longer in love with you." 


It's been fun, lover, but you just won't change and you're not meeting my needs.

#4260111 The Ruthless Math of WoT (And Why Every Tank Matters)

Posted Zinegata on Apr 22 2013 - 10:36

The Ruthless Math of World of Tanks

One of the major "debates" that rage in the forums is the ability of a single player to affect the entire course of the match. In general, the concensus is that a single tank can in fact affect the course of an entire match (often termed as a "carry").

However, the problem with this "debate" is that it invariably boils down to what I call "win-rate makes me right" argument. We have some players who play solo and yet have very high win rates. Ergo, it is possible to "carry" a team all by yourself because the high win rates cannot simply be explained by "luck".

The problem with this approach is that it does very little to actually explain how such "carries" are actually possible. Often, we just get some pretty vague (and often bordering on mythical) explanations, usually centering around "skill".

This thread attempts to answer the "how". It will not be a discussion about skill or tactics (although it will reveal why some tactics are so vital). It will instead simply show the unbending gaming principles behind how WoT battles actually work - the "ruthless math" of the game, if you will.

The Key Concept: The Hitpoint Mechanic and Critical Existence Failure

To begin to understand the "math" of the game however, one crucial concept needs to be understood by the reader: "Critical Existence Failure" (henceforth abbreviated as "CEF"). And yes, I'm using the TV Tropes terminology; because it's more fun this way.

Basically, CEF is the model used by most games that use the hitpoint mechanic. Under this model, a unit can function at same level regardless if it was at full hitpoints, or if it was down to just 1 hitpoint. In WoT, it means a Sherman tank at 1 HP will still deal as much damage as a Sherman at full health. (And yes, I'm ignoring the module damage factor for now. See the side bar below)

What this means is that a 1 HP Sherman tank can potentially remain as effective as a Sherman with full HP. In fact, if the Sherman at full HP is an utterly bad player (whose shots keep missing or keep hitting spots that will just bounce the shell) it is entirely possible for a 1 HP Sherman to utterly demolish one at full health. I'm sure that most good players have done this one time or another, and it should already serve as an indication of how superior player knowledge ("skill") can lead to a decisive difference on the field.


The Myth of 15 vs 15

However, in reality, most matches are not won by a 1 HP Sherman duelling a full HP Sherman to death. Many will in fact point out that matches involve 15 tanks on both sides. Cue boohooing about how one tank can't carry 14 others.

But in reality, matches are not actually grand battles of 15 vs 15. Instead, most matches are actually a series of smaller (sometimes inter-related) fights - which I will term as "skirmishes", with often just two to four tanks of either side fighting for a particular section of the map.

As an example, take your average Lakefield battle. Let's assume there's two arty per side, and relatively competent players on both sides. Each team will probably send 2-4 tanks into the valley, 1-2 tanks into the mid, and the remainder (7-10) going into town.

But even in the case of the town, that big group often actually gets divided into a bunch of smaller skirmishes - with some tanks going to the lake shore, the others going to the church, and some hugging the map edge - none of which necessarilt interact with each other.

In fact, it is actually quite rare to see an outright slugging match involving more than 5 tanks from each side. Hence, the old excuse that "I'm just one tank out of fifteen" rings very hollow. You almost never actually fight 15 enemy tanks at a time at the point of contact. You will, in general, be fighting 2-4 enemy tanks, and you'll have about as many allies with you too.

And really, what tends to happen in a match is that the 15-man team will win some of these skirmishes, and then lose a couple of others. Your lake-shore team might overwhelm their counterparts, but your map-edge team might have similarly folded. Afterwards, the survivors of their respective skirmishes will make contact with each other into a series of new skirmishes; and the process is repeated until one team is wiped out.


The Anatomy of a Skirmish, as Dictated by CEF

When people think of a 4 vs 4 match, they tend to think that it should result in a "fair" fight, wherein both sides essentially wiped each other out. And indeed, this is what sometimes happens - with only 1 or 2 badly damaged survivors emerging from the furball of 8 tanks.

But the reality of most skirmishes is actually different, especially if it involves players of different skills levels.

To demonstrate, let's construct a thought exercise. Let's assume we have two teams of four tanks apiece. Each tank has 450 HP and inflicts 120 damage with each shot (so 4 shots to kill an enemy tank). Let's assume both sides hit and penetrate 100% of the time (a bit unrealistic, but bear with me).

However, let's give Team A a small but crucial advantage. Let's assume that Team A knows how to focus-fire, while Team B does not. Team B's tanks will only shoot their opposite-numbered tank, until that tank is destroyed.

Given this setup, the following will happen:

* At Start:
Team A Tank 1: 450 HP
Team A Tank 2: 450 HP
Team A Tank 3: 450 HP
Team A Tank 4: 450 HP

Team B Tank 1: 450 HP
Team B Tank 2: 450 HP
Team B Tank 3: 450 HP
Team B Tank 4: 450 HP

* After First Volley:
Team A Tank 1: 330 HP
Team A Tank 2: 330 HP
Team A Tank 3: 330 HP
Team A Tank 4: 330 HP
Total Damage Done: 450

Team B Tank 1: DESTROYED
Team B Tank 2: 450 HP
Team B Tank 3: 450 HP
Team B Tank 4: 450 HP
Total Damage Done: 480

* After Second Volley:
Team A Tank 1: 330 HP
Team A Tank 2: 210 HP
Team A Tank 3: 210 HP
Team A Tank 4: 210 HP
Total Damage Done: 900

Team B Tank 1: DESTROYED
Team B Tank 2: DESTROYED
Team B Tank 3: 450 HP
Team B Tank 4: 450 HP
Total Damage Done: 840

* After Third Volley:
Team A Tank 1: 330 HP
Team A Tank 2: 210 HP
Team A Tank 3: 90 HP
Team A Tank 4: 90 HP
Total Damage Done: 1350

Team B Tank 1: DESTROYED
Team B Tank 2: DESTROYED
Team B Tank 3: DESTROYED
Team B Tank 4: 450 HP
Total Damage Done: 1080

* After Fourth Volley:
Team A Tank 1: 330 HP
Team A Tank 2: 210 HP
Team A Tank 3: 90 HP
Team A Tank 4: DESTROYED
Total Damage Done: 1800

Team B Tank 1: DESTROYED
Team B Tank 2: DESTROYED
Team B Tank 3: DESTROYED
Team B Tank 4: DESTROYED
Total Damage Done: 1170

Rather different from the expectation of mutual annihilation, isn't it?

Indeed, by simply focus-firing, Team A was able to inflict 50% more damage than Team B, while preserving the life of 3 tanks which can now be redeployed elsewhere for decisive effect! How did this happen?

Well, I promised the math, and here it is. What we're witnessing is what is called the "snowball effect" - wherein something of seemingly minor importance suddenly balloons into something more dangerous and disastrous.

In this case, the disaster began when Team B lost its first tank during the first volley. Because of CEF, Team B lost 25% of its firepower at this moment - firepower that could have inflicted another 360 points of damage had Tank 1 survived to fire for the remaining 3 volleys. That's actually enough damage to destroy two of Team A's remaining tanks! (Tank 2 & 3 have only 300 HP remaining in total)

Thus, the loss of just one tank was the difference between Team A winning with 3 surviving tanks instead of just 1 surviving tank. It was, in all likelihood, also difference in winning the whole match overall.

And really, if you actually take a while to look at how skirmishes develop, you'll notice this pattern often when your team is winning: After your team destroys one tank, the second kill comes faster, and the third even faster, until the enemy team seemingly collapses like a house of cards. It's all because each and every gun matters in these skirmishes - once the enemy team has fewer tanks your team is now much more able to focus-fire and bring down enemy tanks in rapidity, while the enemy has much less firepower to throw back at you.

So when people stress the importance of focus-fire and target prioritization, listen. Because the snowball effect of losing just one tank can cascade to victory or defeat for a specific skirmish, which in turn can win or lose an entire match.

That being said, it must be noted that focus-fire situations are actually pretty rare. Most players are now smart enough not to just expose themselves and let themselves be shot at by multiple players at a time. With peak-a-boo tactics, even skirmishes of 4 vs 4 tanks may in reality turn into 1 vs 1 engagements.

Hence, the need to create situations where you can rapidly kill an enemy tank - a technique which I call the "isolation".



A Game of Isolations

"Isolation" is the art of bringing as much firepower to bear on an enemy tank - with the intent of rapidly destroying it - while at the same time preventing your own forces from being exposed to lethal fire from the enemy.

As I already noted before, most players don't sit out in the open anymore shooting at each other. They'll often use cover and try to at least make themselves a harder target for the enemy. The 4vs4 example I showed above should not literally play out that way in real matches (hence why it's a thought exercise).
What instead happens is that good players are constantly moving and maneuvering, looking for a way to create a situation wherein they can quickly gang up on an enemy tank without suffering much return fire - preferrably only from the target tank.

In fact, a well-played isolation is how "skunks" (matches wherein one team loses no tanks, while the enemy is wiped out) actually happen. Again, let's do the thought exercise thing, but this time with Team A doing isolations instead of focus fire...

*At Start:
Team A Tank 1: 450 HP
Team A Tank 2: 450 HP
Team A Tank 3: 450 HP
Team A Tank 4: 450 HP

Team B Tank 1: 450 HP
Team B Tank 2: 450 HP
Team B Tank 3: 450 HP
Team B Tank 4: 450 HP

After First Volley:
Team A Tank 1: 330 HP
Team A Tank 2: 450 HP
Team A Tank 3: 450 HP
Team A Tank 4: 450 HP
Total Damage Done: 450

Team B Tank 2: 450 HP
Team B Tank 3: 450 HP
Team B Tank 4: 450 HP
Total Damage Done: 120

After Second Volley:
Team A Tank 1: 330 HP
Team A Tank 2: 330 HP
Team A Tank 3: 450 HP
Team A Tank 4: 450 HP
Total Damage Done: 900

Team B Tank 3: 450 HP
Team B Tank 4: 450 HP
Total Damage Done: 240

After Third Volley:
Team A Tank 1: 330 HP
Team A Tank 2: 330 HP
Team A Tank 3: 330 HP
Team A Tank 4: 450 HP
Total Damage Done: 1350

Team B Tank 4: 450 HP
Total Damage Done: 360

After Fourth Volley:
Team A Tank 1: 330 HP
Team A Tank 2: 330 HP
Team A Tank 3: 330 HP
Team A Tank 4: 330 HP
Total Damage Done: 1800

Team B Tank 1: DESTROYED
Team B Tank 2: DESTROYED
Team B Tank 3: DESTROYED
Team B Tank 4: DESTROYED
Total Damage Done: 480

In this case, not only did Team A come out without losing a single tank, but they not inflicted more than 3x the damage of the enemy team!

And really, this is how the "unicums" actually achieve most of their wins. It is not about some mythical "skill" requiring better gunnery or whatnot. Instead, it revolves around the ability to pick out vulnerable (but important) enemy tanks in the pack, rapidly destroy them, which starts a snowball effect wherein the missing damage from the destroyed tanks rapidly adds up to their team's advantage.

More importantly, this can be achieved outside of platooning, so long as you remain constantly aware of how the game revolves around isolation. As a final thought experiment, let's do our Team A vs Team B thing again... only this time let's assume that Tank 1 of Team A is a skilled player who knows how to focus-fire...

At Start:
Team A Tank 1: 450 HP
Team A Tank 2: 450 HP
Team A Tank 3: 450 HP
Team A Tank 4: 450 HP

Team B Tank 1: 450 HP
Team B Tank 2: 450 HP (Focus-Fire Target)
Team B Tank 3: 450 HP
Team B Tank 4: 450 HP

After First Volley:
Team A Tank 1: 330 HP
Team A Tank 2: 330 HP
Team A Tank 3: 330 HP
Team A Tank 4: 330 HP
Total Damage Done: 480

Team B Tank 1: 450 HP
Team B Tank 2: 210 HP (Focus-Fire Target)
Team B Tank 3: 330 HP
Team B Tank 4: 330 HP
Total Damage Done: 480

After Second Volley:
Team A Tank 1: 210 HP
Team A Tank 2: 210 HP
Team A Tank 3: 210 HP
Team A Tank 4: 210 HP
Total Damage Done: 930

Team B Tank 1: 450 HP
Team B Tank 2: DESTROYED (Old Focus-Fire Target)
Team B Tank 3: 210 HP
Team B Tank 4: 210 HP (New Target for our unicum, who assumes Tank 2 will target tank 3)
Total Damage Done: 960

After Third Volley:
Team A Tank 1: 90 HP
Team A Tank 2: 210 HP
Team A Tank 3: 90 HP
Team A Tank 4: 90 HP
Total Damage Done: 1320

Team B Tank 1: 450 HP (Last target, everyone is going after him now!)
Team B Tank 2: DESTROYED
Team B Tank 3: DESTROYED
Team B Tank 4: DESTROYED
Total Damage Done: 1080

After Fourth Volley:
Team A Tank 1: DESTROYED
Team A Tank 2: 210 HP
Team A Tank 3: 90 HP
Team A Tank 4: 90 HP
Total Damage Done: 1800

Team B Tank 1: DESTROYED
Team B Tank 2: DESTROYED
Team B Tank 3: DESTROYED
Team B Tank 4: DESTROYED
Total Damage Done: 1410

So despite Team B doing a little more damage than in the pure focus-fire example, and our unicum being the only casualty on Team A, his focus-fire efforts was actually enough to make his team still do 50% more damage overall, while leaving 3 of the 4 tanks intact. Heck, if Team A's Tank 2 had shielded our unicum, they would all have survived.


So in summary, the "ruthless math" of the game, thanks to CEF and its snowball effect, revolves around the rapid destruction of enemy tanks to reduce the opposing team's firepower; while preserving your own team's damage-dealing ability. Keep even your 1 HP teammates alive because they can pump out damage that is the difference between victory and defeat. Just one tank out of four knowing how to focus-fire can lead to huge swings in a match.

Of course, real WoT matches involve much more than just the thought experiment highlighted above. It doesn't take into consideration things like tier mismatches (e.g. a Tier 6 skirmishing two Tier 5s), nor does it account for more random things like bounces, no-damage hits, or misses. The number of volleys to kill enemy tanks also isn't as neat in the game, with different tiers and different kinds of guns.

But what it does show is that if everyone is playing consistently, then each tank does matter. It's time to give up on the notion that you're just one tank out of fifteen.

#6323931 ★★★★★[0.9.10] |Update 2| Solo's Easy ModPack Installer w/ Mod and Sound P...

Posted soloviyko on Jan 07 2014 - 03:09

Installable ModPack for World of Tanks 0.9.10 with "Mod" and "Sound" Previews

When selecting a mod you will "see and hear" what you are installing. :honoring:


with Mod Previews

with Updating System



"Mods Inside"


Mods that contain "Solo*s" naming were heavily modified for best gaming experience :blinky:

"Change Log"

Has been moved to the website (click here)


 "In-Game Samples"




If you run into problems with this modpack and your question is not answered in this FAQ,

please make a clear post about the issue you have.

Do not make us guess what you are meaning.

Also be sure to include "Python" and "SoloModPackSelection" logfiles into a spoiler

These  logfiles are located in the WorldOfTanks folder


Note: Before you make any changes make a copy of the file(s) you are going to edit.

If things get mixed-up, use the backup files to go back to the point where you started.


In case of Additions, Corrections or Suggestions to this FAQ please leave a comment. 


This FAQ was made possible by JDF.


To download click the Icon and you will be redirected to new.soloviyko.com.

If you like Solo's Work , please click the  of this post. 


For those tankers that want it here's VirusTotal Scan. 

Any Feedback is always Welcome!

#2443843 Bumper Sticker Finalists

Posted Major_Rampage on Aug 13 2012 - 15:25

Player:  elderado64


#2705983 Ye Olde Ohsi's Thread

Posted Zeramas on Sep 26 2012 - 17:49

[i]-Note: since the topic has reached [b][color=#008000]+[/color][color=#009900][size=5]600 [/size][/color][/b]positive votes, I will be updating it with new info and opinions, both about game updates and other WoT related stuff. Oldest, non-original content will be placed in spoilers at the bottom. Latest updates will be on top and will be shorter.[/i]
[color=#000080][b]UPDATE, 09-13-2013:[/b][/color]
-Customer service still being poor. The League (Major, Minor and Open) finished 2 weeks ago and [b]we still don't have our gold prizes[/b].
[b]-8.8 is delayed 1 week[/b], compared to RU and EU.
-There are [b]no Equipment discounts since MONTHS[/b], and that's not an accident, that's obviously intended.
-More and more posts are deleted, edited, put back, etc., for "discussing moderators sanctions" (a new, abusive and generic form of sanction, popular among Mods these days, because of course: all you say can be read as such, even this whole thread right now), and now people can experience in their own skin what [i]I have been saying during 2 years[/i].
-Meanwhile, trolls keep trolling as always; with negative reputation (nobody knows why they put it back), with troll posts/comments, etc. Seems like moderators are here to "moderate" (cough[size=2]*[/size][i]erase[size=2]*[/size][/i]cough) comments made towards the game, instead of helping the community. Note that I'm not discussing any specific moderator's action, however I still fear that this post will be some day edited, deleted, or whatever, since such is the fear that random RO sanctions induce to people. Like a "forum terror", absurd policy.
1 step forward, 2 steps back. And I'm not the only one. Here is one of the current most downvoted threads in this forum: [url="http://forum.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/279932-protect-the-golden-joystick-vote-for-world-of-tanks/"]http://forum.worldof...world-of-tanks/[/url]
Sad but true. I hope they can read this information and take proper actions, such as... [u][b]listening to the community[/b][/u].
[size=5][b]Original Post [size=4](09-26-2012)[/size]:[/b][/size]
First off, I've supported this game. I was on WG's side in almost every discussion here, because I tend to agree with their points of view. I earned the rage of many German armor fans because of that. I don't believe in Russian bias, nor any bias; I don't believe in hidden MM chances, in hidden armor stats. Contrary to the majority of players, I believe that most tanks (90%? I don't know) were balanced, you just needed to adapt to their playstyle. I like the Lee and the AMX 40, and I enjoyed the T1HT and M6 even when they faced KVs with 107 at tier 5.
I'm not a whiner, you can go through my posts to check that out. And I've never made rage posts against WG or the Devs. Ever.
I bought gold many times: so I'm talking from the perspective of someone who is (or was) willing to support this company with real money.
But what WG has done recently with the new Russian TD line, is beyond possible defense. Guys, you just screwed this up badly.
[b]And this is not exclusive for the Russian TD line[/b]. I know you guys want money. I know you are decreasing the earning potential of many non-premium tanks ([b]recent Pz IV nerf is a good example of this, because now it will deal less damage for sure = less credits [color=#0000cd]*[/color][/b]... but also old money-makers, like the KVs, and many other tier 5s and 6s). This is an undeniable tendency. And in my opinion, we shouldn't support this kind of behaviour from a company that claims to run a "freemium" game. A company who has earned millions of dollars already with this extremely succesful "freemium" style of business.
[i][color=#0000cd]*(Update: when I made this topic, gold rounds were only available for gold. Now, with gold rounds for credits, in fact the Pz IV and the M4 have unbalanced the game even more).[/color][/i]
Nothing wrong with earning thousands of billions of dollars: good for you! Cheers!
[b]But... stop cheating on the community[/b]. Stop giving us candy just to take it away a month later. Or a week later. We are not fools, or at least, many of us are not.
Here I should repeat that I've already bought gold, I've already spent many hours in the game. Oh and this is not an "I quit" kind of post, because hey, I still enjoy it! I will keep playing a lot, don't worry. I already have a tier 8 premium tank, and I'm currently running premium account. But I'm starting to think in not spending more gold in this. What for?
Every new tank line [b]from a new country[/b] will be OP (France, probably the Brits soon). Why? To attract that population (Frenchs, British) to the game, *but also to throw new stuff to people who have many tanks in their garages, so they don't get bored. But then, after some months, and with every patch,[b] they will nerf that line to regular parameters[/b]. It's a bait and switch system.
Check out old tech trees. Germany and Russia mostly. Nothing new. Nothing that anyone with a bit of brain could claim to be "OP". I don't want OP tanks, but I'm just saying hey, did you forget about those countries? Are you done with them? The last Russian heavy line was the worst bad taste joke you could think about. Guess why you don't see many KV-4 or ST-1.
But the new Russian TD line is another joke. I will quote Wot Armory review because I agree in every single word with them, on this post:
"The new Russian tank destroyer line in patch 8.0 was a great promise.The initial two new vehicles in Tier VII and VIII were not only fast and relatively well armored but they had great guns as well. The Su-100M and Su-101 had their inherent flaws, but the top weaponry still made them viable and interesting enough, candidates for keeping. [i][b]Then Wargaming happened[/b][/i]." (...)
"WG took away the heavy tank guns in the second version, so we have to make them work with the equivalent medium tank weapons from Tier IX. The Su-100M has to do with the TD-version of the 100 mm [b]LB-1[/b] gun from the T-44, the Su-101 has access to the top gun of the T-54 medium tank. The new TDs start from the Su-100, to unlock the Su-100M you will need [b]48 200[/b] xp."
"The company probably did not realize why this was a major blow for a tank destroyer with rear-mounted superstructure and with such limited gun-movement. The new Tier VII and VIII tank destroyers are gutted, because [b]at short, 20-30 meters range they cannot aim at the weaker lower front plates of heavy tanks anymore[/b], and most heavies can bounce a gun with [b]only 175 and 219 avg[/b][b](penetration)[/b] in their respective Tiers. That’s right, the Russian Tier VIII TD has less penetration and alpha damage than the IS-3, and it hasn’t got a turret and/or notable gun depression as saving grace."
"The terrain is our enemy in the Su-101. Every little mound can rob us seconds from our precious aim time, and there are a lot more of them in 8.0. [b]Fighting on hilly terrain is just plain torture[/b]. [b]The gun depression is mere 2 degrees[/b] (the JP2 has 5). The elevation is good, we can pose as an SPG with that 18 degrees. [b]The horizontal gun movement is also limited at +/- 6 degrees[/b] (Su-100 has 10)."
"How bad is that? Well, when Super Pershing at its usual snail pace and at 200 meters can move out crossways from our reticle before we can focus on, it’s that bad. The short by Russian standards aim time does not help much. And we still have the penetration problem (...). In 8.0, 219 avg won’t deter a frag-hungry T-54 or E-50. [b]An ISU can hurt everything badly, the guns of the Ferdinand and JP2, the American T28s and the French AMX AC Mle. 1948 are feared and respected, the Su-101 won’t be. [/b]And this is the top gun, [u][b][i]a joyful grind with only 175 penetration awaits![/i][/b][/u] If only the never-used BL-9S of the ISU-152 was available but no.
[u][b]Did I mention the 1200 per each projectile cost and the limited, only 36 rounds of ammo load?[/b][/u][b][u]This TD can make us broke, we will be lucky if we won’t have a loss per each battle on non-premium account. This tank is a goddamn credit and free-experience sinker[/u][/b]."
"We have a mere 320 hitpoints alpha strike with medium tank-like rate of fire. That doesn’t sound so bad, but when paired with only 990 hitpoints it’s obvious, that we will go down fast in a peek and boo fight. [b]A Ferdinand or E-75 can two-shot us[/b], any penetrating hit through the front hull can destroy the front-mounted engine or lite up the whole tank, so literally one round can knock us out from the battle."
"Our close combat- hugging-abilites are hampered by three major weaknesses of the armor. First, we have a tumor on the right side of the superstructure with a mere 90 mm unsloped armor. Second,[b] the hull roof/engine deck is only 20 mm thick, and thanks to the three times of calibre overmatch rule, a wretch like the 8.0 Panzer IV can penetrate us from the front[/b]. Third, the driver’s hatch is very weakly armored too..." (...)
[color=#0000cd][b]Basically, the purpose of these tier 7 and 8 TDs is to be useless, so you spend gold to grind the nice SU-122-54 and the clearly OP Object 263.[/b][/color]
[color=#0000cd][b]Say hi to the new money sinkers.[/b][/color]
WG do you really think that we don't know that? Oh, I see. You don't care. Well I do care. And peacefully and with respect, (while not breaking any rule) I will discuss this in the forums. I think you are wrong. Who I am? Yes, just a player. [u][b]But a customer too. And I deserve respect.[/b][/u]
Guys, players with a bit of brain: don't grind this line. We can't take whatever they give to us just because it's "shiny and new". This is a slap in our faces.
As I said before: I'll keep playing the game, I like tanks, etc. But this is too much. Please WG, stop. Find new ways to earn money, with parallel grinds, with extra features, with new tank versions, all that is ok.
[b][color=#0000cd]Please. Show me that I'm wrong. Stop crippling the earning potential of non-premium tanks; stop making half-tech-tree tanks useless, to make us free-xp them up to the top tanks.[/color][/b]
[u][i][b]PS: This post is not intended to cause unrest nor offend any WG nor WGA staff member. Even when some of us may be upset because of this, please try to remain civilized and on topic.[/b][/i][/u]
[size=5][b]Old updates:[/b][/size]
[b][color=#2f4f4f]-Update 8.5: a step forward[/color][/b]
[color=#2f4f4f]WG has taken one step forward with the last update, I must admit. Companies and platoons of 3 men for non premium accounts is a step in the right direction to balance the game. Especially the last change (platoons), has proven to be quite good. If you consider that you had to pay to make platoons of 3 pre-8.5 (you have to had Premium account), and considering that platoons of good players are a real asset to their teams, it was a bit "pay-to-win"; not anymore. Same goes for Company Battles, but I'd have to play more to make a conclusion about that. Premium consumables for credits are a nice addition too.[/color]
[color=#2f4f4f]I feel that we only have 3 important balance issues so far (besides a few precise corrections that need to be adressed too).[/color]
[color=#2f4f4f][b]1)[/b] The relation between the new "DPM" tendency against other factors, and HEAT/APCR rounds. This one is critical. These are 2 different characteristics but are deeply related. Let's make it easy: for CW... would you choose a Maus or a Bat Chat? A JP E-100 or an AMX155 Foch? Yes, you get the idea.[/color]
[color=#2f4f4f]WG has added in the last patches (since the introduction of French tanks, to be honest), fast, powerful tanks that can easily devastate slow, armored tanks. You can say "sell your Maus, buy a Bat Chat", but you won't be adressing the issue, which is that you have to spend the same amount of time grinding a Maus, than grinding a Bat Chat. And that WG doesn't start with the premise "some tanks are crap, some others are good", but with "the game is balanced"... which is not entirely true, for the above said.
More and more fast, powerful tanks are added, with little to no armor (last update: Leopards, tier 9 and 10). Some of them have some armor (T69), but armor is not their asset; more autoloaders with extremely powerful HEAT/APCR rounds were added (T69, T54E1, T57), and their success is undeniable.[/color]
[color=#2f4f4f]This cripples the ability to withstand damage that older, armored tanks had.[/color]
[color=#2f4f4f]There is a reason why GLASS AUTOLOADERS / CANNONS (time to make a new cathegory, apart from Mediums and Lights, really) are so popular. Check availability in the battlefields of the new American branch, or the AMXs, etc. Fast tanks are MORE FUN to play, and WG knows that.[/color]
[color=#2f4f4f]It's the same reason why the Type 59 was so amazingly popular when it was on sale, remember? Fast, and once loaded with gold, very powerful for its tier (limited, by the way: it doesn't reach tier 10...). Type 59 with premium rounds, fully equipped, etc... is easy mode guys. You have no trouble going through tier 8-9 tanks, tearing them appart with your speed, maneuverability, etc.
Same goes for the new, non premium tanks.[/color]
[color=#2f4f4f]So, the premise is: new tanks must be FAST; new tanks must have good DPS; and in order to balance all that... ok, leave them with bad armor.[/color]
[color=#2f4f4f]Well, it is not working quite good... for the rest of tanks. Because with the addition of premium rounds for credits, as we all know, it makes armor even less effective... and that's exactly the opposite as we need.[/color]

[color=#2f4f4f][b]2)[/b] Artillery. It's being addressed in 8.6, but as Garbad said, it will be more of luck, and less of skill (more random shots). As he said, what we need is to make them less "1-shot-deathfromabove" monsters, and more TACTICAL. Artillery should be (currently it is not) more a tactical asset for the team, rather than weapons of mass destcruction in the hands of children.
What they need to limit is the amount of "1200" damage points random shots. I'm not questioning artillery players' ability (some of them are really good, smart, etc.), but to be honest, a player using only 1 hand (correction: 1 finger) should not be able change the whole battle.[/color]

[color=#2f4f4f][b]3)[/b] HEAT/APCR in lower tiers. Again, the lazy ones could say "if you don't like it, join it". As I always say, I already have a nice Hetzer and M4 with 105 guns. It's not funny anymore: it's more of that "point, click, get the cash" mechanics, and it also limits variety in tiers 4-5.[/color]
[color=#2f4f4f]In real life, howitzers were supporting weapons, with only a few exceptions (Russian 152mm guns were actively used against tanks). Ok this is clearly not a simulator, but the balance in tier 4 and 5 is obviously broken. Choosing between 76-75mm guns or 105 howitzers on the Pz IV, M4 or Hetzer should not be so obvious! In order to correct that, howitzers should have worst accuracy and aiming time. I mean, look at the Hetz!! 1.7 aiming time is a DAMN JOKE! It's a sniper for God's sake![/color]
[color=#2f4f4f]They seem to be adressing that in 8.6 too, but I hope it will be better than the artillery rebalance. Also, more expensive is not equal to balanced. Players with premium accounts can buy as many "expensive" rounds as they want, and start padding stats after that.[/color]
[color=#2f4f4f][b]New, 12/05/2012[/b]
[b]-Update 8.2: nerfs to the old soviet line.[/b]
Why. Why in the name of God do you need to nerf the T-34 and the IS? Two AVERAGE PERFORMING TANKS. And yet, you reduce their armoring by 10 and 20 mm (T-34 turret sides increased just a bit, but still not enough to bounce crap).[/color]
[color=#2f4f4f]Oh, but wait, that's not all. The shiny, new British tier 10 (yes, the one you will need gold for -aka real money-, if you want it soon), was vastly buffed, and only nerfed in areas that were obviously overperforming (like the perma-centered aiming reticle).[/color]
[color=#2f4f4f]But do you know what bugs me even more, WG? That you didn't mention these Russian line nerfs in previous notes. It's a dirty move, WG. You avoided discussion until the last moment.
Why these nerfs weren't mentioned in previous patch notes? Why do you keep nerfing old lines and releasing better stuff (even more beautiful models) from patch to patch?[/color]
[color=#2f4f4f][b]-Update: 8.1 new British tanks; 8.2 new [s]Chinese tanks[/s] and American branch ([u]Chinese tanks postponed to 8.3[/u]*).[/b][/color]
[color=#2f4f4f]I see the same pattern than with the 2nd Russian TD line. You have to wait until tier 8+ to have really decent tanks. A few tier 6 and 7 are "fun", but they are obviously lacking from the power and/or usefulness that other tier 6 and 7 tanks (and even 5 and 4, and a few tier 3 too) had in game.[/color]
[color=#2f4f4f]This is clear now for the British tree. Valentines and Matildas, well known historical tanks, are almost useless (and not fun). Churchills are meh, Crusader is meh (but is fast and fun...); Cromwell is average (can't compare with a VK3601H), the Comet is meh. Tier 8+ is a different story. Have to use gold much?...[/color]
[color=#2f4f4f]Soon, the Chinese will be released*. We have the test already. And it's the same story: up to tier 5, average tanks (some of them, copy from the Russian line...). In tier 6, a scout and another copy from the Russian line. At tier 7, another copy, another scout, etc. Have to level up to tier 8+ to see tanks with "personality", good looking, and really useful. Tier 9 medium is nimble, fast, and with a beastly gun.
[b]Oh and now we see the reason behind the removal of the 100mm gun in the T-43: the new Chinese tier 7 medium tank has a brand new 100mm gun (which you have to research from 0, of course).[/b][/color]
[color=#2f4f4f]Come on guys, you don't need to do this. Keep refreshing the old lines, add new s​tuff... but there is no need to release good stuff only in tier 8+, while crippling the old lines.[/color]

#3213434 Lert's collection of guides

Posted Lert on Dec 09 2012 - 20:04

Just a place where I collect all the guides I've written. As they keep slowly growing in number it's more difficult to keep track of them when I need them for something. Keeping them in a central spot makes it much easier on myself. And, who knows, maybe some readers will stumble across this thread, read my guides and find something useful in there.
Before you do though, you might want to pay KingAlphyn's thread a visit, there's good stuff in there for before you venture into actual gameplay mechanics.


A final foreword: The tips and mechanics in this guide will not make you a unicum. At most, these guides will make you a green, like me. As the difference between a red and a green is gameplay mechanics, the difference between a green and a purple is meta. These guides handle gameplay mechanics and basic tips. For more information about the meta, go here and ask wiser men than me.
Wait, what? Unicum, green, red, purple, meta? What does that all mean?


Glossary of terms, if you can't understand what I'm saying you won't learn anything.
A tanker's manifesto, the absolute basics.
Easy tips for beginners.

Premium tanks. What are they? What do they do? What can they be used for?


Basic gameplay mechanics explained. Weak spots + tank parts, flanking, camo basics, spaced armor, sloped armor, HE mechanics.


Be the invisitank. Camouflage and spotting basics.


Things that shouldn't need repeating, but unfortunately do.

Focus your fire.


How to deal with stronger opponents.
Different shells types and mechanics.
Anatomy of capping and defending.


When to cap and when not to.
Picking your fights.
Why the famed 'center rush' is usually a monumentally moronic idea.
The basic mindset needed to become a better player.
The 'S' key, or why sometimes backing up and giving up ground can be a good thing.
How to deal with players better than you.
About vehicle types, roles and playstyles.
How to contribute if you're a low tier scout in a high tier match.
How to deal with 'autoloaders'
How real world gun safety rules can bring down in-game team damage
How real world traffic rules can bring down in-game team damage.
TOG II* guide


KV-2 guide
Why there is no real 'hacking' in WoT.
Public Service Announcements:
When a KV-2 is not a nice thing to see.
What not to do when someone is sitting in a bush.
Play at your appropriate tiers.
About skylining, slow terrain, choke points and gun depression, and how it relates to Lakeville.
About Arctic Region's corner of death / fail.


Take note of what's happening right in front of you.


How to post a picture on this forum.
Other people's guides that I felt needed including, well worth a read:


Very large collection of ace mastery videos on youtube. Can't get a tank to work? Try here for tips on how to play it.
LittleWhiteMouse's 'how to increase your win rate' guide for beginning to intermediate players.
GrimJahk's dissertation about expectations vs tiers vs experience.
The Chieftain's own guides.


OmegaEpsilon's guide ondealing with troll players on your team.


Sask Outrider's collection.
I'll update this thread if / when I post a new guide.
This is now an ego thread of +1 farming.


Yes, I take donations.

#1017195 The Chieftain's Random Musings Thread

Posted The_Chieftain on Oct 18 2011 - 19:22

General Direction and I are having a bit of an internal contest in the office. Didn't realise we had one going, but apparently we do.

He is pleased at the fact that he has a higher 'reputation' than I do. He cunningly used the caption competition to increase his rep: Click "plus" next to the caption that you like, and he placed ten posts on there.

I'm going to be more direct. Please plus this post!

#1781942 The 10 Commandments of WoT

Posted Sword_of_Light on Apr 23 2012 - 14:00

1. Thou Shalt Not Team Kill. No offense is greater in the eyes of thine team, nor grievance great enough to justify slaying thine own. If the retch turn blue, strike him down, for he is an abomination, but neither grief nor TK if mere offense is given.

2. Thou Shalt Not Cry Out "Hacker!". There is no hack, for thine is the kingdom of the server side. Thou ye know not how that artie reloaded so quickly, or that heavy doth strike you down even though you totally had cover, it is not a hack, but skill, thine enemies skill. Learn from them, so that ye may one day strike down thine own enemies with similar mad skillz.

3. Thou Shalt Not Take Thine Own Life. For all life is sacred, with the obvious exception of yon red infidels, and only thine wife's lament that ye are late for dinner with the inlaws shall ye rush out midfield in Malinovka. All else is sin.

4. Thou Shalt Not Platoon With Tier Ones Unless Ye Be Tier One. For the Children of WoT are many, and naive, and have neither shield nor sword, and though they may desire to see the great and ferocious Maus on the field of battle, verily, it is a move more like the behind of a mule to bring one in to a match.

5. Thou Shall Be Useful. All tanks are worthy in the eyes of the Maker of Matches, unless they beith loltanks, and though ye cannot pen, and lament that ye have no purpose being here, take heart, for you can scout, or distract. Be not craven and hide in the corner, but strive, and in doing so, vex thine enemies. If ye are small, then thy repair costs are but a pittance, and your death but a minor thing. Your wreckage may serve as a haven for those who still strive for the victory which will surely granteth you too the boon of xp and creds.

6. Thou Shall Take Responsibility. Thou shalt not claim thine team arises from the land of the noob, for rarely is a loss not also your fault. Nobility in defeat is greater in glory than nobility in victory.

7. Thou Shalt Not Order In Pubs. Though many have worn the crows and chevrons of war, none do so in WoT, and no prince nor king can lay sole claim to the green flag. Order not thine team to do this or that, even if ye be a master of WoT, none is so great that they cannot utter the word "please".

8. Thou Shall Back the Play of The Big Guy. For though none command, there are those that sit upon high, and they are the point of the spear. If they strike alone, all is lost. Let them not wander in the wastes of thine enemies, but follow with sword in hand, and strike down the unrighteous.

9. Thou Shalt Not Blame Arty. Artillery is the hand that reaps the enemies in the field, it is the fist that punishes the arrogance of Men. Seek the shelter of stone, of buildings which are not destructible, of the shadow of the hills, and the hand shall pass over you. Move, for the eye of artillery detests the stationary, and will strike down those enemies who linger. Curse neither arty which has struck you down, nor curseth the arty which cannot strike the tier ten Leviathan on the other team. Much goes into the striking fist of arty, and when the blow lands, it can be mighty, or it can totally whiff. Such is the way of the world of tanks.

10. Thou Shall Remember This Is Just A Game. While thee may have paid cold hard cash, still the striving within are not real. Wars rage for real, and real people die, and many go without food, or freedom, and nothing in this game is nearly as important. Thou art blessed with the monies to have a PC, while many go without even a roof. Nor playest this game when thou has the opportunity to get you some, nor at the cost of thine friends and family, who are real. If rage within you cannot be contained, and your lamentations arise with much profanity, perhaps the time to stop is nigh upon you.

#5898472 Veterans Day Weekend

Posted Content_WG on Nov 07 2013 - 19:57

Take part in this weekend's event as we remember the brave individuals who stand up against oppression and protect our liberties at all costs.

Full news text

#508623 [0.9.10] Aslain's XVM Mod + ModPack v4.6.3 (04-09-2015)

Posted Aslain on May 01 2011 - 23:41


The mod is in a constant developement, visit this thread often to see what's new.


How to use the installer (English version): https://youtu.be/sNn2V5GBmSo






#2437517 Bumper Sticker Finalists

Posted Major_Rampage on Aug 12 2012 - 15:35

Player: cccino


#2443963 Bumper Sticker Finalists

Posted Major_Rampage on Aug 13 2012 - 15:43

Player:  surgeon


#3607141 T2 Stunt Tank Video Finalists

Posted Major_Rampage on Jan 28 2013 - 19:39


#1065242 T110`s Armor

Posted SFC_Storm on Nov 03 2011 - 23:38

I wanted to start a thread about the T110`s Armor, I already did its Gun and a inside look at certain info I have available to me [Even though Chieftain, thinks it was different model, but it was same principle]
Content Removed. Excessive Caps.
No RO.
P.S. This is a very good post that was well written, but I still gotta enforce the rules. +1 though, a worthy read. Keep it classy.

The T110 would have had SCA Armor assuredly especially since the only reason it wasnt used on the M60 was repair costs, at the point in 1959 when they made the new way of repping the SCA Armor which was totally impervious to 100mm [soviet HEAT] rounds they made the far cheaper M60 andso it was decided they were faster to make andwe were so damned worried about the number of T54`s we went for more numbers less Tech, but SCA WAS PLANNED FOR THE T110 and all T-Series tanks at that point but first you had to build a steel tank to do so which was never done.
Please give us a real T10 that has a real role, or dont and run the risk of losing alot of gamers and possibly the biggest gaming market in the world by 4 times the.... US
Im begging you because I love WOT but have seen to many games like this ignore small core fan bases and then watch the game crumble, I bet money even though the US has alot less players we spend alot more income on gold, we make 4-5x the disposable income as other countries alone. I dont wanna see WOT fail we want a fair balanced tank not a T34 style "Support" its ok that its 5% lower in Win ratio as others type tank.
To all that made this epic post possible
PS to all who asked main OP is now a spoiler and my ranting from my Phone replaced it for flare :smile:
And by flare I mean for
Bats and Spectre and Faust Oh Mow,
Onyx and Tea and CCC
Loos and Knight and Golden
Minds and Dean and Gigaton, Ninja
Wingman and Crimson and Rampage...
Aesir and ForceStorm
All these guys are forum gods IMO and shoud be added to any friends list +1`s you US tankers who want change have
ZiggyDeath gets honorable mention since he was the one who basically got me on the whole "Change the US Med line" with the T54 ruling so tightly the Devs made a thread "How to Kil la T54... lol That lead to "Change the broken US heavy line"
And to whoever I forgot Im sorry :sad: I will keep updating names, so keep checking if you are a Forum God.
And last but not least the CHief who my phone always capitalizes his name :smile:
Remember guys this thread is............Dare I Say
And Remember, to all the guys who keep saying its gonna be ok and let it be we are over reacting etc....What I learned most in my Almost 10 Yrs 5+ in combat Areas. More Military wisdom that carries over to WOT and life.....
"Lead.....Follow....Or Get Out Of The Way"
Message Ends
Also I was asked to post these
original T30 ->http://www.youtube.c...h?v=iE48jF2xL6o
new T110 ->http://www.youtube.c...2qSmpH7gHg&hd=1   
Note: This thread has been declared 'Legendary,'  is the social centre of the US Heavy Forum and is the focal point of  discussion about the (when the thread started) upcoming T110 and M103 tanks, and now most any other upcoming game information. It goes off-topic to  keep people amused whilst waiting for new on-topic information to be  released to be discussed. This thread is not for the faint of heart and  contains ponies: Be warned before diving in. - The Chieftain
If I could I would make sweet love to the Chief.

#3778713 My Team Vs. Their Team #Updated

Posted Imprint_ThreeStones on Feb 19 2013 - 16:34

While playing tanks, have you ever thought that some cosmic forces are against you, putting you on the most retarded teams ever? Well, you aren't the only one.
Here's how i see the things that go on in World of tanks.

Enemy T-50-2 jumping over obstacles in order to get our arties.
Posted Image
Our own T-50-2 attempting to do the same.
Posted Image

Enemy JE-100 firing APCR.
Posted Image
Our Foch 155 firing HE........ at a wall.
Posted Image

Enemy Alert Level.
Posted Image
My Teammates' while driving
Posted Image

Enemy E-75 when faced with a T57
Posted Image
Our E-75 facing against a T29
Posted Image

Enemy T-54 leading a charge.
Posted Image
Our T-54 leading a charge.
Posted Image

Enemy IS-7 tank Himmelsdorf 8th lane.
Posted Image
Our IS-4 trying to do the same.
Posted Image

Enemy Platoon Team Work
Posted Image
Our 44% Platoon.
Posted Image

Enemy Batchat scoring Kolobanov
Posted Image
Our last remaining E50
Posted Image

Feb 20th

Enemy Medium Wolfpack
Posted Image

Our Type 59 "Wolfpack"
Posted Image

Enemy Autoloader picking off our ELC at 400m.
Posted Image

Our Autoloader shooting at Maus' Upperplate at 20m.
Posted Image

Enemy 261 in Action.

Our T92, probably better off Missing in Action.

Enemy T-50-2 bypassing defenses.

Our T-50-2 Scripted botting.

Enemy T-62A dealing with our Batchat

Our T-62A attempting to ambush an IS7

Enemy Teamwork

Our Teamwork

Enemy Artillery Leading Shots

Our Artillery Shooting at a Wall

Enemy Team Working Towards a Common Goal

Pubbie Teammates getting me killed.

#3134282 [WN7] What is it and how does it work?

Posted Praetor77 on Nov 29 2012 - 00:36

WN7 formula:
+SPOT*125*MIN(TIER, 3)/3
-[(5 - MIN(TIER,5))*125] / [1 + e^( ( TIER - (GAMESPLAYED/220)^(3/TIER) )*1.5 )]
Would like to highlight that MIN() means the number capped at that value, so MIN(TIER, 5) means avg tier capped at 5, (so player avg tier is used if it is lower than 5, otherwise 5 is used) and MIN(DEF,2.2) means defense is capped at 2.2.
written by Neverwish, Crabeatoff and Praetor77
Work on WN7 is a community effort. I consider everyone who has posted in this forum to have contributed their two cents into making WN what it is today. However, I would like to highlight the contribution of the people who have dedicated the most time and effort into making WN:
Key contributors: Tpapp157, Neatoman, Syndicate, Maokai, Makaze2048, Guerdon, DracoArgentum, Crabeatoff, TheKilltech, etc. etc.
The WN rating was created using statistical analysis tools like correlation studies and evolutionary algorythms to create an accurate formula, using Win Rate as a proxy to accurately determine the weight each stat would have in the formula. The idea was to create a formula which actually tried to measure player skill in the most accurate way possible, using global account stats.
The Efficiency formula was the basis for an analysis to figure out what was wrong with it and create an improved formula with those problems fixed.
WN is short for Weighed and Normalized, and implements various ways to deal with statpadding, and in the end tried to develop a metric that could only be padded by actually being good at the game.
Key points of the WN Rating are:
  • Damage is scaled according to your average tier and is the most important stat in the formula. The points you get for damage are carefully tied to the avg tier played, so that players with avg tier played 6 or 9 could be accurately compared, despite having very different average damage. To do this, average damage for tiers were collected from vbaddict.net and the data was carefully fitted to a non-linear curve.
  • Players with a considerable number of battles who have an average tier lower than 4 are heavily penalized for sealclubbing. New players with few battles under their belts are not penalized until they achieve a big number of battles but remain with a low average tier played.
  • Cap points are not counted towards your rating, since despite HUGE efforts and statistical analysis mainly performed by Syndicate, there was no statistically sound way to include cap points into the formula. The data suggests that for the average player cap points which are actually useful in winning a game for your team are drowned out by the huge amount of useless cap points gathered at the end of already won games.
  • Winrate is used as a proxy to measure intangible stats which are not available on the player profile like spotted damage, cap used to lure the enemy out, stopping scouts from killing your arty, tracking enemies at crucial moments, keeping your teammates alive, map awareness and other crucial decisions not recorded in the stats. This term of the forumla counts for 0-10% of final WN rating.
  • Average Defense points is capped at 2.2 to prevent padding. Defense also proved to be highly correlated to winrate, suggesting players who have map awareness and return to base when needed to stop enemy capping win more often.
  • One of the most important characteristics of the WN Rating is the open development format, meaning any player can post in this thread and suggest modifications, which will be tested and, if successful, implemented. By having this open development model, it effectively eliminates biases which closed formulas such as Efficiency have.
  • After the rating was released, WoTLabs was the first website to implement it, keeping it up to date every time a new version is launched. Although many people dislike the fast evolution of the rating (having gone through several changes and versions in only 4 months), this means that the formula rapidly grows more accurate. It has spread to the point where the WN Rating is now the standard rating used on the XVM mod, although transformed into a 0-99 scale rating.

Common Misconceptions
Despite having been based on advanced algorithms, the WN Rating did not pass without heavy criticism, although most, if not all, of this criticism turned out to be misconceptions.
One common complaint was that, if it was made to correlate with win rate, then we could just use win rate. Unfortunately win rate can be easily padded by platooning with good players. The WN Rating separates those padded players by using their actual stats. A veteran player with a low WN Rating but a high win rate has been probably been heavily padded.
Another common criticism is that we should stop caring about statistics and just play the game, since statistics eventually lead to mockery. Unfortunately World of Tanks is a competitive game, and as in all competitive games, there must be a measuring stick in order to know if you are improving and how much you are improving, otherwise we might as well go play Farmville. Shooting tanks for the heck of it gets boring after a while. The idea behind WN is to use it as a tool to make sure you keep improving, and also as a wealth of information when used in XVM to help you make critical decisions based on the skill of your teammates and enemies.
Other players criticize the formula for not taking things like spotting damage into account. This can hardly be pinned on the WN Rating, since Wargaming has not released this information publicly. The WN Rating can only work with what it has available. To account for those invisible stats that help win games, Win Rate has been added to the formula.
Lastly, many players criticized using winrate in the formula, since the very same winrate was used as a proxy to weigh the other stats in the evolutionary formula. However, as posted above, the idea was not to reward winrate, but to use it as a proxy for intangible stats. Also, the reward for these "intangibles" are carefully tailored by Neatoman into an S-curve with diminishing returns for winrates above 60%, where correlation to stats drop significantly, suggesting winrates above this value are purely due to platooning and companies. Also supporting this data is the fact that Zakaladas (quite possibly NA server´s best player) almost always plays solo and averages 64% wins.
Limitations and problems
Formulas can only be created from stats that are made available via the official WoT website. Efficiency depends on those same stats. Everything WoT-news computes is off those same stats. More information on YOUR history is available from the cached dossier file, but unless everyone starts mass uploading those (which will never happen), then the official website stats are THE source for data.
What isn't in WoT website stats?
  • Normalized Experience (XP) - theoretically WG could keep track of experience based on whether a user had a premium account or not, and then either remove the premium bonus OR give all standard account users the bonus (for stats purposes) to normalize XP across users.
  • Damage Upon Detection - Damage done to targets you are spotting yourself, by tanks who are not spotting them themselves. The latter is the bread and butter of light tanks (LTs) and of front line fighters. The other bonuses are relatively small compared to the latter. But it is the most noticeably missing in all rating calculations, and it particularly screws over LTs.
  • Per tank anything - the website cannot tell you damage per tank, spots per tank, etc. This information lives in your dossier and somewhere on the WG servers. If you use a dossier parsing tool (there are several web based and one local), you can obtain this information on your per tank performances. There is something called an API which gives you this kind of information, but currently the NA server API does not work correctly, like for example it says I have 15.4 spots per game on my IS-4.

Implications of these limitations
Light tanks
Due to the lack of DUD (damage upon spotting) on the WG website, light tanks are unfairly measured by WN7. They normally get lower WN7 scores than heavy, med or TDs of the same tier. That being said, WN7 is actually the metric that gives one of NA server´s best scouts (Redparadize) the highest rating...
PR: 1842
Eff2.0: 1742
WN7: 1943
SPGs also cause issues, as their tiers are not lined up with the rest of tanks! They do much more damage than their tier value would indicate for a HT, MT or TD. This is a known limitation of the formulas. Extensive programming (parsing the website stats for SPG counts and adjusting their tier) COULD fix this, but the problem will go away when the SPGs tiers are stretched to match (per the latest ASAP with SerB). For now...we deal with it. Who care about SPG players stats anyways, amirite?!?!?
Some statistical limitations
When measuring a population, its not going to be possible to put every single person on the scale and have the scale make sense. Again, returning to a notable outlier, Tazilon and his 20k+ VK2801 games. This massive number of games means his average tier played is 5.35, which is lower than is "generally expected" for someone with 28k total games. It takes longer to move through higher tier tanks, and so you end up with more weight at 6+. Because WN7 is designed to measure the population relative to each other, some assumptions have to be made about the habits of the general population. Most players don't play 20k games in any single class or tier below 8, let alone 20k in a single tier 5. If someone plays 10k games in the MS-1....outlier! Takeaway: population ratings cannot account for every outlier.
Back to the formula
A detailed explanation of each portion of the WN7 formula by Crabeatoff and Praetor77.
Includes the answer to questions like "Why is cap not included in the formula?", "How much does winrate contribute to the equation" and "How does the low tier penalty work?":

WN7 Scale
This is the current scale for the WN7 Rating:
WN7 Rating Key
Under 500 Very Bad
500 to 699 Bad
700 to 899 Below Average
900 to 1099 Average
1100 to 1349 Good
1350 to 1549 Very Good
1550 to 1849 Great
1849 to 2049 Unicum
2050 and Above Super Unicum
This scale is different from the one used in XVM, since their analysis of russian player database gave different results. The scale is currently on schedule to be readjusted to an analysis of the wotlabs player database being performed by Neverwish.
And this is what goes on inside the WN Rating. I hope I could clear some doubts regarding this formula! Feel free to post on this thread if you have any suggestions or questions.
Boom_Box's script which modifies Player profile page and shows a lot of extra information, including WN7.
Excel sheet by Folterknecht for offline WN7 calculations
Wotlabs website for awesome signatures and other stats
Mywotstats website for signatures, player stats, and some neat features like customized server rankings for 30 or 60 day stats
Noobmeter website for noobmeter metric, WN7 stats, a neat history of your wN7, NM and WR stats, etc.
Old information for previous versions of WN:

#4894058 RNG: Is It Really Random?

Posted Pope_Shizzle on Jul 09 2013 - 18:00

Is RNG truly random or is it WG's way of trying to balance good and bad players? We've all been in those situations where we're driving along at 70kph, zig zagging, bobbing and weaving and some 42%'er in his KV2 with the 152 derp hits us with a 600 meter shot while on the full move with both hull and turret rotating. Where we dump a clip from the T57 or 50B and hit for an average of 325 per shot while the 44%'er in his KV-1S pens us for 488 seemingly every time. Where a fully zoomed shot on the side of a terribad crits with no damage and his IS frontally pens your E75 3 straight times.
Is this just bad luck for you and heavenly RNG for the baddie or is something else going on. Is there something more to RNG than meets the eye.

Around patch 8.0, with the advent of physics, I started to notice/suspect that I was, more often than not, low rolling damaging shots. I know that sometimes it seems more frequent because the low rolls are more memorable than the high ones. So, with 8.1, I began tracking every single penetrating damage shot I took. I counted only shots than penned and did damage. I did not count zero damage pens, kill shots, or shots on tanks where they had fewer HP than the max roll I could achieve.  The results were somewhat surprising.

In approximately 42,000 damaging shots I tracked, I rolled the following:

Average to -5% of average = 18% of the time.
-6% to -10% = 14%
-11% to -15% = 12%
-16% to -20% = 11%
-21% to -25% = 10%

Average to +5% = 15%
6% to 10% = 7%
11% to 15% = 4%
16% top 20% = 4%
21% to 25% = 4%

64% of all my shots did below average damage.
1% were right at average.
35% of my shots were did above average damage.

I rolled, on average, 14.8% lower than the average roll for each shot I took.  In theory, a RNG should be random, which means I should expect an even distribution of rolls across all brackets. Each of the 10 breakdowns should be around 10%. The odds of rolling 500 on a 300-500 gun are the same as rolling 400 or 304 of 422 or whatever number in that 300-500 range. Why then are the damage rolls centered around the middle and as you go towards the extremes, the number of rolls gets smaller?

Any why are my rolls tending towards below average damage instead of above or simply even?
I started wondering around patch 8.3 whether there was some skill based RNG being factored into player's individual RNG.
So, like any pseudo-scientist, I enlisted the help of some friends and spent hours in the training room shooting tanks, logging damage and comparing the results based on 3 different quality players. Results were as expected.

This was my experiment. I took 3 players, each with a T-50-2 mounting the 57mm Zis-4 and had them enter a training room me, player 4, in my FV215b. I wanted to get high pen low damage guns shooting weak tanks with lots of HP to generate a lot of pens and a lot of HP to go through so we could minimize having to restart training rooms.

Player 1: 45% win rate after about 6k battles. 820 WN7.
Player 2: 51% win rate after 9k battles. 1100 WN7.
Player 3: 58% win rate after 14k battles. 1650 WN7.
Player 4: 65% win rate after 20k battles. 1850 WN7.

The Zis-4 does between 64 and 106 damage per shot with an average damage of 85. All shots should, in theory penetrate the rear hull of the 215 and do full damage.

Each player fired 500 rounds over the course of multiple training rooms. These were the results:

Player 1: 500 penetrating rounds tracked. 47814 total damage done. 95.6 damage per shot. 10 points (12.5%) above average.
Player 2: 500 penetrating rounds tracked. 42088 total damage done. 84.1 damage per shot. 0.9 points (0.01%) below average.
Player 3: 500 penetrating rounds tracked. 38742 total damage done. 77.5 damage per shot. 7.5 points (8.8%) below average.

500 rounds is enough that a +-10% deviation from average is more than just a result of a smallish sample size. Moreover, the 42,000 rounds I have tracked is a significant sample size and there is no explanation for the 15% lower rolls I got from those rounds.

Whether this is the case with penetrating rolls as well, I have no idea, I didn't/couldn't test for that. I also can't tell if the target player's skill has an effect either. Since pen/dmg rolls are only made from the shooting tank, I wouldn't expect the target tank's skill level to matter.

Conclusion: It would appear there is some trending amongst RNG based on player skill. Whether its win rate, xp per game, dpg, or whatever, players who do better seem to get RNG's that are designed to roll lower than average/bad players in terms of damage rolls and players who are worse seem to get rolls that are higher than average.

#1414594 Unofficial NA Server Statistics

Posted Snib on Feb 09 2012 - 20:46

Posted Image

Statistics time!

The data comes from player profiles made available by Wargaming, similar to the ones here. It is all the data I have, but I have all this data, so if you want any stat looked at that is on the profiles but that I did not write about feel free to request it. It is pointless to ask for anything that is not on those profiles.

Important: While the data comes from an official source, this analysis of it is strictly unoffical and Wargaming will refuse to comment on it as per their policy. This is also why this thread will not receive a sticky.

The post follows the template of my original Unofficial EU Server Statistics thread on the EU forums (see post below for link), but I'll skip most of the written analysis I do on EU, and have not yet decided how often I will update this. I just thought it was a shame that nobody on the NA server was interested in collecting this data so here you go.

All numbers are rounded to the second decimal (battles per player are rounded to integers).

Tank specific stats are for the period from 9 November 2012 to 24 November 2012 (game version 0.8.1).

Previous data can be found in the post below (I stopped updating the archive, just ask me for an old version of this post that isn't archived if you need it).

Account stats
Player numbers and more.


Performance stats
The average player in the spotlight.


Are you special?


Most played tanks, tiers, nations
Popularity contest


Players by tanks played
The grind to the top


Best and worst 5 tanks by win ratio
What tank is really strong and what tank could use a boost?


Best 10 tanks by global win ratio
What tanks are driven by the best players?


Nation ranking
Russian bias or not?


Stats for each tank
Each tank in the spotlight on their own.


Stats for each tank II
Now we are only looking at how players playing several tanks of the same class and tier perform


#3607214 T2 Stunt Tank Video Finalists

Posted Major_Rampage on Jan 28 2013 - 19:44


#746023 For people that would like to learn frontal tank weakspots

Posted Sadukar09 on Jul 24 2011 - 00:27

This guide will stop at tier 7, unless by popular demand tier 6 and lower are requested.
Before we begin, I shall define some terms.
I will use my Tiger II to explain these terms. Stabsfeldwebel Egger transferred for failure to the Maus Leutnant Knispel is honoured his new tank can be used for this demonstration.
Upper Glacis: The upper frontal hull armour plate of a tank.
Lower Glacis: Lower frontal hull armour on a tank, usually weaker.
Mantlet: The armour section surrounding the gun. Usually strongest part of a tank. (IS-7's mantlet armour reaches approx. 350mm!)
MG Mount: Location where a machine gun is mounted on a tank for local defence against infantry. Usually have weaker armour.
Cupola: Dome shaped structure used by commander/crew to enter/exit tank. Some cupolas have observation slits for the commander. Usually have no armour.
Viewport: Device used by crew members to see the outside world, may/may not result in hull damage depending on the tank.
Upper Superstructure: Some German tank destroyers have two different armour values, one for the hull and one for the upper part.
Above are explained in the screenshots.
Stabsfeldwebel Oberleutnant Otto Carius demonstrates superstructure!

Now that we got the useless stuff out of the way...
Weaknesses will be hull then turret.
Left side assumes your left, and the opposing tank's right side, and vice versa.
Tanks lower than tier 10 will have turret weaknesses for upgraded and stock turrets.
With the new armour group updates, OBJECT 704/OBJECT 268/IS-3/IS-6/IS-8/IS-7/GW Typ E/E-100/Maus gained new spaced armour. This means some areas on the front and rear are falseboards, if you penetrate there, it will do no damage unless the second set of armour is penetrated. The falseboards actually outlines the real tank armour layout. IS-3/704/IS-7 have parts of their side armour at 60 degrees. What this means is that their side armour are exceptionally tough. IS-3 and 704's side armour above the tracks are nearly 180mm, IS-7's side armour there is greater than a Type 59's frontal hull. If a shell hits there, it will penetrate some spaced armour first, then hit the sloped side armour, making penetration incredibly tough. Instead, hit the armour behind the tracks, those are only 90mm/100mm at 90 degrees from horizontal. IS-8 also has spaced armour, but it is significantly smaller than the IS-3s.
GW Typ E and E-100 had spaced armour from when they were introduced. Penetrating spaced armour from the front or rear does no damage. Spaced armour on the side hull significantly increases protection.
Tier X
Heavy Tanks
Hull: Lower glacis, there is a small rectangular block that can be hit and penetrated easily by tier 10 guns as long as the Maus driver does not angle his hull. Ammo rack is located under the turret.
Turret: Shoot the round side beside the mantlet. Armour here is 220mm rounded. As long as the Maus driver does not turn his turret away and you have a good non angled shot, it will go through with tier 10 guns. It is possible to try to shoot the lower rounded part of the turret to attempt to ricochet it into the upper engine deck. However this is unreliable. Ammo rack is located in the rear half the turret.
Hull: Lower glacis, guns with ~200mm penetration can hit through if it is unangled. Do not shoot the lower glacis if you are within 50m of the E-100, as it will be too angled (50 degrees) for you to penetrate. Instead, use the turret weakness. Ammo rack is in the rear portion of the turret, similar to Maus.
Turret: There is an extremely flat part of the frontal turret where the turret mates with the chassis. Armour there is unknown, presumably 240mm, but has no vertical angle. Frontal turret of the E-100 is very tough, try not to hit it.
Hull: Lower glacis plate at medium/long range, where the spare track  links are located. Ammo rack is located behind the headlights (hmm...).  Shooting it at close range results in bounce/non penetration due to  angle. Lower hull can be penetrated by a Tiger I. Driver's plate is being buffed, but the driver's slit itself has no armour. Only good at point blank ranges.
Turret: Commander's cupola on the right side. BL-10, T7, and Pak44/2  can penetrate frontal turret if you shoot the rounded area beside the  mantlet. But avoid it in any case, as the mantlet was buffed, even APCR no longer penetrates the mantlet. Ammo rack is located in the rear right of the turret. (If  turret rear is facing you.)
Hull: Lower glacis plate at medium range, do not shoot it at close range, you will be shooting down at it and it will be highly angled. Lower hull now needs around 235mm average penetration to do damage. Avoid shooting the seam of the V, where it is extremely hard to penetrate. Good luck getting through upper hull.
Turret: Nigh impossible. Cupolas can be penetrated, but is very unreliable.
Hull: Lower glacis, driver's viewports.
Turret: Commander's cupola, area beside mantlet. Avoid mantlet if possible. Turret ring is rather vulnerable.
T57 Heavy Tank
Hull: Lower glacis, driver's viewports.
Turret: The turret ring is very vulnerable. Try not to hit the gun or the area around it if possible.
Hull: Lower glacis, upper hull can be penetrated at point blank range if you have good gun depression.
Turret: Cupolas.
AMX 50 B
Hull: Do no shoot it at the front hull ever. Most of it is auto bounce.
Turret: Same as T57 Heavy.
Hull: Lower glacis, if slightly angled, shoot the exhaust pipes (it will hit a piece of side armour rated at 102mm)
Turret: Cupola, turret ring.
Medium Tanks
E-50 Ausf. M
Hull: Same as E-50, but upper hull is slightly stronger due to slope.
Turret: Same as E-50.
Hull: Frontal hull is weaker than a T-54, should not be a problem. Aim for the headlights for ammo rack.
Turret: Commander's cupola, top turret. (Only if you have height advantage.)
Hull: Lower glacis, driver's viewports.
Turret: Commander's cupola. Avoid mantlet. Turret ring.
Hull: Lower glacis, hull is pretty weak.
Turret: Pretty much autopen, there's no mantlet.
BatChat 25t.
Hull: Derp. Don't shoot the spaced armour square immediately above the tracks.
Turret: Derp.
Hull: Lower glacis, frontal hull is not that strong at tier 10 anyway.
Turret: Commander's cupola. Avoid mantlet.
Tank Destroyers
Jagdpanzer E-100
Hull: Lower glacis is extremely vulnerable. Armour beside mantlet can be penetrated by most tier 10 tanks. However, the armour plate with bolts on is very strong. Rear MG turret if possible, cupolas.
Object 268
Hull: The hull is extremely weak, as it comes from the IS-8. Try to avoid hitting weld seams. Lower hull can be easily penetrated. Commander's cupola.
Object 263
Hull: Lower hull, the square mantlet. Engine deck can be penetrated at close range. (Must have height advantage)
Hull: Lower glacis (152mm @ 55), commander's MG turret (229 @ 60). Essentially you are pretty screwed if you don't have HEAT.
Hull: Lower glacis.
Turret: Commander's MG turret, area beside mantlet.
AMX 50 Foch (155)
Hull: Same as the tier 9 AMX 50 Foch.
FV215B (183)
Hull: Lower hull. Upper glacis isn't very strong.
Turret: Flat 254mm spot underneath the gun, or the random stuff on the turret top.
Tier IX
Heavy Tanks
VK 4502 Ausf. B
Hull: Lower glacis plate, it is still 170mm like upper glacis, but it is less angled. Tier 9 guns like 10,5cm Kwk 46 L68 can penetrate 50% of the time unangled. If angled, it is hard to hit through it, even with tier 10 guns like 120mm/12,8cm Kwk 44 L55. Ammo rack is located in the rear of the hull, where the spare track links are located.
Upgraded Turret: Commander's cupola, try not to hit the rangefinder in front of it. High powered guns like 155mm T7 and 152mm BL-10 can penetrate turret frontally if fired head on without angle. Ammo rack is on the rear half the turret.
Stock Turret: Same armour as the Maus turret, hit the rounded front turret armour beside the mantlet. Cupola is still weak. Ammo rack is in the rear half of the turret.
Hull: Lower glacis (130mm). Avoid shooting the upper glacis if possible, as that can bounce 12,8cm Kwk 44 shots unangled, angled it can bounce 152mm BL-10s.
Upgraded Turret: Commander's cupola. Ammo rack is in the rear half of the turret.
Stock Turret: Commander's cupola. Guns with greater than 225mm penetration can hit through frontal turret reliably, as long as you do not hit the mantlet. Ammo rack is in the rear half of the turret.
Hull: Lower glacis plate. Do not hit the driver's viewport, that spot is 200mm.
Upgraded Turret: Commander's cupola.
Stock Turret: Range finder on the left side of the turret, commander's cupola, loader's cupola. Frontal turret isn't very strong at all.
Hull: Lower glacis, driver's viewport. Frontal hull is not exceptionally strong. If driver angles hull, shoot whichever side is facing you.
Upgraded Turret: Commander's cupola.
Stock Turret: Commander's cupola.
Hull: Lower glacis, driver's viewport can be consistently penetrated at close range.
Turrets: Area beside the mantlet, commander's cupola. Turret ring.
Hull: Lower glacis, upper hull is very weak for the tier.
Upgraded turret: Cupola, if facehugging, any turret cheek that's facing you.
Stock Turret: Anywhere but the mantlet.
AMX 50 120
Hull: Anywhere really. Don't hit the lower hull.
Turret: Turret ring or any flat face. Don't hit the gun.
WZ-111 Models 1-4
Hull: Lower hull is weak. Upper hull is weak for the tier too.
Upgraded Turret: Cupolas
Stock Turret: Same IS-3 upgraded turret.

Medium Tanks
Hull: Lower glacis. Ammo rack is underneath the turret, and above the tracks.
Upgraded Turret: Commander's cupola, rangefinders.
Stock Turret: Anywhere but mantlet.
Hull: Hull can be penetrated anywhere by any guns above 200mm penetration, as long as the driver does not angle his T-54. If so, you can shoot the flimsy side armour. Ammo rack is located behind the headlights (Gee wizz.) to the left of the tank. Try to hit the T-54's frontal hull above the splashboard. Driver's viewport is another weakspot.
Upgraded Turret: Commander and loader's cupolas are easy penetration at close range. You can actually penetrate the frontal turret with 225mm penetration guns with 50% probability if you aim directly at the gun. Ammo rack is located in the back of the turret as well.
Stock Turret: Same as above.
M46 Patton
Hull: lol. Ammo rack is underneath the turret.
Upgraded Turret: Try to hit the hull, otherwise, hit the cupola or the area beside the mantlet.
Stock Turret: Anywhere but the mantlet (square part)
Lorraine 40t
Centurion Mk. 7/1
Hull: Anywhere really. Frontal lower hull has ammo rack behind the stowage.
Turrets: Everywhere but mantlet.
Hull: Virtually everywhere at this tier. Ammo rack/fuel tank behind headlights.
Upgraded Turret: Cupolas
Stock Turret: Cupolas. See T-54 upgraded turret.
Tank Destroyers
Hull: Same weaknesses as Tiger II, lower glacis is 120mm. MG ball mount has only 80mm of armour. Ammo rack is located on the side of the superstructure, where the Balkenkruz is.
Superstructure: None. BL-10, T7, Pak44/2 can penetrate upper superstructure if it's medium/close range and the Jagdtiger is not angled. But usually you can shoot the lower/upper glacis plate. Mantlet is impenetrable, do not hit it.
Object 704
Hull: Lower glacis. Frontal superstructure is flimsy for tier 9. However, do not hit the mantlet, It's more than 300mm there. There are also two highly angled plates that count as side armour. From the front, it is too angled for most guns to penetrate. You CAN penetrate if the 704 happens to not face you.
Hull: Lower glacis, cupolas. Anywhere but the mantlet and highly sloped frontal side superstructure.
Hull: Lower glacis is very situational, it's extremely hard to hit barring point blank ranges, not to mention it's still ~200mm, then you'd be right in front of his gun. The two cupolas are easy weakspots to hit. I have taken damage on my T95 when someone shot my track off from the front. Mudguards may be another weakness. The two triangle areas on either side of the main hull are now spaced armour, penetrations from the front there DO NOT DO DAMAGE.
Hull: lol. Ammo rack is under the turret.
Turret: The  left and right area beside the mantlet can be penetrated by guns above  225mm penetration unangled, if the T30 turns away even a bit, any gun  above 200mm will penetrate. The frontal side turret is only 179mm thick.  152mm BL-10 CAN penetrate the mantlet, but it's not recommended.  Commander's cupola is another choice if being facehugged. The small  triangular area above the mantlet is also a good spot if being  facehugged. Ammo rack is located in the back of the turret.
AMX 50 Foch
Hull: Lower glacis (may be difficult due to slope), commander's MG turret. Frontal armour is quite powerful. Guns with 269mm penetration will not get through it often. The rangefinder bar is spaced armour. Shooting the bar does no damage.
Hull: Cupola, any flat surface. Do not ever shoot the mantlet, cuz 406mm says nope.avi.
Heavy Tanks
Tiger II
Hull: Lower glacis is rated at 120mm. MG mount is not a weakspot, and is equivalent in protection to the rest of the hull. Ammo rack is above the tracks.
Upgraded Turret: Commander's cupola. Ammo rack is located in the rear half of the turret. Frontal turret armour is rather flimsy with the exception of the mantlet.
Stock Turret: lol. This turret is a joke. Anywhere but the mantlet you can penetrate with guns above 135mm penetration. Try to hit the rounded part beside the mantlet however. Ammo rack is same as above.
VK4502 Ausf. A
Hull: Lower glacis. Avoid the flat plate that's in the front and side of the hull, those plates are impenetrable spaced armour. MG mount is weak.
Upgraded Turret: Same as Tiger II.
Stock Turret: Same as Tiger II.
Hull: Same as IS-7, lower glacis is weaker than the rest. Avoid shooting the pike head on. If facehugging, the driver's viewing prism/port is a weakness. Ammo rack is under the turret. When shooting side hull, avoid shooting the side sponsons. Armour there is ~200mm due to 30mm side skirt+90mm@60 degrees.. Shoot near the tracks for 90mm@0 degrees hull armour.
Upgraded Turret: Commander's cupola, the flat square on the top of the turret behind the gun. That spot is only 20mm, any gun above 60mm calibre will autopenetrate due to overmatch.
Stock Turret: Commander's cupola. Turret overmatch no longer works due to stronger top armour. However, frontal turret is pathetic.
Hull: Driver's viewport, MG port, lower glacis.
Upgraded Turret: Commander's gun turret.
Stock Turret: Commander's MG turret.
Hull: This thing is rather good despite what people say. Lower glacis is very hard to hit. The MG port and driver/radioman's hatches are weakspots. Ammo rack is under the turret.
Upgraded Turret: Commander's cupola at very close range (very high chance of ricochet), HE shells, gold rounds or high powered guns (245mm+) can penetrate the gun hole.
Stock Turret: Do not hit the mantlet.
AMX 50 100
Hull: Anywhere really. Will penetrate barring weird angles.
Turret: Armour what's that?
Hull: Lower glacis. Upper glacis provides protection to 225mm pen guns approx. 50% of the time unangled.
Upgraded Turret: Anywhere but the mantlet.
Stock Turret: Cupola. Avoid shooting turret as it's stronger than the upgraded one.
Hull: Lower glacis, the "shoulder" plates immediately above the tracks (100mm vs. 120mm on the rest of the frontal hull)
Upgraded Turret: Commander's cupola. (The one without the machine gun)
Stock Turret: Anywhere that's not the mantlet. Commander's Cupola.

Medium Tanks
Panther II
Hull: Lower glacis, MG port (Leopard at full speed managed to knock my radioman out). Ammo rack is above the...take a guess.
Upgraded Turret: Anywhere except mantlet.
Stock Turret: lol
Indien Panzer
Hull: Frontal hull is rather strong. Shoot turret instead.
Turret: Mantlet. MG port, cupola.
Hull: Same weaknesses at T-54. Ammo rack located in the exact same spot everywhere.
Upgraded Turret: Everywhere but mantlet.
Stock Turret: Everywhere but mantlet.
Hull: Lower glacis, MG port. The raised square portion right in the middle of two crew hatches. Ammo rack underneath the turret.
Turrets: Anywhere but mantlet.
Hull: Lower glacis. Upper hull is quite well protected, similar to the Type 59.
Turret: Turret ring, cupola. Don't hit the gun.
Centurion Mk. I
Hull: Anywhere really. Ammo rack to the right of the driver.
Upgraded Turret: Anywhere but mantlet.
Stock Turret: Anywhere but mantlet.
Hull: Lower glacis. Ammo rack/fuel tank behind head lights.
Turrets: Guns with 215mm+ average penetration can go through the frontal turret. Cupolas.

Tank Destroyers
Hull: Lower glacis, area where the...headlights are.
Superstructure: None, but any gun with 225mm penetration or above will penetrate if the Ferdinand is not angled and if the shot does not hit the mantlet. Ammo rack is located in the side armour section behind the Balkenkruz.
Hull: This tank destroyer is not burdened by silly things like armour...except the mantlet is now buffed and will bounce everything.
Hull: Avoid the upper superstructure. Shoot the upper or lower hull. Tumor on the frontal right side is another weakspot.
Hull: Same as T95, hit the cupolas or flank. Lower glacis is much weaker than the upper superstructure.
T28 Prototype
Hull: MG port. Lower glacis. T28 prototype has rather consistent armour from the front here.
Turret: Turret is open top, therefore vulnerable to HE from top shots. Otherwise, area beside the mantlet.
AMX AC Mle. 1948
Hull: Lower hull, commander's MG turret. Rear turret (if your vehicle can see it.). The rangefinder bar is spaced armour. Shooting the bar does no damage.
Hull: Cupola. Go as far away from the gun as you can and flank around
Premium Tanks
Hull: Lower glacis. The tiny driver's hatch is 100mm.
Turret: Commander's cupola, anywhere that's not the mantlet. The area below the mantlet is especially good, as you may jam his turret traverse.
8,8cm Pak 43 Jagdtiger
Hull: Same as Jagdtiger. MG port is now stronger at 120mm.
Hull: Radioman's MG turret, aka R2D2, lower glacis.
Turret: Commander's/loader's cupolas.
Hull: Lower glacis (120mm, avoid if possible), driver's hatch. Shoulders are penetrable if they are angling toward you.
Turret: Commander's cupola. Area that's not the mantlet.
Hull: This tank has almost no weakspots frontally, the only area that is weak is the area where the driver's viewport is. The only reason it is weak is because it isn't sloped. Guns with 200mm+ penetration can hit through here, but less likely if the driver angles his armour.
Turret: Area above the mantlet. All in all, it's easier to fire HE or flank it. Even guns like the 12,8cm Pak 44 sometimes has difficulties penetrating this tank frontally. Turret ring is vulnerable to close range hits.
Hull: See T30.
Turret: See T30, but rear  turret armour is now not a good place to hit due to additional armour  plating. Rear turret still houses the ammo rack.
T26E4 Super Pershing
Hull: MG port, driver/radioman's hatches.
Turret: Commander's cupola (behind the stabilizer springs), area above the frontal turret add-on armour, frontal side turret below the add-on armour.
FCM 50t
Hull: The little tiny MG port. Or you can just shoot virtually anywhere.
Turret: There's no armour whatsoever for its tier. Even the mantlet is only 120mm with nothing behind it.

Type 59
Hull: Same as T-54/44. Ammo rack location is the same spot.
Turret: Exactly the same as T-54's upgraded turret, except the side turret is much weaker.

Tier VII
Heavy Tanks
Tiger I
Hull: lol, avoid the highly sloped upper superstructure.
Stock Turret: Commander's cupola. Avoid the mantlet.
Upgraded Turret: Commander's cupola. Avoid the mantlet.
Tiger P
Hull: Try to shoot the turret instead. But if you absolutely have to shoot it for some reason, it has exactly the same frontal weakness as a Ferdinand, with the addition of a driver's viewport.
Turrets: Should be able to penetrate easily, zero angle 100/120mm isn't much.  However there are some areas where mantlet stacks with frontal turret armour. Commander's cupola.
Hull: Lower glacis, where the track links are. Avoid shooting the sloped section on the front, even though it's only 60mm, it is angled at 70 (!) degrees from vertical, making it 174mm effective, or 120mm with normalization. Even then it is more likely to ricochet your shot.
Turrets: Commander's cupola. Mantlet on the IS is pathetically weak.
Hull: Driver's viewport, MG port, lower hull.
Upgraded Turret: Commander's cupola
Stock Turret: Commander's MG turret.
Hull: At this tier, it's rather good. Shoot lower glacis or the MG mount. Crew hatches are another good spot. Ammo rack underneath the turret.
Upgraded Turret: Same as T30. Rear half houses the ammo rack. Rangefinders are no longer weakspots.
Stock Turret: Same as T30
AMX M4 1945
Hull: Lower hull, MG port, driver's viewport.
Upgraded Turret: Anywhere really. Mantlet is not very strong.
Weak Turret: Anywhere but the mantlet.
Black Prince
Hull: Lower glacis. MG port. Radioman's hatch.
Turret: Cupola.
Hull: Lower glacis.
Turrets: Mantlet. Cupola.

Medium Tanks
VK 3002 DB
Hull: Lower glacis. Driver's hatch, MG port.
Upgraded Turret: Everywhere but mantlet.
Stock Turret: Anywhere.
Hull: The big square hatch for the driver. Lower glacis
Upgraded Turret: Anywhere.
Stock Turret: Anywhere.
Hull/Turrets: This medium tank is also not encumbered by ridiculous things like steel plating.
Tank Destroyers
Hull: Lower glacis, MG mount. Try not to hit the mantlet.
Hull: Avoid the mantlet.
Hull: Avoid the mantlet.
Hull: See ISU-152
T25 AT
Hull: Anywhere but the mantlet. Cupola.
Hull: Virtually anywhere.
Turrets: Anywhere but the mantlet.
AMX AC Mle. 1946
Hull: Lower hull, commander's MG turret. Rangefinder turret, the rangefinder bar itself is spaced armour. Shooting the bar does no damage. Driver's viewport.
Hull: Various cupolas. MG port on the right side.
Hull: Cupolas. Go around.
Hull: Cupola.
Hull: Cupolas, MG port on the left side.

VK 3601
Hull: MG mount, driver's viewport
Upgraded Turret: Commander's cupola
Stock Turret: Commander's cupola
Hull: MG mount
"Upgraded" Turret: Area beside the mantlet
Stock Turret: No exceptional weaknesses. Try hull instead.
Hull: MG mount, driver's viewport, lower glacis. This tank is quite well armoured all round, but similar tiered guns can penetrate well barring bad angles.
Upgraded Turret: Shoot the flat parts that are not part of the mantlet. The turret is quite high off the hull, you can hit the traverse mechanism quite easily as well. Ammo rack is located in the rear, below the huge square crew hatch.
Stock Turret: Shoot hull instead, frontal stock turret has few non sloped parts, and rounded mantlet bounces quite a few shots.
T1 Heavy
Hull: Area where the hull MG mount is, driver's viewport. This area is not exactly weak, but it is not sloped so you can easily penetrate with guns above 120mm penetration.
Upgraded Turret: Easier to just shoot hull.
Stock Turret: Commander's cupola.
38H735 (f) [aka Hotchkiss]
Hull: Driver's hatch, lower glacis (knocks out engine if penetrated)
Turret: Commander's hatch. Gun.