Main page

I love the way people think only noobs are in tier 1 and 2 battles. more then 1,2 of the teams
have skilled vets most are now platooned like crazy. 2 nights ago I seen a 3 platooned mini maus
team along with a 3 platooned tetarch group on one team try dealing with that.

The lower teirs are not like back in the old WOT days. Most of us just play them for the sure fun.
You can over look a bad team and still win games at times. I have been in tons of public high tier games that were a loss just due to stat hounds or people worried about damage and cost.

DingBat, on Apr 23 2012 - 19:59, said:

lol. good point!

I know and have killed this guy at least once.

end of story.

This is the first legitimate argument for the anti-stat crowd.  Although, I want to point out, this doesn't invalidate the math.  The Bernoilli Trial math only disproved that battles are truly random (50/50).  That some other factor must be involved.  That factor could be anything.  In this case, that factor was this fellow feeding his wins off unexperienced and unmoduled players.  So while this is a great argument to say that stats can be misleading (and it is), you still cannot say winning is random.  In fact you have proven it in your own argument.  If it was random he wouldn't have such a high win % on his low tier.

I just want to toss this out there.  I don't want to take a position on pro or anti stat right now, I just want to take a position pro-math.  Because there is a fight on every social/news venue for science and math.  The math is still true, even with the argument of the OP.

I believe the efficiency calculator factors in average tier level.  It would be interesting to see what this guys efficiency rating is.

Playing 10,000 battles in a tier 2 tank just means you played about 9,800 battles where you were way to experienced to be playing against a player base thats just learning the game.


To each there own I guess.

Garand, on Apr 23 2012 - 20:26, said:

http://worldoftanks....554378-Marxist/

1763. I bet his efficiency in his tier 2 is much higher.

I doubt his intention is stat padding, T-26 have the 2'nd worst win rate in tier 2.

I get downvoted for merely mentioning that the statistical math people used as data for their argument is true lmao.  This is living in America...where you get downvoted for pro-math/science.  I even said the OP has a valid point ffs.  No matter how many downvotes you give me, the bernoulli trials are a proven mathematical formula.  This doesn't prove that people with high win rates are better, it just proves that battle outcomes aren't truely random.  Please (pretty please) notice those are not the same thing and stop downvoting me.

http://en.wikipedia....Bernoulli_trial

MazingerZ, on Apr 23 2012 - 16:13, said:

It's more about the tank than it is player skill.     Even though he is in a tank that is the same tiers as the others, because of things like crew skill it's really not even close to being even tank wise.   Because remember, tanks do not come into themselves until you get 100% crews.

Throw some camo on it, and you'll be killing other tanks that can't even see you.

I know because I have a T-26 with 100% crew and some camo skill, not full.   And funny enough, I win 65% of my games in it, but I have less than 100 battles because I feel downright guilty for playing it, and I dislike it messing with my other stats(padding them).    So I've reduced it's play to only for the 2x.     I sit there and shoot at people and they don't even see me.  

I average a top gun in it every 10 battles, and that is while purposely trying not to get it when possible.  95 battles, 10 top guns, and 248 total kills.  I average over 600 exp per game which is main reason I have it(to convert into free).

But it's not fair at all and it's so badly noticable that like I said I feel guilty for playing it.    I played alot of T2 battles during beta and it was much different because while there were plenty of noobs, there were alot of other experienced players to even things out.   These days it's like maybe 1 other guy on the team is experienced.   Or maybe each team has 1 mini-maus and 1 other experienced player.     Just isn't the same as it once was.  Back in beta, I only won like 55% of my games in the mini maus, because I wasn't the only one in it which evened things out.

It's not me, it's the tank and playing inexperienced players.  I am not a 65% player in general, and it's only by other external non-random factors that I get that %.    I just don't have a problem admitting it.

DarkElf, on Apr 23 2012 - 20:32, said:

He is not playing a regular T2 T-26.    The tank everyone else is playing and the tank he is playing aren't even close to the same things.   He is using the T-26 because it's bad stats overall = best overall matchmaking ensuring more time in the T1-T2 range.    The worse matchmaking a T-26 gets is the occasional battle with a few T3's in there.   And that isn't even often.

Look at the things people do for only a 5% and 10% crew bonus at the higher tiers for those small benefits.    This guy has 50-60% extra.   Go ahead and throw 50-60% extra crew % on someone at T10 and lets look at how crazy good his win% is.    Same basic thing.

Guys... guys.

It's math. Make of it what you want. But.. A win is a win.

Wow this guy plays pick up basketball games with 10 yr olds ... then steals their lunch money.

Garbad, on Apr 23 2012 - 20:29, said:

Interesting.  I guess if you're goal is to climb to the top of the stat tree you'll want to hang out in the lower tiers.

I do take my souped up marder2 or T-127 and beat up on n00bs once in awhile... works really well after suffering through a loosing streak.

Thinking about it though, even without premium, this guy has to have credits out the wazoo with the top two tanks he's played both being nearly impossible to lose money on.

I laugh at those who think win rate matters. HAHA @ losers

if all of the posters in this thread played T II half as much as the invalid in question, he would NOT be having a 66% in his T-26

Reichsadler, on Apr 23 2012 - 21:04, said:

No no no. You have it in reverse -- those who lose a lot think stats don't matter. The winners go bang the prom queen.

To all those who think playing tier II is a cakewalk, I have one simple test for you:

Step one: Go buy a PzKpfw 35 (t); max it out with crew, equipment etc.

Step two:  Try and kill a AMX 38 one on one.

Step three: Thy and kill a T-127 one on one.

Let me know how it goes....


Seriously, tier II is where the action is at.  It costs nothing, there is tons more action than higher tiers, you can make a differenece in almost every match (cept when your on the 'fail' team), you can be damaged by everytank in the game, you can almost damage every tank in the game (see above challange).  Second challenge, go back, play some some tier II, see how many shots you get off, see how many tanks you can kill.  Then go back and play tier 10, it will feel like you are running in sand, slow and painful.

Garbad, on Apr 23 2012 - 21:06, said:

No, the 44%ers do that after we get rejected for being nerdy internet tank players. Nice try though.