Jump to content


T-54 the "weakest"? Did I read that right?


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
242 replies to this topic

Hirumaru #1 Posted Jun 10 2011 - 04:45

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 6414 battles
  • 1,729
  • Member since:
    09-17-2010
http://forum.worldof...-wot-weekly-29/

Quote

Q: So the T-54 is weakest from all tier 9 medium tanks, but both US and Germany are getting new and better mediums, how do you plan to buff the T-54?

A: The gap lies within reasonable limit. There should not be any adjustments in 6.5 and 6.6.

According to what "statistics" is the T-54 under-performing to warrant this question? One would think that the addition of the Patton and E-50 would finally put the US and Germany on par. Something that is damn well implied since the T-54 is maintaining its place at Tier 8 while the Pershing and Panther II are dropping a tier.

Where the hell did this question even pop up?

F34rmen00bz #2 Posted Jun 10 2011 - 04:48

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 4834 battles
  • 2,591
  • Member since:
    11-24-2010
It has the lowest win/loss ratio and the lowest amount of average exp per battle

Sleepyjo2 #3 Posted Jun 10 2011 - 04:50

    Staff sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 6022 battles
  • 307
  • Member since:
    09-01-2010
That probably has to do with how people drive them. They aren't invincible.

Echo_Sniper #4 Posted Jun 10 2011 - 04:51

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 17784 battles
  • 5,598
  • [OTTER] OTTER
  • Member since:
    09-02-2010
People are just being bad...

I must also say that the grind to the D-54 is longer then the grind to the 105 on the pershing or the 105 on the PII. That's why it's the ''weakest''...

deizelweizel #5 Posted Jun 10 2011 - 04:51

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 9802 battles
  • 70
  • Member since:
    04-07-2011
Well if you have come face to face with a t-54 it's not very impressive except for its speed.  The panther 2 and the the t26 have better guns and and armor.  (No offense, but I've kill plenty of t54 in my t29)  Having said that I wouldn't say it's a "weak" tank.  Speed, maneuverability and a semi-decent gun are perfect for getting your enemies all turned around!

KoopaKrab #6 Posted Jun 10 2011 - 04:54

    Staff sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 10370 battles
  • 258
  • [ACES] ACES
  • Member since:
    01-18-2011

View PostHirumaru, on Jun 10 2011 - 04:45, said:

http://forum.worldof...-wot-weekly-29/



According to what "statistics" is the T-54 under-performing to warrant this question? One would think that the addition of the Patton and E-50 would finally put the US and Germany on par. Something that is damn well implied since the T-54 is maintaining its place at Tier 8 while the Pershing and Panther II are dropping a tier.

Where the hell did this question even pop up?

From what I have seen, the devs just collect stats on how many battles a certain tank has played, and what the win percentage is for that tank across all servers and players (i.e. 1000 players played the t54 and played a combined 10,000 games and won X% of the games).

This method of collecting data is extremely uninformative, as it doesn't consider the skill or tactics of the players.  You might have realized that a lot of t54 drivers will literally just drive their tank straight into the enemy lines 30 seconds after the battle starts and just get slaughtered by 10 other tanks. I'm guessing a lot of the difference in win percentage has to do with the play style and mentality of the players.

I remember reading a couple months ago during beta on the Russian forums where statistics were presented and showed that win percentages were Pershing>t54>Panther II.  As far as I'm aware, there haven't been any changes to any of the tier 9 medium tanks since then.  I have a Panther II that I play extremely cautiously and do pretty well with, and I'm pretty sure that if I played a t54 in the exact same manner, my stats would be even better.

TL;DR: I'm pretty sure that the majority of the difference in win percentages for the three tier 9 mediums comes down to playstyle.

Edit: Bleh, when I started typing this I would have been the first response, but the guys above me summarized it pretty well.  1v1 the t54 is very difficult for any other tier 8/9 tank to kill because it bounces so many shots even if you know where to hit it.  Too many t54 players think they are invincible and can take on 5 or 6 tanks at a time... they can't.

Hirumaru #7 Posted Jun 10 2011 - 05:01

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 6414 battles
  • 1,729
  • Member since:
    09-17-2010
So it looks like my arguments about the mishandling of "statistics" really was in vain.

Well, we may have a month or so before they buff the T-54. May as well enjoy it while it lasts.

RedWolfz0r #8 Posted Jun 10 2011 - 05:25

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 6497 battles
  • 908
  • Member since:
    11-29-2010

View PostSleepyjo2, on Jun 10 2011 - 04:50, said:

That probably has to do with how people drive them. They aren't invincible.

What makes you think that T-54 drivers are any better or worse than Panther II or Pershing drivers?

I think the myth of the OP T-54 has never considered any of the other tier 9 mediums in comparison. You can accuse the developers of having a Soviet bias all you want, but suggesting that only poor players play the T-54 and as a result the statistics are also biased is way over the top.

Troika #9 Posted Jun 10 2011 - 05:28

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 7179 battles
  • 864
  • [PANSY] PANSY
  • Member since:
    07-09-2010
Honestly, the main reason people hate T-54s is that they're small, fast, and have an impenetrable turret-- and it's hard to hit their front hull due to the height. Also the thing where they repair from being tracked almost instantly. Firepowerwise and mobiltiywise they're more or less in line with the other T9s.

Hotwired #10 Posted Jun 10 2011 - 05:32

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 1,033
  • Member since:
    09-12-2010
WAIT!

CLEARLY having LESS armour on the PERSHING and PANTHER II is making them OVERPOWERED.


The ANSWER is to WEAKEN the armour on the T54 to BUFF it to EQUAL PERFORMANCE.

Mitsugi #11 Posted Jun 10 2011 - 06:06

    Sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 1965 battles
  • 111
  • Member since:
    12-01-2010
Even if the T-54 was perfectly even with the other T9s and everyone just thought it was OP, this methodology would make it OP. Facerollers do not want challenge. They want easy victories. So they rush for whatever is said to be easiest, dragging down its average performance. So it gets buffed, and becomes easier. And then more facerollers sign on, and it performs (on average) worse. Repeat ad infinitum.

What you'd ideally want to do is randomly assign players to tanks in some kind of test server, though that could be skewed by easy-to-play tanks performing better than difficult ones. Metrics are a powerful tool for designers, but any statistician will tell you that correlation is not causation.

Hirumaru #12 Posted Jun 10 2011 - 06:11

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 6414 battles
  • 1,729
  • Member since:
    09-17-2010

View PostRedWolfz0r, on Jun 10 2011 - 05:25, said:

What makes you think that T-54 drivers are any better or worse than Panther II or Pershing drivers?

State that a nation is overpowered or easier to play. State that the other nations require more skill, courage, and fortitude to do well. What do you see? A severe shift in the demographic. Which is something that I pointed out to Overlord only to receive a 30 day ban and a sarcastic answer in the Q&A thread.

How about an example? Say you are new to Eve Online. You read the forums and listen to the chat in the game. You wonder which faction is "the best". Suppose the common answer is this:

"Gallente sucks. HARD. Forget about it."
"Caldari is okay but don't expect great things."
"Minmatar is tough, and sucks with the wrong person, but can be great with a lot of skill."
"AMMAR VICTOR! #$@%ing owns all, man. Can't go wrong."

Can you guess what kinds of demographics we will see in each race? Especially if the ingame performance supported these statements on a ship-per-ship basis. Sure, each will have plenty of skilled people playing them to their greatest potential but they will generally have different kinds of people playing overall. Gallente will have oddballs, people in denial, and people looking for a challenge of something unique. Caldari will have average joes, perhaps many casual players. Minmatar will have a greater portion of diehard, "hardcore" players trying to prove their metal in the face of unforgiving odds. Ammar would thus attract the greatest amount of people just trying to do the best with the least effort, of which this world has no short supply.


That is what I meant by "demographics" and that is what Overlord, in his arrogance and ignorance, scoffed with a sarcastic answer. How the nations in World of Tanks actually play, how they are perceived and lauded by the players, all of it determines what kinds of players and playstyles will be drawn to each tank and faction. So of course a T-54 can perform poorly if you have a bunch of noobs flocking to it because everyone says it is overpowered, or because it was the easiest to level reliably. Of course Pershing would have a greater profit if the road to it is soaked heavily in the blood, sweat, and tears of the players who managed to make it that far.

Yet, "win rate and average experience per battle are the most important balancing factors" according to Overlord. Nothing else matters but vague and vacuous numbers that tell you absolutely nothing about the tanks themselves, why they are performing well, or where their faults lie.

Troika #13 Posted Jun 10 2011 - 06:13

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 7179 battles
  • 864
  • [PANSY] PANSY
  • Member since:
    07-09-2010
itt people fail at statistics

Hirumaru #14 Posted Jun 10 2011 - 06:18

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 6414 battles
  • 1,729
  • Member since:
    09-17-2010

View PostTroika, on Jun 10 2011 - 06:13, said:

itt people fail at statistics

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."

SkttLes #15 Posted Jun 10 2011 - 06:20

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 17096 battles
  • 1,976
  • [OTTER] OTTER
  • Member since:
    09-26-2010
The OP has no tank over tier 6.

This is the entire reason people think the T-54 is OP. It is better than the other two at killing lower tiered tanks.

In reality, it isn't OP, and it isn't the best tier 9 medium.

del1000030716 #16 Posted Jun 10 2011 - 06:29

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 675
  • Member since:
    04-27-2010
I own all three Tier IX mediums and I can assure you that T54, alone or in wolfpaks, behave very differently from PII and Pershings.

One word: recklessly.

MrMarbIes #17 Posted Jun 10 2011 - 06:33

    Captain

  • Players
  • 10897 battles
  • 1,238
  • Member since:
    04-11-2011

View PostSkttLes, on Jun 10 2011 - 06:20, said:

The OP has no tank over tier 6.

This is the entire reason people think the T-54 is OP. It is better than the other two at killing lower tiered tanks.

In reality, it isn't OP, and it isn't the best tier 9 medium.
Agreed. The T-54 wtfpwns lower tier tanks especially the mediums because of its armor and maneuverability. It can get to those tanks quickly and its frontal armor will bounce shots from any lower tier medium. Going head to head with a Pershing is a different story though. The pershing and T-54 will both penetrate pretty much every shot and both have similar enough maneuverability, but the Pershing is more likely to win because of its much higher DPS and higher health.

Kophka #18 Posted Jun 10 2011 - 06:38

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 10786 battles
  • 750
  • [COD] COD
  • Member since:
    04-15-2011
While I generally scoff at "this one's OP, this one is for noobs" discussions, I really really doubt the T-54 is weak for it's Tier. I don't have a Tier 9 yet, but I've been in tons of matches with all 3 of the Tier 9 mediums being well represented. From a cannon fodders point of view, they seem to be pretty evenly matched. I really feel that they should completely drop the way they gather statistics, and have the top 5 drivers from each tank, in each server group play in a "Test Server". For all the polish this game has (I'm one of the guys that actually LIKES the matchmaker)and the well done research (so many tanks I have NEVER heard of, but awesomely represented) it seems like they cheaped out on their gameplay balancing crew. I know it costs less to simply crunch stats from the game boards, but that should be used alongside with some serious apples-to-apples testing.

120mm_he #19 Posted Jun 10 2011 - 06:44

    Major

  • Players
  • 9113 battles
  • 11,734
  • [PBS] PBS
  • Member since:
    02-17-2011
I'm getting a t54 simply because its the one top tier medium that gives me fits in a battle.

The pershing and p2 are both easy enough to counter but that damn t54 rolls around like a damn paladin with a shield of bouncinium spell active. =p

Hirumaru #20 Posted Jun 10 2011 - 07:21

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 6414 battles
  • 1,729
  • Member since:
    09-17-2010

View PostSkttLes, on Jun 10 2011 - 06:20, said:

The OP has no tank over tier 6.

Had IS-3 before the HARD WIPE. I don't have one now because I don't have an unlimited, free Premium account nor do I have the same 2000+ battles reinvested into the game. That and I'm enjoying my M4 Derpman as long as I can, again, before moving on. Grinding out to the high tiers is a secondary objective over just enjoying the damn game.


Now would you mind providing an argument for your lackluster opinion instead of attempting a character assassination by referring to my post wipe statistics? Of which, by the way, you would find that that Tier VI is a KV-3.