Jump to content


A Poll on Premium Rounds (aka, gold rounds)


  • Please log in to reply
98 replies to this topic

Poll: Possible Premium Round Solutions (189 members have cast votes)

You have to complete 100 battles in order to participate this poll.

Should Premium Rounds be changed to make them more fair to the game and less prevalent at higher tiers of battle?

  1. No, they are fine as they are. (104 votes [55.03%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 55.03%

  2. Yes, they are to powerful and ruin the balance of the game. (85 votes [44.97%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 44.97%

If your answer to the previous question is Yes, please select an option from below on how to balance them.

  1. Remove them altogether, force people to use standard rounds only with no changes to standard rounds. (15 votes [7.94%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 7.94%

  2. Remove them, but buff standard shells to offset the heavier armored tanks that would prevail due to the removal of premium rounds. (11 votes [5.82%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 5.82%

  3. Cut their damage by up to half at most, but keep their pen high. (37 votes [19.58%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 19.58%

  4. Increase the price for a single round by at least one thousand times. (2 votes [1.06%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 1.06%

  5. Give every tank a maximium amont of premium rounds they can carry equal to 10% or 5% (depending on max ammo, the higher the maximum number of rounds the tank can carry, the smaller the percentage of premium rounds they can carry), otherwise, no changes.. (30 votes [15.87%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 15.87%

  6. I have no real idea on how to fix them, just want them fixed to not be so prevalent. (3 votes [1.59%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 1.59%

  7. Not applicable to me as I answered No to the first question. (91 votes [48.15%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 48.15%

  8. Remove standard rounds, buff armor on all tanks (or most of them) to make up for the higher standard pen. (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

Vote Hide poll

Ciel115 #81 Posted Jan 15 2018 - 23:37

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 21731 battles
  • 282
  • [-R_P-] -R_P-
  • Member since:
    04-20-2012

View PostTsarCidron, on Jan 15 2018 - 16:57, said:

I have no issue with the actual premium rounds.  They are that silver bullet.  Something to fall back onto when you need that little extra.

 

I can see capping the ammo loadout however.   At least in pubs.   Team battles (Clanwars, Strongholds, etc) and Singular events (tournaments, seasonal competitions, etc) remove the cap, going with unlimited gold rounds.

 

How to cap it.  What factors go into the cap, etc...  who knows.   Simple cap (percent of loadout) that all tanks abide by would be the easiest. 

Would certain tank classes get more/less gold ammo?  - example, would heavies get a higher cap on gold ammo?

Would there be some crew factors involved on the cap?  - 100% crew getting a higher cap.  Loader perk of added percentage of gold ammo allowed. Tank commander rank permitting more.

Would a given player stat, such as tank win percentage, battles in that vehicle, or other player stat  permit a higher gold ammo cap?

 

Just some ideas.

 

The problem is when people ring up their credit card and bring ONLY "fall-back silver bullets" to a battle. They can replace learning weak spots and aiming with money, which is one reason WoT will never be taken seriously as a competitive game.

 

The idea of letting people bring just a handfull of premium rounds is great because it allows us to have those silver bullets while not allowing people to replace skill with them. In fact it would add an element of skill to the game in the form of managing a limited and valuable resource.



Saint_Metagross #82 Posted Jan 15 2018 - 23:52

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 22050 battles
  • 683
  • [TUVK] TUVK
  • Member since:
    06-21-2011

View PostFlarvin, on Jan 15 2018 - 14:18, said:

 

I made no claim. You claimed prem rounds cause heavily armored heavies to underperform. Me asking for proof and providing where you may obtain the data, is not a claim. 

 

I merely asked for proof and let you know that the data to prove your claim is out there. There are several websites that provide that kind of data. 

 

 

 

Just reread all my previous posts, nowhere did I ever say that heavily armored tanks were under performing.  So, yeah, that is wrong.  As I pointed out, I only claimed that I feel punished for playing those type of tanks and that I feel there has been to much premium being spammed.  The first claim is subjective to me, as that is a claim on how I feel, and you can't prove that my feelings are wrong.  So, there is no real debate about that.  As for premium rounds being fired to much, as others have pointed out, there might be more due to the event.

Edited by Saint_Metagross, Jan 15 2018 - 23:55.


Komitadjie #83 Posted Jan 15 2018 - 23:54

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 1586 battles
  • 1,874
  • [HHOUR] HHOUR
  • Member since:
    11-10-2011

View PostSaint_Metagross, on Jan 15 2018 - 22:59, said:

 

I'll have to look at all the maps to get an idea on which maps are that way and which are not.  And, if I can't pen something, I just back away till they expose themselves in a way that I can.  Like that foolish VK 45.02 (P) Ausf B that I killed with my Mutant.  I was a one shot for him, and he had his front to me, which, was bad, as he was charging me, thankfully, he was a one shot for me as well, in this case, it was he who penned first would win.  I backed up around a corner that had a mound there, he charged, full steam ahead, OVER the mound, exposing the bottom of his tank, which I easily penned, killing him.  Some times, all it takes is you out smarting your opponent.  If they get cocky because they are penning you due to premium rounds, and you are bouncing off them (regardless of what you are shooting), you can use that against them.

 

Oh, I'm certainly not saying that there's no room for skill! I have no doubt at all that a skilled player can do stuff like that, I've managed some cool ones myself, and I'm a tomato! 

 

But if I'm in a matchup like that, you can BET the round in the tube would be a gold one. Just because I know where I need to shoot and aim my gun at it doesn't mean that my round will actually GO where I pointed my aim, or that it will pen like it's supposed to. Adding an extra 25%ish to my pen guarantees that even with a low roll, the shot will still go in, and increases the chance that if I miss my point of aim, the shell might make it in anyway.


Edited by Komitadjie, Jan 15 2018 - 23:55.


Nixeldon #84 Posted Yesterday, 12:48 AM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 54873 battles
  • 1,350
  • Member since:
    10-30-2011

View PostSaint_Metagross, on Jan 15 2018 - 17:33, said:

 

No, I did not say that.  I said they make me feel like I am being punished for playing those type of tanks, those are different.  But, I will thank the following person, for, unlike you, he did provide a resource to back up his claim.  You, on the other hand, did say that the stats say otherwise.  Which is a claim.  I asked for those stats, you did not provide them.  In short, the only claims I made were the following: To many premium rounds seem to be fired in higher tiers, and that when they are used they make me feel like I'm being punished for playing heavy armored tanks.

 

 

 

Thank you, also, I did not make specific claims beyond the fact that it seemed to me that premium rounds were being over used.  And I the observation, which is actually a form of proof, that I was getting hit by more premium rounds than normal.  I never once said that heavily armored tanks are under performing.  I may have suggested that might be the case with how I worded things, but, I did not actually claim that to be the case.

 

But, you are right, I did actually claim that in matches that premium rounds were not spammed I was able to perform as a heavy armored tank can be expected to perform.  As far as I have been told by others and from my own understanding, tanks with heavy armor should be leading the charge against enemy lines, not sitting back sniping.  If the enemy team is not spamming gold at me and arty has no shot against me, I can tend to push against the enemy team providing my teammates the ability to move into positions to provide me cover fire while I push.  But, that tends to not be able to happen when the other team fires nothing but premium rounds at me, for, either I back up and don't push and this allows the enemy to swarm me and my teammates killing us, or I try to push anyways and end up dying quickly to the point that my team might have been better off without me for I contributed nothing overall, other than a sponge for some premium rounds.  Of course, there is the times it is my heavy vs another heavy, and those are fun times as we try to destroy the other.

 

So, yeah, that is from me experiences, if, for some reason, people have outright been lying to me about the role I should be taking in those type of tanks, let me know so I can start sniping behind the medium tanks.

 

Ah, ran into a problem with wot-news, I don't read Russian.  Is there an English option that I did not notice on the site?  Or an English site that does the same thing?

 

The specifics are in your poll itself. You offered the options for premium rounds being fine as they are or the option that they ruin the game balance. This implies that a specific state of game balance exists that is disrupted by the inclusion of ammunition that costs more credits to use. What is balanced was never defined only assumed to be evident. I don't necessarily like the concept of premium ammunition, but before it is changed there are several other things that should be addressed such as map design, base penetration of several tanks, shot dispersion, and 25% shot RNG that often punishes proper aiming.

 

The problem with that assumption is the tanks you claim to be most adversely affected by higher cost ammunition use are the exact same tanks that are performing the best, often over performing for the majority of players. If premium rounds are hurting armored tank performance, and said tanks are already performing well in spite of premium rounds, then how is limiting the effectiveness of premium rounds going to affect the "balance of the game"? 

 

You can select US SERVER on wot-news and review several server statistics in English. You can also use translators for the RU SERVER.

 

 


Edited by Nixeldon, Yesterday, 04:13 AM.


Michael_Cochrane_2017 #85 Posted Yesterday, 01:14 AM

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 6192 battles
  • 211
  • Member since:
    06-04-2017
I rarely shoot premium because I find that they go wide more often than not. I'm in a battle vs tanks 2 tiers above mine, I fire standard, no pen, I switch to premium and "all of a sudden" I can't hit the ground with my hat. That's the RNG for you.....

Just last night I found myself up against an O Ni in my M4 Jumbo with the 105....no dmg with the standard, switched to premium, fired 2 into the side, NO damage at all. Not even a "critical hit". Out of 20K in ammunition I scored 100 dmg.....

IMO premium ammo is just "smoke and mirrors" and doesn't actually do anything. That's just my experience, yours may differ because WOT messes with the numbers depending on who you are, what tank you're playing, whether you've activated personal reserves or not etc. 

BurglarOfBanff_ff #86 Posted Yesterday, 01:37 AM

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 23566 battles
  • 1,195
  • [DHO4] DHO4
  • Member since:
    05-04-2014

Having a fixed percent available does not work well across various tanks.  Some have horrible pen and really need premium a lot, others not so much.  Some carry enough ammo that 10 premium might be 5 rounds others only 2.

I don't really have an issue with it, but I think the best approach would be lower damage for ammo that has higher pen.



hllrbrn #87 Posted Yesterday, 01:40 AM

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 21864 battles
  • 86
  • Member since:
    08-11-2012

View PostAthdara, on Jan 15 2018 - 17:54, said:

Discussion is completely on the wrong track. 

"gold rounds" are a symptom not the problem. 

The problem is that WG took all their maps and added terrain and buildings making corridor frontal engagements the norm and the open areas between the corridors no cover death traps to prevent flanking. 

The corridors have little to no areas for flanking fire, noticing even now after playing way too many games on tilt this weekend that they have continued to make that mountain side just a little bigger or put a rock right where one of the old flanking fire spots were to force frontal engagements. 

 

This compounded with the second order effect of 3 tomatoes taking up the 3 top tier slots in a match makes it even more critical for those tier 8s for example to have every shot possible pen and do damage. 

 

The players are adjusting to the meta that WG created.

 

Don't place blame on the player just trying to get a win.

 

If you dont like it, complain to WG about the way they changed the maps.    

 

Guys this "lets nerf the damage" or other "Fixes" for gold rounds thread after thread..... The problem is not the gold rounds 

 

This player is spot on, this is exactly it, WG wants you to shoot gold, shooting gold causes people to have to buy more premium time, premium tanks, buy silver or gold from the store. 

 

Why would they not change the meta and the MM to benefit themselves. 

 

Stack everything that Athdara said and then ADD +-25% RNG........hitting that weak spot from the front at times is not as easy as you think if the opposing player knows what they are doing. 

I let you in on a dirty little secret, there are times at range that I load a gold round and just auto aim because I know that the round is not going to hit the gun mantle which I am aiming at, RNG is going to send it somewhere on the edge of my aim circle that might just be a cupola or a lower front armor plate.  

 

You want less gold rounds used stop the multiple "fix gold rounds" threads and start a bunch of "change the maps to not all corridors again" threads. 

 

It appears that there is an element of the player base that intends to drive this game into one alley with tall walls with 15 tanks on top of each other on one end and 15 more at the other and just bounce shots off of each other  till the arty hiding in the back kills everyone.  That sounds awesome.

 

Be careful what you ask for the track record on WG fixing stuff is not great, lets review: 

 

1) The arty "fix" ended up being an arty buff not the industrial strength nerf hammer that should have made it so unpleasant and innefective to play that no one would want to play it. 

2) Hows that MM fix going for you there tier 8? 

 

 


Edited by hllrbrn, Yesterday, 01:44 AM.


Saint_Metagross #88 Posted Yesterday, 10:21 AM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 22050 battles
  • 683
  • [TUVK] TUVK
  • Member since:
    06-21-2011

View PostNixeldon, on Jan 15 2018 - 15:48, said:

 

The specifics are in your poll itself. You offered the options for premium rounds being fine as they are or the option that they ruin the game balance. This implies that a specific state of game balance exists that is disrupted by the inclusion of ammunition that costs more credits to use. What is balanced was never defined only assumed to be evident. I don't necessarily like the concept of premium ammunition, but before it is changed there are several other things that should be addressed such as map design, base penetration of several tanks, shot dispersion, and 25% shot RNG that often punishes proper aiming.

 

The problem with that assumption is the tanks you claim to be most adversely affected by higher cost ammunition use are the exact same tanks that are performing the best, often over performing for the majority of players. If premium rounds are hurting armored tank performance, and said tanks are already performing well in spite of premium rounds, then how is limiting the effectiveness of premium rounds going to affect the "balance of the game"? 

 

You can select US SERVER on wot-news and review several server statistics in English. You can also use translators for the RU SERVER.

 

 

 

IE: I choose bad wording for some of the questions and possible answers.  Sorry about that.  Also, after rereading my posts (and yes, this is the second time I have done this), I actually did not make assumptions that they were hurting heavy tanks in general, just me (seriously, reread what I typed, you'd see the only time I make it sound like I am saying premium shells hurt a particular type of tank, is when I say that I feel like I am being punished for playing them, IE: It is me that is being hurt by them, did not say anything about any type of tanks in general suffering in performance due to them, seriously, go reread my posts, you'd notice this to be true).

 

But, yeah, a recent game saw me in the new Tier 8 german premium heavy, the enemy, originally shot a few rounds of AP at me, bounced twice, penned once, then, they started just shooting premium rounds, this cause me to lose almost all my health before I managed to retreat, just to end up being killed by a premium round from a tank I did not see.  All in all, 15 rounds hit, 3 AP, 12 Premium rounds, two AP rounds bounced, one penned, all premium rounds penned (most premium rounds were from tier 6 tanks, hence why it took so many to kill me).  So, as far as I am concerned, this seems unbalanced to me.  And how is it balanced that allows people to easily kill you without really trying?  All I fire nowadays are standard shells (APCR and HEAT included only if they are standard on the tank that they are standard on).  I do this, because I find it more fair to the opponent, plus, it is more fun to have a duel where you are desperately trying to kill the other.  But, the second premium rounds get fired, the fun ends.  But, I will go check the english portion of wot-news...if I can find the button, they are all in russian after all.

 

Well, I found the english stuff, but, can't find the info on rounds used.  Where is that located in the news?

 

Also, what do you consider to be over performing, well, what stat do you look at?

 

Cause, looking at the win rates of the heavies, the following tanks that I would consider to be heavily armored (and is what I mean when I say, heavily armored), are: KV-4 Kres (win rate: 58.63%), AMX M4 Mle 1949 Bis (win rate: 56.58%, the new french tier 9 heavy), VK 72.01 (K) (win rate: 55.71%), O-ni (win rate: 52.81%), VK 100.01 P (win rate: 52.09%), AMX M4 1949 Liberte (win rate: 52.02%), Pz.Kpfw. VII (win rate: 51.55%), Mauschen (win rate: 51.48%), Type 5 Heavy (win rate: 51.42%), AMX M4 49 (win rate: 51.34%), AMX M4 Mle 1949 Ter (win rate: 51.3%, the new tier 10 french heavy) O-Ho (win rate: 51.02%), Maus (win rate: 50.84%), Type 4 Heavy (win rate: 50.42%), Mauerbrecher (win rate: 49.94%), KV-4 (win rate: 49.83%), E-100 (win rate: 49.69%), VK 45.02 (P) Ausf B (win rate: 49.55%), T110E5 (win rate: 49.48%), E-75 (win rate: 49.31%), KV-5 (win rate: 49.28%), M6A2E1 (win rate: 48.76%), M103 (win rate: 48.11%).

 

Now, if you look at the tanks I listed, you'd notice rather quickly they all have high armor on both their hull (front) and turret (front), at least 160 or more, and no, I do not count angles for this matter.  And yes, this is info for the US/NA server.  If these tanks were over performing like you claim, than why do only 3 of them have win rates over 55%?  I'd personally consider them over performing if their win rates were over 55%, not under that.  Though, to be truthful, most of those that remain are above 50%,  meaning the tanks are performing slightly above average, but, not over performing.

 

Unfortunately, I cannot find any info that actually back ups your claim that heavily armored tanks are over performing.  People claim the Type 5 Heavy is broken and OP...a 51% win rate says otherwise.  So, unless there is something else I am missing that would support your claim that these types of tanks are over performing, please, by all means, give me the data.

 

Nor can I figure out where the ammo stats are at.  So, some help in that area would help.


Edited by Saint_Metagross, Yesterday, 11:08 AM.


Flarvin #89 Posted Yesterday, 06:58 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 48186 battles
  • 11,032
  • Member since:
    03-29-2013

View PostSaint_Metagross, on Jan 16 2018 - 04:21, said:

Nor can I figure out where the ammo stats are at.  So, some help in that area would help.

 

Tank curve graphs shows under/overperforming by players’ WR vs players’ WR in tank. 

 



Kerosedge #90 Posted Yesterday, 08:11 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 18589 battles
  • 614
  • [HCK] HCK
  • Member since:
    05-05-2013
Need to be limited to 30% of tank capacity.

It has ruined the dynamics of the game. Like poor KV4, or any other flat tank with thick armor.

The little childrens have gotten out of hand again abusing gold ammo. Time to get them under control and limit their fun til they can control themselves again.

Flarvin #91 Posted Yesterday, 08:18 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 48186 battles
  • 11,032
  • Member since:
    03-29-2013

View PostKerosedge, on Jan 16 2018 - 14:11, said:

Need to be limited to 30% of tank capacity.

It has ruined the dynamics of the game. Like poor KV4, or any other flat tank with thick armor.

The little childrens have gotten out of hand again abusing gold ammo. Time to get them under control and limit their fun til they can control themselves again.

 

I have no major issue with prem rounds in my KV-4. I kept the KV-4 due to how well it blocks damage. 



Saint_Metagross #92 Posted Yesterday, 08:23 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 22050 battles
  • 683
  • [TUVK] TUVK
  • Member since:
    06-21-2011

View PostFlarvin, on Jan 16 2018 - 09:58, said:

 

Tank curve graphs shows under/overperforming by players’ WR vs players’ WR in tank. 

 

 

Talking about the portion under Advanced Tank Information?  Some reason, it doesn't want to work for me, I even left that section up for 10 minutes before I went to bed, never popped up with anything.  Guess, I'll just leave it up for now.

 

View PostFlarvin, on Jan 16 2018 - 11:18, said:

 

I have no major issue with prem rounds in my KV-4. I kept the KV-4 due to how well it blocks damage. 

 

Yeah, the KV-4 is a good tank, despite the 49.83% win rate on the US/NA server.  Fun to play.


Edited by Saint_Metagross, Yesterday, 08:25 PM.


Kerosedge #93 Posted Yesterday, 09:59 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 18589 battles
  • 614
  • [HCK] HCK
  • Member since:
    05-05-2013

View PostFlarvin, on Jan 16 2018 - 14:18, said:

 

I have no major issue with prem rounds in my KV-4. I kept the KV-4 due to how well it blocks damage. 

Glad someone kept it. I liked it, just didn't love it.



Flarvin #94 Posted Yesterday, 10:51 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 48186 battles
  • 11,032
  • Member since:
    03-29-2013

View PostSaint_Metagross, on Jan 16 2018 - 14:23, said:

 

Talking about the portion under Advanced Tank Information?  Some reason, it doesn't want to work for me, I even left that section up for 10 minutes before I went to bed, never popped up with anything.  Guess, I'll just leave it up for now.

 

 

Yeah, the KV-4 is a good tank, despite the 49.83% win rate on the US/NA server.  Fun to play.

 

Server tank average WR rates are not the best for determining if a tank is under/overperforming. The average WR can be distorted be the quality of players playing it. 

 

The tank graph curves shows player’s overall WR vs their WR in that tank. With that data the graphs can show which skill level of players overperform or underperform in various tanks. 

 

Like the Type 5 data. Which shows below average players underperforming, while those above average are overperforming. 



Saint_Metagross #95 Posted Today, 12:17 AM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 22050 battles
  • 683
  • [TUVK] TUVK
  • Member since:
    06-21-2011

View PostFlarvin, on Jan 16 2018 - 13:51, said:

 

Server tank average WR rates are not the best for determining if a tank is under/overperforming. The average WR can be distorted be the quality of players playing it. 

 

The tank graph curves shows player’s overall WR vs their WR in that tank. With that data the graphs can show which skill level of players overperform or underperform in various tanks. 

 

Like the Type 5 data. Which shows below average players underperforming, while those above average are overperforming. 

 

Of course people that are above average are going to be over performing, they are above average players, that dilutes your argument right there.  If a good player is doing good in a tank that bad players are doing bad in, than that means nothing really.  That is like saying that a type of sniper rifle is over performing because ace snipers hit their targets more often than not despite the fact that bad snipers (or even rookies that don't know what they are doing) are not hitting their targets that often.  That more or less goes to show the level of that player, not the tank.  This goes back to someone that made a complaint about a tank, saying the tank sucks, and I told them, that it depends more or less on the player really, a good player can take that tank they claim sucks and with enough practice, make it look awesome.  So, good players being good with a tank does not show at all how well a tank is performing, over performing or under performing, it just goes to show how good those people are with that tank, over all, that graph would show how good those people are, not the tank itself.  Mean while, the average win rate of the tank shows how well a tank is performing overall with players overall, than not.  Which, does mean that the majority of tanks that are performing well enough (50%+ win rates), are indeed heavy tanks.  But, I can't believe you got player skill level confused with how good or bad a tank is.  Give a good player a tank they are good at, of course they will excel with it, give a bad player a tank they suck at, of course they will suck with it.  Now, on the other hand, if certain tanks are performing good in all areas of player skill levels (not just good players), than, that would mean the tank is over performing, but, if bad players are sucking with them, than, it isn't as OP as you'd make it out to be due to good players being...well...good.  Cannot believe you made the mistake to just look at one section of the data, you have to look at it all.  And since my actual claim is that premium rounds are used too often in higher tiers (8+ is what I meant), and nothing about tank performance (beyond my own), I have yet to see data on rounds used, due to that site being a pita and not loading data that I could use.

Edited by Saint_Metagross, Today, 12:21 AM.


Flarvin #96 Posted Today, 01:08 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 48186 battles
  • 11,032
  • Member since:
    03-29-2013

View PostSaint_Metagross, on Jan 16 2018 - 18:17, said:

 

Of course people that are above average are going to be over performing, they are above average players, that dilutes your argument right there.  If a good player is doing good in a tank that bad players are doing bad in, than tha  means nothing really.  That is like saying that a type of sniper rifle is over performing because ace snipers hit their targets more often than not despite the fact that bad snipers (or even rookies that don't know what they are doing) are not hitting their targets that often.  That more or less goes to show the level of that player, not the tank.  This goes back to someone that made a complaint about a tank, saying the tank sucks, and I told them, that it depends more or less on the player really, a good player can take that tank they claim sucks and with enough practice, make it look awesome.  So, good players being good with a tank does not show at all how well a tank is performing, over performing or under performing, it just goes to show how good those people are with that tank, over all, that graph would show how good those people are, not the tank itself.  Mean while, the average win rate of the tank shows how well a tank is performing overall with players overall, than not.  Which, does mean that the majority of tanks that are performing well enough (50%+ win rates), are indeed heavy tanks.  But, I can't believe you got player skill level confused with how good or bad a tank is.  Give a good player a tank they are good at, of course they will excel with it, give a bad player a tank they suck at, of course they will suck with it.  Now, on the other hand, if certain tanks are performing good in all areas of player skill levels (not just good players), than, that would mean the tank is over performing, but, if bad players are sucking with them, than, it isn't as OP as you'd make it out to be due to good players being...well...good.  Cannot believe you made the mistake to just look at one section of the data, you have to look at it all.  And since my actual claim is that premium rounds are used too often in higher tiers (8+ is what I meant), and nothing about tank performance (beyond my own), I have yet to see data on rounds used, due to that site being a pita and not loading data that I could use.

 

Wrong. 

 

The graph shows above average players overperforming in the Type 5, compared to their own overall performance. 

 

So above average players can underperform in a tank. And below average players can overperform in a tank. 



Saint_Metagross #97 Posted Today, 01:28 AM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 22050 battles
  • 683
  • [TUVK] TUVK
  • Member since:
    06-21-2011

View PostFlarvin, on Jan 16 2018 - 16:08, said:

 

Wrong. 

 

The graph shows above average players overperforming in the Type 5, compared to their own overall performance. 

 

So above average players can underperform in a tank. And below average players can overperform in a tank. 

 

Yes, and no, both are true.  Otherwise, considering the win percentage of my KV-220-2 (73.33% win rate, compared to the vastly lower average win rate, which is still high, cause, if the one in wot-news is the one I am thinking about, it would be at 57.55% win rate), it would be considered grossly OP (though, to a degree I can see that, despite the fact it doesn't have the best gun, and the turret is easy enough to pen).  But, that tank is not tier 8 or above, so I do not include it in the data I am seeking (tier 8 and above with all players involved).  And you even said that average players were over performing in the Type 5, so, that defeats your own argument, cause again, if it truly was as OP as you are making it to be, even below average players would be doing good in it.  A tank that I do not consider for my data, yet, also proves my point, is the IS-6, my win rate with it is over 60%, it's average on the US/NA server is not that high (only at 51.4% win rate overall).  If I face of against a bad playing the IS-6, I will most likely win with it, because I know how to play it.  So, again, just because good players are doing good with something they are good at, doesn't mean it is actually over performing.  A master baker will always bake better than a novice.  And seriously, if you chop off data that is relevant to the statistics, you are changing the answer to fit what you want, you can't do that, you have to take all the data from all the players of that tank to get its real ability, otherwise, you vastly dilute the data.  Yes, it sucks, the actual data you want to discard shows you to be wrong, accept the fact.  For, I never once only said for good players this stuff is under performing (hell, I never said heavies were under performing to begin with).  But, yes, if you want to fake the data to fit only you, than yes, those tanks are over performing...so, I will use your logic, by saying you can't judge the tanks based on people over say...55% win rate, suddenly, the tanks suck...now don't they?  But, hey, that would be using your logic to get data that would support my argument without showing the entire picture, which is not the correct usage of stats.

 

Your method would be like me doing a poll of a given city to see how many poor, middle class, and rich people there were, and than dropping the entirety of the poor people on the list and say that the city has 2-5% rich, and the rest middle class, making the city sound better than it actually is.

 

In short, people can perform better than you'd expect them to given the right thing.


Edited by Saint_Metagross, Today, 01:45 AM.


Flarvin #98 Posted Today, 02:14 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 48186 battles
  • 11,032
  • Member since:
    03-29-2013

View PostSaint_Metagross, on Jan 16 2018 - 19:28, said:

 

Yes, and no, both are true.  Otherwise, considering the win percentage of my KV-220-2 (73.33% win rate, compared to the vastly lower average win rate, which is still high, cause, if the one in wot-news is the one I am thinking about, it would be at 57.55% win rate), it would be considered grossly OP (though, to a degree I can see that, despite the fact it doesn't have the best gun, and the turret is easy enough to pen).  But, that tank is not tier 8 or above, so I do not include it in the data I am seeking (tier 8 and above with all players involved).  And you even said that average players were over performing in the Type 5, so, that defeats your own argument, cause again, if it truly was as OP as you are making it to be, even below average players would be doing good in it.  A tank that I do not consider for my data, yet, also proves my point, is the IS-6, my win rate with it is over 60%, it's average on the US/NA server is not that high (only at 51.4% win rate overall).  If I face of against a bad playing the IS-6, I will most likely win with it, because I know how to play it.  So, again, just because good players are doing good with something they are good at, doesn't mean it is actually over performing.  A master baker will always bake better than a novice.  And seriously, if you chop off data that is relevant to the statistics, you are changing the answer to fit what you want, you can't do that, you have to take all the data from all the players of that tank to get its real ability, otherwise, you vastly dilute the data.  Yes, it sucks, the actual data you want to discard shows you to be wrong, accept the fact.  For, I never once only said for good players this stuff is under performing (hell, I never said heavies were under performing to begin with).  But, yes, if you want to fake the data to fit only you, than yes, those tanks are over performing...so, I will use your logic, by saying you can't judge the tanks based on people over say...55% win rate, suddenly, the tanks suck...now don't they?  But, hey, that would be using your logic to get data that would support my argument without showing the entire picture, which is not the correct usage of stats.

 

Your method would be like me doing a poll of a given city to see how many poor, middle class, and rich people there were, and than dropping the entirety of the poor people on the list and say that the city has 2-5% rich, and the rest middle class, making the city sound better than it actually is.

 

In short, people can perform better than you'd expect them to given the right thing.

 

My method?  Really? 

 

Its not my method. lol 

 

But instead a 3rd party website pulls data from WoT and creates the tank curve graphs. The graphs show how various skill levels of players perform in a given tank. Which makes those graphs very good at determining under/overperforming tanks, because it is not skewed by the quality of players that play it. Like the tanks server wide WR average does. Which is the only reason I mentioned those graphs. 

 

But thanks for contributing those graphs to me. 



mechsftw #99 Posted Today, 04:35 AM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 19081 battles
  • 649
  • Member since:
    03-11-2011
I think the real issue with premium rounds is that they invalidate one entire playstyle (armour tanks) while providing no extra benefit against other playstyles (camo and mobility tanks). I think reducing premium round penetration damage should be considered.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users