Jump to content


Warhammer 40,000 Tanks Storm the Battlefield.- Dwight Schrute

Office Dwight KRZY Tank sale 40k warhammer new skin

  • Please log in to reply
177 replies to this topic

Dragon_Witch #141 Posted May 17 2018 - 19:30

    Major

  • Players
  • 11676 battles
  • 12,528
  • Member since:
    03-27-2011

View PostBavor, on May 17 2018 - 11:56, said:

 

Nope.  I think the Nameless looks like cartoon BS just like the cartoon ships in WoWS no matter who came up with the design.  The tanks in WoT that were never produced, but were based on actual blueprints or other technical drawings or design studies don't look like cartoons.  The other vehicles that were made up by Wargaming at least have some basis in reality in their appearance. 

 

In addition to that the Nameless has completely BS armor and weight.  It either needs to have its weight greatly increased to match its armor or its armor decreased to match its weight.  Allowing some made up non real world physics in a tank opens up a slippery slope for more 100% BS tanks where their armor weighs nothing and they have an ammo capacity that's larger than much bigger tanks with much much more interior volume and a similar gun.  As I said before, the wiki says its based on a medium tank chassis, yet Wargaming gave it tier 9 heavy tank frontal armor and tier 5 heavy tank weight.  In addition to the cartoon appearance, the armor with no weight and much more ammo capacity than its interior volume allows is something I'd rather not see Wargaming start doing.

 

If we are going to allow tanks with 100% BS weightless armor in the game, then lets make a T-44 variant with the same effective frontal armor as the ST-I and have it weight as much as a T-34.  Also, lets give the TIger II the 45.02B frontal armor and have it weight as much as the 30.01 H.  Do you think that's good for the game?  That's what the Nameless is, a tier 8 with tier 9 frontal armor and tier 5 weight.

 

Lets keep the 100% BS cartoon fantasy tanks with weightless armor out of WoT.

 

And again, because you can't come up with a reasonable reason why not to put them in besides "cartoon", you drudge up the statistics that Wargaming themselves made up for the tank.  I've already explained this to you earlier, the only stats that Nameless canonically has are length, width, height, top speed, weight, and horsepower.  EVERYTHING you complain about in Nameless' design is Wargaming at work.

 

Also, making up numbers out of thin air and magical weightless armor?  Wargaming jumped that shark years ago.  You bring up the 45.02B's frontal armor without realizing that the in-game tank is carrying a cool 80mm of extra armor on the glacis than the actual blueprints called for.  You think that Wargaming actually accounted for their imaginary armor when they made that decision?  Hint: They didn't.  The 45.02B weights a hair more than a King Tiger while carrying 50mm more armor on the glacis and turret.  That armor isn't represented in the weight. The VK 45.02B has fantasy armor that's not reflected in its weight, the Maus is carrying a bunch of extra armor that's not reflected in its weight, the T110E5 has a cupola that doesn't have any room in it for a commander, The FV 4005 and FV 215 183 gained an extra magical 8 shells that they couldn't carry in real life, etc. etc.  Ultimately, You entire argument is invalid when it comes to "magical weightless armor" and "numbers out of thin air", because that's been Wargaming's ENTIRE GAME PLAN since closed Beta!  You complain of a "slippery slope" if Nameless is added into the NA server when Wargaming is already on the bottom of that cliff.

 

As for keeping BS Fantasy tanks out of the game, Wargaming jumped that shark as well.  By the metric of "fantasy tanks", the Italian line should stop at Tier 4, the Chinese TD line doesn't exist, the Japanese heavy line doesn't exist after tier 5, and about 50 other designs wouldn't be in the game.  It doesn't matter if Wargaming "designed" them to "look realistic", they're still exactly the same as Nameless and Edelweiss.    There's a word for being okay with the "right" form of fantasy while decrying fantasy of another type.  It's called being a Hypocrite.  And buddy, you're one of the bigger ones.

 



Avalon304 #142 Posted May 17 2018 - 21:24

    Major

  • Players
  • 18202 battles
  • 7,637
  • [WONKA] WONKA
  • Member since:
    09-04-2012

View PostBavor, on May 17 2018 - 10:30, said:

 

So you have proven that overall, its an above average performing tank.  That was my point.  Thanks for proving it.

 

 

One other thing to notice in the curves, there are very few players with a 55% or greater win rate playing the Nameless.  I'd like to see how a larger number of players with 55+% win rates do in the Nameless compared to other tier 8 heavies.

 

I'd like to see how it performs with players who have the skill to exploit its strengths of mobility, armor, and gun handling.

 

 

What I see here is excuses. Ive proved that its a completely average tank. Because heres the fun part the average winrate among active players on the SEA server is 50%. With Nameless carrying the average win rate of the server over all, and 2 points less over the past month, Im not sure how you made the leap to "above average".

 

 

Ive removed the irrelevancy about MM since it has no bearing on this discussion.



Dragon_Witch #143 Posted May 17 2018 - 22:21

    Major

  • Players
  • 11676 battles
  • 12,528
  • Member since:
    03-27-2011

View PostAvalon304, on May 17 2018 - 15:24, said:

 

What I see here is excuses. Ive proved that its a completely average tank. Because heres the fun part the average winrate among active players on the SEA server is 50%. With Nameless carrying the average win rate of the server over all, and 2 points less over the past month, Im not sure how you made the leap to "above average".

 

 

Ive removed the irrelevancy about MM since it has no bearing on this discussion.

 

Hey, it's the post-truth future of 2018.  Facts can mean whatever you want them to mean now!  Don't like that the facts are showing that a tank is average?  Say that the same facts actually show that the tank is severely over performing, then declare victory!  It's so simple that anyone can do it! 

Bavor #144 Posted May 17 2018 - 22:34

    Major

  • Players
  • 30297 battles
  • 2,636
  • [FN_DP] FN_DP
  • Member since:
    04-21-2013

View PostAvalon304, on May 17 2018 - 15:24, said:

What I see here is excuses. Ive proved that its a completely average tank. Because heres the fun part the average winrate among active players on the SEA server is 50%. With Nameless carrying the average win rate of the server over all, and 2 points less over the past month, Im not sure how you made the leap to "above average".

 

According to the info in the wotlabs link, the average win rate among active players is 50.71% and the average recent win rate among active players is 51.01%.  That doesn't make sense.  You can't have EVERY player winning more than 50% of battles.  It doesn't work that way.  Go read how Wotlans decided who to collect statistics on and how Wotlabs purged the info of players who haven't played in a while.

 

Never said in the Wotlabs forum that the Wotlabs database disc was running out of room, so he purged players who haven't played within a certain period of time from the database.  He also purged accounts below a certain win rate and WN8 from the database.  If you are going to use Wotlabs as a source at least check to see if you are using relevant data from Wotlabs.

 

So your link to average player stats is completely irrelevant and inaccurate.  The simple fact is across all servers the average player win rate is around 49%.

 

Block Quote

 Ive removed the irrelevancy about MM since it has no bearing on this discussion.

 

Actually it has everything to do with the discussion.  Either you don't understand how being bottom tier more often affects win rate for average players or you don't like to admit that you were wrong. 

 

The simple fact is due to matchmaking changes, the win rates of almost all tier 8 heavy tanks have dropped in recent months.  That explains why the win rate of the Nameless dropped along with almost all other tier 8 heavies in recent months.  You have to look at all tanks before you say one tank is doing worse.  Almost all tier 8 heavies are doing worse.



Bavor #145 Posted May 17 2018 - 22:36

    Major

  • Players
  • 30297 battles
  • 2,636
  • [FN_DP] FN_DP
  • Member since:
    04-21-2013

View PostEmpressNero, on May 17 2018 - 16:21, said:

Hey, it's the post-truth future of 2018.  Facts can mean whatever you want them to mean now!  Don't like that the facts are showing that a tank is average?  Say that the same facts actually show that the tank is severely over performing, then declare victory!  It's so simple that anyone can do it! 

 

At least check if the facts that someone such as Avalon304 is using are accurate before also you make yourself look uninformed.  Anyone can cherry pick data to make their point by ignoring all relevant data.  You and Avalon304 seem to do that often lately.

_HerrSpray #146 Posted May 17 2018 - 23:20

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 2623 battles
  • 11
  • [WAL] WAL
  • Member since:
    08-19-2014
The Mordian skin my BDR G1 B does not show up after I apply it, and I have "Hide Non-Historical Elements" unticked. I can see the KV-2 ®'s skin, but not the Mordian.

Avalon304 #147 Posted May 18 2018 - 00:03

    Major

  • Players
  • 18202 battles
  • 7,637
  • [WONKA] WONKA
  • Member since:
    09-04-2012

View PostBavor, on May 17 2018 - 14:34, said:

 

According to the info in the wotlabs link, the average win rate among active players is 50.71% and the average recent win rate among active players is 51.01%.  That doesn't make sense.  You can't have EVERY player winning more than 50% of battles.  It doesn't work that way.  Go read how Wotlans decided who to collect statistics on and how Wotlabs purged the info of players who haven't played in a while.

 

Never said in the Wotlabs forum that the Wotlabs database disc was running out of room, so he purged players who haven't played within a certain period of time from the database.  He also purged accounts below a certain win rate and WN8 from the database.  If you are going to use Wotlabs as a source at least check to see if you are using relevant data from Wotlabs.

 

So your link to average player stats is completely irrelevant and inaccurate.  The simple fact is across all servers the average player win rate is around 49%.

 

 

Actually it has everything to do with the discussion.  Either you don't understand how being bottom tier more often affects win rate for average players or you don't like to admit that you were wrong. 

 

The simple fact is due to matchmaking changes, the win rates of almost all tier 8 heavy tanks have dropped in recent months.  That explains why the win rate of the Nameless dropped along with almost all other tier 8 heavies in recent months.  You have to look at all tanks before you say one tank is doing worse.  Almost all tier 8 heavies are doing worse.

 

I read what you typed and all I can see is: "I dont like that the stats are against me lets try and discredit them."

 

It is infact possible to have the server wide win rate be greater than 49%, because the only way to get to a 49% average and consistently keep it, is for WoT's player base to never change. It would require 100% player retention in a closed system, which is not a realistic expectation.

 

And no MM is not relevant to this discussion, but continue trying to obfuscate. (Heres why it isnt relevant: if everythign dropped then it doesnt matter. It would only matter if certain tanks dropped).

 

Nameless is pulling average to below average server wide winrate for the server it was released on. Those are the facts. The facts dont support your "this tank is OP" view.



Bavor #148 Posted May 18 2018 - 00:13

    Major

  • Players
  • 30297 battles
  • 2,636
  • [FN_DP] FN_DP
  • Member since:
    04-21-2013

View PostEmpressNero, on May 17 2018 - 13:30, said:

And again, because you can't come up with a reasonable reason why not to put them in besides "cartoon", you drudge up the statistics that Wargaming themselves made up for the tank.  I've already explained this to you earlier, the only stats that Nameless canonically has are length, width, height, top speed, weight, and horsepower.  EVERYTHING you complain about in Nameless' design is Wargaming at work.

 

Either you don't understand basics of the game mechanics or you have difficulty with reading comprehension.  Yes the in game stats are Wargaming's work.  No Sh*t Sherlock!  Everyoen knows that.  You still fail to comprehend that the stats are a broken game mechanic.  Its a tank with tier 9 frontal armor and tier 5 heavy tank weight.  What other tanks in the game have that combination?  Please reply and lsit all of them other than the Nameless.

 

Block Quote

Also, making up numbers out of thin air and magical weightless armor?  Wargaming jumped that shark years ago.  

 

Show me one other tank that has an overwhelming majority of its armor as weightless?  

 

Block Quote

You bring up the 45.02B's frontal armor without realizing that the in-game tank is carrying a cool 80mm of extra armor on the glacis than the actual blueprints called for.  You think that Wargaming actually accounted for their imaginary armor when they made that decision?  Hint: They didn't.  The 45.02B weights a hair more than a King Tiger while carrying 50mm more armor on the glacis and turret.  That armor isn't represented in the weight. The VK 45.02B has fantasy armor that's not reflected in its weight, 

 

The 45.02B weighs 7,632 Kg more than the Tiger II and its engines weighs less than the Tiger II's engines due to being a different type of engine.  The 45.02B's Porsche engines weigh 720 kg and the Tiger II's Maybach engines weigh 1,300 Kg.  So the 7,632 Kg(16,790 lbs or 8.4 tons) and the lighter engines (580 Kg, 1,276 lbs) account for a good part of the weight difference.

 

Sure, there may be some minor weight changes due to balance reasons, but its not a tier 9 tank that weighs as much as a tier 5 or 6 tank with much thinner armor like the Nameless.

 

Block Quote

the Maus is carrying a bunch of extra armor that's not reflected in its weight, 

 

The Maus has an extra 20mm of frontal turret armor in game for balance reasons.  Still the Maus isn't a tier 10 heavy tank that weighs as much as a tank 3 or 4 tiers below it like the Nameless.

 

Block Quote

the T110E5 has a cupola that doesn't have any room in it for a commander, 

 

Look at the schematics for the proposed T110E5.  There were different proposals, but the one that is closest to what we have in game is what I looked at.  It shows the size of the crew members in the tank including the commander's head in the Cupola.  The Cupola is between 40" and 45" long front to back.  A human head is about 10" front to back including the nose.  So, in theory the cupola does have room for the 239mm(9.41 inches) of frontal cupola armor and 159mm(6.25 inches) or rear cupola armor and a human head even if the cupola in game is smaller than in the original schematics from Chrysler.

 

Block Quote

 The FV 4005 and FV 215 183 gained an extra magical 8 shells that they couldn't carry in real life, etc. etc.  

 

Yes there was a change for balance reasons.  Most SPGs in game can't actually carry the ammo capacity they have in game and towed it behind them in a trailer also.  There are some minor things that are done for game balance.  

 

However the things the Nameless has aren't minor and also have an effect on game balance.

 

Block Quote

 Ultimately, You entire argument is invalid when it comes to "magical weightless armor" and "numbers out of thin air", because that's been Wargaming's ENTIRE GAME PLAN since closed Beta!  You complain of a "slippery slope" if Nameless is added into the NA server when Wargaming is already on the bottom of that cliff.

 

You are obviously failing to grasp basic game mechanics and basic game balance concepts.  

 

No tank other than the Nameless has an overwhelming majority of its armor that weighs nothing.

No other tank other than the Nameless has a short barreled 88mm that does 300 damage and has 220mm of penetration.  The closest gun int he game is the German 88mm L56 with 145mm of penetration and 220 damage.

No other heavily armored tier 8 heavy tank has medium tank speed and mobility.

 

Block Quote

As for keeping BS Fantasy tanks out of the game, Wargaming jumped that shark as well.  By the metric of "fantasy tanks", the Italian line should stop at Tier 4, the Chinese TD line doesn't exist, the Japanese heavy line doesn't exist after tier 5, and about 50 other designs wouldn't be in the game.  It doesn't matter if Wargaming "designed" them to "look realistic", they're still exactly the same as Nameless and Edelweiss.    There's a word for being okay with the "right" form of fantasy while decrying fantasy of another type.  It's called being a Hypocrite.  And buddy, you're one of the bigger ones.

 

They aren't the same as the Nameless and Edelweis.  Most of the tanks in the game that didn't go into production have actual schematics and research in their design and somewhat realistic weight and armor profiles and a somewhat realistic gun and a weight that's at least based in real world metallurgy with minor adjustments for game balance. 

 

Lets compare the Tiger II, Tiger 131, Nameless and some other tanks as they show up in game.  Many others have often compared the Nameless to a Tiger II.

 

Weight

Tiger II: 70,938 Kg

Nameless: 34,000 Kg

VK 30.01: 36,820 Kg

DW2: 30,100 Kg

Panther: 45,235 Kg

M4 Sherman: 32,300 Kg

M4A3E2 Sherman Jumbo: 38,500

T-34: 29,390 Kg

T-34-85: 33.650 Kg

M3 Lee: 29,900 Kg

 

Engine Weight

Tiger II: 1300

Nameless: 1600

 

Engine Power

Tiger II: 700

Nameless: 570

 

Engine Fire Chance

Tiger II: 20%

Nameless: 10%

 

Gun

Tiger II: 10.5cm L68

Nameless: 88mm L48

Tiger 131: 88mm L56

 

Gun Weight

Tiger II: 3,600 Kg

Nameless: 1600 kg

Tiger 131: 2050 Kg

 

Gun Penetration AP

Tiger II: 225mm

Nameless: 220mm

Tiger 131: 145mm

 

Hull Armor front/side/rear

Tiger II: 150/80/80mm

Nameless: 220/80/80mm

 

Turret Armor front/side/rear

Tiger II: 185/80/80mm

Nameless: 240/150/80mm

 

Now, lets do the math:

 

Tiger II weight 70,938 Kg - Nameless Weight 34,000 Kg = 36,938 Kg.

Nameless Engine Weight 1,600 Kg - Tiger II engine weight 1,300 Kg = 300 Kg

Tiger II gun weight 3600 Kg - Nameless gun weight 1600 Kg = 2,000 Kg.

 

The Nameless weights 36,938 Kg less than the Tiger II.  However the engine in the Nameless is 300 Kg heavier and the gun in the Nameless is 2000 Kg lighter.  36,938 Kg + 300 Kg - 2,000 Kg = 35,238 Kg

 

The Nameless weighs 35,238 Kg less than the Tiger II when you take into account the weight of the engine and the gun.

 

Steel weighs between 480 and 500 lbs(218.18-227.27 Kg) and  per cubic foot depending on type.  I cubic foot is 0.0283168 cubic meters.

 

If the Nameless is 35,238 Kg less than the Tiger II, then it should have about 155 to 161.5 less cubic feet of steel used in its construction, not counting the weight difference of the gun and engine.  Yet it has more armor than the Tiger II while being a little smaller.  Something doesn't add up.  

 

Look at the tanks with a weight similar to the Nameless.

Weight

Nameless: 34,000 Kg

VK 30.01: 36,820 Kg

DW2: 30,100 Kg

M4 Sherman: 32,300 Kg

M4A3E2 Sherman Jumbo: 38,500

T-34-85: 33.650 Kg

M3 Lee: 29,900 Kg

BDR G1 B: 37,700 Kg

B1: 29,500

Pz.Kpfw. B2 740 (f): 29,350 Kg

Cromwell: 29,500 Kg

M4A3E8 Sherman: 34,500

VK 28.01: 29,000 Kg

T-54 ltwt.: 34,000 Kg

WZ-132-1: 30,000 Kg

 

The Nameless weighs as much as many tier 5 and 6 tanks yet it has the armor of a tier 9 tank.  Its armor must be made of wood and helium.  The gun is a shorter 88mm than the Tier 6 Tiger and has 75mm more penetration than then 88mm L56.  Yet its ammunition obviously is very small since its a tank smaller than the TIger Ii with a higher ammo capacity.  If the Nameless is going to be in the game, then it needs to have stats at least based in real world metallurgy and real world physics as much as the other tanks int he game when you take into account game balance.

 

There is a difference between a video game/cartoon/comic tank that had no basis in reality from the beginning such as the Nameless with armor that weighs less than balsa wood and a magical short barreled gun and a tank based on an actual design with some basis in real world metallurgy and physics.  The nameless is broken as far as game balance goes because it has no basis in reality.  That's why I don't want to see it on the NA server.  If the Nameless was made a tier 6 with tier 6 armor and a tier 6 gun, and its current weight then it would be acceptable.  If the nameless stayed the same and had a weight similar to the Tiger II or greater than the Tiger II than it could be acceptable.  Giving a tank stats for armor and gun that have no loose connection to real world physics or in game mechanics make the tank 100% broken.  Allowing the Nameless in the game is a slippery slope for 100% broken tanks in the future.



Bavor #149 Posted May 18 2018 - 00:41

    Major

  • Players
  • 30297 battles
  • 2,636
  • [FN_DP] FN_DP
  • Member since:
    04-21-2013

View PostAvalon304, on May 17 2018 - 18:03, said:

I read what you typed and all I can see is: "I dont like that the stats are against me lets try and discredit them."

 

If you are going to use stats to back up your beliefs, at least use accurate ones.  You are basing your beliefs on inaccurate data.  When I point it out you resort to childish replies with no data to backup your inaccurate beliefs.

 

Block Quote

 It is infact possible to have the server wide win rate be greater than 49%, because the only way to get to a 49% average and consistently keep it, is for WoT's player base to never change. It would require 100% player retention in a closed system, which is not a realistic expectation.

 

Please show the math and statistics where this is possible in a system where at least 1% of battles result in a draw.  You cited Wotlabs as a source of player win rate statistics when the Owner/Administrator of Wotlabs stated that data for inactive and low skill players was purged from the database.  Therefore, the average win rate and average WN8 would be skewed higher than the actual number. 

 

I'm assuming you never had a physics class in your life if you think a dataset where all the low numbers were purged would give you an accurate average.  The simple fact is, if all the low numbers in a data set were purged, then the average would be showing upa s higher than it actually is.  

 

Block Quote

And no MM is not relevant to this discussion, but continue trying to obfuscate. (Heres why it isnt relevant: if everythign dropped then it doesnt matter. It would only matter if certain tanks dropped).

 

If all the tier 8 tanks had a significant drop in win rate, then of course changes in matchmaking matters.  Your FAILURE to grasp that simple concept means you don't understand basic statistics.  If the majority of a population shows a significant change then there is a reason for it.

 

In the past 4 weeks dataset the entire tier 8 heavy tank population had their win rate drop by 1.5% compared to the long term data set.  The same applies for the 2 weeks data set when compared to the long term data set.

 

Block Quote

 Nameless is pulling average to below average server wide winrate for the server it was released on. Those are the facts. The facts dont support your "this tank is OP" view.

 

Actually its not pulling average to below average server wide.  Your FAILURE to understand that means you don't understand basic statistics.  Because you ignore basic statistics you refuse to change your view and admit you are wrong.  The Nameless has an above average win rate for tier 8 heavies on the SEA server.

 

I'm trying to explain statistics to you when you have no basics grasp of statistics.  Yet you're saying statistics are wrong?  Next you'll be telling em the earth is flat and the sun revolves around the earth.

 

 

 

 



Grospoliner #150 Posted May 18 2018 - 00:53

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 17092 battles
  • 149
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011

I am appalled that no one here is addressing the real issue.

 

Wargaming added Warhammer 40k skinned tanks, and didn't chose the Armageddon Steel Legion to pattern one off of? What the hell man? Mordia and Valhalla are both frigging infantry armies each with radically different combat philosophies, neither of which are armor oriented. What's next WG? Elysian Tetrarchs?



QWERTYEel89 #151 Posted May 18 2018 - 01:06

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 22976 battles
  • 630
  • Member since:
    02-05-2011
I have only one question; what are the stats of this KV-2®? Is it comparable to the standard KV-2? If so it would be good to play the derp but with premium rewards. Assuming that it is decent credit/crew turnout.

Avalon304 #152 Posted May 18 2018 - 01:29

    Major

  • Players
  • 18202 battles
  • 7,637
  • [WONKA] WONKA
  • Member since:
    09-04-2012

View PostBavor, on May 17 2018 - 16:41, said:

 

If you are going to use stats to back up your beliefs, at least use accurate ones.  You are basing your beliefs on inaccurate data.  When I point it out you resort to childish replies with no data to backup your inaccurate beliefs.

 

 

Please show the math and statistics where this is possible in a system where at least 1% of battles result in a draw.  You cited Wotlabs as a source of player win rate statistics when the Owner/Administrator of Wotlabs stated that data for inactive and low skill players was purged from the database.  Therefore, the average win rate and average WN8 would be skewed higher than the actual number. 

 

I'm assuming you never had a physics class in your life if you think a dataset where all the low numbers were purged would give you an accurate average.  The simple fact is, if all the low numbers in a data set were purged, then the average would be showing upa s higher than it actually is.  

 

 

If all the tier 8 tanks had a significant drop in win rate, then of course changes in matchmaking matters.  Your FAILURE to grasp that simple concept means you don't understand basic statistics.  If the majority of a population shows a significant change then there is a reason for it.

 

In the past 4 weeks dataset the entire tier 8 heavy tank population had their win rate drop by 1.5% compared to the long term data set.  The same applies for the 2 weeks data set when compared to the long term data set.

 

 

Actually its not pulling average to below average server wide.  Your FAILURE to understand that means you don't understand basic statistics.  Because you ignore basic statistics you refuse to change your view and admit you are wrong.  The Nameless has an above average win rate for tier 8 heavies on the SEA server.

 

I'm trying to explain statistics to you when you have no basics grasp of statistics.  Yet you're saying statistics are wrong?  Next you'll be telling em the earth is flat and the sun revolves around the earth.

 

 

 

 

 

Blah blah. I dont like these stats. They must be innaccurate.

 

 

Heres a list of recent active player win rates for the EU server: http://forum.wotlabs...ve-player-data/

 

Notices how theyre all 50% or above. Or are you telling me that 3 years of stats are wrong? (Im sure youre going to say there are). The more likely case is that these stats are indeed accurate and you just dont like them. The only way you get a server average of 49% is if you have a closed system, where the player base never changes. With a changing player base it is indeed possible to have above a 49% server average among ACTIVE players. There are no low numbers to purge. The only time low numbers would be purged is in the overalls, where inactive accounts could be removed. When talking about active players (which are the numbers that matter) theres nothing to purge. And youve not provided proof that Never stated any of this.

 

The facts are: the stats collected by Wotlabs are not inaccurate. Nameless is holding average to below average win rates on SEA. You are undersome mistaken belief that it is OP when stats show it isnt.



Taffer1000 #153 Posted May 18 2018 - 02:29

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 34991 battles
  • 165
  • Member since:
    06-12-2011
This is like the new Star Wars movie called Solo. No one asked for it and no one wants it. Please, no more clown camos. Please introduce more historically correct camos and allow us to paint all of our tanks too.

SpectreHD #154 Posted May 18 2018 - 11:15

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 16491 battles
  • 16,587
  • [TT] TT
  • Member since:
    07-12-2010

View PostTaffer1000, on May 18 2018 - 09:29, said:

This is like the new Star Wars movie called Solo. No one asked for it and no one wants it. Please, no more clown camos. Please introduce more historically correct camos and allow us to paint all of our tanks too.

 

Sure sure. "No one" asked for it and "no one" wants it. Quite clearly people do want it. You don't speak for each and everyone of us.

Dragon_Witch #155 Posted May 18 2018 - 14:09

    Major

  • Players
  • 11676 battles
  • 12,528
  • Member since:
    03-27-2011

View PostBavor, on May 17 2018 - 18:13, said:

Boo hoo, the stats are bad.

 

TAKE.  IT.  UP.  WITH.  WARGAMING.  You don't like the stats they gave Nameless?  Whine at them about it.  They're the ones who balanced it, so they're the ones ultimately at fault for its stats.  Wargaming obviously thought the stats they gave it would work, otherwise they never would have released it in the first place.  Besides, if you'd bother reading my previous posts, I don't give a rat's fetid rear end about Nameless.  I want Edelweiss.  I'm willing to bet most of the people arguing for the Valk Chronicles tanks want Edelweiss.  Yet for some reason you continue to use Nameless as your whipping boy for why BOTH tanks shouldn't be introduced.



PIZDULYA #156 Posted May 18 2018 - 15:47

    Private

  • -Players-
  • 16574 battles
  • 4
  • [SOD-] SOD-
  • Member since:
    03-25-2017
Now bring back old ELC BIS as a premium il buy it for 30$.

KRZYBooP #157 Posted May 18 2018 - 17:33

    Community Coordinator

  • Administrator
  • 2685 battles
  • -483
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    08-10-2015

View Post_HerrSpray, on May 17 2018 - 22:20, said:

The Mordian skin my BDR G1 B does not show up after I apply it, and I have "Hide Non-Historical Elements" unticked. I can see the KV-2 ®'s skin, but not the Mordian.

Try setting your game to run in safe mode, and if you are still having issues then submit a ticket for our support team to assist you. 



CapPhrases #158 Posted May 18 2018 - 18:07

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 6994 battles
  • 3,059
  • [TXV] TXV
  • Member since:
    03-28-2015

View PostGrospoliner, on May 17 2018 - 18:53, said:

I am appalled that no one here is addressing the real issue.

 

Wargaming added Warhammer 40k skinned tanks, and didn't chose the Armageddon Steel Legion to pattern one off of? What the hell man? Mordia and Valhalla are both frigging infantry armies each with radically different combat philosophies, neither of which are armor oriented. What's next WG? Elysian Tetrarchs?

 

IKR? why not the friggin Steel Legion? Steel Legion is best Guardsman

BLAZE_511 #159 Posted May 18 2018 - 18:16

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 13367 battles
  • 44
  • [PRAVH] PRAVH
  • Member since:
    08-16-2013

View PostCapPhrases, on May 18 2018 - 17:07, said:

 

IKR? why not the friggin Steel Legion? Steel Legion is best Guardsman

 

That is a heretical statement, it is obviously the Death Korps of Krieg.

Spoiler

 

Also Wargaming please give us crews to go along with it.



4TankersAndDog #160 Posted May 18 2018 - 18:47

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 25945 battles
  • 1,835
  • [122MM] 122MM
  • Member since:
    07-12-2013

View PostQWERTYEel89, on May 17 2018 - 16:06, said:

I have only one question; what are the stats of this KV-2®? Is it comparable to the standard KV-2? If so it would be good to play the derp but with premium rewards. Assuming that it is decent credit/crew turnout.

 

Wow, so much ranting in here...it's a virtual tank in a compute game, lighten up Francis.

 

Anyway, Qwertye, here ya go:






3 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users