Jump to content


★ WarGaming lists the WRONG enginepower for the Skorpion G (And more) ★

Engine power hp horsepower hp/ton Skorpion G SU-130PM IS-7 Obj. 277 T-10 Primo Victoria

  • Please log in to reply
39 replies to this topic

Scorpiany #1 Posted Jan 11 2019 - 04:32

    Major

  • Game Knowledge Expert
  • 36793 battles
  • 13,017
  • [N1NJA] N1NJA
  • Member since:
    06-27-2013

You know how everyone has wondered why the SU-130PM is so significantly slower than the Skorp G, despite a very minor horsepower difference and identical terrain resistances? Everyone assumed that it was tanks.gg that was incorrect - Except, it wasn't. At least, not for terrain resistances. It turns out, WG lists the wrong engine power and wrong hp/ton in your Garage for the Skorpion G.

 

SKORPION G DOES NOT HAVE 650 HORSEPOWER. It actually has 850 horsepower. This also means it actually has 22 HP/TON.

 

In-game xml code displays this for the tank: <smplEnginePower>850 (int)</smplEnginePower>


 

I performed several tests with the Skorpion G. Here were the results.

 

Skorpion G (17 hp/ton, 1.15 resistance on hard, 1.44 on medium) vs. 113 (16.67 hp/ton, 1.05 on hard, 1.15 on medium):

 

Uphill, hard terrain 195m track, Skorpion G took 30.67 seconds to complete. The 113 took 36 seconds.

On a flat, medium terrain, 200m track, Skorpion G took 1.5 fewer seconds to complete the course. 113 capped at 40 km/h, Skorpion G capped out at 42 km/h

 

Skorpion G vs. StuG III B (20 HP/ton, 1.05 on hard, 1.44 on medium, stock gun, stock radio):

 

On an uphill, hard terrain, 195m track, Skorpion G took 30.67 seconds to complete. StuG III B took 31 seconds (Neither exceeded 35 km/h).

On a flat, medium terrain, 200m track, Skorpion G took 30m fewer to reach 38 km/h (StuG's effective top speed on the terrain).

 

(All testing results here used a 50% crew, no equipment, no consumables)


 

Now, if the Skorp G actually had the advertised 650 horsepower, 113 would have would have tied with it on the uphill run, and 113 would have won on the medium terrain run. As for the StuG, it had both a HP/ton advantage and a ground resistance advantage for uphill - It still lost. On medium, StuG should have reached 38km/h first - It didn't.

 

This strongly suggests that the 850 horsepower in the game's code is the correct number, and not the 650 horsepower value that WG tells you in your Garage.

 


 

Other tanks have some interesting cases as well. Here are the most note-worthy examples.

 

Obj. 277 vs. IS-7. IS-7 has identical terrain resistances, and slightly better hp/ton. However, everyone swears that the Obj. 277 is significantly faster. Here's why: IS-7 caps out at 49 km/h on flat, medium terrain. Obj. 277 can reach its full 55 km/h. Obj. 277 also reaches 49km/h significantly faster than the IS-7, approximately 8 seconds faster.

 

According to testing other players have done, and discussions on Reddit, this appears to be due to gear limitations with the tank's transmissions. The Obj. 277 spools up to speed and upshifts a lot more efficiently than the IS-7. IS-7 caps out on a gear below its top speed, and only on a downhill slope is it able to gather enough momentum to shift into its last gear.

 

This also explains why the tanks have identical acceleration from 0-10, but the 277 accelerates nearly twice as fast from 10-35, and 35-55.


 

Let's look at another example.

 

T-10 vs. Primo Victoria / Centurion 5/1 RAAC.

T-10 has 14.75 hp/ton, and resistances of 0.96 / 1.05 / 1.82.

Primo Victoria has 17.72 hp/ton and the same resistances. Centurion 5/1 RAAC has 18.63 hp/ton and same resistances.

 

On a 120m uphill soft terrain track, here were the results:

 

Centurion 5/1 RAAC completed it in 24.5 seconds.

T-10 completed it in 25 seconds.

Primo completed in 26 seconds.

 

On a 120m downhill soft terrain track:

 

Centurion 5/1 RAAC and T-10 both completed in 15 seconds flat.

Primo Victoria completed in 18 seconds.

 

On a 180m flat soft terrain track:

 

T-10 completed in 27.75 seconds.

Centurion RAAC completed in 29 seconds.

Primo Victoria completed in 30.75 seconds.

 

Obviously, if the tanks have the same resistances, then Primo Victoria and Centurion 5/1 RAAC should have won by a large margin due to the significantly better hp/ton... Right?

 

They didn't. Primo lost on all courses. Centurion barely won uphill, tied downhill and lost on flat terrain. The only explanation? Primo Victoria and Centurion 5/1 have significantly worse performance on soft terrain - Despite the better engine power and same ground resistances.

 

This makes sense, since a good hp/ton helps the most uphill, where top speed is not reached. This is why the scores were so much closer uphill. On downhill, Primo fell behind because it simply couldn't reach the same downhill speed as the others, nor could it reach its speed as quickly because of the poor resistance. Resistances cap your top speed potential. And on flat terrain, resistances also cap top speed potential - T-10 was the winner here due to having no extra issues. Centurion and Primo simply couldn't accelerate to the same speeds, despite having same soft stats and better hp/ton.


 

So, why is this the case? The T-10 / Primo Victoria / Centurion 5/1 RAAC performed a lot more reasonably on hard and medium terrains, where their performance actually made sense, and matched their listed stats.

 

This means that either tanks.gg is incorrect with soft stats, or there's something else going on with their performance. Could gear performance have an impact here? Possibly. The tanks are moving at significantly slower speeds on soft terrain, so a more efficient transmission shift would allow better acceleration at lower speeds, say at second gear.

 


 

I am still in the process of testing tanks. I've tested many tanks that I haven't mentioned here. Some of the results are normal. Some are not. I will post a full analysis on the matter when I have all the data prepared. I will also have screenshots / spreadsheets / replays for all testing runs.

 

I am currently discussing this matter with kittens, the creator of tanks.gg, who is working on updating the exporter for tank values to pull the "Sample engine power" as the number for the Skorpion G, as it it's pretty clear that the Skorpion G actually has 850 horsepower.


 

I would love to hear your thoughts on this matter. I would also implore WarGaming to clarify what is going on with these results.

 

Obviously it is very misleading for the Skorpion G / SU-130PM and IS-7 / Obj. 277 to have such similar listed numbers, but have such vastly different performance numbers. Especially in the case of the former, where people are spending real money on tanks with potentially misleading performance values. This is particularly true because people often compare the two tanks to one-another to determine which one to actually purchase.

 



Danadae #2 Posted Jan 11 2019 - 04:36

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 20789 battles
  • 1,133
  • [LONER] LONER
  • Member since:
    03-28-2015

Why am I not at all surprised? :facepalm:

 

I also think that not only do they know, they don't care. The Skorpion G is already an OP tank, if it actually listed 850 HP in it's official stsats that would be another reason for people to get pissed off about it (as if they weren't already). The fact that this PAY TO WIN tank is the most played tank in the game is gross.


Edited by Danadae, Jan 11 2019 - 04:39.


Scorpiany #3 Posted Jan 11 2019 - 04:38

    Major

  • Game Knowledge Expert
  • 36793 battles
  • 13,017
  • [N1NJA] N1NJA
  • Member since:
    06-27-2013

I had posted this Thread on Reddit 8 days ago, but I forgot to post this on the NA Forums. I've made a few revisions from that Reddit Thread to better reflect the information we have now.

 

And a big thank you to:

  • F0T
  • Hakosukaz
  • Genzing
  • the_Deadly_Bulb
  • rockbutcher
  • kebab6597
  • Mettie7
  • Sarge___
  • Project100
  • Hellsfog
  • vyle02

 

I would love to hear your thoughts on this matter. Thank you very much for reading, folks. :honoring:



BlackFive #4 Posted Jan 11 2019 - 04:40

    Major

  • Players
  • 34661 battles
  • 4,578
  • [_E_] _E_
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013

View PostScorpiany, on Jan 11 2019 - 04:38, said:

I had posted this Thread on Reddit 8 days ago, but I forgot to post this on the NA Forums. I've made a few revisions from that Reddit Thread to better reflect the information we have now.

 

And a big thank you to:

  • F0T
  • Hakosukaz
  • Genzing
  • the_Deadly_Bulb
  • rockbutcher
  • kebab6597
  • Mettie7
  • Sarge___
  • Project100
  • Hellsfog
  • vyle02

 

I would love to hear your thoughts on this matter. Thank you very much for reading, folks. :honoring:

 

.

Was about to say... Saw this a while ago - but did not realize it was you who posted this.



jamesdoz #5 Posted Jan 11 2019 - 04:40

    Major

  • Players
  • 39090 battles
  • 3,366
  • [AMOX] AMOX
  • Member since:
    05-08-2012

 

Scorp, nvm, I thought you were comparing the 130pm to the Skorpian

Keep up the great work mate

 

 

 


Edited by jamesdoz, Jan 11 2019 - 04:42.


tod914 #6 Posted Jan 11 2019 - 04:41

    Major

  • Players
  • 64245 battles
  • 6,294
  • Member since:
    12-23-2013
Scorp, I couldn't find your tank list testing thread when I went back to look for it.  If you still need a hand, just hit me up anytime you see me online.  Happy to help.  I have a bunch that were on your list.  I don't mind removing the equip as per your directive. 

Edited by tod914, Jan 11 2019 - 04:41.


Mettie7 #7 Posted Jan 11 2019 - 04:43

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 20881 battles
  • 664
  • [WAIFU] WAIFU
  • Member since:
    08-06-2012
I'm liking this information, catching wg in the act. Glad I could help with the first bit of testing! 

Scorpiany #8 Posted Jan 11 2019 - 04:54

    Major

  • Game Knowledge Expert
  • 36793 battles
  • 13,017
  • [N1NJA] N1NJA
  • Member since:
    06-27-2013

View Postjamesdoz, on Jan 10 2019 - 19:40, said:

 

Scorp, you have in the OP the 113 listed not the 130.

Keep up the great work mate

 

 

 

We're comparing the Skorpion G's performance to the 113, since on paper they should perform so similarly. We've already see 4TankersAndDog do a testing video comparing the Skoprion G vs. the SU-130PM, so to figure out which tank had the bad horsepower value, it's better to take a look at other similar tanks.

 

 

 

By comparing it to the 113 and StuG III B, we can see that the hp/ton on the Skorpion G is the one that's incorrect.

 

Only comparing to the SU-130PM does tell us that something's wrong, but it doesn't tell us which of the two tanks had the wrong values displayed.



bilzbobaggins #9 Posted Jan 11 2019 - 05:15

    Captain

  • Players
  • 47778 battles
  • 1,067
  • [-SSS-] -SSS-
  • Member since:
    12-21-2013
I wonder how many heads that scream russian bias all day long just exploded?

LeaveIT2Beaver #10 Posted Jan 11 2019 - 06:06

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 37180 battles
  • 9,887
  • [J4F] J4F
  • Member since:
    07-04-2014
I love the G and the SU

Edited by LeaveIT2Beaver, Jan 11 2019 - 06:06.


rockbutcher #11 Posted Jan 11 2019 - 06:25

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 22254 battles
  • 1,040
  • [-OPS-] -OPS-
  • Member since:
    03-06-2015
<0 for the shout-out Scorpiany.  Give me a shout if you need more help and I'll make the time.  I'm quite interested in these results myself.

Avalon304 #12 Posted Jan 11 2019 - 06:25

    Major

  • Players
  • 22532 battles
  • 9,655
  • [SNPAI] SNPAI
  • Member since:
    09-04-2012
Mostly irrelevant. Nothing actually meaningfully changes for the tanks in the OP. Most of the time differences arent meaningful enough to matter in the scale of this game.

Striker_70 #13 Posted Jan 11 2019 - 06:58

    Major

  • Players
  • 19694 battles
  • 6,544
  • Member since:
    04-02-2013

View PostDanadae, on Jan 10 2019 - 21:36, said:

The Skorpion G is already an OP tank

 

That's a myth.

Danadae #14 Posted Jan 11 2019 - 07:05

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 20789 battles
  • 1,133
  • [LONER] LONER
  • Member since:
    03-28-2015

View PostStriker_70, on Jan 11 2019 - 00:58, said:

That's a myth.

 

 

Pubbie stats disagree with you.



Striker_70 #15 Posted Jan 11 2019 - 07:21

    Major

  • Players
  • 19694 battles
  • 6,544
  • Member since:
    04-02-2013

View PostDanadae, on Jan 11 2019 - 00:05, said:

Pubbie stats disagree with you.

 

It's not even close to OP.  These days it's perfectly balanced for most players besides the best, who find it underpowered on average:

 



tanopasman62 #16 Posted Jan 11 2019 - 07:27

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 20587 battles
  • 4,280
  • [_ADP_] _ADP_
  • Member since:
    12-13-2016

View PostStriker_70, on Jan 11 2019 - 07:21, said:

 

It's not even close to OP.  These days it's perfectly balanced for most players besides the best, who find it underpowered on average:

 

 

If it's isn't then why is nearly every tier 8-10 game INFESTED by them?, it's a premium tank, it won't be nerfed. No need to make excuses up.

Danadae #17 Posted Jan 11 2019 - 07:32

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 20789 battles
  • 1,133
  • [LONER] LONER
  • Member since:
    03-28-2015

View PostStriker_70, on Jan 11 2019 - 01:21, said:

 

It's not even close to OP.  These days it's perfectly balanced for most players besides the best, who find it underpowered on average:

 

 

 

Considering it's not only the most played tank, but also the most played tank by bad players, your graph fails to impress me. I'm pretty sure you knew exactly what the f**k I meant, but allow me to correct my earlier statement:

 

The stats say it's the most played pubbie tank. In the hands of an even moderately good player, it's OP.

 

Feel better now, cupcake? If not, better find something else to get your panties in a twist.


Edited by Danadae, Jan 11 2019 - 07:34.


Striker_70 #18 Posted Jan 11 2019 - 07:39

    Major

  • Players
  • 19694 battles
  • 6,544
  • Member since:
    04-02-2013

View Posttanopasman62, on Jan 11 2019 - 00:27, said:

 

If it's isn't then why is nearly every tier 8-10 game INFESTED by them?, it's a premium tank, it won't be nerfed. No need to make excuses up.

 

The graph proves it's not OP.  People play it because it makes good money, is fun, and because of it's mythical status as being OP when the facts prove it's not.

Striker_70 #19 Posted Jan 11 2019 - 07:40

    Major

  • Players
  • 19694 battles
  • 6,544
  • Member since:
    04-02-2013

View PostDanadae, on Jan 11 2019 - 00:32, said:

 

 

Considering it's not only the most played tank, but also the most played tank by bad players, your graph fails to impress me. I'm pretty sure you knew exactly what the f**k I meant, but allow me to correct my earlier statement:

 

The stats say it's the most played pubbie tank. In the hands of an even moderately good player, it's OP.

 

Feel better now, cupcake? If not, better find something else to get your panties in a twist.

 

The win rate graph proves it's not OP.  In fact, it's proving to be underpowered for many players.  This is indisputable.

Danadae #20 Posted Jan 11 2019 - 07:42

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 20789 battles
  • 1,133
  • [LONER] LONER
  • Member since:
    03-28-2015

View PostStriker_70, on Jan 11 2019 - 01:39, said:

The graph proves it's not OP.  People play it because it makes good money, is fun, and because of it's mythical status as being OP when the facts prove it's not.
 
Additionally, here is a pic of me IRL:

 

 

Seems like most people would disagree with you. Number 4 on the list:

 

 

 

I just realized you're an intentional troll. At first I thought you were just daft or senile, but it's clear you're an intentionally obtuse ignoramus. I will conclude my conversations with you from this point forward.


Edited by Danadae, Jan 11 2019 - 07:46.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users