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

Striker_70 #21 Posted Jan 11 2019 - 07:49

    Major

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

View PostDanadae, on Jan 11 2019 - 00:42, said:

 

 

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.

 

 

Yes, let's ignore the actual data which is on clear display and rely on argumentum ad populum instead.  Smart.  Maybe that's the reason everything you "realize" has turned out to be wrong.

 



Collapsed_Eigenfunction #22 Posted Jan 11 2019 - 08:11

    Major

  • Players
  • 27520 battles
  • 5,173
  • [GOONZ] GOONZ
  • Member since:
    12-06-2011

View PostStriker_70, on Jan 11 2019 - 06:40, said:

 

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

 

Win Rate tells you very little about how OP a tank is, the Skorp is a very passive tank and thus will have less ability to determine the outcomes of matches then do other tanks as it is marginally more team reliant. Forcing wins in lights or heavies is much easier then TDs as those classes are more capable of making decisions about how the match will play out rather then being a reactionary class attempting to just throw a sufficient number of shells at a problem to solve it. The stats that would be most relevant are the average damage numbers of the skorpion compared to other tier 8s which I would think are in the ballpark of +~400-500 above average. Your stats are disputable as there are far too many confounding variables which have not been addressed, for instance if you're going to compare overall win rate to tank win rate then at the very least the overall must be for that particular class of vehicle since as I said before, other classes have the ability to be more aggressive and play a more impactful role in setting up matches to be a win. 



TheManFromKekistan #23 Posted Jan 11 2019 - 08:14

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 28 battles
  • 3,134
  • Member since:
    02-03-2017
Great. Now wg will nerf it in the name of accuracy so people can't play the can't nerf premium tank card.

Striker_70 #24 Posted Jan 13 2019 - 02:55

    Major

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

View PostCaptain_Rex33, on Jan 11 2019 - 01:11, said:

 

Win Rate tells you very little about how OP a tank is, the Skorp is a very passive tank and thus will have less ability to determine the outcomes of matches then do other tanks as it is marginally more team reliant. Forcing wins in lights or heavies is much easier then TDs as those classes are more capable of making decisions about how the match will play out rather then being a reactionary class attempting to just throw a sufficient number of shells at a problem to solve it. The stats that would be most relevant are the average damage numbers of the skorpion compared to other tier 8s which I would think are in the ballpark of +~400-500 above average. Your stats are disputable as there are far too many confounding variables which have not been addressed, for instance if you're going to compare overall win rate to tank win rate then at the very least the overall must be for that particular class of vehicle since as I said before, other classes have the ability to be more aggressive and play a more impactful role in setting up matches to be a win. 

 

Win rate doesn't tell you much, but win rate curves do.  Win rate curves are specific and precisely tailored to each level of player.  Some tanks are OP for new players, but not for great players.  Some tanks are OP for great players, but not for new players.  Some tanks are OP across the board.  Win rate curves tell you how much a tank raises or lowers a specific skill level's win rate just by playing it.  An Object 252U (Defender) is OP because it raises nearly everyone's win rate on average simply by playing it.  A Skorpion G is not OP because it keeps their win rates the same or worse.  



kgomoll #25 Posted Jan 13 2019 - 02:58

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 63234 battles
  • 217
  • [-NHL-] -NHL-
  • Member since:
    08-30-2012
Give em a break there Russian, they cant help it.

Collapsed_Eigenfunction #26 Posted Jan 13 2019 - 05:09

    Major

  • Players
  • 27520 battles
  • 5,173
  • [GOONZ] GOONZ
  • Member since:
    12-06-2011

View PostStriker_70, on Jan 13 2019 - 01:55, said:

 

Win rate doesn't tell you much, but win rate curves do.  Win rate curves are specific and precisely tailored to each level of player.  Some tanks are OP for new players, but not for great players.  Some tanks are OP for great players, but not for new players.  Some tanks are OP across the board.  Win rate curves tell you how much a tank raises or lowers a specific skill level's win rate just by playing it.  An Object 252U (Defender) is OP because it raises nearly everyone's win rate on average simply by playing it.  A Skorpion G is not OP because it keeps their win rates the same or worse.  

 

Win Rate tells you very little about how OP a tank is, the Skorp is a very passive tank and thus will have less ability to determine the outcomes of matches then do other tanks as it is marginally more team reliant. Forcing wins in lights or heavies is much easier then TDs as those classes are more capable of making decisions about how the match will play out rather then being a reactionary class attempting to just throw a sufficient number of shells at a problem to solve it. The stats that would be most relevant are the average damage numbers of the skorpion compared to other tier 8s which I would think are in the ballpark of +~400-500 above average. Your stats are disputable as there are far too many confounding variables which have not been addressed, for instance if you're going to compare overall win rate to tank win rate then at the very least the overall must be for that particular class of vehicle since as I said before, other classes have the ability to be more aggressive and play a more impactful role in setting up matches to be a win. 

 

in case you didn't read it the first time.



AZandEL #27 Posted Jan 13 2019 - 05:27

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 30180 battles
  • 732
  • Member since:
    09-06-2012

View PostScorpiany, on Jan 11 2019 - 03:32, said:

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.

 

Really what difference does it make. The Skorp G is plenty well above average/OP as it is. Surely you aren't suggesting it be buffed,



Scorpiany #28 Posted Jan 13 2019 - 05:32

    Major

  • Game Knowledge Expert
  • 36967 battles
  • 13,043
  • [N1NJA] N1NJA
  • Member since:
    06-27-2013

View PostAZandEL, on Jan 12 2019 - 20:27, said:

Really what difference does it make. The Skorp G is plenty well above average/OP as it is. Surely you aren't suggesting it be buffed,

 

What? I'm saying that its stats are already better than they are listed. It has 850 HP and 22 HP/ton, nor WG's advertised 650 HP and 17 hp/ton.

 

That means it either needs to be nerfed to the actual 650 horsepower, or for WG to correct the listed numbers to reflect the performance that the tank actually has.


Edited by Scorpiany, Jan 13 2019 - 05:36.


commander42 #29 Posted Jan 13 2019 - 06:23

    Major

  • Players
  • 26889 battles
  • 5,238
  • [T-R-P] T-R-P
  • Member since:
    07-08-2013
interesting, it begs the question, which one was made in error(if there was an error)
option A: the 850 is an error and the in game number is what it is supposed to be, leading to the tank being even better than it should be
Solution A:nerf it to the value its actually supposed to be, which is really needed anyway cause the tank has been OP, and if the 850 was an error its even more OP than it was supposed to be.

Option B:the 850 is correct and the 650 is an error
Solution B: fix the number in game to reflect the true value of 850

Option C: they INTENTIONALLY made the values different in order to make the tank seem less OP to calm the pay to win complaints.  This is the most disturbing possibility, as if they did it with the skorp, what other tanks might they have done it with?
 

NeatoMan #30 Posted Jan 13 2019 - 15:06

    Major

  • Players
  • 28180 battles
  • 20,535
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View PostDanadae, on Jan 11 2019 - 01:42, said:

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.

He's absolutely correct.  Just because you have no clue what those graphs mean, it does not make them wrong.

 

read and learn

http://ftr.wot-news....nk-performance/

 

Those graphs are the BEST indicator of OP/UP tanks.  I know the current climate in this country favors conviction in beliefs over facts, but that doesn't make those beliefs correct.    Facts trump feelings

 

View PostCaptain_Rex33, on Jan 12 2019 - 23:09, said:

Win Rate tells you very little about how OP a tank is, the Skorp is a very passive tank and thus will have less ability to determine the outcomes of matches then do other tanks as it is marginally more team reliant. Forcing wins in lights or heavies is much easier then TDs as those classes are more capable of making decisions about how the match will play out rather then being a reactionary class attempting to just throw a sufficient number of shells at a problem to solve it. The stats that would be most relevant are the average damage numbers of the skorpion compared to other tier 8s which I would think are in the ballpark of +~400-500 above average. Your stats are disputable as there are far too many confounding variables which have not been addressed, for instance if you're going to compare overall win rate to tank win rate then at the very least the overall must be for that particular class of vehicle since as I said before, other classes have the ability to be more aggressive and play a more impactful role in setting up matches to be a win. 

 

in case you didn't read it the first time.

 

Those graph encompass the entire spectrum of players and circumstances experienced across the server.  It accounts for every and all circumstances that a tank will encounter.   If it can't win battles, despite being OP, then all that extra damage is worthless.  Players simply farm damage in it.  Who cares if players can farm more if it isn't having any meaningful impact on battles?  Being able to farm one more shot of damage in losing causes does not make it OP

 

A good indication of OP is to look at what good players can do with it, since they are the ones that know how to get the most out of their tanks.  The graphs show that it is far from OP in their hands.

 

Now, you may have a point if WG is still using and manipulating MM weights as a tank balancing mechanism.  By altering MM weights WG is able to mask UP and OP tanks by putting weaker tanks on the same teams with OP ones, and vice versa to offset them.  It allows tanks to remain OP/UP while their win rates remain around 50%.  It makes it appear as if everything is just fine. 

 

MM weights really aren't needed any more in the new MM, but I have a strong suspicion that they are still monkeying with them.   As evidenced by this thread, WG still has far too many hidden parameters that they monkey with behind the scenes.


Edited by NeatoMan, Jan 13 2019 - 15:29.


FrozenKemp #31 Posted Jan 13 2019 - 15:53

    Major

  • Players
  • 53379 battles
  • 9,837
  • [8ARMY] 8ARMY
  • Member since:
    04-24-2011

The interesting thing to me here isn't the stuff about the Skorpion at all, but the comparison of the other tanks. I don't think I really understood that WG models gearing differently for different tanks or in fact at all and to be honest now that I know about it, I would kind of like to suggest that WG take it out .  I know that will probably sound crazy but how are players to judge anything when we aren't presented with enough information? 

 

And is the gearing stuff they put in accurate?  Does WG monkey with these values?  The game is so far away from being a simulation that I question the value here.



Kliphie #32 Posted Jan 13 2019 - 16:14

    Major

  • Players
  • 32820 battles
  • 5,342
  • [GFLC] GFLC
  • Member since:
    07-20-2012
#GermainBias

NeatoMan #33 Posted Jan 13 2019 - 17:02

    Major

  • Players
  • 28180 battles
  • 20,535
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View PostScorpiany, on Jan 12 2019 - 23:32, said:

That means it either needs to be nerfed to the actual 650 horsepower, or for WG to correct the listed numbers to reflect the performance that the tank actually has.

which do you think it needs?  If it's simply an ovesight/typo, then no big deal.



spud_tuber #34 Posted Jan 13 2019 - 17:54

    Major

  • Players
  • 58910 battles
  • 8,577
  • Member since:
    08-26-2013

View PostScorpiany, on Jan 12 2019 - 22:32, said:

 

What? I'm saying that its stats are already better than they are listed. It has 850 HP and 22 HP/ton, nor WG's advertised 650 HP and 17 hp/ton.

 

That means it either needs to be nerfed to the actual 650 horsepower, or for WG to correct the listed numbers to reflect the performance that the tank actually has.

Does it use the 650 or the 850 in traverse performance? 



spud_tuber #35 Posted Jan 13 2019 - 18:00

    Major

  • Players
  • 58910 battles
  • 8,577
  • Member since:
    08-26-2013
I find a few things in this thread kind of interesting on a human behavior level.

That it took a German tank significantly outperforming a Russian tank in an area they should have been similar for anyone to throughly investigate this.

That people seem to be ignoring the the info in the T10 vs cents or 277 vs IS-7, as if RU bias is nothing surprising.

That people can look at data that strongly suggests the skorpian isn't OP, yet still insist that it is.

And finally, that WG is so determined to hide the true performance of tanks with hidden stats...

NeatoMan #36 Posted Jan 13 2019 - 18:45

    Major

  • Players
  • 28180 battles
  • 20,535
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

View Postspud_tuber, on Jan 13 2019 - 12:00, said:

And finally, that WG is so determined to hide the true performance of tanks with hidden stats...

They have done so in the past, so there isn't really a good track record from WG for being completely forthcoming with all the game parameters.

 

camo values used to be hidden stats.  Players were banned for cracking the in game files and posting that information.  Only after the cat was out of the bag did WG actually start posting camo values.


Edited by NeatoMan, Jan 13 2019 - 18:46.


spud_tuber #37 Posted Jan 13 2019 - 20:26

    Major

  • Players
  • 58910 battles
  • 8,577
  • Member since:
    08-26-2013

View PostNeatoMan, on Jan 13 2019 - 11:45, said:

They have done so in the past, so there isn't really a good track record from WG for being completely forthcoming with all the game parameters.

 

camo values used to be hidden stats.  Players were banned for cracking the in game files and posting that information.  Only after the cat was out of the bag did WG actually start posting camo values.

As I said, interesting from a human behavior standpoint. Why post any stats if you're going to make them almost meaningless via hidden modifiers? I wonder if they'd ban people for simply testing what the hidden stats are rather than digging it out of files?



SnakePliskan #38 Posted Jan 13 2019 - 20:52

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 27 battles
  • 912
  • Member since:
    07-09-2016

View Postspud_tuber, on Jan 13 2019 - 20:26, said:

As I said, interesting from a human behavior standpoint. Why post any stats if you're going to make them almost meaningless via hidden modifiers? I wonder if they'd ban people for simply testing what the hidden stats are rather than digging it out of files?

 

Russian mentality always been an always will be the same. To expect anything different you have to show where in history that part of our world has been transparent. You cant so it is what it is.

 

I really hope this thread doesn't get read because a loss of power would severely handicap the Scorp G and its one of the few tanks left I really enjoy.



Savage__Apples #39 Posted Jan 13 2019 - 21:26

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 39944 battles
  • 983
  • [F0CUS] F0CUS
  • Member since:
    05-14-2011
Everything i have read about the engine HP specs of the Maybach HL 210 TRM  P30 would indicate that WG did in fact state the correct HP rating for the Skorp G so i am not sure how anyone can say it is wrong.  Until WG decides to give us all the other unknown tanks stats  like transmission type, trans gear ratios, final drive ratios, max engine RPM  along with better terrain resistance metrics which has to do with tracks and suspension any side by side "race" comparison results are completely inaccurate when attempting to determine engine HP.   You can take 2 tanks that are exactly the same in every aspect other than final drive ratio and have a race and guess what? One will be faster than the other and one will accelerate faster than the other but yet the HP rating is identical and to say one has more HP than the other would be absolute bull crap. 

Edited by Savage__Apples, Jan 13 2019 - 21:29.


FrozenKemp #40 Posted Jan 13 2019 - 22:20

    Major

  • Players
  • 53379 battles
  • 9,837
  • [8ARMY] 8ARMY
  • Member since:
    04-24-2011

View Postspud_tuber, on Jan 13 2019 - 12:00, said:

That people seem to be ignoring the the info in the T10 vs cents or 277 vs IS-7, as if RU bias is nothing surprising.

 

Well, I put part of that on the subject line. 




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users