3461

For me good matchmaking is having a smaller spread(i.e. only 3 tiers able to be in a battle, 4/5/6, 6/7/8, 2/3/4 etc) and to try balance out units more. Jumping into a battle full of T7/T8 heavies in a PzIV is laffo, and even in the VK(T6) it’s irritating but doable as long as I get an equal amount of matches where I’m the highest tier.

3462

You’ve come to a silly conclusion having read my post.

The actual overarching point of my post was to show that there are a lot of variables to consider if you want to come up with reliable data.

Every time you choose to ignore some variable, reliability of your data decreases. And at the very least, when publishing your data, you should disclose the variables. Sure, sometimes it’s probably ok to include a month old data into your sample but what if there was a patch two weeks ago and that patch made some changes to the matchmaker? Or if they’ve had a 6-hour maintenance last week and one of the things they applied was tweaks to the matchmaker? How many aforementioned “wallet warriors” stoppped driving their Lowes in the last month? Or vice versa, how many players became “wallet warriors” after hearing how good Lowes are for credit farming?

You assume nothing has changed in the last month to drastically affect your data but that’s just that - an assumption. And btw, there is nothing wrong with publishing your data AND listing the assumptions.

The point is the only people who can come up with a very reliable sample are the developers and I am pretty confident that the do analyze the data they are gathering. Too bad they don’t release it, like they release the win% for various tanks from time to time. Who knows maybe the average tier placement is 2.5 across the tiers 3-7.

But what to do with this data is a completely different story. Most of the issues we are currently seeing in the US are the growing pains of the smallest WoT server. The matchmaker works much better on the RU and EU servers although there are still bugs to fix and improvements to make.

Do you expect them to completely re-write all that logic (the logic that’s being tested for 8 months and is still not finished) and come up with a completely separate logic for the US server?

And what that logic is supposed to be? The Wombat asked this question and the answers we get is "tighten the tier spread’. Do you know that with the current matchmaker it can take (anectodally, of course, according to my clanmates) up to 10 minutes for a 3-person T-54 platoon to get into a match? You restrict the tiers and the owners of all those IS-7s, Mauses, T-54, etc. might as well park their tanks because they will never get a balanced +/- 1 tier match going. Should the devs alienate their most dedicated players?

But who cares, right? It’s much easier to just bitch and moan “My A-20 is always at the bottom of the list”.

3463

Hehe, actually, the funny thing is that I would also prefer them to tighten up the tier spread to 3 tiers max. But at the same time, I understand their reasons for not doing that.

And I am bored at work too. :)

[edit] Also consider that this tier placement issue mostly applies to tiers 4-6, as there are simply no -4 tiers below them. And a lot of Lowes above them :)

3464

I guess the question then is, how do you define “balancing out” the units? That’s what trips me up, as there are so many variables.

EDIT: And for fun, I just was in a match that pitted my team of 12 against a full team of 15. The tiers/spread were pretty much the same for both teams but they simply had three more tanks. I don’t know if we lost, I’m guessing we did, but I was arty and was killed very quickly because everyone rushed and left no base defense, of course :).

3465

Well 4 Ferdinands on one team in a T5-T8 battle isn’t amusing!

3466

Yeah, I hear you. Oh, in the match above? There was also a Marder II duking it out with the Tier IX tanks. Not for long, but still.

3467

I would just like to remind people:

The Tiger I is absolute muck. Slow as hell, no better armour than the VK3601H, it’s best gun offers no more damage than the VK’s and I’m always ALWAYS getting ammo critted on first hit leading to 20s reload times.

3468

I really hate morons who platoon their t1-t2 tanks with t9. Do they really think they the first to come up with this retarded idea? Do they think it’s still funny?

And no, the matchmaker doesn’t give the affected team a high tier heavy to compensate. Maybe a slightly higher tier medium in the lower half but often not even that.

3469

So, I’m seriously considering buying a Lowe. Mostly because I’ve realized that, while I almost have enough experience to get a T-29, I don’t have nearly enough silver to buy one.

Am I crazy? I hear the things make money like whoah, and I’m perfectly comfortable participating in the gold economy, but it’s a lot of money to spend on a virtual tank. On the other hand, it seems to me that if I field a Lowe, it’s more feasible to let Premium lapse, so perhaps it will all cancel out.

3470

People say the Lowes make money hand over fist; I’ve never played one. I make good money on my much cheaper Ram II, and it’s a fun tank. Many heavies are not that fun to play IMO, but I don’t know about the Lowe. I’d think it would be better to buy a 1750 gold tank and keep premium rather than splurge 7500 gold and drop premium, because I’m not sure you can even maintain a high-tier heavy without premium, but I’ll defer to anyone with more experience on that.

I will say that no one, no one, comes in for more abuse than Lowe drivers though. People seem to hate 'em.

3471

My Lowe takes a hell of a lot more of an arty pounding than my IS-3, for sure. Arty drivers seem to think it’s their responsibility to kill the dirty Lowe even when a scout is five feet away from them. It gets ridiculous after a while. Entire teams will target my Lowe instead of the IS-4 that’s rolling up beside them because they get a kick out of ‘teaching the wallet warriors a lesson’.

Which is fine, because I still have modules on all seven of my tanks and credits to spare.

Don’t easily believe the screenshots on the WoT forums where people show off their 150k credit matches. Don’t just buy into the statements where they ‘make 2 million credits in a day easy’.

Playing a Lowe is like playing a slightly worse Tiger II, and you’re in for a beating when you’re spotted. Everyone knows where to hit you, how to hit you, how long you take to reload, and they will all be gunning specifically for you. So those 150,000 credit matches are few and far between, I think I’ve had three in three weeks. Usually I manage a kill, or 2 or 3 kills and some good damage, and after ammo and repairs (because face it, you’re gonna die in the Lowe more than any other T8, just because of the hate), I clear about 25-30k in an average match net profit. There are those crazy games where you end up with a Steel Wall, Sniper and Top Gun and clear 100k+ but not very freakin often.

I hate playing my Lowe to be perfectly honest. Everyone else seems to just plain be out to get you specifically. And if your team loses, it will be your fault. Plain and simple. Your arty can sit there and not have fired a round, but it’s your damn fault, you’re a wallet warrior and you suck. No matter what other tanks you own or have previously owned.

3472

The Tiger I best gun is much better than the VK3601H best gun. It’s got 203mm of penetration vs. 132mm of penetration, so there’s no comparison. It’s also a bit more accurate.

It is extremely slow until you get the last couple engine upgrades. While I haven’t tried the IS, the T-29 which is the American equivalent is also extremely slow before engine upgrades. And depending on what you’re trying to do, the T-29 isn’t really any better. The 90mm has much lower penetration and only does 10 points more damage. The 105mm has extremely low rate of fire (5-7 rps) it’s accuracy sucks, and it’s penetration is slightly worse than the Tiger’s long 88, it does do great damage though.

I will say the T-29 does seem to do a better job bouncing incoming shells.

[Edit] Meant to say that the T-29 gun isn’t any better than the Tiger gun. Also looking over the stats, looks like the Tiger I gets a very large boost from engine upgrades (although they are quite expensive, if you get them all) whereas the T-29 engine upgrades are pretty minor.

Tiger I goes from 610 hp to 870 hp for a 42% hp increase. T-29 goes from 720hp to 800hp so only a 11% increase in horsepower.

Although it does look like the T-29 does have a higher top speed.

3473

The T-29 has absurd turret armor.

However, the developers have clearly fudged with the in-game capabilities, because I’ve penetrated the T-29’s frontal turret armor with guns that have no business doing so (ie, long 88).

If matched in its tier, without enemy artillery, a T-29 in a hull-down position is a monster.

3474

I think pretty much all of the heavies have their place. The Russians are strong knife fighters, the Germans make great snipers (until they turn into mobile pillboxes with tier 9), and the Americans are a weird bastardization of the two.

Invulnerable, really. Even up close most people just aim for the biggest target ignoring the weakspots. The T-29 punches far above its tier but then of course the T32 is a bit of a dog so it all evens out.

3475

Of course there’s a comparison, they do the same damage, have roughly the same RoF, and trades off a slight accuracy increase in a slower aiming time. How can you possibly say that there’s no comparison? There’s also that the Tiger is the next tier, with a concurrent increase in the armour value you’ll be facing so how much of an ‘upgrade’ is the increased penetration? :P

It is extremely slow until you get the last couple engine upgrades. While I haven’t tried the IS, the T-29 which is the American equivalent is also extremely slow before engine upgrades.

Haven’t played with many T-29s, however I’ve noticed that IS’s in battle seem to be a good bit faster than me!

And depending on what you’re trying to do, the T-29 isn’t really any better. The 90mm has much lower penetration and only does 10 points more damage. The 105mm has extremely low rate of fire (5-7 rps) it’s accuracy sucks, and it’s penetration is slightly worse than the Tiger’s long 88, it does do great damage though.

Ask almost anyone and they’ll choose the slow gun with the massive damage, I know I would :) Especially on the Tiger, as it has overall the weakest armour and most importantly - flat armour. Also, difference between 0.38 and 0.3 accuracy isn’t a huge loss for between 50-75% more damage imho!

Everyone suggests the Tiger is best played as a supporting sniper tank - which is fine, but TD’s do it better already(with a much smaller silhouette and a much better gun with camo bonus)

3476

The difference between 203mm and 132mm of penetration is huge. There is a wide range of targets that the 8,8cm long can penetrate that the 8,8cm short can’t. The 8,8cm long is just a much better gun.

Also, difference between 0.38 and 0.3 accuracy isn’t a huge loss for between 50-75% more damage imho!

The difference between 0.38 accuracy and 0.3 accuracy is also very large. Although if your playstyle ensures you are always at close range, accuracy isn’t that important. Try a duel with two tanks at 400m with both tanks partially under cover, one with 0.38 accuracy and one with 0.3 accuracy and tell me who wins.

3477

It’s huge if both tanks are the same tier, but going from T6 to T7 leads to a huge jump in the armour values you face compared to going from T5 to T6(as the 3601h’s gun ups the damage over the PzIV but keeps the same penetration).

Not really addressing the “no comparison” bit either ;)

So really, going from a T6 Med to a T7 Heavy you get a gun with 20% less dispersion, slower rof, slower to aim, same damage, and higher penetration. Doesn’t sound, or feel like a fantastic upgrade to me.

3601h is a fantastic all rounder when fully upgraded, the Tiger never will be.

The difference between 0.38 accuracy and 0.3 accuracy is also very large. Although if your playstyle ensures you are always at close range, accuracy isn’t that important. Try a duel with two tanks at 400m with both tanks partially under cover, one with 0.38 accuracy and one with 0.3 accuracy and tell me who wins.

The one with the Derp gun, which is the T29 or the IS.

PS: The difference between the 88cm short and long is 20% less dispersion at 400m, 1.2m vs 1.44m

3478

I have a fully upgraded T29 now, grinding along, and it’s a good, solid heavy. I like it, the 105 is slow but with a rammer and a decent crew it’s not too bad, and it hits hard. Accuracy, eh, could be better. In beta I had a Tiger, and hated it at first. Upgraded, it slowly grew on me, but really they make good targets more than anything else because they love to burn.

The IS and IS-3 I had in beta were fun; the IS-3, which is as far as I got in the Soviet line, was a really fun tank overall.

3479

The IS-4 is everything you liked about the IS-3 squared. It’s a really nice tank.

3480

So I’ve heard. My Soviet line this time though is TDs, with mediums a secondary. Once I unlock the KV-13 and the T-43 though I can eventually do both from my T-34-85 I guess.