Jump to content


Today's Battle Heroes Discussion

Battle Heroes Tank Balance

  • Please log in to reply
79 replies to this topic

Ronin Gaidin #41 Posted 18 April 2019 - 02:15 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 34963 battles
  • 4,394
  • Member since:
    11-10-2013

All of this talk and charts made me look at my own numbers. My overall win rate is 56.8%.

 

Rampanzer       317 games played      56.78% Win Rate.   

Almost perfectly in line, as the chart said it would be. Being weighted as a Tier VI Heavy probably has a lot to do with that. That and as other have mentioned a lot of games in this tank are more joyride and less tryhard. Please ignore the 4,321 WN8. 

 

Absolution          49 games played       77.55% Win Rate, WN8 of 3,916. OK, might be slightly overpowered. ;)

 

Tiger 131      Only 9 games played      100% Win Rate (Undefeated!!!)  WN8 of 4,211. I'm sure the PMM and small sample size helped me there. 

 

And from all of this I have drawn this conclusion: I really need to get some crew training done in these tanks before they get nerfed. :trollface:

 



moosehaT o #42 Posted 18 April 2019 - 03:30 PM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 27185 battles
  • 1,309
  • Member since:
    02-13-2014

Guys a joke, always look at tank balance...please :D

 

Will you ever look to re-balance tanks that you have nerfed? I.E. The AMX 30B?

  • [PAINGOD] We are always looking at tank balance and especially follow up on tanks we’ve made changes to. The AMX 30B is still performing above average currently even after the changes we made.

"For a pessimist, i'm pretty optimistic"


PLR65 #43 Posted 18 April 2019 - 05:58 PM

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 35817 battles
  • 97
  • [GBR]
  • Member since:
    08-17-2014

I thought what was more interesting Paidgod was going to submit a ticket to see if the MM could accommodate matching platoon tiers.

 

oh and that intern given responsibility to resolve all MM issues still hasn’t been replaced.



ThunderChickenX #44 Posted 18 April 2019 - 06:31 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 15806 battles
  • 2,199
  • [TRB]
  • Member since:
    10-01-2014

View PostR35T NO MORE, on 18 April 2019 - 02:32 AM, said:

Looks at own 131 stats, 66% win rate, and I'm just a standard uni not a super.. Hmmm...

 

Any blue to super uni's here have a 131 with an average win rate? 

I’m only running an 84.62% win rate in my 131, clearly under performing.



"Trying is the first step toward failure." - Homer Simpson

I don't upload much, if ever: www.youtube.com/channel/UCu-MJIN-3uT6m-B3LhHj6

For Those Who Care Spoiler


RAD FROOD 25 #45 Posted 18 April 2019 - 06:32 PM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 20311 battles
  • 1,441
  • [PR1D3]
  • Member since:
    04-26-2014
More importantly I really really really hope that paingod is joking about putting that E90/100 krokodile nonsense in the game. 

BloodNmyCoffee2 #46 Posted 18 April 2019 - 06:33 PM

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 27566 battles
  • 305
  • [CUDA]
  • Member since:
    07-16-2016

View PostFishfood50, on 18 April 2019 - 09:07 AM, said:

 

There's some other way to play this tank?????:sceptic:


Haha.  Agreed.  I’m never very dang serious in mine at all, I take it out for laughs once in a while.  I have 89 battles in it with 61.8 win %.  My overall win % is 53.65.  



allhavoc #47 Posted 18 April 2019 - 06:54 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 50456 battles
  • 2,317
  • [10SR]
  • Member since:
    02-12-2014

WG shouldn't even bother presenting this data.  Humans will believe whatever they want to believe.

 

There are still people who think that the Waffle is OP.  But when they see one in battle, what do they do?  Load HE, duh.


[10SR]  


IBROX 04 #48 Posted 18 April 2019 - 07:06 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 20354 battles
  • 9,114
  • [BNKR]
  • Member since:
    11-10-2014

I had to go check. Don't normally visit wotinfo . 

 

Pz. V/IV = 58.65%

Tiger 131 = 58.54%
Absolution = 56.69%
 
+ 100% Solo 
 
 

 

 

 

 


TocFanKe4 #49 Posted 18 April 2019 - 07:17 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 20912 battles
  • 24,180
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    03-16-2014

View PostThunderChickenX, on 18 April 2019 - 01:31 PM, said:

I’m only running an 84.62% win rate in my 131, clearly under performing.

 

I did 4880 damage in mine last night in a loss.  I agree it's under performing.  I bounced two winning kill shots off a 68 HP tank.  Clearly it needs a pen buff. 

 

The E25 was built for Shenanigans


Rubbelito #50 Posted 18 April 2019 - 07:22 PM

    Major

  • WoTC Online Contributor
  • 24084 battles
  • 8,414
  • [IMTLZ]
  • Member since:
    02-04-2016

View Postallhavoc, on 18 April 2019 - 08:54 PM, said:

WG shouldn't even bother presenting this data.  Humans will believe whatever they want to believe.

 

It's a futile task indeed.

TocFanKe4 #51 Posted 18 April 2019 - 07:23 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 20912 battles
  • 24,180
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    03-16-2014

5/4 = 66.45 % win rate, 927 average damage, 456 games played <- this contains a lot of games from back when I was a banana 4 years ago.  Many stat padding games back then.

 

131 = 67.11 % win rate, 1771 average damage, 76 games played

 

I haven't played the Absolution yet.  I just don't like it so much I don't want to play it. 


 

The E25 was built for Shenanigans


Rubbelito #52 Posted 18 April 2019 - 07:26 PM

    Major

  • WoTC Online Contributor
  • 24084 battles
  • 8,414
  • [IMTLZ]
  • Member since:
    02-04-2016

View PostTocFanKe4, on 18 April 2019 - 09:23 PM, said:

5/4 = 66.45 % win rate, 927 average damage,

 

I have 1027 avg dmg and only 60% wr.

Platooning much? :P



TocFanKe4 #53 Posted 18 April 2019 - 07:26 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 20912 battles
  • 24,180
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    03-16-2014

View PostRubbelito, on 18 April 2019 - 02:22 PM, said:

 

It's a futile task indeed.

 

The data shows what it shows.  The Absolution is very OP.  The data they show on top of the damage stats shows this.  The other two can be interpreted as OP if you also look at how much damage per game they put out.  Even WG doesn't perform balance based on one stat, or at least they don't from what I've read in their comments. 

 

The E25 was built for Shenanigans


TocFanKe4 #54 Posted 18 April 2019 - 07:28 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 20912 battles
  • 24,180
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    03-16-2014

View PostRubbelito, on 18 April 2019 - 02:26 PM, said:

 

I have 1027 avg dmg and only 60% wr.

Platooning much? :P

 

Duh. :D  5 player 5/4 platoons were how I stat padded back in the day. 

 

Now I get mad if anyone wants me to platoon with it, because they ruin my mark chance by dividing the damage up.


 

The E25 was built for Shenanigans


Nuke2099 #55 Posted 18 April 2019 - 07:29 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 23404 battles
  • 13,945
  • [KMD]
  • Member since:
    02-11-2014

Any plans to add the Krokodil E100?

  • [PAINGOD] No current plans. It actually never came up before, I had to look it up to know what it was. We’ll add it to the new tank request list.

 

I really don't know why PAINGOD is even considering putting it on the list of requested tanks. It's more fake than the current Jageroo, Chinese fake TD's and Japanese super heavies. It's only origin is some fantasy piece from a modeling kit which is why he never had it come up before. IT'S FAKE. 

 

I know this game isn't 100% accurate but if this get's in then where's my Imperial Guard 40k tanks? They're from model kits. Where's my Baneblade and Shadowsword super heavies? Where's my Leman Russ? :P

 

I can't post the link to the site that confirms it's extra fake but here:

 

"Another very popular "design", that keeps appearing from time to time. This time it doesn't come from a computer game, but probably from some modeller. Even this vehicle has fake history accounts on the internet, that can confuse people. The main reason it is so popular is because it looks great, however, it was never concieved by German engineers. Sorry. The whole "Jagdpanzer E-100" business was a pretty odd affair anyway - basically it was just a thought design - some guy somewhere had an idea that it would be cool to put a huge gun on the E-100 chassis and make it a superheavy tank destroyer. Nothing more, not even the type of the gun was decided. Mr. Hilary Doyle (a German tanks expert) confirmed this is a fake - the only thing that actually WAS real was a part of the weapons mount, but that didn't even fit the E-100 hull. The Jagdpanzer E-100 currently in the game is a result of what Wargaming thinks it might have looked like - the most realistic one at least. As was again confirmed by Mr. Doyle, the Krokodil wouldn't work for various reasons (the weight distribution, suspension strain... there are many threads about this on WoT forums)."


Edited by Nuke2099, 18 April 2019 - 07:30 PM.

lQqtvt1.gif

TocFanKe4 #56 Posted 18 April 2019 - 07:30 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 20912 battles
  • 24,180
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    03-16-2014

View PostNuke2099, on 18 April 2019 - 02:29 PM, said:

Any plans to add the Krokodil E100?

  • [PAINGOD] No current plans. It actually never came up before, I had to look it up to know what it was. We’ll add it to the new tank request list.

 

I really don't know why PAINGOD is even considering putting it on the list of requested tanks. It's more fake than the current Jageroo, Chinese fake TD's and Japanese super heavies. It's only origin is some fantasy piece from a modeling kit which is why he never had it come up before. IT'S FAKE. 

 

I know this game isn't 100% accurate but if this get's in then where's my Imperial Guard 40k tanks? They're from model kits. Where's my Baneblade and Shadowsword super heavies? Where's my Leman Russ? :P

 

I can't post the link to the site that confirms it's extra fake but here:

 

"Another very popular "design", that keeps appearing from time to time. This time it doesn't come from a computer game, but probably from some modeller. Even this vehicle has fake history accounts on the internet, that can confuse people. The main reason it is so popular is because it looks great, however, it was never concieved by German engineers. Sorry. The whole "Jagdpanzer E-100" business was a pretty odd affair anyway - basically it was just a thought design - some guy somewhere had an idea that it would be cool to put a huge gun on the E-100 chassis and make it a superheavy tank destroyer. Nothing more, not even the type of the gun was decided. Mr. Hilary Doyle (a German tanks expert) confirmed this is a fake - the only thing that actually WAS real was a part of the weapons mount, but that didn't even fit the E-100 hull. The Jagdpanzer E-100 currently in the game is a result of what Wargaming thinks it might have looked like - the most realistic one at least. As was again confirmed by Mr. Doyle, the Krokodil wouldn't work for various reasons (the weight distribution, suspension strain... there are many threads about this on WoT forums)."

 

SoonTM

 

The E25 was built for Shenanigans


Rubbelito #57 Posted 18 April 2019 - 07:33 PM

    Major

  • WoTC Online Contributor
  • 24084 battles
  • 8,414
  • [IMTLZ]
  • Member since:
    02-04-2016

View PostTocFanKe4, on 18 April 2019 - 09:26 PM, said:

 

The data shows what it shows.  The Absolution is very OP.  The data they show on top of the damage stats shows this.  The other two can be interpreted as OP if you also look at how much damage per game they put out.  Even WG doesn't perform balance based on one stat, or at least they don't from what I've read in their comments. 

 

I'm not disagreeing at all.

All those tanks are over-powered in themselves, but at least two of them seem to be mitigated by battle weight (or whatever it is for the 131).

Whether that is the correct way of doing things or not is another question (and certainly debatable), but at least two of them are balanced in wr compared to how players play their other tanks.

But every time WG shows some data, people don't believe them, or make up any excuses as to why that data must be wrong etc.

 



Nuke2099 #58 Posted 18 April 2019 - 07:36 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 23404 battles
  • 13,945
  • [KMD]
  • Member since:
    02-11-2014

View PostRubbelito, on 18 April 2019 - 07:33 PM, said:

 

I'm not disagreeing at all.

All those tanks are over-powered in themselves, but at least two of them seem to be mitigated by battle weight (or whatever it is for the 131).

Whether that is the correct way of doing things or not is another question (and certainly debatable), but at least two of them are balanced in wr compared to how players play their other tanks.

But every time WG shows some data, people don't believe them, or make up any excuses as to why that data must be wrong etc.

 

 

Why should they when their data never takes into account player experience. PC version at least listens and gathers feed back from the population on how tanks are doing. They don't just use their "data". 


lQqtvt1.gif

Rubbelito #59 Posted 18 April 2019 - 07:40 PM

    Major

  • WoTC Online Contributor
  • 24084 battles
  • 8,414
  • [IMTLZ]
  • Member since:
    02-04-2016

View PostNuke2099, on 18 April 2019 - 09:36 PM, said:

 

Why should they when their data never takes into account player experience.

 

And by "player experience" you mean anecdotal evidence?

Like I said, whether it's good or not having strong tanks balanced by battle weight is certainly debatable, but most of the criticism are often founded in the argument that the data must be wrong, or they don't include this or that etc.

If you haven't seen it, I can recommend the video where they show how much and in detail they look when they do their balancing process.

Let me know if you want me to find the link.



TocFanKe4 #60 Posted 18 April 2019 - 07:47 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 20912 battles
  • 24,180
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    03-16-2014

View PostRubbelito, on 18 April 2019 - 02:33 PM, said:

 

I'm not disagreeing at all.

All those tanks are over-powered in themselves, but at least two of them seem to be mitigated by battle weight (or whatever it is for the 131).

Whether that is the correct way of doing things or not is another question (and certainly debatable), but at least two of them are balanced in wr compared to how players play their other tanks.

But every time WG shows some data, people don't believe them, or make up any excuses as to why that data must be wrong etc.

 

 

That's basically how it's supposed to work. Someone posts data ,then the peer review process starts.  There are those that completely disregard data that doesn't agreed with them. But real data criticism comes from a place where everyone is looking for the truth. 

 

Pat and I had a good discussion on his data over aim times. It got a little feisty at a point, but eventually we did some more experiments and found a way to make the data even better. That's how it's supposed to work.


 

The E25 was built for Shenanigans





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users