World of Tanks Beta

[GoodGame]

Lots of people play the fishermans bay like any other map and divide to the two flanks. If you are playing a medium it hardly matters where you go at the start, as it's very easy to move around as the situation unfolds. Hills to use for cover and no large solid obstacles blocking your way from one end of the map to the other.

True, but you have to play the extreme flanks only then (seaside town and hilly path) and avoid being sighted by the middle.


Still it is one of my favorite maps, among Sand River and Steppes.

 

[Rheinmetall]

True, but you have to play the extreme flanks only then (seaside town and hilly path) and avoid being sighted by the middle.


Still it is one of my favorite maps, among Sand River and Steppes.

True, but sometimes the extreme flanking leaves the middle totally neglected, I've sailed through the middle village with a JP4 straight to the enemy artillery, Driven T-43 through the middle to flank the seaside flank, etc.

 

[FriendlyFire]

I agree. People do so poorly in Fisherman's Bay because they've got used to the fact that there's max 3-6 routes in a map where a breakthrough is possible. Here it could be anywhere.

As a Heavy I almost always head into urban area for combat. Since gun accuracy means that we need to get in close range and the buildings provide a lot of cover from any arty.

Rushing up mid seen it work sometimes.

I remember in ENSK everyone went into town and smashed up everything in sight as we rolled up the city in massive numbers we were able to outgun the other teams tanks. Then we returned back to our flag and smashed up all the mediums trying to cap. It was amazing too see what was excellent team work by good players all on one team.

 

[cardgame]

On Ensk, I played derpTD with my S-51 about 5 days ago. Managed three kills and 58% base capture by going up the railroad.

 

[Rheinmetall]

Some tanks are half off during the "halloween special" so if you're looking to buy any of these, now is the time.

Wespe
VK 1602 Leopard
Jagdpanther
SU-26
T-28
M37
T1 Heavy
T20

I bought myself a Jagdpanther and got rid of the dreadful JP4, which surprisingly left me a victory ratio of 61%.

 

[Arexander]

I missed the 5x daily xp on 29th and all those tanks I've already had or haven't researched yet. Guess who's quite angry now.

 

[Zardnaar]

Stupid addictive game. I blame Mobboss for getting me addicted. Managed to get my win ratio in my T30 up to 70% and I'm grinding the IS4/E75 now.

 

[MobBoss]

Hehe. A 70% win ratio in any tank is quite impressive. Good for you!

 

[cardgame]

At how many battles do you guys start taking the statistics seriously? I don't count anything under 100 battles myself

 

[GoodGame]

At how many battles do you guys start taking the statistics seriously? I don't count anything under 100 battles myself

30 battles would be enough by common rules of statistics. But if you have a good computer and any learning capacity, you should actually improve your percent wins, etc... over time and battles.

I don't look down on people (including myself) for being below 50%, as long as I/they don't play in lemming-like-grind-baby-grind fashion. It's very possible to be a good player on a streak of bad teams, as well as on a long grind with a sub-par vehicle or a vehicle with sub-par modules. I consider victories to be more of a measure of your teamwork and leadership skills (and maybe the same of the clan/platoons you play with), than just your technical tanking abilities.

I'd consider your individual tanking skill to be measured more by your kill:death ratio, damage per battle, and experience per battle on your main tanks (there's still some room for sub-par performance on long grinds with sub-par vehicles). And even then some of that is influenced by one's wallet (gold rounds, premium account, paying for free experience).

From a clan recruiting point of view, I don't consider a player to be beyond "new user" status until they hit 100 battles with a particular tank, and beyond 2500 battles total. 1500 battles or less with only some premium tanks tells me one is new to the game and still learning game mechanics, unless Kill : Death and the victory percentage is much better than 50%. I definitely wouldn't recruit someone who's only tanks were like T59, Lowe and under 2500 battles.

 

[Zardnaar]

Dropped down to 69%. I consider 49/49/2 to be average but I also look at win % in tier8+ tanks. Generally 45% or lower menas they are a bad player/idiot.

 

[cardgame]

9% of my battles end in draws. Is that unusual or do you guys have similar stats?

 

[Zardnaar]

Thats quite unusual

 

[cardgame]

Still have a 53% win percentage so I'm going to say it's a good thing.

 

[shortguy]

Hey guys! I'm kinda late to this party, but I just started playing a few days ago and I'm having a good bit of fun. As you might expect (or not, maybe you guys were naturals), I'm getting worked pretty regularly. I thought I'd go with Soviet tanks to start with, and I've worked up enough silver to pick a tier 3. I'm kinda inclined to head down the T-34 line (with the BT-7), but I've heard the A-20 grind is murder. Also, that kinda precludes me from going toward heavy tanks. Any advice? For what it's worth, I kinda prefer to use the BT-2 to the T-26, but I seem to be worse with it for some reason. Also, what low-leved TDs and SPGs are good? It might be nice to have some diversity.

EDIT: Here's something weird. My winning percentage with the BT-2 is--get ready for it--28% (11 of 39). Maybe that means I'm the worst WoT player ever, but that doesn't make sense for a couple of reasons:

1) I'm (coincidentally) exactly 50% with each of the other 3 tanks I've used--1 of 2 with the Cunningham, 6 of 12 with the MS-1, 13 of 26 with the T-26.
2) Most of the time it seems like the battle has already turned against my team by the time I'm put out of action.
3) Suppose I am completely and thoroughly useless--that I literally never discover an enemy, damage an enemy, or even draw an enemy's attention while other friendlies are in range (though I'm bad, I'm obviously not this useless). Still, is 14 against 15 so big a disadvantage, particularly in low-level pugs where the talent level is so variable that two or three players likely are doing all the work, that I would end up winning at such a low percentage?
Anyway, what gives?

 

[Zardnaar]

The Soviet medium line kinda sucks and it doesnt get much better after the A-20 although the T-34 is kinda fun- just not as good as the PzIV, KV or M4 Sherman.

 

[GoodGame]

The Soviet medium line kinda sucks and it doesnt get much better after the A-20 although the T-34 is kinda fun- just not as good as the PzIV, KV or M4 Sherman.

I think the devs made the grind suck because the T-54 is about the best medium tank in the game.

The alternative is to go to KV-1s to KV-13 to T43.

 

[Rheinmetall]

BT-2 is quite painful unless you have 100% crew. It really struggles to turn corners at speed and the turret traverse is abysmal. All that combined with paper armor makes close combat suicidal. But. You have a good gun and your speed allows you to switch firing positions quickly, so it's not hopeless.

If you're inexperienced, the speed of the BT-2 allows you to get into trouble so fast you don't even realize you're in trouble until it's too late, so hold back a bit.

AT-1 in the soviet tree is a good TD. Especially when upgraded with the biggest gun it's murder against any same tier tank. Just avoid getting spotted, since you can't take any beating.

SU-18 is not so good, but might be worth to suffer through it to get to SU-26, which many consider to be one of the finest if not the best tier 3 SPG.

A-20 is not that bad if you're prepared to invest into it and play it like a scout instead of suicide rushing. Unfortunately many do not as they're just trying to climb up the tech tree.

And as far as "T-34 being weaker" than other T5 mediums. It's a matter of personal preference and experience, but never let anyone tell you it's a bad tank. In my experience T-34 is more than a match to any Pz4, M4 or KV.

 

[Esckey]

In my experience the T-34 is simply a different kind of medium tank. It's best used as a hit and run or run and gun tank, while the Pv is best suited as a sniper and the M4 is a good jack of all trades tank.

But the T-34-85 is a massive let down for me at least

 

[Rheinmetall]

In my experience the T-34 is simply a different kind of medium tank. It's best used as a hit and run or run and gun tank, while the Pv is best suited as a sniper and the M4 is a good jack of all trades tank.

But the T-34-85 is a massive let down for me at least

T-34 is more of a pure medium tank than Pz4, as Pz4 is in the "heavy" tree and is posing as a heavy tank. In terms of mobility Pz3/4 is equivalent to T-34. Same goes for M7 in the american medium tree.

I was disappointed with the T-34/85 too when I played it during beta. It's so slow. But I've heard it improves a lot once you get the idiot gun on it.