Ads displayed for guests and not donating members only. Get ad-free by donating. If you have already donated, please read here.
Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: M5 Stuart and WN8

  1. #1

    M5 Stuart and WN8

    I recently downloaded WOT Statistics and was pleased to find the WN8 Expected Tank Values Viewer that came with it. The fact it is based on individual tank values should make WN8 an excellent gauge of our own performance. After looking at the expected damage stats contained in the Values Viewer it highlighted just how flawed WN8 can be for certain tanks.

    An example of this is the M5 Stuart, the best gun it is possible to equip it with is the 37mm T16 Gun. It is the worst gun I can find at T4 with just 56mm of penetration with AP or 78mm with premium shells and average damage of 40hp. A five round clip means it can potentially make 200hp damage between reloads and endows it with a maximum rate of fire of 27.4 rounds a minute. It is expected to make 302.05 hp of damage a battle.

    Compare this to the Chinese version of the same tank the M5A1 Stuart, it's stock gun is a single shot version of the T16 37mm. The M5A1 researches a 47mm gun with 81mm of penetration using standard AP and 130mm with premium rounds, average damage for these rounds is 70hp and it enjoys a 24 round per minute rate of fire. This is expected to make 352.09 damage a battle.

    Both tanks have very similar characteristics in terms of top speed and view range, however the Chinese version is very capable of penetration most tanks it will face in game and the USA version has a gun that has 2mm less penetration than the one on my Type 98 Ke Ni and that doesn't reliably penetrate even at T3.

    Whilst I am by no means a great player when I played the M5 Stuart it had a mini derp gun which has since been removed from the vehicle and I averaged less than 300hp damage a battle, also that was when T4 scouts regularly went into T8 battles and survivability was very low. However, unless they manage to only get T4 battles and no T5 or T6 games, I find it extremely difficult to believe that a sufficiently high number of players currently using the M5 even get close to an average of 300hp damage a game using the current top gun, no matter how good they are.

    Perhaps someone can shed some light on just what proportion of players the current damage ratio for most tanks is actually based on. Looking at the Other Commanders list which shows the damage of 552 pages of players, however only the first 43 pages shows players who's damage is equal to or exceeds 302.05hp per battle. This means just 7.7% of players using the M5 have ever averaged the WN8 expected damage level. Compare this to the T9 T54 which has a required damage made of 1488hp per battle, 269 pages of the 443 pages of players using the T54 make or exceed it's required damage amount, over 60% of the players for who stats are recorded.

    Look at the T70, the damage it is expected to make is achieved by 16.5% of players. Surely a representative figure should be based on the average damage of everyone who plays it or at the very least the top 20% or 30% of players of every vehicle, not a different percentage of them for each tank...!!

    Just considering these three examples, which all show a very different percentage of players who have averaged the expected level of damage for the tanks mentioned; How can I or anyone else take WN8 stats seriously as a tool for us to gauge our own performance by?
    Last edited by; 2014-10-11 at 17:21.

  2. #2
    Perhaps it is time to re-address how you use the tank.
    You always need to know what the tank can do.
    In this instance, maybe it is time to play the passive scout instead - damage caused by your spotting is just as effective.

  3. #3
    Unfortunately passive damage doesn't contribute to WN8, unless something has changed recently. I was using the two versions of the M3 as an example of how inconsistent the game can be, after all both are almost identical scout tanks of the same tier, the only real difference is the main armament. Another example is the FV304, despite its longer reload and aim times together with it's reduced accuracy and manouverability the expected damage is the same now as it was before it was nerfed in the last patch.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts