Statistics of all the tanks using the “new method”

Hello everyone,

regarding the “new method” post, Russian player Ivanerr prepared a list of all the tanks and their statistics. It can be downloaded here:

Please note that this list only uses data from players, who created their account either in 2012 or 2013. Data from ALL the accounts (very long span, including for example such old things as a pre-nerf IS-7) can be found here:

75 thoughts on “Statistics of all the tanks using the “new method”

        • I did well in it, 57% almost entirely solo.

          The main problem it has is on some maps there is sometimes one place it can go to be useful, one rock, one house, one whatever. And if you have to move from there you are screwed.

          It could use a bit more mobility maybe but it’s biggest problems are it’s size and design which you are a bit stuck with.

        • maybe the tank needs historical nerf and movement to tier 8 (as a VK 42.02 (p) hull option), and one of Mammut/Maus developement phases as tier 9 :)

          • It would be just as bad at tier 8 with historical armour. It’s just a fail design. Far too tall (and long) to work with a rear turret.

            The hull option for 4502A would make the problem go away because nobody would use it.

  1. Hey SS, is this some sort of software that generates these tables ? If so, could you give us a link or something ? :D

    If not, thanks anyway :D

      • Thanks, btw, did you noticed the stats for chinese 121 ?! I’m shocked tbh.

        Do you think this new method might cause major rebalances for some tanks ?

        • The problem with this method is that its sample period is too long; in other words it has what was called the “IS-7″ bias and also doesn’t reflect nerfs, buffs etc very well.

          Noobmeter had a very nice OP rating, which was the rolling average ratio between player win rate and tank win rate over a certain time period, but that part of the site seems to be down right now.

          The other thing is that for tanks with preferred MM, the numbers are hard to interpret because a tank should appear to be OP, since a player should win more with preferred MM than without it.

          • The actual problem with the method is the inconsistency of the tanks in random pubs. Compare the t62-BC25ts and the 4202 game-amount-wise and you’ll see what i mean. The less games you have, the less accurate the graph will be, with hundreds of thousands of games actually being pretty crucial at this point. I’ve been playing since 2009, like OBT-age, i’ve seen a shitload of buffs and nerfs, and my stat isn’t exactly useful for pointing out the OP/UPness of a tank, but if i played a lot more – it would at least show some consistency.
            Btw, preffered MM is actually a sort of “balancing” parameter, with the tanks that actually have it being rather sucky in T10 games (imagine a kv5 in a T10 game?), so there’s no point in saying “a tank should be op since it doesn’t see +2 MM”. They would be OP if the standard MM ones would get preferred MM without any technical changing.

      • Great job dude. I would suggest to make the axises Gaussian rather than linear, to meet the distribution of winrates.

    • Actually I’d say KV-1S is OP more, because it’s OP consistently (bad players get similar increase in WR as the good ones). Cromwell is tough to master, but good players can excel in it.

      That said, some minor nerf would probably be good.

        • Stats for tanks which are not available in the shop and have been played by players who have owned them and mastered them (compared to their regular tanks), should be considered on a different scale. And changing premium tanks is also something I am not too comfortable with, unless players are offered a full refund in gold.

          • Because bad players become good when they own a tank for a long time, but only with that one tank.

            I don’t buy that theory at all.

    • That’s not really news. I’ve got a 74% win rate in mine after 200 battles and over 6 in damage ratio.

      Now imagine how OP the pre-nerf marder 2 was.

    • 400m view range on T3 and really good gun for a t3….in t5 battles it’s somewhat UP in gun compartment, but you always have gold shells….so yea it’s made to be OP

  2. I found those graphs from 2 years period different than those posted earlier by you SilentStalker. In those graphs T110E5 and T57 Heavy seem to be underpowered, they even don’t cross the line.

    • e5 is rubbish

      it has weak posts on the top and bottom . It has low alpha for a heavy . It is more of a medium but then it’s a rubbish medium too as it also has poor cammo

  3. Is it just me or is the graph for the panzer 2 ausf J just ridiculous…
    I understand that it is an OP tank but that is just remarkable. Its not even on the graph.

  4. This is based off the Russian server? I’d be interested to see how the EU server looked like on the same graph.

  5. Surprising how OP so many of the low tier premiums are. Most of the tier 8s are a bit UP, but not excessively so. The 8.8 JT graph makes perfect sense. Decent for all players, but drops off for the better players since it’s not nearly as flexible. An upgrade to it’s terrain handling would probably improve that some, but it’s limited due to it’s low speed. I was surprised by the drop off at high levels with the leFH18B2. That arty is incredible, I guess it’s just a limitation of the low alpha.

  6. These graphs are misleading. The blue y=x line, the player winrate line, is over half a percent too high on these graphs. It makes tanks look worse than they actually are.

    If you notice, the blue line starts at (45, 45.6) instead of the (45, 45) it should start at. These graphs should be redone with correct blue lines.

  7. Looked through a lot of tanks on the 2 year player graphs (since I’m one of them), I think the AT-7 might actually be one of the worst offenders in it. A lot of the op as shit tanks that go off the charts by the end at least start “balanced” in red tier shit players but the AT-7 is basically 4-5% “overpowered” for the entire chart even on the worst players.

  8. Thanks for this, SS.

    I intend to use this to anticipate upcoming nerfs and buffs. It could be useful in helping me determine what tanks I keep or sell. If a tank that I enjoy playing turns up as UP or balanced on these charts then I can assume it’s safe (ex. T-34-85). If it turns up OP then I can anticipate that it’ll be nerfed at some point (ex. Cromwell).

  9. Interesting to see, that apart from the new TDs (not so much data?) and a few premiums (S35(f), WTF?), the German tree seems to have the fewest plain OP tanks with a lot of underperformers (virtually the whole light line seems to be in need of a huge buff…) .

    As far as I see, these charts show how important DPS seem to be in regard to other stats (and how useless accuracy seems to be).

  10. Looking through these stats there is something missing. Does all these sheets are based on every single game of every single account ever played since 2012 ?

    Because keep in mind that new players will play the low tiers … getting better and when they are ~60% winrate players they still have the low tier SU-18 on a really bad winrate. It will suggerate the Tank is very bad for good players but thats maybe not the case because they dont play it since they were noobs themselves when they played it.

    It would be better if these stats are only calculated on the last months games played of all players. Not only for more accurary of recent changes and tactic developments of players. Just to eliminate the bad noob stats of now very good players which are completly unimportant for tank balance when they dont play the tank anymore.

    Another not really necessary thing to keep in mind. The first 100 games you’ll get preferential matchmaking in a for you new tank. Okay you’ll need to learn to drive this tank and farm the equiptment for it. So the winrate will go up after you did that but sometimes/often/idk people already have the hang of it after 5 games and completed the equiptment already and after 100 games they are falling a little because the handicap is gone. Especially the lower the tier the faster you have the complete equiptment for a tank.

  11. These graphs seem to confirm that mobility/speed and alpha are the most important factors in the making of a good WoT tank.

  12. A few thoughts:
    1) axises should be made Gaussian rather than linear to represent the real win rate distribution. These graphs are only partially useful, because it’s very rare to see a player with a WR>55%, however they occupied 1/3 more of the axises.
    2) sample size is very important. Something like a PzII ausf J is definitely OP, however the sample size is small enough to make its graph very inaccurate. So ignore those rare vehicles.
    3) Gosh I would like to have these data in Tank Inspector. Very impressive.

  13. Though an interesting read, some of this stuff seems pretty weird. I’ve been going over the complete statistics and some of it just doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. Four examples:

    1) The premium Sexton I seems to be much more friendly to people around 51% wr whereas the Sexton II (which is basically better in all respects) is only good for noobs by the stats.

    2) The soviet IS is disturbingly underpowered according to the graph. IS2…more or less an identical tank is shown as grossly OP.

    3) Chinese Type T-34, despite being more or less the Soviet T-34 without the top gun apparently completely rolls over the Soviet counterpart. Two identical vehicles…and the one with an extra gun is way worse?

    4) VK4502A vs Tiger II. VK has more mobility. Tiger has more armor and incomparably better gun. Tiger II comes off underpowered in all WR regions compared to VK’s stats. How?

    Something smells fishy.

  14. In order to come to a proper *accurate* conclusion about the relative winning ability of a tank, you need to normalize overall win rate first. It could be that the best players who play the WTE100, for example, have a strong tendency to avoid playing any tiers other than 10. Thus, their overall win rates would be offset negatively by a small amount, making it appear more OP than it actually is. This, if course, is just an example, but it shows how overall win rate skews or just generally distorts the measured player quality distribution.

    • By normalize, I mean use some algorithm to calculate a rating to replace overall win rate, which treats each player’s performance between their tanks approximately equally, instead of treating 60% pure seal-clubbers as great players.