17 hours ago, Norse_Viking said:You guys should remove last colums, they give away the answer. Exp earned.
Overlooked that... Crap :(
Smart of you to reference experience gained though.
17 hours ago, Norse_Viking said:Di_Duncan :
1 loss, noone went and capped.
2 won, victory decided by damage done
DING! DING! DING! We have a winner. Have an upvote ;)
Although both of your interpretations are technically true, I would argue that they are too simplistic. Capping and damage dealt are certainly important in GlOps, but unfortunately they do not reveal the whole picture. I'll try to provide some insight from my perspective:
19 hours ago, di_duncan said:
Game 1 (Roughneck)
Game 1:
Ignoring post-match stats and the final result, if we compare the teams based on the criteria I've elaborated on here, team composition, vehicle combat effectiveness, and player skill all seem to be in favour of our team.
Team Composition:
- 4 T-15s against none on the opposing team
- Only 5 MBTs against us, while we have 6
Vehicle Combat Effectiveness:
- T-15s are extremely versatile and capable. Overperforming
- Obj 490 is extremely tough to eliminate, can push and contest caps.
- Excellent offensive MBT capability with the K2 (great frontal armor + burst damage), Leclerc T4 (DPM) and even the Type 99A2 (speedy)
vs
- Similar MBT capabilities
- 2 Wilks = significant module damage (PELE)
- Several Kornet ATGM snipers, with double-tap missiles.
Player Skill:
- Few players of note on both teams, but we have Shrek (who consistently performs well in any vehicle)
Despite these advantages on paper, this game was a disaster due to the following:
- We had the southeast spawn, which was naturally a disadvantage
- T-15s were rather lackluster, performing poorly and not carrying their weight
-
MBTs were evicerated by the Wilks firing PELE, and could not attack or even properly defend caps
- Many friendly MBTs were also below [expected] standards
- Eventual disregard for caps as the team faltered in the latter stages of the match
Our team's poor showing suggests yet another phenomenon in AW, the skill/effort gap.
As I've outlined in this post, T-15s in particular seem to be inconsistent and/or unpredictable; some being exceeding dominant while many are incompetent, ineffective or just simply average. Perhaps this shines a light on why the T-15 is even in it's current overperforming state. As a vehicle, it seems to be simple to get into and play, but quite difficult to master. Considering its popularity, the average majority of T-15 players have likely "diluted" the vehicle's statistics, which may have influenced the balance changes that have led to the T-15's current overpowered state.
Of course, skill gap(s) exist for any and every vehicle; with the main difference being the scale of the gap itself. Vehicles which are tough to master (such as the T-15) will obviously feature a greater range of players with varying levels of ability, mastery, and competence. Idiot-proof vehicles then (like the 490), will subsequently have a smaller/narrower range for individual skill.
As for effort, it's an extraneous factor which is unfortunately nigh impossible to determine, much less control. However, the post-game stat sheet clearly indicates a disparity between the opposition's effort and the effort put in by our team. Perhaps most notable is the distribution of and the difference between capture points. Whereas even their Wilks and Kornets have assisted in capturing, nearly two thirds of our team have zero capture points.
19 hours ago, di_duncan said:
Game 2 (Grindelwald)
Game 2:
This was an exhilarating battle to say the least. We started from the south, which I generally prefer (at least for LTs). One of my best games with regards to assist damage, despite not using any wildcards. However, as much as I'd like to boast about my personal performance, this game stands out as the single most organized and coordinated team effort I've witnessed in AW. All without any "cheese" vehicles (T-15, T40, CATTB, etc.) on our team.
18 hours ago, TeyKey1 said:Game two I'd guess for a loose again given the GLOPS points earned (not quite sure on this one). Even if your team did significantly more damage than the enemy the enemy managed to hold the points better.
Not quite. While I can understand why you would think this to be the case, the enemy team's capture point advantage was most likely a consequence of their early pushes to capture point 2 and 3 (two adjacent eastern caps during the first phase) and point 8 (single eastern capture point during the final phase).
Because the majority of our team were focused on point 1 at the start of the match, our opponents were able to blitzkrieg forward to capture points 2 and 3 with little opposition. Although prioritizing point 1 is often a mistake, point 1 also happens to be the easiest point to hold/defend. Our team was able to secure point 1, albeit with losses. However, as if on cue, those who died capturing point 1 collectively respawned in the east, pushing the enemy out of point 2 and subsequently capturing it as well.
During the final phase, the enemy team largely ignored the west, allowing friendlies to capture point 9 while I capped point 10 uncontested. With the vast majority of the opposition occupied on point 8, opponents attempting to capture points in the west were easily reset and eliminated.
18 hours ago, TeyKey1 said:It seems like the enemy TDs managed to cap/decap better than yours but did less damage.
While our TDs/snipers certainly did not help much with capturing points, I must commend them on their ruthless accuracy and efficiency. I am generally critical of snipers regardless of which team they end up on, but our snipers played a pivotal role during this match. Most (if not all) of them prioritized their targets, resetting efficiently while also remaining situationally aware of distant target(s) lit up by scouts/spotters. Ultimately, without our snipers, both Shrek and I would've had significantly less assisting damage.