Still no data? I see...

Maybe tomorrow.

But joking aside: I provided data 3 times, even taking your complaints into consideration. You couldn't do it a single time.

That warrants some self-reflection.

If your 3 rebuttals are insults, making up something new and unrelated or saying you could provide data but won't, than it is more than enough for everybody to make up their minds.

I don't know if this stategy ever worked on anybody, but clearly doesn't work on me.

What does? Data. You even had a quote for that. You should take your own advice on that.

And if you will ever find some data, just put in here for everybody to see - I could wait.

No, how strong a plane is in the game is determined by how a random sample of the whole population plays it. How the top fraction of a percent of players play it doesn't matter, at all.

Your "explanation" is nothing more than your already-formed conclusion seeking justification.

IOW - "Cool story, bro."

Again, cherry-picked numbers are not "data." No more than 1+1=3. Yes, we all know that you have 3 as your answer. Going out and picking numbers specifically to bolster your personal opinion doesn't make those hand-picked numbers "data", nor do they make your conclusions legitimate.

No matter how many times you claim it does, 1+1+=/=3, and never will.

So, no, you have not yet presented any data. You have presented an opinion, which you have sought to justify by grabbing whatever numbers suit that conclusion, regardless of their actual value to that conclusion. The fact that you think an actually statistically-significant sample might lead to a "misleading" result tells the entire story. Thank you for FINALLY admitting that you have no clue how any of this works.

No, you do not get to redefine words to suit your argument. Cherry-picked numbers do not magically become "data" because YOU say so. "Overpowered" has a meaning to the vast majority of the game population - you don't get to redefine it to suit your argument.

Now you're lying, yet again. Claiming that I "can't" provide data. Of course I can, but I WON'T, because you're rude and pretend that somehow you deserve it. Sit your arrogant ass down, and grasp what I'm telling you:

Everything I've said and claimed can be verified by merely playing the game and watching what happens. Oddly, these observations bear themselves out in the wider statistics when you compare playerbase-wide and individual WR%, both on an intra- and inter-player basis.

As I already explained (multiple times), gauging how strong an Aircraft based on random players could be misleading, but fine. As I did the first 3 surveys, now it is your turn to gather the data - obviously adhering to your previous expectations.

But until than we have to use the best data that is actually available.

"Everything I've offered is better."

Considering up until now your tactic was wasting everybody's time hoping that we forget that you still couldn't provide any data (and the one that I provided refuted your every claim), I don't think nothing is better than data.

What was the old quote again? "Data first..."?

After more than a dozen comments, you should start to adhere to your own quote.

Wrong, they AREN'T random players. The top 100 aren't random, either. That isn't data, and it is not "better than nothing" because it is just telling a fictional story. It is actually worse than nothing, because you're actively engaging in lying. At least "nothing" is neutral.

Everything I've offered is better. Better because I'm reporting the stuff that everyone can see with their own eyes. They can verify my claims by just playing the game.

The more you pound your keyboard pretending that you have any clue what you're talking about, the more you prove my point. PLEASE keep it up.

"Except you didn't check data."

Is the data I collected comprehensive on 3 different occasions? No. Is it better than literally nothing? Yes.

"Again, you just cherry-picked something convenient, instead of actually taking a random sample of the whole playerbase."

I quite literally started with a random pair of players. I can't do a truly random survey because Wargaming don't release the data (just the top 1000 players) and it would be misleading because there are less skilled players who perform poorly even in overpowered aircrafts. I just finished a game where I beat an Me 410 B-2 with an Fw 190 A-5 and it wasn't because the latter aircraft is stronger. On the other hand something like the Top 100 players are prioritising the stronger aircrafts and could fly them competently.

I checked 2 players, than 10, than 100, even addressing your complaints. The data paints a consistent picture. If your rebuttal is that you allegedly have something better but aren't willing to show it, than I think the evidence (what actually exist) is pretty convincing.

Except you didn't check data. Again, you just cherry-picked something convenient, instead of actually taking a random sample of the whole playerbase.

And amount of play still tells you nothing, because they are in different tiers, AND one is a premium, the other isn't.

AND, after all that, if you don't like the Ju-287 as the 2nd most overpowered plane in the game, fine. I allowed that the Su-10 could fill that role. It's harder to play well, as compareed to the EF-131, so it gets less play, but it is more flexible and can more effectively defend itself.

Again, it's a nuance. Something you obviously don't understand.

No, the dataset I'm using is available to everyone. But you are nobody, and I don't respond to your idiotic demands.

I don't know what AI told u but with an older acer predator I had issues with the killer network software... after deactivating this all worked fine for me....

"Oh, I didn't assume anything without data. The problem is that I'm not going to share it with \you*."*

The problem is that you think anyone would belive this. So in the one hand there is actual data that anyone could check, on the other is something more/better, but it is secret. Yeah...

"Your numbers don't mean anything without a time frame. The RB-17 has been in the game MUCH longer than the Ju-287."

Okay, I do the data collecting (again). I checked everyone in the EU server's 100 highest winrate player from the last 4 weeks who created the account AFTER 2022 (to prevent counting the merged CIS accounts) (the Ju 287 was added in Update 2.0.10, in 2019).

They played a combined 469 battles with the Ju 287 and 5029 with the RB-17. More than 10 times more.

This is the difference between assumption and actually checking the data (it took me like 5 minutes).

Oh, I didn't assume anything without data. The problem is that I'm not going to share it with *you*.

Your numbers don't mean anything without a time frame. The RB-17 has been in the game MUCH longer than the Ju-287. In addition, in the beginning, the "forever" boost bug and before the turret nerf, created a situation where the RB-17 was (arguably) the most powerful Tier VIII plane. OF COURSE it's been played more. I've played mine 10x as much as my Ju-287. But that doesn't change the sheer capturing power of the Ju-287. 2nd only to the EF-131.

When you ignore factors (like time-in-game) for a particular plane, or exclude the other 7000+ members of the HoF, or define words to your benefit (like "data" and "overpowered"), you're just writing fiction.

Lying.

And not even doing it well.

You cherry-picking some select number doesn't turn them into "data" - they are merely anecdotes to make your fictional story more colorful.

Worthless.

No, little one, I am definitely not butthurt. I am laughing at you and your hubris. It's hilarious, and every passing post tells me what I need to know about you. You are most certainly NOT as smart as you imagine yourself.

Tandem Sh. It was such a fun plane in the beta. It has never been released.

I could only give a (half) joke answer:

Get a tool (like the built-in Boot Camp Assistant) to run Windows on the Mac and you will be set.

I'm just checking back periodically.

I see you still couldn't muster any data.

"You don't have data - full stop."

Indeed. Aside from the over 30k combined games I already provided. And data on two more random players. And the base stats for the relevant aircrafts. Aside from that I have nothing - this is why I urged you time and time again to provide much more data (or any).

"Your anecdotes aren't data"

I don't think you understand what data means. Anecdotes (like when you said the Ju 287 is the second most overpowered aircraft) aren't data. Data is when I went to the official website and added up the top player's Ju 287 games and realized it is surprisingly low compated to other planes.

"I don't care (and neither does anyone else) how the Wyvern compares to other Tier VII MRF."

Yet again - when got caught, you made up ANOTHER new lie. This was the start of the conversation (saying that you don't care AFTER writing over a dozen posts about it), do you have the data that nobody cares? No?

And also - the question is still if the Wyvern is overpowered compared to the Tier 7 tech tree Multiroles. Even if it was true that nobody cares, this has nothing to do with the original question.

"is a hilarious demonstration of your hurt ego."

one paragraph earlier:

"I don't owe you any data."

The joke writes itself.

So you can't provide any data, because you are butthurt, not because it would destroy your argument? And you expect that I belive this?!

"Mostly because you yourself have not presented any. Remember "data" is not "a bunch of carefully selected numbers to tell a story.""

Data is a collection of raw numbers, words or observations. Yes, data is exactly a bunch of numbers and even better: this is something that you could check right now.

"Go find the quote where I said the Ju-287 is overpowered compared to the EF-131. I dare you. Or do you not comprehend the term "2nd most"?"

Ok, lets assume you think the EF 131 is the most overpowered (stronger than the Me 410 B-2 it its tier) and the Ju 287 is the second most overpowered. Yet somehow the top players play nearly 7 times more games in the RB-17 than in the Ju 287...

This happens if you assume without any data. To prevent this in the future, you should try to live up to your quote of "data first...".

At least one of us has the mental horsepower to be able to do mental gymnastics.

The other? Not so much.

You don't have data - full stop. Your anecdotes aren't data - they are a narrative you created to tell a story. A fictional story to pretend you know something about this game.

I don't care (and neither does anyone else) how the Wyvern compares to other Tier VII MRF. MRF are the weakest planes at tier. That one of them is better than the others has no effect on gameplay in Tier VII. You calling it "overpowered" is you misunderstanding how that term is used by literally everyone else. Shifting the goalposts to claim it's "overpowered for a MRF at Tier VII" is a hilarious demonstration of your hurt ego.

I don't owe you any data. Mostly because you yourself have not presented any. Remember "data" is not "a bunch of carefully selected numbers to tell a story." That second thing is just fiction writing.

Lying.

Go find the quote where I said the Ju-287 is overpowered compared to the EF-131. I dare you. Or do you not comprehend the term "2nd most"?

Well, that would speak to your mental horsepower, I suppose.

Do YOU have ANY data? No?

Yeah...you can't weasel your way out of this one. If you found any, than came back and present it.

But until than to keep the debunking train running:   "It doesn't require a graph to demonstrate that nobody plays the Wyvern. All it takes is people with eyes who play Tier VII."

Indeed. It is hard to lie and say NOBODY plays it, because it is very easy to debunk: spot a single one and thats it. Also, the question is still about is the Wyvern overpowered compared to the Tier VII tech tree multiroles or not.

"Only the Kostikov 302 gets less pay time"

This is EXACTLY what I spoke about. When you get called out because you can't present any data, you make up another thing. The question was (and still is): is the Wyvern overpowered compared to the Tier VII tech tree multiroles? The 302 neither a Multirole Aircraft nor tech tree, thus it is has nothing to do with the question.

Also, you failed (again) to present any data for that too. Is the 302 the least played? I don't know, maybe, maybe it is some other plane like the La-9RD. Without a wide survey I can't tell and since it wasn't the question that I gave some data for, it is irrelevant.

"I never claimed the Ju-287 was overpowered in comparison to the EF-131"

To quote you: "The J6K1 is nowhere near the 2nd-most OP plane in the game. The Ju-287 holds that title..." Since you said you think the Su-10 is also very strong, the EF 131 can't be the most overpowered, meaning you think the Ju 287 is overpowered compared to the EF 131.

The mental gymnastics you try just to avoid providing any data is immense, but it clearly doesn't work. A quote came to mind: "Data first..."

But see, that's the thing, you're *not* presenting data. You're starting with the conclusion, and going out and finding something to support that conclusion *without looking at the entire data set.*

This is nothing more than lying with statistics. It doesn't require a graph to demonstrate that nobody plays the Wyvern. All it takes is people with eyes who play Tier VII. And even if more people played it, it still wouldn't be overpowered. At least, not by the definition everyone but you uses. It's easily countered by any of the T7 light fighters. Even some of the MRF at Tier VII can shoot it down with ease. Not fast enough or enough altitude to get away from any of the heavy fighters at tier, and cannot outcap many of the PvE planes at Tier. Add all that to the fact that it sees Tier VIII planes A LOT, players would be wise to choose some other plane to play. And because you desire to be stupidly pedantic, "nobody" in this case means "very rarely." Only the Kostikov 302 gets less pay time.

As I said in my review, good players can access *and put to use* all of the plane's capabilities. Well, you can say that about ANY plane in the game with those players. That doesn't make the plane, in any way "overpowered," especially when using the common definition (as opposed to your special one.) It merely points out that good players are, well ... good. Nothing more.

I never claimed the Ju-287 was overpowered in comparison to the EF-131. You're just straight up lying about that.

My question: Here is my data. If it isn't good enough, why aren't you willing to show ANY data?

Your answer: "Data first, then conclusion."

"I don't need a graph..."

Wait, isn't "Data first"? It can't go both ways.

"I don't know where you got the idea that carefully selecting data..."

Let me answer with a quote: "Data first, then conclusion." Or in another way: you can't drew a conclusion without data.

Insulting me the first 4 times had clearly no effect. Maybe try some actual, verifiable data. I even wrote down exact instructions how to do it.

The fact that you were unable or unwilling to provide any despite being asked multiple times let me deduce you either don't know what are you talking about or know that a proper dataset wouldn't support your argument, so instead you try to waste time with more insults or shifting the goalpost

(like "I don't need a graph to prove that nobody flies the Wyvern", despite this wasn't ever came up until now, wasn't disputed and also technically false).

UPDATE:

And before even more prevarication, first lets tackle the original two that I provided some data:

- is the Wyvern generally perform better (overpowered) compared to the Tier 7 tech tree Multirole fighters.

- is the Ju 287 the most played/overpowered tech tree aircraft compared to the EF 131.

Because I don't cherrypick data to spin a false narrative. It's called lying with statistics, and it's done all the time by people who have conclusions and wish to find data to support those conclusions. That's called "inductive reasoning."

If you want to prove a point, you have to use "deductive reasoning." Data first, then conclusion.

I don't need a graph to prove that nobody flies the Wyvern. Everyone who plays the game sees it with their own eyes. Heck, not even Pain or NobleQ play the plane. They played it a little bit, gave their opinions, and have mostly avoided it since.

I don't know where you got the idea that carefully selecting data to support some narrative is actually a successful strategy - the more you post, the dumber you look.

So to summarize in a single sentence:

The source I gave (the official stats that you could look up right now) isn't good enough, while your source doesn't exist.

Get it.

I found it funny that you try so hard to avoid giving a SINGLE actual source that anybody could check.

I literally wrote down what you have to do: if a dozen player and over 30000 games isn't enough, than detail what would be an acceptable number for you (like the best 100 or 1000 player), collect and share the data.

And if you cannot do that, than at least think about why not. If the data would prove your point, than it would be soo easy. I can only think a single reason why you didn't provide any source.

No, it's equal to nothing. The plural of anecdote isn't data.

No, lying with statistics isn't "evidence."

It's lying.

No, a strong plane in a particular class isn't "overpowered." You're misusing the term, and somehow think that you're the one who gets to define what the term "overpowered" means. When everyone else uses the term to describe planes or equipment or pilots that cause people to literally have to behave differently in the hangar in order to play that tier, that is the meaning of "overpowered." *You* might not like that use, but that is how literally everyone else talks about the game.

Which makes you wrong. Full stop.

But you like to be right, which is why you say the dumbest stuff. Nobody, anywhere claimed that the J6K1 would meet the EF-131. Why bring it up? It's stupid to say such a thing.

Nobody, anywhere claimed that play testers at other game manufacturers weren't paid. You were obviously unaware that at Persha Studios, there are some volunteer play testers who are not compensated. It's fine not to know things, dude. But to go out of your way to argue about and bring up irrelevant stuff from other companies makes you look sad.

I get that English is not your first language, but your arrogance doesn't allow you to grasp when someone actually knows more than you. You obviously don't understand statistical analysis, which is not a surprise - not many people do. You also don't grasp basic logic. Again, not a surprise - few people are educated in formal logic these days.

When I reviewed the Wyvern, I predicted some stuff, because I've been around the game for a while, and have seen how people play, what people play, and which tiers have what kind of meta. The Wyvern, for all it's A2G capability, isn't played much at all. it has very little effect on gameplay at-tier, and none when bottom tier. It's power to affect gameplay and the choices people make in the hangar are essentially zero. It is that power that people refer to when we talk about plane balance and the game overall. Not some nitpicky nobody's special, personal, weird definition on a Reddit nobody reads. That is the power people talk about when they go to Tier X and decide what plane to take out. And everybody knows what plane they have to use, or what plane they need to pick to counter it - well, if they want to win a Tier X battle. We all know which plane that is. *That* is the definition of "overpowered." Game-breaking at tier. Not merely "strong for its class." BTW, all the things I predicted about the Wyvern came true. Weird, right?

Maybe you don't like that "strong for its class" is not the definition of "overpowered" to the WoWP community. Fine, but it's not me or you creating that definition - it's the entirety of the playerbase. You don't get to make your own definition to suit your particular need to be right. It just makes you look silly and argumenetative.

Now, for the benefit of all three people who have read this far in the thread, I have heard from two of the uncompensated play testers that they have given their opinions on the He-177 to Persha, and that they hope Persha takes their advice seriously. I understand that at least two of the other uncompensated play testers have given the same opinion. While I do not know what they have said, I am assuming that the comments surround plane balance at tier, because rarely do a group of people come to a consensus so quickly.

We'll see what Persha does, and when the plane comes out, I'll review it like I have with the others.

And this goes for my other claims too.

For example yesterday I played more than a dozen Tier 8 games. I met 2 B-29Cs, but not just more RB-17s, but 2, 3 and even 4(!) RB-17s in a single game.

Is it a conclusive evidence? No. Is it better than nothing? Definetly.

"Comparing planes to the tech tree doesn't make anything "overpowered.""

Tech tree average is the baseline - anything that is much stronger than that is overpowered.

For example every Tier 7 tech tree Light fighter has firepower ranging between 16-28 (only 2 has more than 22). The J6K1 has 44.

Another example is the Wyvern: every Tier 7 tech tree Multirole has an ordnance value between 0-26 (but only 2 has more than 15). The Wyvern has 58.

This provide a huge advantage over the other Aircrafts of the same type.

"But when the EF-131 rules the skies, arguing about the relative excellence of a light fighter is idiotic."

Indeed - comparing the J6K1 to an Aircraft it cannot met is indeed "idiotic". If the EF 131 would be a Tier 7 plane, than almost nobody would play the J6K1.

"If you want a real comparison, you compare it's WR% overall at tier with other MRF, among ALL the players, not just some cherry-picked couple that support your viewpoint."

I already compared - now you have to do at least some ammout of work. I provided some evidence - you? None so far.

Comparing planes to the tech tree doesn't make anything "overpowered."

"Overpowered" is a term one uses when discussing the game as a whole, including Tier and Period. A plane that is strong for its class is meaningless if that class is at the bottom of the meta for winning battles. Like the P.1101 at Tier X. And exceedingly capable LF, for certain. OP, one might say. But when the EF-131 rules the skies, arguing about the relative excellence of a light fighter is idiotic.

The same goes for the Wyvern. Bombers and Heavy Fighters rule the skies in Tier VII, and the Wyvern doesn't mean anything there. Absolutely, great players can make the plane do great things. That is *why* they are great players! If you want a real comparison, you compare it's WR% overall at tier with other MRF, among ALL the players, not just some cherry-picked couple that support your viewpoint.

This is exactly why when I reviewed it, I said it wouldn't affect gameplay at Tier VII. It doesn't, because nobody plays it. And nobody plays it because it is a hard plane to fly well, and people don't come to WoWP for a flight model challenge. They come to the game to shoot down planes and blow up ground targets, and maybe win some battles in the middle of all that. The same reason you don't see the FW-1290A-5 being flown by other humans often (or at all.) Not because it isn't a good MRF at Tier VI, but because that power is hard to access. One could call that MRF "overpowered" at tier, but it just isn't, even though it is arguably the best MRF at Tier VI.

You are misusing the term, and using carefully picked numbers to support your viewpoint, while ignoring anything that doesn't support it. That is intellectually dishonest.

As I pointed out, game tester is a job - even the worst gaming companies, like Electronic Arts use (and pay) them:

https://www.ea.com/playtesting

I do understand that Wargaming don't pay for it and it is sad, but my problem wasn't the payment, but the results: the overpowered aircrafts (compared to their tech tree counterpart).

Cherry picking? I literally went for the currently playing 10 highest winrate player in the most played server (and also, over 30 thousand combined games), but fine. Than please tell us what would be a fair, non-cherry picked example? And also do it, because collecting the data for even 10 players took too much time, so if you want lets say the 100 or 1000 highest winrate player (or a thousand random player), than you have to do the data collecting.

MajorPain__:

Wyvern: 59

Typhoon: 25

Fw 190 D: 180

P-47N: 57

TheNobleQ:

Wyvern: 8

Typhoon: 223

Fw 190 D: 221

P-47N: 108

Source:

https://clans.worldofwarplanes.eu/wowp/search/#wgsearch&type=accounts&search=MajorPain__&account_id=501005401&limit=10&accounts-battle_type=default

https://clans.worldofwarplanes.eu/wowp/search/#wgsearch&search=TheNobleQ&type=all&limit=4&accounts-battle_type=default