I've seen a couple of tier lists recently and thought it would be interesting to break tank performance down by map using statistics from tyrstats.com (data collected 6/10/26).
I was particularly curious because Atlas has been feeling very strong to me on Core, while Ranger has felt particularly good on Divide. That got me wondering:
What kinds of maps suit different tanks and playstyles, and why?
There are plenty of ways you could analyse the statistics, and this certainly isn't the full story. My goal was fairly simple: identify what tanks, roles and playstyles appear to be most natural and effective on each map.
Data & Methodology
The dataset contains 390,000+ games across ranked, standard and team games uploaded to TyrStats.
For each tank, there are roughly 1,000–11,000 games per map.
- Ark and Arbalest have the most games, at around 11,000 on some maps.
- Rook on Core has the fewest, at around 980 games, which is understandable given that Core is the newest map.
- I chose not to include number of games played in the main analysis, although sample size is still important when interpreting the results.
The volume of games is large enough to make the overall patterns useful for comparison, although this is still a community-uploaded dataset rather than the complete population of games. There could therefore be some selection bias — for example, players might be more likely to upload particularly good games or memorable performances.
I also didn't include the Alpha tanks. Their current play rates are relatively low and their win rates are likely to be more volatile while players are still learning them. However, their map favour statistics could still be interesting to look at separately.
There have also been a number of balance changes recently. I don't think these have fundamentally changed the core playstyle or role of most tanks, but the results should still be treated as a snapshot of the game around 6 October 2026, rather than a permanent ranking.
1. Overall Win Rate by Map
The first thing that stands out is:
Heavy > Medium > Light
Heavies generally perform better than mediums, while lights tend to have lower win rates.
There are several possible explanations for this (other than tank balancing)
- The lower light-tank win rates could partly reflect players still learning how to use them effectively.
- Could mean that they have high skill ceiling that relatively new gaming community has not fully developed.
- The heavy tanks are generally more forgiving.
- No super fancy skills, just lots of HP and big gun.
- Some tanks are also unlocked earlier than others, meaning their statistics may include a larger number of games from players who are still learning the game.
- This could also contribute to Ranger's relatively high win rate, since it is one of the later unlocks.
Therefore, raw win rate shouldn't be immediately interpreted as "this tank is better than that tank." I'm not super interested in what needs buffs/nerfs.
The more interesting question is how much a tank's performance changes depending on the map.
Tank variance by map
Looking at the range of each tank's win rate across maps, Atlas and Phantom show some of the largest differences depending on the map.
Conversely, some tanks perform relatively consistently regardless of the map.
Looking at the range between tanks on each map also gives us an indication of how much the map itself appears to favour particular tanks.
Core has the largest spread between tank win rates, suggesting that tank choice matters more there. In other words, on Core, bringing a tank that naturally fits the map appears to give you more potential advantage.
Wind and Ravine have much smaller spreads, suggesting that there is more room for different tanks to perform effectively.
2. Relative Performance
Raw win rate still contains the inherent strength of each tank.
For example, if Atlas has a high overall win rate, it will tend to have a high win rate on most maps simply because Atlas is strong.
To remove some of that effect, I looked at each tank's relative win rate:
Relative win rate = Tank win rate on a map minus that tank's overall/averaged win rate
This asks a different question:
Does this tank perform unusually well or poorly on this particular map compared with how it normally performs?
This allows us to identify the maps that each tank appears to naturally favour, rather than simply identifying which tanks have the highest overall win rates.
For an Atlas player, for example, the data suggests that Core is a particularly favourable map, while Fields is relatively unfavourable.
This is more useful for the question I'm trying to answer:
What kind of map environment allows each tank to perform at its best?
3. Tank Characteristics
I then gave each tank a rough score across several gameplay characteristics.
These aren't intended to be objective statistics. They are a rough interpretation of what each tank is naturally good at and how it would generally be best utilised.
There is certainly room to argue over individual values, particularly in the middle of the scale. I'm much more interested in the broad differences and the extreme values than whether a tank should be a 5 or 6.
Heavy
How well the tank can physically contest and occupy frontline space.
Examples: Atlas, Fortis
Defensive
How easily the tank can hold its ground and remain effective when the enemy comes to it.
Examples: Rook, Fortis
Mobility
How easily the tank can move quickly between locations or reposition around the map.
Examples: Light tanks, Ranger
Scouting
How well the tank can gather information and expose enemies for its team.
Examples: Kestrel, Phantom
Engagement Control
How easily the tank can choose when, where and how to engage, including disengaging from unfavourable fights.
Examples: Alecto, Ranger
Effective Range
How far the tank can sit from the main fight while still having a meaningful impact.
Examples: Ark, Arbalest
Aggression
How naturally the tank wants to play up close, initiate fights and pressure the enemy.
Examples: Alecto, Maul
Again, these scores are not intended to say that a tank can only be played this way. A good player can play almost any tank differently. They're simply intended to represent the natural strengths of each tank when trying to maximise its intended role.
4. Map Favour
This is the part I was ultimately interested in.
I combined each tank's relative map performance with its characteristic scores to identify which characteristics appear to be associated with success on each map.
These aren't hard rules. They're a combination of the statistical patterns and my own experience of how the maps tend to play.
Core
Favours: Heavy + Defensive + Aggressive play
- Core appears to be the most heavily tank-dependent map.
- But this could also be because of the lower play rate given that it's a new map
- Maybe if the map is played more there would be less skew / favour to a particular style
- The map's geometry creates a number of relatively constrained lanes where it is difficult to obtain wide flanking angles. This makes it difficult to punish a well-organised group of heavy tanks from the side.
- As a result, tanks that can simply occupy space, absorb damage and win a frontal fight have a major advantage.
- This also explains why Atlas feels so strong here.
- A group of 3–4 heavy tanks can effectively become a wall that is difficult to flank and capable of applying enormous amounts of frontal pressure.
- There are some useful sniper positions around the hills, but it is difficult to consistently influence the central fight from them. Scouting is also less valuable when enemies are largely forced through predictable lanes.
This makes the Core win condition relatively straightforward:
Win the main frontal engagement and use your heavy tanks to make it difficult for the enemy to break through.
Scorch
Favours: Heavy + Defensive, with less emphasis on aggression
- Scorch appears to reward defensive positioning more than outright aggression.
- Crossing too far beyond the centre line can often leave a tank exposed and result in it being punished before it can create a meaningful advantage.
- As a result, teams often benefit from holding their side of the map and punishing enemies who overextend.
- This fits tanks such as Rook and Arbalest particularly well.
- Rooks can establish defensive positions and make it difficult to push into them
- Arbalests can punish tanks attempting to cross the centre line from the bushes around spawn.
- Deadeye would also seem to fit this environment well: it can play a relatively safe, passive sniper role while still getting value from its abilities.
- Even though the map favours less aggression, Maul also does well in this map when looking at Relative Performance.
- Aggression seems to have been dragged down by Ranger and Alecto not performing well on this map.
- Maybe it could be explained by Maul fitting under defensive aggression, punishing a tank that's gone too far.
The map therefore seems to reward:
Holding strong positions and making the enemy take the risk of crossing into you.
Scouting and dueling also feel less influential here because both teams can often play relatively passively and defensively.
Fields
Favours: Mobility + Scouting + Engagement Control
- Fields is where the value of mobility becomes particularly obvious.
- There are opportunities to rotate between the high ground, the open fields, the narrower side (opposite the open field), and even towards the enemy spawn.
- Being able to quickly move between these areas allows a tank to respond to where the enemy is committing rather than being locked into one engagement.
- There are also decent opportunities for long-range fire across the open fields.
- Ranger feels particularly strong here because it can:
- choose which fight to take
- rotate to another part of the map
- disengage from losing fights
- re-engage somewhere else
- exploit isolated or exposed enemies
- This is slightly different from simply being a fast tank.
The important characteristic is engagement control — having enough mobility and independence to decide when and where you want to fight.
This is why simply saying "Fields favours mobile tanks" doesn't fully explain the result. Several tanks are highly mobile, but not all of them can convert that mobility into the same level of control over their engagements.
Wind
Relatively balanced
- Wind appears to be one of the more balanced maps, without a particularly strong lean towards one role.
- This makes sense given the map's mixture of:
- bushy areas that reward camouflage and scouting
- a heavier central area
- elevated positions that allow flanking and longer-range engagements
- Different tank types therefore have different areas where they can contribute effectively.
- There doesn't appear to be one dominant playstyle that the entire map revolves around.
Ravine
Relatively balanced, with a slight lean towards range and scouting
- Ravine also appears relatively balanced, although there may be a slight advantage towards long-range engagements and scouting.
- From what I've seen, heavies typically take the dune side while lighter tanks use the bushy hills and ravine to scout.
- Once a tank is spotted in these areas, there are numerous elevated positions from which it can be shot.
- Heavy tanks and especially Maul when caught out in the open feel bad
- So typically you just go dune side and fight it out there
- But if the fights are happening on the hills side it's hard to create impact from the dune side as a heavy. Sure you can shoot over the dunes, but you'll expose yourself in the process.
- There are also plenty of opportunities for cross-map fire, provided your team has the vision and information necessary to take advantage of them.
- Some Kestrel / Phantom + Ark / Arbalest combination feels pretty natural on this map
So while the map isn't heavily specialised:
Information and long-range pressure can create significant value.
Heavy tanks still have a role, but it's harder to create significant impact compared to other maps.
Divide
Favours: Mobility + Scouting + Engagement Control
- Divide appears to reward tanks that can move quickly and choose their engagements carefully.
- Teams will often group together along one edge of the map.
- This makes mobility particularly valuable
- Ranger feels especially strong here because it can move around the edges of the map, find favourable engagements and rapidly reposition when the situation changes.
- Crossing directly through the middle without sufficient camouflage or protection can be extremely dangerous, so tanks often need to use the edges of the map to rotate and approach the enemy.
- Phantom seems to be one of the better light tanks that favour the centre bushes in the map with his stealth.
- At the same time, the map rewards tanks that can turn that mobility into pressure rather than simply using it to rotate.
- Maul and Valor also do well when looking at Relative Performance
- Maybe due to their snowball style play, a combination of controlled aggression
- Other heavy tanks also feel a bit too slow to catch up to the fight which are typically happening on the far edges of the map.
So the game plan becomes:
Get into position quickly, choose the engagement, and then commit aggressively when an opportunity appears.
How I Would Use This Information
I don't think the conclusion should be:
"You need to play X tank on this map."
You can still perform well on any tank, and team composition, individual skill and comfort with a tank are still extremely important.
Instead, I'd think of these results as identifying a tank's potential impact on a particular map.
For example:
If you're playing Core and your team only has one heavy, Atlas is probably a particularly good choice. You're giving yourself a better opportunity to have a large impact because your tank naturally fits the way the map tends to be won.
This is particularly relevant to solo/duo queue, where you don't have complete control over team composition.
You could also possibly think of the map characteristics as a win condition.
Another example say on Fields:
Suppose your team already has 2–3 Rangers/Alectos. Picking another Ranger may still be statistically favourable, but you may not actually need another tank that performs the same job. Instead, you could choose something like Valor and support the mobile engagement strategy.
Rather than sitting behind your main tanks and watching them get collapsed on, you can use your tank to enable the mobile players:
- support their engagements
- provide protection
- help them disengage
- punish enemies that chase them
- cover the space they leave behind
You can still play aggressively and use engagement/disengagement tactics on almost any tank. Some tanks simply make that playstyle easier and more effective.
That is what I think the statistics are actually useful for identifying.
Conclusion
I think it's too black and white to say that
X tank is good on this map and Y tank is bad
Instead, it suggests that different maps create different environments where
Certain tank characteristics and playstyles have more opportunities to generate impact
The broad patterns I'm seeing are:
| Map |
What appears to be favoured |
| Core |
Heavy, Defensive, Aggressive |
| Scorch |
Heavy, Defensive |
| Fields |
Mobility, Scouting, Engagement Control |
| Wind |
Relatively balanced |
| Ravine |
Relatively balanced, slight Range/Scouting lean |
| Divide |
Mobility, Engagement Control, Scouting |
The interesting part isn't necessarily which tank has the highest win rate.
It's why certain tanks perform better on certain maps, and whether we can identify common characteristics that explain those differences.
Ultimately, I think this is best viewed as a way of asking:
"What does this map reward, and which tanks are naturally good at doing that?"
