Profile of MMX

This is a highly misleading presentation.
While your numbers are correct, for example the chance of 4 penetrating shots in a row is less than 5%, given that all shots hit in the first place which is unlikely due to the comparatively low accuracy of the KV2.

Comparing those two tanks in terms of AT makes no sense, the Panther is miles ahead, even without deflection damage.

I don't see the KV-2 nearly as far behind, honestly. Sure, the +10 range, higher mobility and better (moving) accuracy give the Panther the edge as long as it can kite or circle, but if you take raw damage, penetration and chance to hit only, the KV-2 is actually superior.
Placed stationary and facing each other at 40 m distance, the KV-2 will win about 66% of the time - despite lower accuracy and pen thanks to the deflection damage it deals (T2K is about 50 +/- 15 s and 55 +/- 10 s for the KV-2 and Panther to win, respectively). If deflection damage could actually kill tanks instead of just dropping them to 0 HP the difference would be even greater.

In addition, the KV-2 gets +10 range at vet 2, which is when the range advantage of the Panther vanishes and things get pretty even. Again, the Panther has the upper hand while both tanks are moving, but I'd say both tanks exchanging max range shots before dropping back into safety is a more realistic scenario, anyway. Here, the much slower reload for the KV-2 isn't that much a disadvantage and stutter-stopping for more accuracy / lower scatter is also easier to pull off.

Now I never said the IS2 was worst than the Iiger, In fact I have no opinion on it because I barely use it myself and only play Soviet in non competitive matches. What I highlighted is that Average DPS overtime isn't a valid argument if you don't define what the correct opportunity time in which units can deliver their outcomes. And this opportunity time can't be seen in a spreadsheet.

Well, then how would you define and quantify this ominous opportunity time and how does it differ for, say, the IS-2 and the Tiger?

[...] Because people say I will break your nose every 20 minutes in most casual conversation.

Someone walks into your office then makes that face babies make when they are shitting. What do you say? "Dont you dare fart in here or I will break your nose!"

We as a species have this innate ability to ignore the facts or use logic when something like this is presented. This #MeToo cancel culture is retarded.
[...]

You see, this is exactly what I don't get. Not sure if this is simply a result of cultural differences in general, or upbringing / socialization in particular, but I would certainly not voice or text thinly veiled threats to come to someone's home and break their nose in three different ways - no matter what context and no matter if in real life or online.

Now I agree this, seen as an isolated event, isn't something anyone should be perma-banned for (and I doubt that is the case here anyway, as there's obiously a lot more backstory that led to the ban). Still, I also fail to grasp how anyone can defend these screenshots as harmless chit chat that could have been exchanged as part of normal everyday conversation.

I tend to not compare units in a vacuum. Their IA dps is probably the same in average but they don't belong to the same faction and not facing the things. I'll not say that gut feeling is better metric than average but there are hidden reasons you don't see the IS2 as often as the Tiger nowaday even if their average IA dps are the same.
So, even considering there are less Commanders with the IS2 than there are with Tigers, this doesn't work as a single explanation, there are a lot commanders with few specific units that are seen a lot more than IS2.

fair enough and reasonable. i was, however, responding to the part that the tiger was allegedly way superior to the is-2 in terms of anti-infantry performance, not to the overall position of the is-2 in the soviet roster. there are obviously many reasons the is-2 sees little use, but i don't think a 240 dmg cannon will solve these (at least not without creating a bunch of new issues along the way).

That's the problem when you compare units on spreadsheet, you can't simply take average dps as a serious point of comparison wihtout taking in account the average time of engagement for units.

Coh2 isn't an game of average but a game of opportunities and the best units in this game are those capable of delivering their full load of outcome at every given opportunities.

It is better to handle a unit able to deliver 30 per shot but with 100% chance to deliver than a unit delivering 90 per shot but with only 33% chance to hit.
Because you never know if you'll have those 3 opportunities to hit and making sure you did something.

You're certainly right in that average DPS isn't necessarily the best or most holistic way to compare the performance of different units. Adding the variance or, even better, probability distributions would be more suitable to capture the 'reliabiliy' you mentioned. However, numerical averages are still an absolutely viable and easy to grasp metric to compare all sorts of things, ranging from pen chances to win rates. That why they're used (rightfully so) by everyone - you included - nearly all the time when comparing different aspects of the game. AI performance is no exception here. It also doesn't matter at all if this info comes from a spreadsheet or actual in-game data. In this case, however, it is just vastly easier and more precise to collect enough data by external means unless you want to spend literal days to repeat the same matchup over and over.

I haven't gone into more detail as to why I believe both the Tiger and IS-2 are roughly equal in AI, but if you're interested and inclined to do so you can read up on the specifics over here. I'm also happy to give you a rundown on how the average DPS already incorporates to the actual chance to hit something and how this relates to the overall AI performance.

Or, if you can come up with a better metric for quick and easy comparison, I'm all ears... as long as it is at least somewhat quantifyable and doesn't rely on 'gut feeling' or 'because I told ya so'.