Often The US, Germany, Russia, and half and half of the UK. Consists of a ton of inexperienced players.
While Japan, Italy, PRC, and Taiwan/ROC. It consists of more experienced players forged through fire and flames since we are more limited on what we can use. I cannot say entirely for Sweden or Israel though they seem to perform fine.
Yea ok.
As I said, I put a 13.0 plane on my lineup, fully avoiding 11.3 (a full downtier with a 13.0 plane is a 12.0 match at most) and therefore the Click-Bait spam. There was not one single Click-Bait on the team.
And do you think the team performs better on average when 68% of it doesn’t consist of premium players?
That game I qued for was 11.7, that loss went under my 11.7 tank and is a reflection of the W/R at “top tier” 11.7…
I don’t think anyone is saying that the sole reason US has horrible W/R is because of premium players. You can’t ignore it plays a significant role though unless you’re delusional.
I think besides premium spam you have the US TT attracting new players, US players seem to be obsessed with spawning CAS(which doesn’t help win the game in most cases)
I have a 14% higher WR in the Leclerc over the M1A2 despite my K/D being pretty similar. I find them to be comparable MBTs despite the fact that the Leclerc has a worse round and worse armor.
The idea that the winrate being so bad is soley due to the M1A2 being bad doesn’t make sense. You have people playing other nations with objectively worse MBTs performing better should lead you to the conclusion it isn’t the tank, its the person playing it.
1 Like
Not solely- but M1A2s constantly facing hordes of 2A7Vs, 2A7HUs, 122B/PLSS/As, BVMs and Ms certainly has something to do with it.
This means nothing when talking about what should be objective balance. Technical capabilities should be balanced independently from personal player performances.
Otherwise, Ariete has a better performance than Leopard 2A7V on average, just because it’s played by a small elite of eSports-level players that stomp on it compared to the more average and larger playerbase of Leopard 2A7V. Does that mean that it’s fair for Ariete and 2A7V to be sitting at the same BR “because some players manage to do better on it”? Of course not.
I suspect there will be a GRB decompression soon with the 2a7, 2a7HU, Strv-122A/B/B+ and BVM going up a BR bracket.
Because having the 2a7 at the same br as the Ariete is a cruel joke.
What a terrible screenshot, 4 players left on the enemy team is barely even a steamroll.
Especially when all those players died a couple times too.
5*, not 4
And they had control over the zones and map the whole time, they pushed us back to our spawn in a matter of minutes. Just look at the tickets…
This is objective balance…
If you look at 2 tanks that are comparable as far as their technical abilities and 1 is performing drastically worse than the other you could conclude it has nothing to do with the vehicle and it has something to do with the people playing it.
The M1A2 has above average armor, good mobility, good round, good reload and good handling. Its not miles behind any other tank in the game. I’d argue it’s not even .3 BR behind anything else in game
That’s the thing; the Abrams is not technically comparable to the 2A7s or 122s.
Ah, yes, the above average 355mm KE hull… really? Every other MBT has 550-590, 680, 720 or 750mm KE at this point. The Abrams is the only Top Tier MBT with <400mm KE on the hull, along with the Merkavas and Arietes. Isn’t that sad?
Like almost every other Top Tier MBT
Like every other Top Tier MBT
Only thing keeping the tank remotely relevant as of now.
Like almost every other Top Tier MBT
1 Like
lol so I listed armor, mobility, round, reload and handling.
you agreed that its good at everything except armor.
It has the same or better armor than the Challenger, Leclerc, Type 10, Merkava, and the Ariete.
So if its sitting in about the middle of the pack for armor and above average or average on every other metric but yet somehow has 10 - 30% worse winrates than those nations… why are you thinking its because the Abrams is bad.
This is as “skill issue” as it gets.
So I guess we agree to disagree
2 Likes
It’s good at everything except armor…
While many of its counterparts at this point are also good at all that everything, except they ALSO have significantly better armor. AND substantially better survivability too.
Saying that the Abrams has better armor than the Arietes and Merkavas is not a flex for it. It’s sad. U.S is one of the “big three” and yet its MBTs are just “average” instead of being anything actually worthy of being the pinnacle of a tech tree, like the 2A7s or the 122s are.
The U.S has been getting the exact same tank since 2019 (M1A2, M1A2 without CITV, M1A2 with better thermals, M1A2 with better thermals AND heavier and slower…) while other nations have gone from their mid-2000s MBTs to their present day peak MBTs barely just put in service.
Is this a depiction that makes sense for the MBTs of the most powerful nation on the planet?
“They are better than the very worst MBTs in the game, so it’s a skill issue if they can’t do as good as tanks that are objectively superior because they are better modelled and/or also 20 years more modern”?
If a same player can get far better stats with (X) vehicle than with (Y) vehicle counterpart, it is an objective fact that (X) vehicle is superior than (Y) vehicle.
When (X) vehicle can win matches by rushing like a headless chicken while (Y) vehicle requires eSports-level of gameplay, it’s not balanced.
1 Like
insert leopard 2 pso
How come the same player can perform so much better on Leopard 2A7V (1.92) while putting zero effort… than on an Abrams (0.98) while putting way more effort?
Could it not possibly be just because one vehicle is clearly superior than the other?
If a tank allows you to perform well easily while playing it mindlessly like a headless chicken while the other tank requires you to play it with extra care and effort, then it’s not balanced.
All I want, as an all-nation player, is for, one day, be able to log in and struggle which nation to pick to play because all of them were equally as fun and capable… instead of automatically discarding half of them because they are simply outclassed by the other half.
Right now I only think:
Why would I play an Abrams when I could play a Leopard 2A7?
Why would I play a Challenger when I could play a T-80BVM/90M?
Why would I play a Leclerc when I could play a Type 10? (In spite of its issues)?
Why would I play a Merkava when I could play a Strv 122?
I just want to find all of them as engaging, fun and capable, even if in asymmetrical ways… instead of wondering why I would waste time with some of them because I could be playing with objectively far better ones; specially when the reason why the outclassed tanks are outclassed are completely avoidable reasons, such as bugs, nerfs, and lack of properly balanced iterations.
Leclercs need their armor fixed, spall liners and their hyperbar powerplants modelled.
Type 10s need their armor fixed and their CVT transmission modelled.
Challenger 2s need their armor fixed and missing spall liners added.
Merkava Mk.4s need their armor fixed.
Chinese MBTs need their mantlet armor fixed, LFP geometry corrected, and spall liners…
…and the Abrams need their turret rings and fuel tank bulkhead thickness and geometries fixed, as well as having SEPv2 and AIM’s hull armor revised and/or otherwise have SEPv3 implemented.
2 Likes
I think the first point is Abrams can’t confront and beat 122/A7V/BVM in a face to face battle due to lack of armor. That’s deadly cause US player are numerous and make up the majority of one team. Thus team with US Player can’t hold a fighting line and easily broke down.
The second point is US CAS can’t redeem the US ground weakness due to pantsir. These monster can find and Intercept anything in 10Km. They don’t care whether it’s AGM65 or F16.
Actually, I don’t believe those player issue nonsense. Nato with L2A6 army used to crush USSR T90a team until gaijin gives USSR T80BVM, USSR team with Ka52 and Mig27k used to destroy NATO ground force every game until gaijin gives NATO powerful VT1 missile (before neff). It’s just a matter of powerful vehicle. US vehicle are simply not powerful enough and need some buff,that’s all.
3 Likes
Yeah.
U.S also had its fair share of crushing everyone back in 2018, when they had M1 and IPM1 against Leopard 2Ks, Challenger Mk.2s and T-64Bs.
But it’s curious.
Back then, when U.S had a 70% WR with M1 and IPM1, NO ONE ever questioned or stated that “T-64B/Leopard 2K players just had a skill issue” or that “they just had to learn to play”.
Back then, no one had any trouble admitting that M1 and IPM1 were just better (even though they had subpar armor and weak shell, the combination of their strengths (high mobility, good survivability and gun handling) made it indeed the best tank, compared to the glass Leopard 2K or the slow T-64B).
Yet now that the Abrams is the underdog… we have to pretend that there’s no vehicle issue and that it’s all a “player skill issue”.
2 Likes