I might be a bit quick to judge, but seeing as I have only seen the US win around 4 of the iirc 20-30 games I have played as or against them yesterday, I feel kind of safe to assume that the increased reloads don’t have an effect and that the SEPv2 is still an inferior tank to the 2A7V and Strv 122B+.
Seeing how the armor situation is at a dead end at the moment, I want to propose a few somewhat smallish changes that would in my opinion really give people at least a reason to play the SEPv2:
Give the SEPv2 M829A3: I know you said that it wouldn’t make a big difference, but even without the anti ERA tip it would offer 40/30mm extra pen at 0°/60°. This would make it different from the SEPv1 and give it better firepower than the 2A7V and 122B+, which currently hold both the armor and survivability advantage.
Make TUSK II a modification: From the quote in the SEPv2 dev blog it’s quite clear that you want to make a SEPv2 the rat/flanker tank, better staying far away from the objective and any enemies frontal arc. The problem is that the SEPv2 is a pretty sluggish tank and having the loudest engine and tallest profile makes it unsuited for this role. By making TUSK II a modifications people can get rid of the sluggishness and tall profile likely causing it to perform much better.
LFP armor: I know this is at a dead end currently, but it would be a nice improvement when things change.
You seem to want to have the abrams perform a similar role as the Type 10, Leclerc, Ariete and Merkava. This of itself is fine, but the problem why this works for these nations and why the US is tanking so hard is because the amount of US players on the team is just too high. the before mentioned nations can just do their thing as there are usually only a couple of them on each team with the rest being made up of Russia/Germany/Sweden. If the US decides to do this half of the team is usually gone.
TL;DR: Too many US players on US teams for the players to perform the role Gaijin envisioned for the Abrams. SEPv2 to large and noisy to perform the flanker/rat role, needs some more changes to it.
The despicable game makers turn a blind eye to everyone’s opinions and only design all kinds of data certified by authoritative organizations according to their despicable thinking, saying that the source is unreliable and the most despicable game companies will only make it up.😅
My prediction is that with the current politics of War Thunder regarding the artificial nerfs of certain vehicles the game will fall more and more into the category of arcade and unrealistic World of Tanks rather than the simulator like Steel Beasts. They don’t even try to do cutting edge level research themselves and come to us, to the player base and ask us to prove certain things. That’s your job war thunders devs, not ours and if you ask us to do the research then be kind and implement fixes accurately and in reasonable period of time. Just because Nato tanks with DU anti ERA rounds can destroy in frontal arc every Russian MBT doesn’t mean that the game should turn into WoT. Just put the top Russian tanks in it’s appropriate BR and that’s it. That’s the life, not everything is equal in the real world in terms of capabilities
Chally 1,2 incorrect armor values, Abrams not having DU in the hull, sad state of Starstreak missiles, no 9L missiles for the British Phantoms, not implementing Top US round. What I mentioned is just the stuff I play and there are more nerfed things, I am sure. Isn’t these enough as evidence?
That’s normal behavior for PD radars.
AIM-7M & R-27ER not hitting low targets is better than you think, whether it’s accurate or not.
13Gs instead of 10Gs is a buff, not a nerf. And there’s math involved with Stinger G limit
@AUSChalkWarrior
That’s not a nerf, that’s at most an incomplete introduction.
@Pegasus7217
None of those are nerfs, none are artificial.
USA has a top round, it’s called M829A2 and it’s the 2nd best penning round in the game.
None of you knows what a nerf is so I’ll define it for you.
Nerf: A negative change for balancing purposes.
It has to be a change from one state to another, and it has to be in a negative direction, otherwise it’s not a nerf.
you claim there are NO artificial nerfs
i present one that is plain as day and is not implemented because it would be overpowered
“nuh uh that’s not a nerf because i say so”
the circus is in town clearly
You presented a missile that in the datamines has not been nerfed since introduction.
Dataminers > your claims.
I’m glad dataminers exist cause it makes fact-checking nonsense claims extremely easy.