this BR Is totally wrong!
17 Likes
I think it’s fine ^^
Since the post here got a bit out of hand. I would like to point out again that I realise that this is absolutely not a useful reference value for the BR of the M26.
3 Likes
Posting 14 game stats as if they mean something even though it’s not nearly enough to normalize?
Defending a vehicle clearly being LOGICALLY outmatched by its peers with anecdotal evidence?
It’s the War Thunder forums, alright…
11 Likes
3 Likes
There was absolutely not a single hint of sarcasm in that post.
You can only claim sarcasm if there’s cues for it.
8 Likes
It’s the same story here, as with the T-44. They were both pretty decent 6.3 tanks that both saw uptiers to 6.7 for one very simple reason. They punish bad play, especially from the German big cats. They were the only two non-Panther medium tanks at the tier to require careful aim in order to take out, which is not something the average German player is used to having to do. Meanwhile, their guns were pretty average, but excelled at exploiting over or underangled hulls. I had a tremendous amount of fun in my Pershing, dominating Tiger players who had every oppertunity to kill me, but would insist on firing on my very well angled UFP.
Honestly, both are arguments for decompression, not candidates for uptiering. The Pershing is however the most blatant, as pointed out above it shares it’s BR with it’s Jumbo counterpart, which downgrades the already poor mobility for just an absurd level of armor. There’s really no choice as to which is preferable.
Also, brief shoutout to the T25 and T20’s completely unjust BRs while I’m here. Midtiers (Well, just about every tier), needs a large decompression and a complete BR overhaul.
9 Likes
^^ … is a thing for u? like “owned” you? It is a bit context-dependent. The least you could do would have been to ask if I was serious before you assumed something.
The M26 wasn’t all that much even at 6.3, nevermind 6.7. Facing 7.7s…haha
Battle Ratings for the US vehicles are ‘problematically’ scattered to say the least.
9 Likes
14 plays is not enough to support m26 should in 6.7, if i take panzer 4H to 5.3 for 15 palys and KD is 4, means it needs to go 5.3？it doesn’t make any sense mate.If m26 stay in 6.7, no one will play it because a better one to take place it. a vehicle whether or not should stay in his BR, not counting on it’sperformance but KD, it’s not the right way.
just for those who still missed …
1 Like
i agree with that, some US vehicles not fit the BR they are staying haha. t20 t25 which lost its stabilizer xd
1 Like
Some US vehicles BR really needs to be change.As well as USSR, t3485, m4a3e8 with tiger h1 panzer70v at same BR is totally a joke haha.
I don’t think that’s what’s actually going on, so much as this:
Gaijin has been handling decompression by moving compression spots around. If you have a cylindrical container with stuff inside, doesn’t matter how you rearrange the contents, if you don’t change the container, the total volume remains the same. Decompression in one area means compression in another area unless you’re correspondingly raising the BR as well.
In an effort to decompress the early and early-mid tiers, Gaijin sent up a bunch of tanks - not just the M26 went up, but so did most Panthers, all Tigers bar the premium and event variants, Jagdpanthers, IS tanks, the Tiger II P, etc etc. So relative to a lot of the opposition, the M26 has retained the same BR gap as before. And if they have gone up together, it’s unlikely that the German big cats had terrible stats vs the M26. If that was the case, only the M26 would have gone up.
Now, what has not changed however with this decomnpression round, is that the 6.7 heavies haven’t moved up. I think people would feel quite differently about the M26 if the T34, T26E5, Tiger II H/Sla, Jagdtiger etc, were 7.0, the T29 was 7.3, etc etc.
It is a similar situation to the Tiger II P. There is literally no reason to spawn it at 6.7. In any conceivable scenario you might encounter, you will always have a better alternative to spawn in from both your 6.3 and 6.7 lineups, it’s that simple. But if (when) the better 6.7 versions become 7.0, that calculus will change.
Now… the problem with sending this stuff to 7.0 is that they start seeing Leopards and Vidars again, undoing the summer round of BR decompression. So those would need to go up by 0.3 as well. And for them not to be annihilated, this means that the tanks above them etc etc etc.
Follow the logic all the way to top tier and the problem is solved… but for some reason that’s not how Gaijin operates. I think their BR-changing algorithm is set to operate within the constraints of an unchanging BR ceiling because they only lift that one as a separate process on much rarer occasions in time. And so inevitably you get vehicles that flip flop up and down, or simply can’t find a place in the game right now.
Maybe one day this will be fixed.
As for the T-44, I honestly think that’s the outlier here. It has an exceptional combination of mobility, protection, and low silhouette. I don’t mind aiming for weakspots, I cherish it, it’s why that BR range is my favourite… but the point is that if two factors out of three are exceptional, the third one will of course have to be somewhat underwhelming, or what you have in your hands is… basically an MBT. Which is what the T-44-100 is like, exceptional mobility, protection, and firepower.
The speed and survivability of the T-44 allow it to be an excellent flanker, and for that job, the 85mm is perfect. It struggles frontally, but the rest of the vehicle puts it in a situation where it doesn’t need to engage frontally if it’s played to its strengths.
What actually hurts the T-44 is the narrowing down of the maps…
7 Likes
I will agree with the premise of your comments and say all too often the “relativism” of vehicles is overlooked.
You’re on the right track looking at things from this angle and understanding balance this was is probably the only way one could ever hope to achieve balance or near to it.
As for the T-44…I have say I personally found it mediocre even when it was 6.3 years ago. While it’s not terrible, the 85mm cannon was a disappointment because it lacked the ability to take control of the situation in frontal engagements.
Now, while anyone raising the point that the T-44-85 is ideally to be used as a flanker (and they are correct), the truth is that a good anti-flanker can use something heavy like a Tiger II or the like to force a frontal engagement and Gaijin’s more recent actions cutting map size have also inhibited this.
Your praise for the T-44-100 is well placed: again recalling my own experiences, my enthusiasm for the T-44-85 was tepid, but I quite liked the T-44-100.
With the BRs as they are, there’s no real motivation to take the T-44-85 in lieu of the T-44-100…with a 1 BR notch gap, you might as well grab the -100 and likewise with Pershings.
2 Likes
It has mobility advantages over the T26s and reload advantage over the T26E1. It’s perfectly fine and balanced at 6.7. The best 6.7 medium IMO, close with the Cent Mk 2. If you’re struggling, I’d advise using APCR more (the 90mm M3 has basically the only good APCR in the game) and fighting at close ranges where it’s easier to target weak spots.
On the note of the T34, that’s one of a number of 6.7s that need to go up to 7.0.
2 Likes
Lmao.
Lots of sarcasm is this thread.
No, I’m serious.
1 Like
lol that makes it even funnier. Nice one.
Yeah, it was a garbage move…
Well, first off that is a really small sample size.
Secondly, it doesn’t really say anything about the vehicle, rather it’s more indicative of your individual skill.
Edit: I see you clarify the sarcasm later on but there’s no indication of that in original comment. After all this is the WT forums where insanity is the norm.
1 Like