No 20mm, much worse turret mantlet armour, no fuel tanks to absorb spall, and more pronounced NATO Hump.
But 2K should be 10.3 anyways.
1 Like
It has worse turret armour? I’ve always felt it was better , I know it’s flatter though on the turret face.
It also has better gun depression
Remember the days it was 9.0 xD back when it was first added…
It also doesn’t have turret basket, unlike the 2K.
Damn I thought for a second it’s at 10.3.
Leo 2K’s turret mantlet can stop 105mm DM63 fairly consistently:
Any weaker dart and it’s fair game.
Not that I know of?
Both the OF-40 MTCA and 2K have -9.
Yeah that was crazy.
Yeah, though most 9.3s don’t have any turret basket either.
Hah if only…
1 Like
Not the 2k the ZTZ96 is what the comment you mentioned was, as I know it’s flatter than say the T72M1 hull face.
The comment I replied to of yours was talkimg about the ZTZ96 VS the T72M1
I was refering to this VS the T72M1, sorry not the leopard 2k vs the OF40.
OF 40 lacks a lot of protection compared to the Leo2k though as a lot of mobility, though has somehow a slighty better round (somehow 105mm DM33 is better than the DM23 120MM)
1 Like
It’s still something to consider when comparing it to MTCA.
Both seem undertiered though.
1 Like
Sorry. I didn’t notice… 😅
Yeah the ZTZ96’s turret armour has the same forehead weakspots as the T-72A, but only has ~380mm of KE protection for its turret cheeks, unlike the T-72A’s ~460mm:
Basically anything above DM33 / similar to it can go through with relative ease.
I’m not entirely sure about the gun depression, but I believe the ZTZ96’s turret is slanted more forwards than the T-72A.
1 Like
Yup.
105mm DM33 is better than 120mm DM23, that’s true.
1 Like
Damn man , maybe cause I do the wiggle witht he 96 it doesn’t do as much, or folks miss more.
Didn’t realise it was as drastic a difference.
I think it’s more elevated or as you say more forwards slanted giving it the illusion it’s aiming down further, though I thought the T72 has -5 gun depression , apparently it’s -6 same as the ZTZ 96.
Good to know.
For the life of me cannot figure out why.
DM23 120 IRL is a better round xD Just cause how gaijin apparently models long rong penetrators.
1 Like
It’s what happens when you rely entirely on spreadsheets calculating things based on average SL earnings rather than using a modicum of common sense.
Tbh, I agree the br system as it’s currently implemented is unsustainable and something should change. It won’t as that would require effort, but it should.
With the recent situation in top tier, queue times are clearly no longer a concern so there’s really no need to not add a setting to set a .7 br spread as a trial.
1 Like
Do tell us a better way.
Keep in mind, you’d have to remain objective.
I know you’re being sarky, but screw it.
Deviation from expected model.
Establish a base line for a average vehicle lifetime, engagements, deaths, kills and possibly damage inflicted over time (will be hard due to the damage system, but everything has hit points and it can be worked out)
If a vehicle stands out against its peers and significantly deviates from those metrics, then it’s reviewed for a br change.
For example, say a 10.3 vehicle survives on average 4.5 minutes, has on average 1.1 kills per spawn and experiences 1.3 penetrations on average before death then something lasting 3.8 minutes would stand out, same if something lasted 8 minutes on average with 1.8 kills per death would also stand out.
Similar numbers, but a vehicle which consistently requires 3 penetrations per kill over say, one which does it in 1.8 on average would stand out as something not being right.
This allows the system to catch vehicles which are struggling much easier, rather than relying on just average SL earnings.
Sure it’s more work, but it’s nothing a decent statistical model can’t handle.
1 Like
That assumes that every tank is suppose to tank shots / dish out one-shots (not quite sure what you mean by penetration per kill)
KV-1E would have a much higher penetration per kill than a light tank such as the Hellcat, though the Hellcat is definitely better than the KV-1E.
The IS-2 (1944) can one-shot most opponents (thus having a better (lower) penetration per kill) but I’d say the Tiger II H is better in most cases.
I assume you’d want to compare it to KPS and K/D, so that may help compliment them.
I was referring to shots fired by the vehicle in question. I.e if a vehicle requires on average (with sufficient data set size) significantly more penetrating hits to its target to get the kill over one which doesn’t then that would require looking at.
It may be correct (looks at 60mm apfsds), but the reason should be investigated. It’s also not the only metric being measured of course, survival of penetrating shots on the tank, survival of hits which donnt penetrate etc etc.
Using the statistics also requires the vehicle class to be taken into account of course - a large number of non penetrating hits from a gepard would be expected for example.
In your example, the is would see a lot of 1 penetrating hit kills, but the number of hits would be far lower than something which fires every 4 seconds for example.
2 Likes
I don’t think they solely rely on SL gain per game, since this would heavily bias against prems and rare vehicles with a high(er) average skill level.
E-100 (for example), while being better than the Maus, around twice the amount of SL gain, and has a much higher KPS / K/D, is still the same BR as the Maus – that being 7.7.
Either they forgot about it or they understand that demographic and use cases of vehicles vary, and they don’t just use SL gain for balancing.
1 Like
I’m sure they remove the SL modifier effect before running their spreadsheet, otherwise premiums would be over tiered instead of usually under.
1 Like
That’s probably right but that still doesn’t explain why the E-100 wouldn’t be a higher BR than the Maus.
Possibly a much lower number of matches, by players who have been playing longer and continue to play.
Maybe because E-100 has around 10% of total games Maus has. That small amount of games is probably not considered game breaking.