to you, not to me anymore, that ship long sailed.
I still has game client when Jet RB was ways enjoyable.
Too bad I was turbo dumb player at that time :/
You mean: That ship long snailed. ;)
At least in Air, this was the case from OBT to 2018.
lol it doesn’t even get aphe it gets HE, HEATFS, and APCR
What would you have it then? 6.0? 7.0?
At those BRs there are still far better tanks, and it would still be as vulnerable as it is now. If you have a solution please give it - I just do not see any.
This might be stupid but what if they just made it so 7.7 br cannot see any uptiers, and anything above can’t see downtiers? or vastly decrease the chance of it happening.
Then it is better to bring rotation BR from SBEC because most vehiciles would be playable at its BR.
1 Like
This would cause those 7.7’s stats to sky rocket, and would cause the stats of the 8.0’s to plummet.
Then, because the numbers are so artificially messed up, it becomes almost impossible to determine which vehicles need to cross to the divide, because it would look like all the 7.7’s are over performing and all the 8.0’s are underperforming.
You’d effectively just see a complete breakdown of the the way battle ratings are calculated.
(It would domino effect further. Because 7.7’s can only see downtiers, you would also see 7.3, 7.0 and 6.7’s get almost permanently uptiered).
REEEEEE up tiers the thread
You know another tank that makes every traditional armoured WW2 tanks into nothing more than a steel deathtrap? The Jagdtiger.
1 Like
Again, 0 or 1, true or false thinking.
Basically harmless Ikv 72 could stay at 1.7 and a very capable Ikv 103 could move to 8.0. That would be semi-historical MM.
Ikv 103 is a 1956 vehicle, Leopard 1 is a 1965 vehicle.
We should compare Ikv 103 to an M48A1 or T-54s/T-55A. Funnily enough it has a more powerful shell than both. You’re really underestimating it.
I think we can all agree that WW2 is 1.0-7.7. That’s why I default to putting HEAT slingers at 8.0. The fact that 8.0-12.0 is compressed is a different issue.
Technically IS-4 isn’t WW2, but it has conventional armor.
Jagdtiger also has an 18 second reload with aced crew, on mine it has 21-22 second reload.
How would this work? For me an example of a sandbox game is Minecraft and War Thunder’s sandbox are custom lobbies.
Any game in a sandbox would require self-enforcing the rules you came up with. That’s how a sandbox works. Do you mean like a mission maker, but the missions are PvP or PvPvE?
Whatever you think of, it would have to have RP and SL rewards, otherwise it’s nothing more than fancy custom lobbies. I highly doubt it would have RP and SL rewards, anything player-made has a high potential for rigging, that’s why air sim has such horrible economy.
I’d totally agree to separate WW2 from Cold War. And about those vehicles that would be OP? Most come to be ones that didn’t even work (IS-6 for example), others were just prototypes left behind (Maus, E-100, IS-7) and many honorable mentions are paper ones (Tiger 2 105, Panther 2, -entirely fictional btw-) so, the solution? Simply remove them, don’t care about nun (hot take)
Why don’t you do an experiment, take the Ikv 103 out in an 8.0 lineup for a number of matches and see how it goes. If you are correct the Ikv should perform competitively.
I would prefer a smooth transition, where something like an IS-4 is fun in a downtier and a pinata in an uptier. Unofrtunately right now there are many vehicles with HEAT that are lower in BR than tanks like these, so even in a downtier you’re somewhat a pinata.
I wouldn’t mind at all actually. Prototypes can go.
As much as I like the Maus for example (the tank, not playing the Maus), it was just an unfinished prototype.
I would, but I’m not willing to grind half a tech tree to prove a point. Maybe I will just grind the Ikv 103 and ask a friend to uptier me, but even a simple grind to 4.0 is a few days of work.
Maybe I will try to do this with M51.
Interesting
Sigh. Alright, let me get this shitshow started. M48A1. ~320mm of pen on its shell, 110mm of heavily sloped frontal armor on the hull, with 130mm on the turret, and a shell velocity of 1,216m/s. Also has access to APHE, with around ~180mm of pen. 6.7s reload aced, with a fully traverseable turret with 9 degrees of depression. Max speed of 46km/h, with power-to-weight ratio of approximately 18hp/ton. Has a .50cal machine gun on the roof.
T-54. ~380mm of pen on its shell, 100mm of sloped frontal armor, with 200mm of turret armor and a shell velocity of 900m/s. Also has access to APHE, with around ~239mm of pen. 7.5s reload aced, with a fully traversable turret with four degrees of depression. Max speed of 51km/h, with power-to-weight ratio of approximately 14hp/ton. Has a powerful 14.5mm MG on the roof.
Against this you want to put the Ikv 103. 400mm of pen on its shell, 18.5mm of slightly sloped frontal armor with a giant hole in it, and a shell velocity of 535m/s. Has no access to APHE. Reload is 8s aced, with turret traverse limited to 10 degrees each way, with 16 degrees of depression. Max speed of 53km/h, with power-to-weight ratio of approximately 17hp/ton.
In every single way beyond two, the 8.0 tanks beat it. Those two ways are depression and speed, and even then, it has a worse power-to-weight ratio then the M48A1. Now tell me again that this belongs at 8.0.
Hoo boy. Let me see…
Starting with the US:
T77E1, T18E2, T1E1, T1E1 (90mm), Skink, T14, M4/T26, T26E5, T26E1-1, T34, T92, T20, T28, Super Hellcat, M551 (76), T30, M6A2E1, T29, T32, T32E1, T95, T54E2, T54E1, T114, XM800T, T95E1, XM803, MBT-1, XM8, 120S, XM8, CCVL, LOSAT, AGS, and HSTV-L. All would be removed.
Do I even need to go on?