I am happy Gaijin hasn’t implemented some these changes to the Abrams, stuff like the hydraulic pump and volumetic changes to the turret ring assuming it doesn’t have volumetric armor already would be fine. but the Abrams does not need to be superior both numerically and armor wise to the Leo 2a7v, that would be unreal.
Not always; I only load 15 shells on my T-90M and that significantly increases its survivability, since they don’t even fill up 1/3rd of the carousel.
The spall liners, combined with the “external” fuel tanks, do wonders preventing, many times, any damage at all to be done to the modules and crew upon penetrations.
The Abrams on the other hand, whenever penetrated anywhere on the hull, is either completely anihilated via crew death, or mission-killed, which is as good as dead after it’s finished off with a second shot.
Even if an Abrams survives being hit on the hull, in that case you lose your driver, loader, hydraulic pump, engine, transmission, turret traverse mechanisms and gun elevation mechanisms. Sure, you “survived”, but… you didn’t.
5 Likes
its simple, if tanks get fixed as per the bug reports, then their BRs reflect that simple, thats why the BRs exist. Leo2a7 rn should be 12.3.
the m1a2 shoudl not be 11.7
Fair point, but autoloaders, drivers, engine, treads would do the same on the T-90M, even with the spall liners helping a little on side pen, albeit loading less ammo is a very viable strat to not explode in many situations regardless of the tank.
In T-90M’s case, I would say it’s a 50% chance thing;
50% of the times, your turret becomes the manhole cover of that one nuclear test.
50% of the times, you don’t take any damage at all; maybe autoloader and/or engine if you are unlucky.
In the Abrams’ case, it’s ALSO a 50% chance thing, but with a worse outlook;
50% of the times, your whole crew is killed due to the frag grenade-like spalling.
50% of the times, you “survive”, but lose your driver, loader, hydraulic pump, engine, transmission, turret traverse mechanisms and gun elevation mechanisms.
3 Likes
I mean i take 16 in the 72B3 and the 80U and its usually a one tap :(
chinese MBTs as well unfortunately.
maybe im a lucky SOB cause when I use the abrams i usually survive enough to get back repair and fire back, sure reload is effected but im still fighting. compared to when i get penned in the 72 or 80U
If were honest here at top tier, the issue isnt the abrams, the fact that nations with far worse tanks can keep the winrate higher says it all, the Abrams while needs fixed due to realism , isnt horrifically unbalanced like somewant to believe.
2 Likes
the abrams thing i think feels worse cause you survive but not really and just need to wait for the next round xd
2 Likes
take BVM with 1 shell for unkillable demon mode >)
2 Likes
Yes, sometimes I would rather be killed straight away than be kept crippled for 10 more seconds, hahah.
There’s also a factor here; matchmaking.
The most common matchmaking in Top Tier including is usually:
Germany + Sweden + Russia + Italy VS U.S + U.K + Israel
So… yes, Italy may have the worse Arietes; but they also have a Leopard 2A7HU that, in these cases, also add up with Leopard 2A7V, the 3x Strv 122 lineup spam, Russian MBTs and SU-34s and alikes with their KH-38 spam, and Pantsirs negating the strenght of U.S’ CAS.
So, even if Italy “has it worse” than U.S, the matchmaking largely benefits their winrates. That is, not to mention that there’s like 1 Italian player per every 500 U.S players, and that one Italian player is more often than not an eSports-level player looking for a challenge…
That’s why I never liked using Win Rates to determine the capabilities of vehicles; too many human factors involved that alter these outcomes.
1 Like
It’s always the ‘minor nations have the good players’ to explain everything, when in reality that point has become a thing for quite a good time now, it gets tiring.
2 Likes
I can’t specifically talk stats since, well, we don’t have any hard numbers to work with and I’m already running tests on the Abrams and 2a7v stats atm.
Just came here to laugh for all British, French and Italian players
I think there’s truth behind that; for example, the majority of the few Italian players are EXTREMELY good players who play weaker tanks looking for a challenge…
The thing is, that is not the good point the people who use this argument believe it to be, in my opinion.
All nations should be balanced around AVERAGE players. I hate when people use the “skill issue git gud Italy WR” argument because, even if skill was the only factor, which it isn’t, you should never demand players to be eSports level to make a nation work. Every nation should be able to work with average players.
Why should some nations require you to be a professional player to do well with, while others allow you to win automatically by rushing mindlessly because its vehicles literally win on their own?
4 Likes
genuinely is there a stat for us to check that?
I was talking with someone earlier about MM and said i couldnt personally use it to justify or argu against a point due to it being unquantifyable, last match for example i was US, China, Sweden and i think isreal against RU, GER and britain
usually when im sweden im not with russia anymore.
it literally cant tbh due to as you say numerical differences . however it can show us how a nation does overall.
and as i said if nations that have horrifically worse vehicles are doing okay then how come the US which has debatably the best cas, decent MBT, average SPAA and best light tank (now) at top tier be doing so much worse.
The answer is the players statistically speaking it has to be, if its one standout problem.
1 Like
there is no way to change what class of person flocks to which nation. if everything was “balanced”, the nations with the best players would win, you cannot force players who reach for the stars to play a certain nation
2 Likes
but this literally shows how the abrams isnt the issue.
The italian win rate even before the 2A7 HU , was miles ahead of americas , same as france, china and hell even britain.
The all of these tanks are statistically worse than the abrams bar maybe in one specific area, e.g france, reload, britain slight edge on armour ( if you can say that now) etc etc.
The abrams itself while should be historically accurate as should every nations equipment, is not a bad MBT that is struggling.
okay, so before the 2a7 HU, italy had only the arietes.
france the leclercs
britain the horrific CR2s.
China the ztz 99s.
and isreal the merkavas
how are all of these nations whos tanks are statistically worse, and lineups for years were worse, doing better than the US tree?
because the players for the US tree are the problem, most the matches are decided by people , even with full lineups, just leaving
They don’t have Click-Bait spammers, leaving the game after being killed 32 seconds after spawning.
2 Likes
Again then it comes back to people, not the tank itself
Quite the contrary.
Why can you stomp while playing Sweden or Russia by rushing mindlessly like a headless chicken, while you need to become a professional player to achieve the same effectiveness in nations like U.S, U.K, and France?
All nations should offer equal chances for all kinds of players. There should not be certain nations that you can stomp with while turning your brain off while other nations require you to sweat your ass off in order to do well with them.
Kinda as you said, it is fine that not all tanks are necessarily as good as each other- but, as of now, that’s the case largely because of mismodelling and bugs, more than real life issues.
If all tanks had their bugs and mismodelling issues fixed, the game would be MUCH more balanced in Top Tier. Most of the unbalance is created artificially through these nerfs and bugs that are never solved.
2 Likes