I am not at my laptop, I am currently in uni not paying attention to a class.
well pay attention mofo.
Rather than arguing and complaining about wanting a 0.3 br reduction etc etc about a perfectly fine vehicle in a video game.
Learn brother, then you may enlighten us.
Give me an inv sometime.
The Sherman has exactly 1mm more pen. Other than that, the Chi-Nu has 20g more filler. Wow. Totally balances the better armor, stabilizer, .50 cal, faster turret, and better mobility.
Uptiers exist, and are a a fact of life at this tier. There are a lot more 3.7 lineups than there are 3.3 ones, so you often see at least partial uptiers.
The P40 is also trading blows for worst 3.3 medium, but at least that has armor that, if properly angled, can bounce a suprising amount. You can make the hull immune to M61 shot if you angle just right, and the P40 is so rarely played most people seem to not expect it. It should probably also go down to 3.0, in fairness.
I’ve played 117 games in it (An unusually high amount for a low tier vehicle for me, a result of getting a random talisman on it), and even though I did well, it’s still objectively inferior to it’s contemporaries. There’s no situation where I’d prefer to be in a Chi-Nu over an M4A1 or T-34, let alone a Panzer IV.
2 Likes
It doesn’t need to perform identically, that is silly and impossible. But the advantages and disadvantages should result in roughly equivalent capability compared to vehicles at equal BR, higher capability than those at lower BR, and lower capability than those at higher BR.
And that’s not a problem of these vehicles, is it? If, say, a Chi-To was inherently bad, it would be horrible anywhere. Yet if it was moved to 3.7 just now with the Panzer IV H most of us would agree it’s even overpowered.
The only reason Japanese tanks are seemingly higher than comparable tanks of other nations is that exact mindset, that they are bad. The idea that only experienced players can use them for a challenge. Meanwhile superior tanks played by newer players move down in BR, making it seem like the Japanese tanks are just as bad as common internet misconceptions make them out to be.
I don’t think they are nearly as bad as they are set out to be, most of the time even for their BR, but certain, rather common, tanks they are compared with are just placed so low that they seem a lot worse than they are. Should the Chi-To move to 3.7 for being a slightly better Panzer IV H? No, but the Panzer IV H might just be placed too low at 3.3.
Overall it seems that the BR balancing system is flawed in that it takes pure vehicle performance, without comparing player performance on a vehicle with their average performance. If a good player routinely gets 6+ kills on a tank, Gaijin sees it as in need to move up, even if that same player easily does 8-10 on most other vehicles.
5 Likes
sure the chi nu has more filler. i agree with you statement. - which is why i say chi-nu is fine.
Sherman is a better vehicle, totally - just mentioning there is only 1 at the same br as chi-nu.
Uptiers do exist, but same for everyone regardless of what you play, if you check my screenshots above, you can see i show 3.3 is not viable, instead opt for 3.7 but mix in some 3.3’s to support.
P40 i rather enjoyed, the armour is funny as hell, you meet many stuff you can kill but also alot you cannot - i take the rough with the smooth, it is what the vehicle is. cant all be identical eh.
This is weird - i have also played exactly 117 matches in my Chi-Nu…
I have positive k/d. Gun is good and sometimes you can bounce shit.
i dont know if you are agreeing with me or not but i agree with your statements.
I think certain japanese tanks would realistically be facing more advanced tanks, but the game makes them face earlier war tanks, so there is some balancing going on there.
These statements are contradictory. If the Chi-Nu is at the same tier as a better vehicle, how is it fine at it’s BR? Especially considering your next point.
The Chi-Nu’s gun is already weak at 3.3, uptier it to 4.7 and all of a sudden you’re facing KV-1 Zis, Jadgpanzer IVs, ISU-152s, etc, on top of facing those well armored Shermans and KV-1s every single game. Not to mention, with that lineup, you’re objectively better off with the American 3.7, with 2 Shermans, one far superior to the Chi-Nu, the same M24 Chaffee, a better TD in the M10 (Armored, turreted, even if it’s glacially slow, .50 cal, slightly less tempting targets for CAS planes, etc), and better CAS options.
I played most of my games with the Chi-Nu back when the lineup was at 3.3, before the Chaffee was uptiered, and it was pretty average then too.
To be clear, you’re allowed to like the Chi-Nu. I’m not arguing it’s impossible to do well in. What I’m saying is that it’s an objectively worse vehicle than the other 3.3 mediums (With the possible exception of the P40), and that accordingly it could use a slight downtier. It would not break the game at 3.0. That gun already exists at 2.0. There’s barely even a lineup for it too. But it’s a lot more balanced against it’s competition at 3.0 than it is at 3.3.
4 Likes
Liking vehicles is something completely fine. It is also fine to like a vehicle while acknowledging it is not good.
I for one love the J7W1. Favorite plane ever. I even have a >6 K/D with it. However, I openly would say the plane is hot garbage, specially now.
5 Likes
So what, they have different stats? so downtier? thats silly.
Your not seeing the bigger picture, same as similar threads.
Are there better vehicles? yes - many, so what? still works. something has to be the worst at any br.
Uptier can fuck alot of vehicles.
Play each vehicle differently.
As you know, after someone dies, they may come out in a lower br vehicle. Your not always seeing the best meta throughout duration of the match,
I feel like majority of peoples agenda is being able to come top of team every match and get lots of kills with literally any vehicle and cant deal with overcoming adversity.
Maybe dont take the game so seriously and enjoy the variety.
Exactly. In a similar vein, I loved the Chi-Ri. I was mental enough to take it flanking, and it worked surprisingly often. That 3 second autoloader was a joy when I got behind a group. I called it my Sumo Ninja due to how something that massive and fat could consistently sneak behind enemy vehicles.
But it is not a great tank. That was exemplified to me when I played the Delat Torn, which is nearly statistically identical, but I hated my time with it. It just didn’t click for me the way the Chi-Ri did. Really forced me to admit my love of the Chi-Ri was a bit irrational at the end of the day.
2 Likes
I will never understand how the Delat Torn sits at the same BR as the Chi-Ri II.
It has far greater acceleration and overall mobility, faster reload, APHE rounds have similar capabilities, larger first stage ammo stowage, better turret traverse, so on.
Sure, the armor is worse. But at the BR that the Chi-Ri sits at, flat 75 mm won’t do much, and it’s significantly better to be in a smaller, more mobile yet less armored tank
Edit: Well, yeah, I do understand it, it’s all down to player performance, but I still think it is stupid.
2 Likes
When one vehicle is so clearly objectively worse than another, it shouldn’t be at the same tier. This isn’t a difference that’s so close that it’s not worth the bother. Hell, the only difference between the M4A2 76mm and the Easy 8 is 90 horsepower, and that’s apparently worse 0.3 BR. Sherman II gets a functionally pointless APCR shot, that’s worth 0.3 BR over the American M4A1. Plenty of examples of vehicles with far less differences at different BRs. This isn’t a T-34 vs Sherman apples to oranges comparison where both vehicles shine in different roles, there’s no playstyle or position that would allow a Chi-Nu to outshine it’s contemporaries.
I feel a great amount of irony in hearing this, considering I’ve ground out every line but China and Israel (Can’t stand copy paste at this point) to at least 8.0. I enjoy variety, but I enjoy it a whole lot more when I can play those varied and intersting vehicles without kneecaping myself at the same time. This is a competitive game, and I enjoy winning. I think it’s reasonable to expect that every vehicle in a competitive game is as competitive as it can be.
3 Likes
is that not what makes the Delat good?
Bring other vehicles down, then other vehicles become less “balanced” and their capabilities become less viable or advantageous.
To be fair, it is worth that BR difference.
Going from 12.42 to 15.20/15.50 hp/ton is extremely noticeable, and the M4A3 accelerates significantly better.
The M4A3 also gets APCR, but that can pretty much just be ignored as it makes little difference. However, being able to get to a position where you can use the stabilizer earlier in the game is really good.
The Delat Torn is good, but that doesn’t mean the Chi-Ri has to be completely outclassed at the BR it already sits, which is the main issue.
it’s ok when its not you and your killing them though.
but when you use your vehicle with armour and chose it because of such, you complain people can pen you and demand downtier.
But when you use the vehicles it got downtiered to, you complain you cant do anything to it and can 1 shot you.
where does it end?, i think surely differences are good because it makes it worthwhile playing diff vehicles other than simple aesthetics.
certain vehicles are better than others, they have different stats and capabilities, some have more than others -
If a sherman is better than a chi-nu - allow it to be so, otherwise why use a sherman? if you just gonna come up against that is equal or better?
You lose your advantages.
There is a reason certain vehicles are better than others, allow those differences to exist and it varies through nations and br’s.
That itself is balancing.
I play shermans, i want to fight Germany and come up against significant armour, not kill them easily, i wanna be outgunned, out armoured, like it was, like what makes a panther a panther.
I can just think outside of what is good for me at that time or what nation i play.
What.
If the viecle is strictly worse in terms of stats, it should be lower BR. Viecles at the same BR should have around the same performance- thats how balancing works.
3 Likes
Nope, still have an issue with that. Don’t strawman me.
Nope, never made that argument, and in fact I’ve consistently argued that people who make that argument when they spawn heavy tanks in uptiers are incorrect. Arguing against points I never made and don’t agree with isn’t doing your argument any favors.
So, geniunely, the idea of game balance is a new concept to you? That both teams in a competitive game, all other factors being equal, should have a roughly equal chance of winning, is something that’s novel?
You’re actually arguing against game balance here by saying that if a Sherman wasn’t objectively better than one of it’s peers, there’d be no point in playing it, which is baffling. Tanks at a BR should have advantages and disadvantages that mostly even out. A Sherman is roughly balanced against a T-34, so it makes sense to have them exist at the same BR. A Chi-Nu isn’t and therefore shouldn’t.
This is again a set of immediately contradictory statements. You want to fight an uphill battle, you like playing from a disadvantage. That’s fine, and it’s something I can sympathize with. I spaded the Type 60 ATM speciflcally for the challenge of it.
But that’s inherently at odds with the concept of game balance, and claiming that the Chi-Nu is fine at it’s BR because you like the challenge of it is not a good argument. And, by the way, if it does get downtiered, you can continue to play it at 3.3 (Or 3.7) all you want. There’s nothing stopping you. But why not let the people who want to play a Chi-Nu without shooting their winrate in the foot, do so?
4 Likes
A good example would be the Tiger going to 6.0.
I dont really play German tanks much although i have to a degree.
I have fought against them alot.
I do not think Tiger E should be at 6.0
Tiger should be a formidable opponent to come up against.
You may only have a 75, but you must find a way, or a 76 before the silly buff.
Tiger should have a better gun than me, better armour. It is what makes a tiger a tiger.
Put it up against higher br shit like it is, that armour becomes shit and the gun is mediocre, it now lacks the tiger qualities.
Same applies to notorious shit vehicles, they should be shit.
In all cases you’ve mentioned though, there is a tangible advantage in your “inferior tank”.
For example, Sherman vs Panthers, assuming you mean something like the M4A3 versus a Panther A, G or F, you will have much better acceleration, stabilizer, .50 cal and reload. Using these advantages gives you a better chance to win.
The Chi-Nu realistically has no advantages to actually make use of when facing something like the M4A1. In fact it has a slower reload despite the cannon having similar penetration values and only slightly more damage.