Thunderskill is less than 2% of the active matches.
Even their own study would be less than 4% of matches even if it was higher than 2% of matches.
There is no burying heads in sand, there is only statistics.
All of this BTW only proves team skill; and I mean the very literal definition of proof.
irrelevant you can just use an average of all accounts
Yes I would like the win rate of every vehicle in the game alongside average BR win rate. Gaijin has access to this information if it was public they wouldn’t even need to compile it people would do it for them.
They’re trash because the Abrams has almost no effective LFP armor and most players at 11.3 are now in the Click Bait. This combined lack of skill / poor performance leads to the current win rates.
You are here advocating for statistics to be hidden. Are you unserious? Is this not what you think should happen?
More than enough for a sample size.
It’s not perfect data which is why I advocate for Gaijin to release win rate statistics. Meanwhile in one hand you ask for Gaijin to keep statistics hidden and in the other deflect the statistics we have as “fake” because we can’t get the real statistics.
It’s illogical to feign care for statistics while not wanting actual statistics.
This data shows WR for countries at 11.7 counting 111k replays in 4 days span, programm downoloads and analyses replays, so this literally cant be wrong if theres no bugs.
Yet many nations at top tier get worse tanks with much bigger weakspots, and perform far better.
IME it mostly comes down to the pull that the US TT has to new and honestly, generally bad, players. AIMs make up half the team at top tier, even before the Click-Bait. SEPs cresting a hill at the start of a match like their breach weakspot doesn’t exist, despite having good gun depression and not needing to crest at all. Poor positioning. It seems endemic to US teams more than other nations.
There’s nothing wrong with having no armor you just need to play better!
1 Like
There aren’t that many 11.0 tanks out there, but something like Merkavas and T-80s come to mind pretty quickly. Also, that thing is at least on par with plenty other 11.3 tanks, just take a look at Chally 2s and Arietes.
The Challengers have effective turret armor.
Italiano
In the case of the Merkava its reload rate is ahistorically nerfed by Gaijin for no legitimate reason
T-80s have effective armor for the tier I don’t know what your complaint is.
2 Likes
Yes but it lacks in mobility, shells, gun handling and has only 4 shells in the ready racks, meaning reload rate will lack after prolonged engagements.
Keep in mind that’s a 11.3 vehicle, not 11.0.
?
Doesn’t change the fact they are worse than M1A1.
And the advantages stop right there.
UM2 has no thermals and Swedish T-80U has access to 3BM42 only.
Also, both of those suffer from poor gun handling, depression, reverse speed and reload speed when compared to M1A1.
The T-80U really doesn’t feel well armoured at all, tank blows ass.
i think i gotta put like 100GB of my drive as to only put all the videos of ohk to fuel/ammo on any top tier soviet tank so maybe then they will see that ammo does indeed explode
All Challengers lack in mobility and this is historical there’s nothing to do about it.
The ready rack is artificially nerfed to be slow to load yes.
“gun handling”?
Yes these are the differences between NATO vehicles an Russian vehicles. The lack of reload speed is complimented by an autoloader, Abrams loses reload advantage if the loader is wounded or killed.
Mobility is historical there is nothing you can do.
“gun handling”?
Who is discussing ammo explosion?
lol…
This isn’t about stuff being historical or not, it’s about making things balanced.
As I said, it has only 4 rounds in the ready rack, meaning it’s reload speed advantage over other tanks will pretty quickly be nullified, meanwhile M1s have way bigger ready racks.
Gun traverse speeds are often put in a single category called gun handling.
Autoloader is also complimented by one less crew member, which is a big deal.
If T-80 loses two crew members it’s back in the hangar, but M1 on the other hand still can function properly.
I’m just pointing out the fact M1A1 is on par (or even better) with most other 11.3s, so there’s no point in it sitting at 11.0.
So many 11.0s barely have a single advantage over it.
The only factor Gaijin should use to balance vehicles is BR rating.
The ready rack is historical the issue is the reload time of the ready rack which is artificially nerfed by Gaijin.
Turret traverse is historical.
Yes you’re sacrificing for benefits. That’s how it works. That’s irrelevant to either’s balance.
What isn’t on par is the tank’s armor. Its turret cheeks don’t have the armor upgrade. There is no world in which that tank goes above 11.0 even with a 4 second auto loader like the Japanese MBT prototypes excepting through BR decompression.
Most 11.0s have good guns / mobility but lack serious armor.
The T80 series tanks have effective armor until Gaijin decides to add newer APFSDS rounds.
Of all the BRs that are currently at issue 11.0 is low in priority, it’s a holdover BR with most nations not having support vehicles to produce full lineups.
Challengers wouldn’t lack mobility if they were modelled properly.
2 Likes
All NATO tanks are artificially nerfed because Gaijin doesn’t model regenerative steering.
So yes, but it would increase the Abram’s mobility as well.
The Challenger is not a “light” tank, it’s very heavy and its armor reflects that.
1 Like
It doesn’t have accurate armor values either, does it? Since it was leaked, which means it will never be accurate to real life any time soon.
1 Like
Every NATO tank.
1 Like