@Pacifica still not have had a clear answer to USSR not being bias in the game.
So first point I would like to raise is the generation in vehicles being added, for example
T80BVM
T90M
Pantsir S-1
2S38
Same time, we can see a clear nerf to AIM-9 and AIM-7 missiles that has not been announced, yet we can see and feel it in game-play (even if it was a bug and not a nerf, it is still major issue). Not to mention the nerf to the J39 handling and F15 thrust recently. With that, also the fact that the M1 is super heavy yet no explanation as to where that extra weight comes from.
To add to the list - the excessive armor on the SU25 while the A10 does not have it’s redundant hydraulic systems and can not effectively fly with one engine or part of a wing missing. We can also add the lack of armoring to the Ah-64 and Rooivalk.
80s and 90s vehicles having to face off against late 2000s vehicles is fair and not biased?
EDIT : I do not see the USSR Tech Tree as being over powered, in fact, it is my favorite nation to verse as I can one shot them in ground RB. I just want to know why we are being held back so much and do not get to enjoy the extent and capabilities of our vehicles in other nations.
Personally I am a US & UK main with both nations at 11.7/12.3 - GER at 8.0.
11.0 US is literally a nuke farm after soy so called “us-mains” made up a spall liner conspiracy and gaijin was forced to give them something so they stop whining.
8.7 China is a nuke farm, chinese bias?
Top tier sweden is a nuke farm, swedish bias? (Swedish bias sounds believable, ngl)
Is this supposed to show that the M1A2 SEP has smaller weakspots than the T-80BVM or T-90M? I mean it’s entire hull is a weakspot besides the UFP, making the Abrams have a much weaker hull. Additionally, due to the size of the breech and turret ring (which is incorrectly modeled in game, it’s not even volumetric let alone that it’s got 5x worse armor penetration than irl).
Also, the T-80BVM looks extremely similar in protection to the T-90M, it trades a sliver of turret survivability for a sliver of hull survivability. The only thing that’s a negative is not having a spall liner (which as of now the Abrams doesn’t either).
Additionally, bringing up that the 11.0 M1A1 can bring a round that can do well against top tier isn’t a great argument when that is not unique. The 10.7 T-90A can also use 3BM60, just like the 11.7 T-80BVM and T-90M.
There is a spall liner in the Abrams, in fact TrickZZter themselves acknowledged a bug report for all Abrams missing their integrated spall liner: Community Bug Reporting System
The 5 second reload imo was not needed, it is accurate (in fact it is the bare minimum an Abrams’ loader must meet). I think every single Abrams player would rather have their accurate armor and their spall liner rather than a 6 → 5 second reload with an Aced crew.
This is just straight up false. Going off of the WT Data Project, the US 10.7-11.7 and 11.0-12.0 GRB teams each have a 39% win rate. Meanwhile, every other nation is at the very least positive (the lowest is USSR 10.7-11.7 at 50.7%).
“Russian Bias is when a handful of vehicles might not be balanced, or are newer (which doesn’t mean a ton).”
If there was actual bias (not just major nation or premium bias) it would be way more prevalent and at most BRs. I do agree that NATO tanks are often not as good as they should be. Gaijin also doesn’t handle bug reports the best, and they can be very inconsistent.
T-80BVM has a bad turret which is why everyone rushes with them in order to convince people to shoot the UFP instead of the turret.
T-90M is as armored as Strv 122A with the same ammo performance and slightly less mobility.
2A7V is overall better than both due to DM53.
Pantsir can’t hit semi-competent CAS players.
2S38 is a slightly better Strf 9040C and players perform on-par with all other 10.0s in it.
There were no nerfs to AIM-9 missiles, AIM-9Ms are still the 2nd best missiles in the game only beaten by AAM-3s.
AIM-7s are still the same.
F-15 thrust is identical to release which is accurate and the highest TWR in the game, performing as expected for PW-100, as it should be less thrust than PW-220.
Gripen is still the best fighter in War Thunder 2nd to none. With Mirage 4000 in second.
Su-25 has a similar amount of armor as A-10; and no aircraft has redundant systems because that’s not in the game’s code for anything.
M1A2 non-SEP through SEP has the extra weight from improved armor over M1A1 non-HC, this is well known.
90s vehicles face 2020 vehicles because the 90s vehicles are superior. It’s that simple, no bias.
So 1992 T-80UM fighting AMV from 2022 is good and ok but something like 2017 or 2008 vehicle fighting 2016-2018 vehicles isnt. NATO has a lot of new tanks, some that didnt even pass trials yet.
Or again, another example, 70s-80s M60s fighting T-62 and T-55A from late 50s or early 60s is fine, but this isnt?
Or early KV-1s fighting on par with latest PZ-4s.
If years of production or anything were a matter we would have Leopard 1 fighting earliest T-64, not fighting on same BR as T-54s.
SU-25still lacks armour for its right engine (IIRC some Kamovs might lack armour still too), several USSR planes have underperforming FM.
Do we account for the fact that Eastern tanks are meant to be more armored and suffer in other ways, or should M1A2 be better than T-80BVM at literally everything for US not to “suffer”?
Can’t talk about that one, but thanks for the insight on the controversy.
WT Data Project is literally stated Thunderskill weighted average, with made up values. This data may be closer to truth than Thunderskill itself. Straight up not true? Well I can provide you with my stats, consider these vehicles being grinded out of stock.
What do you mean by this? If you’re referring to the 5 second reload I think most people would trade it for the Abrams’ real armor, but I thought Western tanks are meant to be the armored ones? I thought the whole thing with Eastern tanks was that they were light but decently armored due to ERA.
From what I can tell by looking at the WT Data Project source code, all they do is take the values from Thunderskill in mass. I went through nearly every single file in their wt-data-project.web repository and the wt-data-project.data repository is just full of the raw Thunderskill, War Thunder Wiki, and combined Thunderskill and War Thunder Wiki values (to show what vehicles go with what nation). There isn’t any math as far as I can tell because the win rates are straight from Thunderskill:
If you’re suggesting that Thunderskill has a weighted average I’m not sure how you’re claiming this as there also doesn’t appear to be any weighting at all. I mean the only thing I can find regarding weighting is the “efficiency” value of a particular player, which doesn’t have anything to do with vehicle win rates (which is what WT Data Project uses).
Also btw I won’t be able to respond for probably 11-12 hours, time zones and all.
@SpeclistMain
I am not participating in the conversation you two are having.
You however have my support against their positions.
I skimmed and largely support your side of the discussion.
Even if they’re correct about things not being OP, and correct on T-80BVM’s protection.
Yes, ERA makes up for most of the armor values, however, Eastern doctrines have been prioritizing armor over mobility, unlike, the US for example.
The whole point that I’m trying to get across is the fact (at least for me), that there is actually no russian bias and both Russia and US are in roughly similar conditions at top tier.
As for lower winrates on the US’s side, IMO, russian tanks let players make more mistakes without consequences, unlike their Western counterparts. Simply, skill issue.
Wait…if the TANK allows more mistakes without consequences…HOW IS THAT SKILL?! That means one is easier to play than the other and all other factors being equal will win more.
Probably doesnt help that the US is getting spammed by low lvl premium players.
I think it is sort of like comparing a DPS character vs a tank. Tank can take more damage but is slower and cant dish out as much. DPS can do a lot of damage and is mobile but cant take as much damage.
If you played both classes the same way and just kept running head on into enemies, you will do much better in the tank than the DPS.
I feel this is part of the reason. Current top tier meta is basically holding W and just clicking on whatever moves. This means that a tank with better armor will survive more than one with better mobility.
Gaijin ruining map flanks due to CoD complainers also doesnt help NATO.
To the point that US team are nothing more than a total deadweight which no one wanna team up with i’m sure there something wrong if some nation become deadweight to any team, they with it far beyond bad.
I never called the USSR tech tree strong, it does not have to be strong to keep bias. You forgot the point where I mentioned the nerf to air as well. TBH - USSR is my favorite to kill because how easy it is to kill. Does not mean that the USSR is not receiving bias. But it is clear that handling of the vehicles and BR assignment is more favorable towards the USSR tech tree, if balancing was the pure focus then the GB, Italy & Japan trees need the same love as the USSR tech tree.
Recently the aim-9m has been flare-able at sub 1.5 km on first burst of flare without cutting after burners. Aim7 goes off to narnia majority of the time and loses lock on a dust particle floating in the air. Most kills are against the most unaware players -so not impossible to get a kill.
This did not come without a fight.
The win rates I do not feel are entirely effective measure as, let’s be honest, majority of the player base runs GER or USSR and also, hold W sim is a thing. I too have been guilty of hold W sim since Air Superiority update as to me, it has been disappointing on how the new vehicles has been added in.
Personally, I would have a 6 to 7 sec reload and have my armor I am meant to have. It is not like crew skill matters that much (sarcasm) and Gaijin fails to understand loader required pass rate VS loader average reload rate on some tanks.
Tactical map play has been removed by covering everything in red zones - cause all tanks are meant to be played in a center map on cap, right? (sarcasm)
Back to enjoying being locked on in spawn in GRB and back to having my IRCCM capable missiles being flared at sub 1.5km without evasive maneuvers or cutting afterburners while I watch a full load SU-27 cruise past me in my F15 to wing snap in a 4G turn.
