It is, I just believe it’s hilarious 11.7 Abrams are the only to ever get better shells at top tier, with all other vehicles going up getting entirely nothing.
1 Like
Which says more about how noob-friendly those vehicles are in comparison to the Abrams than anything else. I have no doubt the same caliber of player is buying the UE-1 as the Click-Bait. The difference is, the UE-1 holds their hand enough that their stats are not as poor as the Click-Bait buyers’. This is why the CB got a new shell and the UE-1 did not.
More so it tells how prone Gaijin is to the main payer of the community. The bestseller vehicle performing bad in hands of newer players is not suprising.
By this logic Chally 2 OES and 2A4PL are hand holder vehicles, both of which is wrong. Even U-E1 being handholding is wrong. Especially when I see single OES pull off just fine against of USA teams.
By your logic 11.7 Ariete and Merkava tanks are hand holders.
Fast reload and snappy aiming is what low skill needs to compensate for his bad shots tho.
Again it took Gaijin so much longer just to give 5 seconds to vehicles that suffer much mire than Abrams, Ariete and Merkava.
Leclerc only got their realistic reload of 5 seconds at same time as Abrams after years of reports.
I think this shows handholding far more.
1 Like
Except if you actually played it, you know how much of a lie that is. It BARELY does anything at the BR it is at and has a high skill floor for it. I’m usually top 3 in my team with it but that’s why I also know that as I’m usually sitting 1.5-2k more mission points than most players. Still doesn’t negate the fact that it becomes near useless in a max uptier and doesn’t have a round comparable to its counterparts while everything else can front pen it with little to no challange.
Except if you actually played it, you know how much of a lie that is.
Irrelevant to the majority of the arguments I made, as explained previously why.
It BARELY does anything at the BR it is at and has a high skill floor for it.
Testing against the the 2A4 and vice versa so far even at long distance where claims were made that the M1 suffers showed that the M1 was slightly more difficult to penetrate than other way around. Also arguments based on skill have been declined by people asking for the new shell earlier in the thread as irrelevant after it was highlighted that tournament players highly rate the vehicle and skilled players chiming into the thread with their anecdotal experiences.
Still doesn’t negate the fact that it becomes near useless in a max uptier and doesn’t have a round comparable to its counterparts while everything else can front pen it with little to no challange.
Most vehicles will struggle to defeat enemies in a full uptier from the front, this is broadly true across the entire game and is to be expected. Regardless of all of this, as highlighted previously if the M1 performance statistics were below what gaijin deemed was acceptable they would have moved it in BR or buffed it. The M1 has been unchanged for a very long time now despite being a frequently played vehicle, as it has not been changed it would indicate it is performing acceptably.
Such as? You keep bringing up “win rate would bring it up” when that’s objectively not accurate. If that was the case, almost every Russian tank at that BR would have gone up by down. Having gameplay experience is kinda important as you don’t know what’s true or false.
Oh that’s great, except most times it isn’t fighting NATO tanks, it’s fighting Western Bloc tanks or being up tiered. Again, need the actual experience with it in-game. And when was the last tournament? Like a year ago wasn’t it? Still doesn’t do a direct translation to the skill level of normal players. A skilled player that’s on tournament level can make any vehicle do well.
Huh, a Russian originated company making Russian tanks do well. Crazy eh?
Such as?
Such as what?
You keep bringing up “win rate would bring it up” when that’s objectively not accurate.
I have said absolutely nowhere “win rate would bring it up”. Everything arguing off this point thereafter is irrelevant.
Having gameplay experience is kinda important as you don’t know what’s true or false.
It is if you’re going to base your argument off of your own experience, which as I have pointed out almost all of my arguments I have put forth do not do and pull on things that are provable without experience. There have been multiple people posting in this thread that do have experience are are skilled players who have given their view from that angle too.
Oh that’s great, except most times it isn’t fighting NATO tanks, it’s fighting Western Bloc tanks or being up tiered.
The M1 retains many advantages over USSR tanks even a full BR above it and largely can only penetrate the same areas that a 2A4 would be able to penetrate. Similarly higher BR western vehicles readily club USSR vehicles a BR lower. This is simply to be expected, and the separate issue of compression has been highlighted elsewhere already.
And when was the last tournament?
About two months ago.
Still doesn’t do a direct translation to the skill level of normal players. A skilled player that’s on tournament level can make any vehicle do well.
Tournament players don’t just play random vehicles though, they play whatever vehicle gives them the greatest chance at winning. Also I never said the game is balanced around tournament players, it is balanced around average vehicle performance from gaijins statistics. As highlighted as the M1 has not changed BR or been buffed in a long period of time despite being frequently played would indicate that it is performing within gaijins expectations.
Huh, a Russian originated company making Russian tanks do well. Crazy eh?
Subjective opinion based on your anecdotal views and perception of russian tanks being superior in-game. You will find many people that believe the opposite and much prefer western vehicles over soviet because of all the other factors at play (gun depression, gun handling, mobility, depression, etc). If you truly do believe that gaijin simply hates the USA/west then maybe this game isn’t for you should it hamper your enjoyment so much.
“That’s simply untrue though, it is an objective fact that it would buff the vehicle. If it’s performance is likely to increase beyond what gaijin deem acceptable they will increase it in return.” That’s been on par with your argument the whole time. Hence the “such as?” comment. The US literally has the worst win rate starting at 10.3 out of EVERY nation all the way to max BR.
You say that but there’s also plenty more who have said the opposite in this chain.
Huh, didn’t see that one but the least used version WAS the 105mm M1. They complimented the M1A1 and the IMP1. Thank goodness for Youtube and the internet break downs.
I mean, not like there’s obvious evidence that Gaijin prioritizes the Russian tree over everything else. Prototype tanks out the wazzoo, reliable radar guided SPAA while other nations are still stuck with visual tracking/effectively useless radar, giving their tanks ammo that was built decades after the tank were built but still won’t give other tanks their ammo that was built and only used on that gun ~looks right at the M68A1 M1~, making post-2000s era tanks fighting 1970s tanks, etc.
I still do well myself but it’s quite annoying to watch the rest of my team barely break 500 points because the 105 M1 doesn’t have a good top APFSDS round (it’s even worse before you get it). But again, would require you to play that BR to know.
Gaijin forgetting that a vehicle exists doesn’t magically justify making other vehicles in it’s BR range equally undertiered/overpowered.
Your argument here should be: ‘‘Why hasn’t Gaijin raised the Leo 2AV’s Battle Rating yet?’’ and not: ‘‘How come the M1 isn’t on-par with a vehicle that’s the exception?’’.
The M1 Abrams is equal/superior to the T-80B, Leopard 2A4, Ariete (P), Challenger Mk.2 and Mk.3, T-72AV TURMS-T, etc. If you want to start including the Leo 2AV in this comparison you should also be arguing that all of those vehicles mentioned require buffs/BR decreases to match the 2AV.
Your argument essentially boils down to: ‘‘The HE 100D-1 is horrifically undertiered and overpowered at 1.7, so the only solution is to lower the F4U-1a, Yak-1B, Spitfire Mk1a, etc. to 2.0’’.
1 Like
“That’s simply untrue though, it is an objective fact that it would buff the vehicle. If it’s performance is likely to increase beyond what gaijin deem acceptable they will increase it in return.” That’s been on par with your argument the whole time. Hence the “such as?” comment. The US literally has the worst win rate starting at 10.3 out of EVERY nation all the way to max BR.
Gaijin do not balance entirely based off win rate, they balance based on average vehicle performance which includes other factors. I already highlighted that if you are making your argument as to why it should move in a direction based purely off win rate, the charts posted earlier would indicate that 3.0-10.0 germany is suffering massively and requires either all their vehicles to move down or be buffed. Similarly france is the best performing nation in the game across almost the whole tree span so should be getting moved up or nerfed.
You say that but there’s also plenty more who have said the opposite in this chain.
You are right there are a lot of anecdotes provided on both sides.
Huh, didn’t see that one but the least used version WAS the 105mm M1. They complimented the M1A1 and the IMP1. Thank goodness for Youtube and the internet break downs.
This is true and unsurprising given the two other tanks are upgrades to it. This tournament was interesting for multiple reasons other than that such as the fact that the US was most picked on a close quarters combat map, where generally russian vehicles are cited as the best (whilst also having access to the BVM in their line-up which was higher in BR than any of the US vehicles).
giving their tanks ammo that was built decades after the tank were built but still won’t give other tanks their ammo that was built and only used on that gun ~looks right at the M68A1 M1 ~, making post-2000s era tanks fighting 1970s tanks, etc.
Ammunition has been stated to be one of the balancing factors. Not all vehicles in the game use all the rounds they could use and gaijin will add/remove for balance as they deem appropriate (same with reload speed).
I still do well myself but it’s quite annoying to watch the rest of my team barely break 500 points because the 105 M1 doesn’t have a good top APFSDS round (it’s even worse before you get it). But again, would require you to play that BR to know.
You’re getting into the argument territory of player skill here, and as has been highlighted in this thread and elsewhere the vehicle is very capable when played to it’s strengths. I do play that BR, and in my anecdotal experience US teams at that BR play very poorly. They don’t try to play to their strengths and tend to just rush head on in and hope for the best. I hate it because the 120S is easily one of my favourite vehicles in the game (even put a talisman on it) and I also like the wolfpack and the A-10A but playing on US teams is frustrating. If I could move those vehicles to another nation I would. I tend not to get hung up on win rate anyway given it is the statistic least in your control.
Do explain how the M1 Abram is any better than any of those tanks outside 2 mph higher top speed and the reload time.
1 Like
M1 qualities over T-80B:
- Faster top speed
- Faster reverse
- Faster acceleration
- Neutral traverse
- Faster turret traverse
- Faster turret elevation
- Double gun depression
- Faster reload
- Blowout panels
2A4 has been done previously in the thread (closest analogue at BR).
1 Like
AGS, M60 AMBT, LOSAT, CCVL, XM8, XM-1 (GM), XM-1 (C), T54E1, T114, T54E2, T29, T32E1, T32, ADATS, XM975, M247, M60 120S, HSTV-L, T95E1, XM803, MBT-70, T95, M6A2E1, T92, M4 T26, T26E5, T26E1-1, T1E1, T20, T28, T30, T14
Decades after the vehicle was built? You sure about that?
- T-64A: 1969 3BM-22 1977
- T-72A: 1983 3BM-22 1977
- T-64B: 1984 3BM-42 1986
- T-80B: 1983 3BM-42 1986
- T-72B: 1987 3BM-42 1986
- T-72B: 1989 3BM-42 1986
- T-80U: 1991 3BM-46 1991
- T-90A: 2004 3BM-60 2016
- T-72AV TURMS-T 2005 3BM-42 1986
- 2S25: 2005 3BM-42 1986
- T-72B3M: 2016 3BM-60 2016
- T-80BVM: 2017 3BM-60 2016
- T-90M: 2017 3BM-60 2016
- M1 Abrams: 1980 M774 1979
- IPM1: 1984 M900 1990
- M1A1: 1985 M829A1 1989
- M1A2: 1992 M829A2 1993
- M1A1 HC: 1990 M829A2 1993
- M1A2 SEP: 1999 M829A2 1993
- M1A2 SEP v2: 2008 M829A2 1993
3 Likes
Well using the K/D, K/B, and W/L ratio of it using online data, the M1 is far from spectacular for its BR and underperforms against the counter parts (though, we’ll have to see what it says once it gets updated for the BR shift).
Do they have access to them all or is it based off what they own on their personal accounts?
I get that, but at the same time when the Russians get ammo that was designed to counter M1s2 while the M1 can’t even get the first replacement of the standard issue and would still be the worst round at that BR, ya gotta admit that’s fishy.
Would also help if most maps weren’t forced CQC maps where you gotta engage frontally. I can’t tell you the last time I got Fulda or Red Desert, it’s genuinely been nothing but urban combat maps lately. But I do agree, player skill across the board has been summed up lately by “hold W” (been bouncing between the US, Russia and Israel).
It is if used on a high end computer to remove foliage.
1 Like
Well using the K/D, K/B, and W/L ratio of it using online data, the M1 is far from spectacular for its BR and underperforms against the counter parts (though, we’ll have to see what it says once it gets updated for the BR shift).
The problems with data sources we have access to (thunderskill) and the problems associated with using them have been raised earlier in the thread and by gaijin themselves in the past. Only gaijin have the true statistics which they work off, not third party statistics.
Do they have access to them all or is it based off what they own on their personal accounts?
If you mean thunderskill, thunderskill only takes statistics from accounts that have been searched up on their website and updated by somebody.
I get that, but at the same time when the Russians get ammo that was designed to counter M1s2 while the M1 can’t even get the first replacement of the standard issue and would still be the worst round at that BR, ya gotta admit that’s fishy.
I don’t really think there’s anything fishy about it, russian vehicles are hindered in other aspects at the same BR so they tend to have better frontal armour and shells in return.
Would also help if most maps weren’t forced CQC maps where you gotta engage frontally. I can’t tell you the last time I got Fulda or Red Desert, it’s genuinely been nothing but urban combat maps lately. But I do agree, player skill across the board has been summed up lately by “hold W” (been bouncing between the US, Russia and Israel).
Map rotation is horrible yes. As someone else pointed out to me when I was complaining about it to them part of the problem no doubt lies in how many variations of small maps there are compared to maps such as red desert where there is only one map with no variants. The end result is that the statistical odds of getting maps like red desert/pradesh is far lower than getting yet another CQC map. It sucks because those maps are definitely fun to play at top tier, but out of our control.
Let’s see, AGS is from 2021 event. M60 AMBT was from war war mode in 2020. CCVL - crafting event from 2022. Idk why you brought the ADATS up, it’s a real tank that’s seen mass production. But seriously, name one of those US tanks that are overpowered for their BR? Not like the US gets the Thumper project or having tanks from the late 2000s and mid 2010s fighting 1980s tanks with rapid fire, beam riding missiles.
Ever heard of a hyperbole? Though, to be fair, you also just showed that the US doesn’t get the ammo it should. For example, the M89A3 has been around since 2003 and the M826A4 has been around since 2016 but still don’t get it.
Still don’t know why you added most of them. The one that really applies is the T-80B, which further reinforces as to why the M68A1 M1 should get the M833.
skipping the first 2 because we do agree on that (though I personally don’t think M833 is gonna shift anything THAT much to warrant a change).
Not really. Sure, the Russians have a longer reload but it’s 2 seconds at the worst. Unless you’re getting Zurg rushed by multiple players at once while alone, that really doesn’t many anything when compared to the first shot hit just by looking at an Abram.
For real… I wish we could get more like Fulda where we can use flanking and terrain to player advantage. Then again, Gaijin seems to just be ironing the maps that permitted that anyway.
1 Like
You also have access to this exact same “abuse”
How many of them entered service with US forces. How many did the US produce in the form seen in-game?
Classic example of moving the goalpost.
Your argument was that the Russian tech tree is favoured because it contains a large number of prototype vehicles.
I then show you a long list of prototype vehicles in the US tech tree, which according to your own logic would mean the US tech tree is favoured by Gaijin.
You then move the goalpost to: ‘‘Oh, but how many of them are overpowered?!’’.
The Russian ones aren’t overpowered either, so I still don’t see where you’re going with this.
And if you want to discuss overpowered vehicles, I’d just point you to the long list of extremely broken and undertiered US props throughout the tech tree.
Just like the Russians don’t get the Object 195, Object 477A or Object 490.
If we’re going to cherry-pick, let me return the favour by pointing out how the 1969 T-64A is currently fighting 2015 PUMA’s.
The IS-6 is a 1944 vehicle, does that mean it should be the same BR as a 1944 Pz IV Ausf. J?
Arguing based solely on date of introduction is completely pointless, and you’re only doing in when it serves your agenda.
Yes, but I don’t believe that’s what you were doing.
On average, the US tanks I mentioned actually use slightly more up-to-date ammunition than the Russian tanks I listed. I’m quite certain you hadn’t checked that.
M829A3 is superior to any other 12.0 ammunition currently in-game. If the US gets M829A3 then other nations will demand similar upgrades in firepower, and we’re back at square one. Again, stop using dates as an argument.
Which uses ammunition added only 3 years after it? Really? This is what you’ve got a problem with?
The 1984 IPM1 (1 year after the T-80B in-game) uses 1990 ammunition, 4 years later than 3BM-42.
2 Likes