I disagree.
The M833 round is not a lolpen round, it’s simply on par with the rest of those at its given tier.
The M1 is thinly-armored enough that it doesn’t warrant being uptiered to 11.0 if M833 is added.
8 Likes
Gaijin can and has been wrong in the past.
Suggesting improvements for player enjoyment isn’t going to harm them, it can only aid them.
Motorola brought up a good point that players grow tired of the M1s because they have no new toys.
I would say that the M1A1 line up is seen as busted in a bad way and thus players don’t stick around unless they’re determined and can afford it.
Otherwise, why would high skill players consistently go to top tier Germany and top tier Sweden, except to turn off their brains and not feel like they’re struggling uphill against their foes?
EddieVanHalo pointed out this is similar to the Tigers and their win rates being tanked because of easily known hit points. Two series of “useless legends”, as he put it.
Making the legend useful and fun to play isn’t something for you to bemoan. Though you do anyway. And that’s your free choice.
It doesn’t mean I’m required to accept it by your word of mouth, nor anyone else’s.
6 Likes
I think the simple solution is to make the reload longer and give the better round.
I’d also like to see the leo2a4 get DM33 or a reload buff.
Lots of nothing here.
You will accept whatever BR gaijin deigns to keep it at based on their performance statistics.
Nothing less because you have no choice.
Scratch that, you don’t have to accept it at all. Your acceptance doesn’t mean anything though.
1 Like
I do agree that I think the main issue facing top tier US is lack of “skilled” or veteran players. While the US tech-tree has become stale, I also think its “harder” to play that it use to. A good portion of the community will always go to the “winning” nation. While that’s not exactly a quantifiable item especially since Gaijin doesn’t publish that data.
With a disparity of skill or balance of skill its only going to get worse. This is a video game, and will have a meta of some kind. Right now the meta is not in favor with the US ground. At times and BRs it has, but currently it is not.
I do think a lot of the community ignores the grinding of tanks for their balance. As new players grind into top tier they’ll have an easier time if the grind wasn’t as rough in the Abrams vs the Leo 2 or T-80 it’s main counterparts. The M774 is within a reasonable penetration of the DM23 and 3BM42, though not as reasonable as the M833.
I think with the decompression the M1 at least could either go back down to 10.3 or adjust how soon the M1 gets the M774 round. The grind of the M1 is mostly with the M735 round and its whopping 292mm of pen. The lowest of all MBTs 9.0 and up, even some 8.0 tanks have better penetration compared to this dart. But darts have better energy retention so only compared darts.
At 10.7 the M1 is rarely ever going to see a down tiered, most nations have 1 9.7 tank if none at all. What is going to happen more often is the M1 is going to fight at 10.7 or get up tiered to 11.7. If you need to fight Leo2s and T series tanks with 292 mm of penetration of point blank, you will be hard pressed at ranged maps. If its only on par with the others with the M774 then why bother with the M735 at all? Leos get the DM13 with 393mm of pen and T-80’s 3BM22 doing 425mm of pen.
If three players all start at the same time, the M1 player will need to be “better” at positioning and aiming than the others from the start. This is a higher skill burden for what reason? Why does the M1 and US top tier need to have a higher skill burden to compete than others?
I think having the M735 as your tier 1 dart, M774 tier 2 or 3 round, and M833 tier 4 would make both the grind easier, and lower the skill level needed for the M1. At long range the weak spots on Leo 2 and T-80 turrets would be less, at close range it wouldn’t change anything hull wise.
Also am I not getting the point of the extra 23mm of pen being overpowered? Its still below 400mm which still keeps it well below its counterparts.
6 Likes
Giving it M833 would be a buff and we all know Gaijin likes to buff underperforming vehicles by giving them better rounds or reducing the reload times. I don’t think M1 is underperforming at it’s BR so buffing already strong vehicle doesn’t make sense to me.
Yeah, I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one.
They get new toys but most of the times it’s yet another reskin of M1A2 while remaining functionally the same as previous ones.
At this point US deserves new Abrams that has something new and different, like spall liners or better hull armor for example. I bet a single US MBT would significantly stir up the top tier environment in favor of US.
I think both Tigers and M1s are far more than useful. They have their flaws as any tank should, but they’re far from being bad.
1 Like
I don’t understand this strange need to see already meta vehicles being buffed further.
Just leave them as they are, they’re in a good spot.
7 Likes
If the M1 gets a buff then the Leo should get a buff also
I didn’t realize the Leo2s were suffering, the German winrates must be lower than 60%.
In my opinion they made a mistake of adding MBTs with spall liners to Germany and Russia without giving it to US as well. Of course people will run away from US in order to try something new and better. Also, in the same update US and UK were the only ones that got high (top) tier premiums in Click-Bait and OES respectively, which surely didn’t help at retaining veterans since playing with a bunch of lvl 10 wallet warriors isn’t exactly fun.
I doubt M1 is a 10.3 material, but I wouldn’t mind seeing M774 as a Tier 2 modification.
Other tanks have their flaws as well, let’s take T-80B as an example.
Someone playing that thing will have to be careful about it’s subpar reverse speed, will have less time to react since gun handling isn’t something to write home about and will have to pick their spots carefully in order to not get screwed by the lack of gun depression.
Everything has it’s burdens, learning how to identify them and successfully work around them is part of the fun, at least for me.
Then so do the Chally Mk3, T-80B, T-72AV, Chally Mk2, Vickers Mk7, etc. and we’re back at square one.
Like I said, things are fine as they are.
Gaijin can implement a Leopard 2A4 C-technologie /w DM33 at 11.0 at a later date.
5 Likes
Are the M1s suffering?
all of these “buffs” should happen if there are any applicable (shell types, appliqué armor packages, etc). Because they should try to represent the vehicles with what they actually have/do and not because of game balance. There should be zero artificial nerfs or buffs to any of the vehicles represented in game.
2 Likes
No a 40% win rate is ideal.
2 Likes
Firstly, does that include them only facing historical opposition?
Secondly, that wouldn’t work.
Thirdly, vehicles served for decades and usually saw numerous itterations, additions and upgrades across their service lives. How do you select the appropriate moment in their service history?
1 Like
I agree.
the iterations are usually listed as a different variants. i wouldn’t mind historical opposition. and it would work.
KV-1 and T-64A players be like:
It would not for countless reasons.
No, they are not.
Leopard 2A4 is a Leopard 2A4 regardless of whether it’s in 1985 or 2024.
The T-80BV is in service as we speak, how are you going to determine what year best represents this vehicle?
1 Like
that’s not true because production runs exist lmao they are even numbered as the 5th - 8th production batches of the leopard2 (they stopped production of the A4 in 1992 and A5 upgrades started in 1995) if there isnt something similar add the most common version of the variant.
we can see this also with the f16 having different blocks of production for different packages
You’re missing the forest for the trees here mate.
The 5th production batch can still be in service in 2024.