Again the simple truth is that if the performance drops to where it needs changed, it will get changed because it is a highly played vehicle so doesn’t suffer from issues that niche vehicles do with restricted player count/average skill.
1 Like
We did address this, but we had agreed that there is not enough data yet to support this claim.
So you think we shouldn’t depend entirely on Gaijin’s judgement?
According to Gaijin’s internal stats, the M1A1 was underperforming.
Agreed - although 105mm smoke shells can be fairly useful.
I also agree
In a sense, the M1 Abrams is lagging behind now, same with how the T-80B still is (though to a lesser extent).
If you say so.
The 2A4s / T-tanks can deal with 9.7s / 10.0s more easily than the Abrams.
When you barely penetrate armour, the spalling also is reduced, so extra penetration not only helps with going through armour, but also actually doing damage.
1 Like
Because people like you cover for them with your BS.
2 Likes
T80B is the only tech tree version in the USSR line-up. And yes, it’s armor was designed explicitly to stop anything short of M833, while it’s given a round developed 3 years after the M1IP was introduced and which has remained a mainstay in USSR lines from then on.
1 Like
Doesn’t the UFP of the T-80B also stop 120mm DM23? Correct me if I’m wrong its been a while since I last took out the T-80B.
M1A1 getting faster reload still was a decent thing to do if it was underperforming. I just think 12.0 M1s needed it more.
It sure can, but with so many vehicles getting their reload speeds buffed some of the older vehicles that had reload speed as their main “selling point” are getting hurt in the process.
As I said, Challengers are a pretty nice example of this, Centauro at 11.7 suffers from the same thing as well.
I’d much rather see more BR steps being introduced than giving better shells/reload to suffering vehicles, but it is what it is.
When I said 80B lags behind I was thinking about a vehicle as a whole, not just one single metric. M1 has a bad shell, but other tanks have bad things of their own which makes things balanced and is perfectly fine in my opinion.
They have better rounds, but their reload suffers in comparison so actual firepower should be around the same. You’ll aim the same way to kill T-tanks with 120mm DM23 as with M774, but you get additional 1s of reload to work with.
Raw armor pen value of a round isn’t the only thing you should look at when considering how easily something can deal with other tanks.
1 Like
I’m not the one who’s trying to buff a perfectly viable tank just because it suffers in full uptiers. Guess what, most vehicles suffer against +1 BR enemies.
I’m sure Casino_Knight is in direct contact with Gaijin HQ, just telling them what to do.
Again, date of introduction means nothing in this game, overall vehicle’s performance is what matters. This is why you can see pretty modern vehicles fighting alongside WW2 ones.
1 Like
It’s also why you can bring those 3 or 4 BRs up and use them. Jagdpanzer 4-5 at 6.3 can fight at 10.0. Just can’t take a hit.
The difference is that I’m not trying to ask them to put it up in BRs for the German players. I’m asking to add M833. If you can fight with a severely under-BRed vehicle in uptiers, then asking for a round for parity isn’t the problem you all make it out to be.
3 Likes
why not do both
4 Likes
Because they don’t deserve to be put up in BR. Their efficiency isn’t anything special so they have been put at the BR where 10-20-30 years older vehicles are driving freely.
Just because something is produced later, doesn’t mean it’s objectively better. Sooner you understand this, it’s gonna be better for you.
Again mentioning parity while ignoring to talk about vehicle’s performance as a whole. You learned absolutely nothing.
1 Like
while it is a fact that it means nothing it diminishes the game overall
no he just doesn’t care about what your saying here
Because adding more BR steps is the right (and better) way to achieve balance.
but doing both would be the RIGHT thing to do and not the Easy way to do it even if it means M1 is at a higher BR than stuff like t80b
2 Likes
We did address this, but we had agreed that there is not enough data yet to support this claim.
The BR changes have been in effect for over a month now.
1 Like
Depends on who you ask. I’m perfectly fine with vehicles not having all shells they had irl if it means they’ll be more balanced as a result.
Balancing by pure BR is much better because it has no downsides. Just look at what I wrote above how M1s getting their reload speed buffed negatively affected vehicles like Challengers or Centauro 120.
1 Like
see this i agree with because if it was only by pure BR that would mean that every shell would be available. and i do think that the M1 reload is a bit fast as in other threads i have seen videos of people reloading m1 verry fast but only in perfect conditions where in combat it would be a bit slower maybe give abrams a 5.5-6s reload
That doesn’t answer the question and is inappropriate.
1 Like
I’m sure Casino_Knight is in direct contact with Gaijin HQ, just telling them what to do.
He has made accusations that I have special account privileges in the past so who knows? Maybe I’m the puppet master pulling all the strings.
3 Likes
Depends how many BR steps we would have at disposal. I highly doubt we’ll ever have so many BRs to distinguish an M1 with M829A1 and M1 with M829A2, so shell limitations would most likely stay.