Pros/cons have been listed long, long time ago, not my fault you forgot about that.
I would like some evidence to go with that, please.
Otherwise I can just claim otherwise and we’d have conflicting claims that can’t be supported by evidence from either side.
You know that isn’t true because you can see the K/Ds of them in the spreadsheet right?
Agreed.
See NaN, Motor.
Not all tanks need to have same spalling values in order to be at the same BR.
And yet, as I wrote long, long ago, only the M1 has a 105 with a sub-370mm round in its BR as a mainstay tech tree vehicle.
Only for today, sure.
We’re trying to find any differences in performance before and after the BR changes, not just what it is at the moment.
Punk, you understand that I’m arguing on behalf of average players instead of your need to lean on elite players for your good fee-fees, right?
You are not arguing on behalf of anybody but yourself. I think you will find that the statistics gaijin have will include the average performance of the vehicle. I, and most likely gaijin, do not consider you the representative of the average player of the game and that you speak on their behalf.
Okay, and ?
Of course, because I must be selfish like all the other US mains. Oh wait, does that mean German mains are selfish when they ask for corrections? What about USSR and Chinese?
And I’ve stood ten toes down and agreed to see them fixed if they are in need of it.
So before you try and throw the ‘you’re just being selfish’ flag, recognize that I’ve been accommodating to EVERY line for corrections. You haven’t.
Which you can still do with taking data points before the change and after the change.
Just because their own little chart is having issues does not mean it can’t be done.
And again, circular arguments. This is why no one except those who selfishly desire to keep things the same agree with you.
Well, that how this forum goes
Of course, because I must be selfish like all the other US mains. Oh wait, does that mean German mains are selfish when they ask for corrections? What about USSR and Chinese?
The nation does not matter, if what is being asked for is unreasonable and based in bias then it should be opposed regardless. I know I’ve gotten flak for opposing changes to UK vehicles before that other people were asking for.
So before you try and throw the ‘you’re just being selfish’ flag, recognize that I’ve been accommodating to EVERY line for corrections. You haven’t.
You are being selfish. I do not see you creating threads and campaigning fiercely to see the T-80B and 2A4 buffed which both perform worse than the M1 currently.
Fact. And yet I’ve gone into plenty of other threads and agreed to see fixes. Particularly with the French and Japanese lines and their transmissions. I’m still waiting on them to be made the proper speedy bois and the upgrades to the French’s armor, but since those things are under lock and key, we have to wait.
Even with more powerful rounds you’ll still have to aim to achieve OHKs consistently, which largely hampers the benefits from better rounds. Darts aren’t some magical APHEs that obliterate everything upon a penetration anywhere on the tank.
Because those threads are already made, and yet I don’t see you in them.
I’m sure you’re one of those who is fine with the underarmored Challenger package being introduced instead of the Metatron.
Because those threads are already made, and yet I don’t see you in them.
I did post in the 2A4 thread that was made and did voice my opposition to the notion of adding DM33 to it, under the same reasoning that I am opposing M833 here.
I have not seen a T-80B thread.
And it’s garbage that these Anti-USA spergs continue to get away with stonewalling USA threads.
It’s why I send them to the ShadowRealm - Can’t stonewall and derail threads if their very existence fails to show itself in the first place.