Only in your example, which strictly relies on vehicles that are all copy paste. As I’ve pointed out, your comparison does not work for this scenario.
The M26 “won’t have a use”, but not because it’s copy paste and you have lots of choises. It is inferior to the other choices you have at 6.7.
First you said you dont edited nothing and my quote was fake and now change again to “no major edits” you are falling by your own weight. Looks like you are a bit desperate…
Maybe you can try stop, i dont know if is false and old, why you cant stop ??? oh yes becuase is not false. That “EDITED” was awesome hehehe.
3 years later and you still repeating the same BS, thats why and in the past you destroyed a lot of topics and now i not gonna permit that again. Thankfully i keep your old fails, so the next time think before repeat your silly and trolly arguements.
Why would the REASON why it had no use be relevant to anything at all here?
“This tank is worse compared to the other stuff you can bring at thist BR, is has no use.”
“Why would the reason why it has no use matter?”
… you serious?
You do realize that the topic is about how the M26 shouldn’t be 6.7, yes?
The whole point of that argument is that it is worse than other 6.7s.
If you don’t follow, that’s not my issue.
Not at all, you just never read anything.
I already said I dealt with typos…which aren’t major edits. You are obviously very defensive and desperate now that your faked quote has been exposed…so much so that you’re hyping typo corrections lol
You tried to mislead people about what was said 3 years ago and all you’ve managed to do is embarrass yourself.
Good job blowing your own credibility apart.
Edit: Forums are broken, at least for me, have to edit so the message shows up properly.
Let me get this straight.
The reason of “it is worse than other 6.7s” is irrelevant in a discussion of “should the M26 be 6.7?”.
That is the most ridiculous statement I’ve heard in these forums.
No, your analogy does not hold up, you’re just pretending really hard that it does. I have already explained why it does not, and on the other hand, you haven’t provided a single argument to counter what I’ve said about your analogy.
The difference is between the actual scenarios of the analogies, not the tanks themselves. This is a complete nothingburger of an argument.
Yes. Until/if you can say why it’s relevant.
Which you’ve failed to do now for the third time. Getting pretty boring not being answered over and over. it’s a very simple question.
You have to play the Panther more cautiously in CQC situations, but it’s still very competitive because of its armor and gun advantage. The Panther can easily destroy everything but the Jumbo without aiming. The 76 shermans still need to aim so their CQC advantage is somewhat negated. I’d agree that shermans are better than Panthers at corner-camping on city maps but the Panther is a much better all-rounder. The Tiger II (H) is just as bad as the Panther against the shermans in CQC situations… CQC performance is not how the tanks should have their BRs determined.
Lmao.
So I guess that the M26 could be 5.3 and the argument of “it’s better than 5.3s” would also be irrelevant in a discussion of “why the M26 shouldn’t be 5.3”.
Ridiculous, just stop.
Also, you play Arcade. This forum topic is about RB which you have extremely little experience on. You shouldn’t be here in the first place.
Ok, you’re just trolling then.
These are my first two replies to your “comments”.
I don’t know if you can tell but they are absolutely not like how you are picturing them to have been.
Originally I explained why the M26 shouldn’t be 6.7 (it’s inferior to other tanks at that BR) and then came to the conclusion that it would have no use as a consequence of it being surrounded by better tanks.
Here’s a fun thing: rather than me having to explain why something obvious is relevant (and then you claiming that it is irrelevant because you say so), why don’t you try to explain why it’s irrelevant like you claim? You haven’t actually done that other than with extremely poor analogies that were very quickly dismissed.
Edit: Oh yeah, another thing about your “analogy”. It only works for arcade. Again, this is an RB topic. Now THAT is actually irrelevant.
These are my first two replies to your “comments”.
Yes both those replies just state that there IS a difference between the two examples.
Neither of them answer why you think that difference matters for fun, or competitiveness, or anything of importance. Not that it exists. Why it matters.
it’s inferior to other tanks at that BR
Obviously not by a significant amount, since it won > 53% at 6.3 or got more than 1.3 KD or blah blah, whatever the specifics of their algorithm are. It may be inferior, but only by like 1% or whatever tiny amount is sub-algorithm-threshold.
why don’t you try to explain why it’s irrelevant like you claim
Easy: because a tank not being useful for varying reasons doesn’t change the fact that it now has zero impact on a player’s actual gameplay and thus does not affect how much fun he has. The sole point of the game is having fun. A tank that you never bring out for ANY reason why, contributes 0% to your fun or lack of fun in the game.
Everything can aim a lot easier with better turret and chassis control, as well as the stabilizer.
A major issue for Germany are the long barrels and muzzle brakes that trigger the destruction of the entire barrel, opposed to the tiny barrels on Shermans and T-34s that also don’t have a muzzle brake.
People say how it’s easy to hit the Jumbo weakspot but the muzzle brake is several times larger than the MG port, cannot be obstructed by bushes and cosmetics whilst also being the first thing you hit, which turns Germany into the barrel repair simulator experience, and without reverse speed it’s a guaranteed death.
And if not that, you shoot lower glacis which is where the transmission is at, and also just disable it and the lacking turret rotation also severely limits it’s abilities.
Just because you don’t see the answer I’ve provided doesn’t mean it’s not there. If the M26 is worse than other tanks at 6.7, then it will absolutely matter for competitiveness. You’re just acting blind to what I’m actually saying.
You’re focusing the “not being useful” claim this as if it is the actual main argument. It isn’t, and you need to stop pretending that it is.
It being “not useful” is a consequence of the fact that it will be worse than other tanks. That is the main argument. You’re not actually targeting the subject of my argument, just a consequence of it, which is completely (say it with me) irrelevant.
Also, I have fun playing the M26 as it currently is. It is straight up my favorite tank in the world. So in fact, you are incorrect. It will most definitely lower the amount of fun I have with the game.
The question was “why is it different than my other obsolescence example” not “why is it different than it was before the BR change”
In my example, the original Pz IV F2 ALSO stops being relevant for competitiveness once you add 3 copy pastes of it.
So no, that doesn’t answer the question, since it doesn’t differentiate between the M26 and the Pz IV F2 scenarios. Both of them equally involve a tank becoming no longer useful for competitive play.
I’m not talking about Jumbos. I’m referring to the other Sherman variants. Why would you ever aim for the barrel anyway when you are in a panther fighting regular Shermans and T-34s? That is just a skill issue.
At 6.0, the panthers would be superior to Jumbos (which are 6.3) at range and inferior at CQC. Seems balanced to me.
You’re just wrong. Sure, you can bring any other Pz.IV F2 in your example, but you aren’t actively at a disadvantage if you bring the one Pz.IV F2.
That is why your analogy sucks, and it is pretty obvious. You can bring any of the 7 Pz.IV F2s, and it does not matter, as all have identical performance.
With the M26 at 6.7, you will actively be penalized for bringing the M26 because there are better options at that exact BR.
Okay fine, minor update: all 3 of the new copy paste F2’s are all premiums, so they get significant boosts to SL awards.
Now you do have a tangible, concrete reason to never bringing the original tech tree one. So do you now agree it should go down to 3.0 to “give it a use”?
So something that doesn’t actually affect the performance of the tank in combat, which is the actual basis of this whole topic?
Here comes the word you like saying so much: irrelevant.
Yup. That is still it not having a use.
So do you now agree it should go down to 3.0 to “give it a use”?
