Seems like a wrong allegory for this case, it’ll be more accurate to compare it weather would you ask right handed people or ambidextrous people. Very not many players make use of full potential of the vehicles.
If we be listening to top bracket of players in this situation that’ll make majority i.e. mid to low playerbase uncomfortable/bored by manipulating skill floor for the sake of equating skill ceiling which in both business and moral standpoints is suboptimal. I think making War Thunder balanced by manipulating statistic goes directly against it’s own idea, if top bracket wants tanks to be balanced equal they might as well be playing Tyr, perhaps mod it so that it’ll show skin of the tank they like.
It has the exact same firepower with the exact same shells and the exact same reload, the mobility is exactly the same if not worse because it’s heavier,
is m1 trophy. Strv is one of strongest because besides armor (which is better than soviet buckets) it has good sabot shot (not bm60), -9 deg gun depression (not -6) and actual reverse speed (not -4 kph).
In such case it should be lower in BR, if it’s lower in BR it doesn’t need it’s magic armor and since there is no T’s to neuter other top tier tanks for the sake of balance means that they can receive their appropriate armor approximation, i.e. Abrams hull. I do agree on the notion that aiming at weakpoints should be the top tier gameplay not point and click as the case when playing against ZTZ; Leclerc; Merkava; Type 10 where you shot anywhere and basically kill.
Isn’t the amount of shrapnel tied to shell type rather than pen stat? If anything it’ll just overpen. Might be wrong though, i heard it from Oplot review vid.
“Just click at the head lol”, wonder why not everybody is playing sniper in TF2, it’s after all biggest DPS if you just click at heads.
Is USSR’s lack of proper statistical advantage somehow justify it’s smaller weakpoints and bigger weakpoint zones on tanks it’s playing against? Not even mentioning the weird volumetric and disappearing darts that follow reds throughout their BRs. The whole point of the BR system so that weak/underperforming tanks will be playing against similar ones.
Probably because head takes less space on model than t series weakspots and players move much faster and in multiple dimensions (not just drive over small hill). You cant hit heads as consistently as t series weakspots. Unless you are one of those spinner bots.
Strv 122 has smaller weakspots + better shell, reload, reverse, gun depression angle. How can you justify this?
I dont care about amount of hours, sorry. If bm60 faces “penetration probability is low” plate, m829a3 will have bigger chance to pen it. Or straight up pen it. And if bm60 leaves crew or breech red, m829a3 will straight up kill it due to more spall. Sure those are edge cases which dont happen often but whenever that happens its just annoying.
Can you survive them as consistently as trophy abrams? I got su34, mi28nm, su25t with all sorts of toys to test that out.
Either way I think we should move this to ru bias or other thread.
There’s no need to go to extremes, listening to the majority of the community doesn’t mean doing everything that anyone asks
There are much bigger weakpoints on NATO tanks, not different, bigger, you literally can shot anywhere at the Merkava to disable it, while non major NATO has to aim.
It’s not made up or artificially made better. People are not mad because reds must be bad, it’s because it’ all made up with special treatment.
The whole point is that it’s been artificially risen in BR by using double standards such as made-up statistics, crippling of opponent armor values to stay viable, made-up weaponry, and overall treatment. One is balanced for the sake of balance, and the other is scrutinized with balancing for the sake of loose definition realism. Two different methods with different goals. That’s why this whole thread started.
