But they are dependent on you only having played one of the sides.
(There is NATO alligned side in this game and Russia side, maybe China has a seperate side since it can be tricky to fully place them at one of the existing sides with their current vehicles)
No they arent. I can conduct that LMURs get an unfair, unrealistic advantage without having played the game once just by reading bug reports. I can see that the BMPTs ammo belt is bs just by understanding how belts work.
You mean mostly statpadders ?
For example you barely touch top tier let alone playing with IPM1/M1A1 on these days but somehow you love to bring those stats into the table everytime someone dares to mention about Abram’s problems.
I bet it would be his stepmoms account. My stats on this account are bad because my stepsisters has access to it, and she’s a bad player bro that’s why
Because it’s the typical double standards.
Your type of people will take issue with the BMPT’s ammunition racks, but ignore when the T29 premium was immune to being ammo racked on release for a significant period of time.
Your type of people will take issue with the T-80B having thermals based on a rare prototype, but then ignore the M1A2 SEP v2 having LWR based on a rare prototype.
You’ll take issue with the BMPT being OP, but the M1/IPM1 being equally if not more OP on release goes unmentioned, or conveniently dismissed as ‘‘Oh but it was a while ago!’’, meanwhile you’ll not hesitate to bring up a Russian vehicle that overperformed years ago.
You’ll take issue with LMURs being OP, but Bullpups one-tapping a Maus or T-64A if it even landed in the same postal code goes unmentioned.
You’ll take issue with the SU-25 damage model, but the F-5’s damage model goes unmentioned.
You’ll take issue with the Ka-50, but the AH-1Z on release is conveniently forgotten about.
You’ll take issue with a 2S38 being introduced despite it’s modernity, but then conveniently drop the argument when the Challenger 3 TD or M10 Booker are introduced.
You’ll take issue with the Yak-141 having weaponry it did not mount, but then conveniently forget about the M6A2E1 having armour plates it never had, Radkampfwagen having a functional turret drive it never had, Jagdpanzer 38T being made out of regular armoured steel instead of mild steel, Panther II being made up entirely, J6K only ever having been a mockup, etc. etc. etc.
You’ll mention how the T-80BVM dominated in 2022, but then conviently ignore how the MBT/Kpz-70, M1, IPM1, Leopard 2A5, Leo 2A6 dominated from 2017 - 2021.
You’ll complain that several NATO vehicles are missing spall liners, but then conviently ignore that all Russian MBT’s with Nadboi are also missing spall liners.
You’ll complain about the ITP having been OP, but then conveniently ignore the CW-21, F4U-1a, P-39N, P-51C, Ki-27, He-100, Sea Hurricane, XP-50, etc. etc. having been equally if not drastically more OP.
It’s a never ending list of double standards, you’ll cherry-pick any case of ‘‘Russian Bias’’, but when the exact same thing happens on a NATO vehicle it’s just a ‘‘Gaijin did an oopsie’’.
In the meantime you’ve only further proven my theory that 95% of Russian Bias complaints come from people who’ve never touched a single Russian top-tier MBT.
And here’s an updated look by the way:
I’m also not going to further waste my time by replying, because I can already predict the typical arguments that’ll follow.
ouch, get your shield ready lol
My favourite will always be PUMA at 8.3
on release and absolutely shredding everything.
Ahhhh I’m dead, not even a single game in T60!
Necron in this topic:
The reason I don’t like Russian tanks is that they use games to exaggerate their strength in reality. It is precisely because I dislike Russian tanks that I never read any news about them. I want to know the weak spots of Russian tanks—not because they are also like that in reality? Can explosive reactive armor actually block modern APFSDS rounds in real life?
I once hit a Merkava’s ammo rack three times in a row, but the shots passed right through two of the ammo rounds (there are other examples, but I can’t recall them at the moment). I won’t blame the Merkava, because that’s how it’s designed in real life, so it must have been me missing.
Yesterday, my APFSDS rounds were magically absorbed twice by Leopard tanks, but I just want to say maybe my ammunition had expired. Given that NATO tanks losing their turret traverse from being hit in the basket is already an unfair encounter, I somehow accepted dealing no damage to them??
Chinese tanks and Russian tanks share similar designs, but I don’t want to blame Chinese tanks for any magical defenses, because my mentality has already begun to resent Russian-themed power creep.
I can accept tanks being added to the game according to their real-life designs—strong means strong, weak means weak. Strengthening yourself while nerfing others in a game, yet being unable to hold your ground in reality, only earns contempt from people like me.
And don’t tell me that if I think Russian tanks are strong, I should just go play them. I don’t want to disgust others while also disgusting myself…
Luque wasn’t talking about USA.
America being the strongest tech tree in the game is the fact here.
Soviets… are not.
You can give a lineman a ship, but expecting them to use it well is quite the expectation.
Ad populum fallacy.
‘Repeating a lie over and over again “becomes truth”.’
While Russian bias is a myth, it’s not inherently a lie.
P51H5NA and Jagdpanzer IV are OP… what are their win rates?
F-18A was OP for a long time [and arguably still is, just alongside 10 other aircraft now], what was its win rate last year?
Nobody complained about bullpups and many other western stuff on russian bias square in 2010s
Bullpups, later cobras, 5s reload, tow2b / rbs56, nords, rb05a, russian bias pooh, ayit, f4e/kurnass, a10a late, m18 gmc, m4 stab, jumbo, t29, turm 3, t58, t20, xm800t, ags, m247, xm8, kpz70/mbt70/xm803, tiger 2 105, panther 2, e100, begleitpz 57, leo 2k, wiesel a2, 35mm aphe spaa, irist/mamba, 30mm aphe/apds, fox, scimitar, falcon, fv4030, type90 while 11.3, ir mav hawk at 10.3, 6.7 bmp 1, vidar, strv103, cv9040b, saphe mav viggen, strv121, 122, 2a7, 2a7hu, vbc pt2
Because the BMPT is not unwanted, the modeling of the belt as 2 different is very deliberate.
Ive genuinely never seen anyone complain about that
Because the BMPT is only broken due to its unrealistic, stupid armor model and selectively realistic guns.
I take issues with LMURs being modeled as the only correctly lofting AGMs whether they are op or not is another issue but it stands that they are only better than the competition due to Gaijin being selecitvely realistic.
Plenty of stuff that i apparently complain about which i didnt even know that they bother me.
Like theres a reason why im not talking about stuff that has counterexamples (which btw are from multiple tech trees just to get something against the examples from the USSR one, maybe think about that one smart boi).
Certified classic from the 10% crowd. As soon as the “im better than you so my opinion matters and yours dont”-argument doesnt work they run away, because making an actual argument agains the current state of selective realism is hard
lmao
Smoke screen is literally the same for both. And the T90m also gets ess which comes in handy when youre getting pushed by multiple enemies especially. Gun handling on both tanks is the same. T90m also gets LWS which helps while sniping or when getting targeted by some air threats. T90m also gets a very good HE round. And ir air tracking.
You mentioned some of the stuff the t90 is just as good at as plus for the leo 2 and left some of the stuff that the t90m has out. Doesnt mean the t90 is struggling with its obvious downsides, but having those doesnt mean its a bad tank. You just gotta adapt and play it a bit different than t80s
For the current meta and in general efficiency the leo 2a7s and uparmored leos are still better though but the t90m is a very solid and strong top mbt.
Dont forget that its IR signature used to be low (i dont know if they changed it recently or not)
They have some good MBTs but they’re definitely not close to being the best ones, let alone overpowered.
BUK does suck.
Buk sucks but the pantsir is still the best top tier AA, even though it sits at 12.0 now
I’ve never seen so bad stats on a vehicle that’s allegedly grossly undertiered.
Wdym?
Pantsir isn’t really doing great.
Something that’s allegedly the best thing at 12.7 being at 12.0 would mean that’d show on the stats.
Just because players are bad in a vehicle, it doesn’t mean that the vehicle isn’t good. The Pantsir is the most reliable anti air by far because you don’t have to rely on either ARH missiles that get multipathed/chaffed or IR missiles that get distracted by launching missiles or go for flares
Not to mention how IR and ARH missiles are extremely unreliable at shooting down incoming munitions
Same way the MiG-15Bis was moved down in BR due to it “underperforming” or how the Tiger H1 moved to 5.3 and stayed there for so long
