If you are seriously arguing that the Challenger 2 and Ariete are better than the T-90M (despite their well-known issues, weaknesses and drawbacks) DESPITE being a lower BR and subject to the stomping in uptiers then I really don’t know what to say to you. Maybe ask yourself why your performance in the T-90M is below the server average?
I don’t have the T-90M yet - so apparently you think I can’t offer an opinion? Interesting… but flawed logic. I’ve spent plenty of matches against them and had lots of fun with their magical ERA sucking up shots that would’ve sent a NATO tank back to the hangar…
I don’t own a Ferrari. I can however tell you it’s a fast car with some degree of confidence and be totally correct.
If your argument is essentially: ‘‘The T-90M isn’t bad as long as you only compare it against lower BR’d vehicles’’ then I think you’ve already conceded.
And speaking of lower BR’d vehicles: I’d take a regular old M1A1 over the T-90M any day, and that’s a 11.7(!) vehicle that’s superior to the 12.7 T-90M.
I did not say you cannot voice an opinion, obviously I don’t (nor should I) have that power.
What I’m saying is that I don’t take these opinions seriously, because it never comes from a place of actual knowledge or experience.
The typical ‘‘Grass is always greener on the other side’’ -type of argument.
I’ve seen these hundreds of times over the years. This exact thing people do is responsible for 90% of the nonsense you see people spout across the forums and Reddit.
‘Challenger has better firepower and mobility than T-90M’.
‘Ariete AMV is better’.
Both claims which the majority of players would state are complete and total hogwash. Otherwise you’ll have to point me to the forum complaints about British and Italian MBTs…
I suppose next you’re going to argue that the Panstir SV is actually an AWFUL SPAA because you get better results in a lower tiered SPAA from another tree? Is that how your logic works? To turn your own quote back at you:
“I’ve seen these hundreds of times over the years. This exact thing people do is responsible for 90% of the nonsense you see people spout across the forums and Reddit.”
Usually from people arguing that the BMPT was perfectly fine and didn’t need to go up in BR… or that the KH-38MT is totally balanced.
A lot of people simply overrate the T-90M because they struggle against it’s single strength.
When grinding my Centauro II I played my premium Ariete in a lineup with my 2A7HU. I had more fun and performed better in the 11.7 Ariete at 12.7 than I had and did with the T-90M.
Lemme correct you on that, I said that the Ariete AMV has superior firepower and mobility compared to a T-90M:
And that’s simply an objective fact.
You’d probably know these things if you actually played the T-90M. This is exactly why I never take the opinions of those that don’t play vehicles which they’re talking about seriously.
You’ve just proven my point.
You conveniently leave out the part where I clearly stated ‘‘Challenger 2E’’
And that does indeed have superior firepower and mobility.
Truly, it must be a great strain playing vehicles with excellent armour and survivability - backed up by the most broken CAS lineup and AA options in the game.
There’s no need to try and come up with a silly, snarky line whilst simultaneously refusing to address any of the arguments laid against you.
First you said: ‘‘Again with the TERRIBLE T-90M myth.’’
To which I gave you an explanation as to why it’s considered the worst 12.7 in the game, and broke down it’s awful overall performance statistics.
You then move the goalpost to: ‘‘Oh but the T-90M is better than these couple of lower BR’d tanks’’.
To which I point out it better be considering the BR differences. And even then, those lower BR’d tanks still have significant advantages over the T-90M in the form of mobility and firepower, and even a 11.7 M1A1 Abrams is indeed still better than a T-90M, which highlights just how overtiered the T-90M is.
You then lie about what I said (I never claimed the Ariete’s are superior overall, I simply stated their firepower and mobility are superior). You then also lie via omission with the ‘‘Challenger 2E’’ quote.
Then you concede every point and close out with a pretty laughable: ‘‘Enjoy your unplayable Russian MBT’s’’.
This is simply childish behavior.
It’s fine to admit you might’ve been mistaken on a subject, there’s no need to give me the reply equivalent of this meme:
The MYTH of the T-90M being TERRIBLE is just that. A myth.
I stand by my statement.
A terrible tank does not get the results it does in the hands of the majority of the playerbase. A terrible tank does not get played or brought into matches - yet we see people using them all the time quite merrily and yes, winning matches with them. The firepower which you rate so low obviously doesn’t stop people from getting kills with them. The mobility which you state is so poor is obviously not stopping people from getting matches won.
I stand by my challenge. It remains valid.
Anyone who says ‘T-90M is terrible’ should play a load of matches using the Challenger 2s or Arietes. Both tanks which need a lot more effort to get results in the current state of the game despite in theory having a kinder BR/matchmaker. Then come back and compare their results to a similar session in the T-90M.
The average player (for that is the majority of people in matches) will get more done with the T-90M at it’s BR than the same player in a CR2 or Ariete.
You can quibble with the specifics as much as you like.
However your own personal opinions (validated by your using the thing, sure) are still opinions. Opinions which I shall discard as freely as you discard mine. Happy days.
Debatable. Whenever I suggest to someone that they should play British Top Tier for example (despite them having access to a lot of nations) they decline for some reason…
The supporting lineup is another factor that helps the T-90M as well as it not being likely to face up to KH-38, LMURs, etc. and having less CAS to worry about. All additional factors that can make a tank much nicer to play. Less ‘terrible’ in fact…
All time shows an overall indicator of a vehicle’s effectiveness over a larger number of players, matches. It irons out the ‘flavour of the month’ effect.
Statistically - offering a larger sample size is better for giving a true picture.
Instead we must use the data that’s artificially inflated from the BMPT having carried the T-90M’s behind for months.
Meanwhile, we don’t seem to understand that we’re linking a screenshot in which the T-90M has among the literal worse K/D and K/M ratios of any 12.7 tanks in the game.
Besides, if you’re going to argue about a vehicles performance in the past, I can just bring up Patch 1.81 IPM1 (70-80% global winrate btw) and be done with this discussion.
Obviously we’re discussing a vehicle’s current performance, because neither of us have a time traveling device.
