My name here is obviously the same as my name in-game.
You can view my profile and check the relevant replays to see what nations I was teamed with. Not that it matters much because the M1A1 melts any vehicle of any nation in it’s current matchmaking.
The winrate of my M1A1 has gone up from 58% to 61% recently dispite already having had 450+ battles in it. You can also verify that my K/D ratio has been gradually increasing since the patch, especially with my latest sessions sitting on 13 - 1 K/D.
I’m not sure why the topic suddenly moved to loader fatigue when nobody talked about that.
Regardless, I don’t think there’s any autoloading systems at top-tier (for sure not the Soviet ones) that had any reliability issues.
U.S. autoloaders also performed tens of thousands of reload cycles in tests without failure.
Ammo stowage is hard to reach in a soviet style auto loader but in other types of autoloader it isn’t a problem. So soviet style auto loader would see a increased reloading time.
I know that and I dont support the idea of adding autoloader jamming or anything like that. It’s just some people wanted to consider crew fatigue and open blast door, so if they want that they should accept autoloader jamming as well.
Not with any of the T series tanks or any modern MBT with bustle rack protection, unless you want to cope and have your loader spend minutes on end trying to fish a round out of a autoloader drum that is only accessible from a external panel.
And no, you cant use a “semi-automatic procedure” on any modern autoloader if someone has shot a round straight through it, its inoperable because its been torn apart, you cant brutane your way through broken or missing components.
Fatigue is not modeled in game because loader reliability is not modeled in game.
‘‘I’m not sure why the topic suddenly moved to loader fatigue when nobody talked about that.’’
If you’re not going to read replies, and then just invent arguments that the other party never made to begin with, I’ll simply block you.
Thunderskill currently does not have the M1A1 Click-Bait listed, so I’m very curious how you can claim that the M1’s aren’t played much, especially since over 50% of the teams at 11.3 are Click-Baits.
Someone literally asked for my stats.
Read context please.
Furthermore, Thunderskill shows the M1A1 being on a 60% winrate and climbing rapidly, this is based on 4000 recorded battles.
The regular M1 is on a 57% winrate and the M1 KVT on a 61% winrate, the latter has a sample size of 12000 battles.
Address the point I made. If you won’t, I’ll ignore you. You’re not so important or glorified in my experience that you’re the end-all be-all authority or tanks or aircraft or this game.
You’re just a stonewaller.
Prove me wrong, address my points, and behave, or take the other route. Choice is yours.
Its very easy to see the current state of US top tier, WTDP is irrefutable proof that the entirety of US top tier is going down.
But of course, its always just “its the premium’s fault”
Please tell me how US 10.3 to 11.3 has somehow been pulled down by a whopping 10% when the clickbait almost exclusively queues at 11.3+. Thats also the bracket that the supposedly god tier base M1A1 resides in, yet it too is rapidly slipping down, or are we just going to blame that on the M1 KVT or the Stryker MGS premium.
I have to admit though, it is truly amazing to see Sweden sit firmly at a 71% overall win rate at top tier.
My dude every single BR from 7.3-8.3 to 10.3-11.3 is hanging out roughly around 50%, then all of a sudden at 10.7 it drops to 37-39%. It’s almost like top tier tanks never get full downtiers ever so the 10.3-11.3 BR bracket isn’t going to be affected much.
Looks like somebody did not check out other dates in the drop down. 10.3 to 11.3 in the US tree was sitting around 59% back in September, and has now tanked to 49%. You’ve already sated what I have, it should not be effected by the clickbait much if at all, but here it is regardless, with a tank that is supposedly god tier at said BR, with the WR dropping as well.