Can you quantify the advantage of this superior performance in some way? I don’t particularly care for heuristics.
The only thing it does better is vertical traverse, and at 10 deg/sec (M1 is 28) is more than serviceable considering the speed of rounds at this BR, it’s otherwise similar.
Ok, can you provide examples of threats that the M1 can deal with that the M10 can’t? It’s not stopping 3BM42.
And besides the M10 has thermals for all three stations instead of gunner only, and they’re 800 by 600, not the paltry 500 by 300 found on the baseline M1 so also improve the resolution enough to make them serviceable for more than just surveillance.
Not in a straight line, on roads. M1128 is strictly faster so over long distances it has the advantage by more than the M1 has over the T-80 for example. The second you ask it to turn, the story is different of course but well that’s not the point is it and it’s not like there is some objective standard course we’re using to calibrate results.
They are erroneously modeled over the sides, also the proper use of the Hydro-Pneumatic suspension system can restore some additional declanation if used appropriately.
The reload delta could change in the near future and as it was implemented as balancing concession may be changed for the Abrams as issues are fixed.
I don’t particularly think it would impact the US’s 10.7 lineup so why not, I don’t have an issue should that happen as all it would do it’s best to devalue armor, and the M1 (or any US option for that matter) is not in anyway relatively well protected.
You are comparing tank destroyer and quasi tank destroyer/ligt tank to “medium” tank, when through entiriery of WT BRs tank destroyers have better firepower than medium tanks of comparable BR.
M1 Abrams with M900 woudl be much closer in perofrmance to IPM1 than to 2A4 so there would be BR increase, simple as.
Im kinda getting feeling that most people on this thread that call Abrams armor bad expect to face tank obj 292 and are surprised when it cuts through while at the same time thinking 2A4s armor is equal to 2A7V.
Why? it lacks the improved armor and the slight edge in mobility won’t go very far. On top of the increase in average performance of rounds encountered in the 11.x bracket.
Look I’m not expecting it to do real well, but people don’t seem to realize that the armor was designed with the Soviet 115mm gun in mind(IPM1 crash program to refit armor developed for the M1E1 to existing hulls to make up the numbers in Europe until units could backfill the M1A1). And it practically won’t see one tank armed with it in a lineup often without people uptiering 9.3’s. It needs help in other ways to even things out and yet progress has stalled on the bug report front.
With M900 they ould have same shell and basically same mobility yet one is expected to sit at 11.3 and other at 10.7 due to marginal decrease in protection.
Doesnt sound logical.
Bug reports should be obviously fixed for any vehicle, Abrams is no exception.
After any bug fix is implemented, BR can be reviewes but only then.
Cool historical tidbit, irrelevant in balance department.
Its current config is on par with 2A4, maybe better (or worse) depending on who you ask.
I personally prefer Abrams over 2A4 nowadays.
As for global stats, whats there to tell. Average global KD is 0.6 or something so its clear average WT player struggles to pour water out of boot with instructions on the heel.
Should game accomodate for literal idiots or should it force them to learn how to utilize tools provided to them properly?
you have yet to explain why the M1 abrams doesnt deserve a round on par (and i say on par but in reality it would still be worse) with EVERYTHING ELSE AT ITS TIER BOTH IN ITS OWN TREE AND OTHER NATIONS TREES
it absolutely does, and especailly in this time instance because it is the only tank in the bracket that cant even frontally pen the bmpt ANYWHERE and uniquely suffers against it badly
Should it not be balanced around trying to make the fairest game it can for the greatest number of people. Regardless of how well they do there will always be a massive disparity between the median player and the outliers. Why try to control for those that are either too good or bad, as there is very little that can be done about it (presuming that a relatively fair and unbiased matchmaker and unskewed maps exist).
I’m sure if you were to look at the Cumulative distribution of KD’s the Curves of NATO and Pact tanks would be mirrored.
The best way I think to balance things would be to discard top & bottom 10 ~ 20%, then use either the 40th or 60th percentile depending on the skew of the data.
Considering you have to gather significant support to change a damn thing in this game (and even then gaijin will likely ignore it) you seem to do poorly.
You have yet to present single argument that could change my mind, let alone that of mutiple people.
So very likely i can go back to scratching my balls and nothing willl change, whereas you will still be malding here about “muh M900”.
this is one of the most active topics on the forums right now for a single vehicle, and the stats speak for themselves, this tank has been performing very poorly especially lately and i think gaijin is more akin to changing things due to statistics than anything else (which ill remind you: most definitely support the notion of the abrams getting at least m833 as outlined by everyone in this topic that has responded to you with stats, in game performance metrics, clips, screenshots and even historical documentation). you are just stubborn and unable to objectively view reality.
And once again once these get implemented we can talk about reviewing Abrams BR based on this fact, but until it stay unimplemented its hypothetical anyway and as such it should have no bearing on vehicle BR.
Issue with this is to make vehicle playable for average player, vehicles can get undeserving buffs which in turn would attact turbosweats which would in turn ruin entire BR ranges.
Similiarly, few weeks ago ive read one of Thodins comment along the lines of call for lower BR of all german vehicles to accomodate for average german player being worse than contemporary - which would lead to identical vehicles being at different BR simply because they would be played by germany manins.
Doesnt that sound dumb?
Vehicle potential needs to be taken into account as well, simply because truly good player can make entire match unplayable if he sits in “OP” vehicle.
Sure, ultimately I dont disagree with this but until the day comes when we can balance with such data set, we unfortunately have to work with what we have.
Trully alien concept, I assumed world already is in the utopia stage /s
Famous =/= good
Original 105mm M1 Abrams =/= M1A1 Abrams and later
This also tells anyone coming across this topic what is basis of your argument
Not balanced game experience, you want to just curbstomp everyone not by virtue of your skill but by virtue of OP vehicle.
Aviable ammo is balancing factor. Several tanks in game have shells that would fit in their ammoracks so gaijin could place them on specific BR.
Funnily enough i think T-80B thermals should go away from what ls supposed to represent the “main production variant”.
Could it be possibly due to the fact that M1 with its current kit is good?
You must have never seen BR changes thread since gaijin uses statistics to shoot down 99% of player suggestions - 2S38 was 10.3 for years since gaijin always argued with statistics not warranting BR increase (ie. Not looking at vehicle kit objectively but going off by global stats).
