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
Doesnt need it.
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
Mod will be with you shortly.
1 Like
kek
if we look at the sources attached in the linked bug reports;
325 vs 460mm doesn’t sound marginal, Does it?
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.
Not really lol.
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.
Yeah and how that worked out so far lmao. Remind me the % of player feedback implemented during each BR change? Less than 1%?
Strange, I must work like WH40K ork then, since by ignoring what you call objective reality i can make M1 Abrams work with its current kit lol.
Still scratching my balls by the way and M1 is still the same.
If you need to do that to make the M1 work there are other things you should ask yourself.
2 Likes
We have same amount of games played.
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).
Similiar story with T-80UD.
Tbf id say Abrams does require some nuance, at least more than T-80UD.
1 Like
there is no way in hell the percieved pros of the M1 compensate for it having a round that belongs 5 br brackets below it while everything else it fights has their proper ammunition, greater armor values, and similar if not better mobility other than turret traverse. if anything, since it has the lightest armor of the bunch it deserves the highest ponning round (but again im not even asking for that, im asking for m833 which would at least make it playable)
The fastest reload time for its BR surely does not bring any advantage whatsoever /s
1 Like
Guys I like remind everyone to debate the topic in good faith and if you can’t do that leave each other alone!
2 Likes
I still think the same. With the current state of damage models, maps, and the lack of teamwork among players, it’s impossible to make a realistic matchmaking game. This is why we see the M1 with the M744 (which would be the correct choice given the time period) facing the T-90 and other tanks with bullets powerful enough to make the M1 feel like a light tank. The basis of this imbalance is that the game’s terrible maps reward reaching a point on the map before the enemy. It would be interesting if the developers made better, larger, and more dynamic maps, changing the bases from north to south, or east to west. It would also be interesting to encourage teamwork and covering areas, so we don’t see the “fast tank” that falters and kills eight enemies in a minute simply because no one was watching.
What is certain is that the T-72A from 1982 could have been added for the Soviets, or at least an initial model of the T-72B to fill those gaps.
Yet another classic (US main) take from Tripod2008.
Ah yes, let’s give the M1 Abrams M900 to equalize it with other vehicles which have M900 or similar firepower.
What’s that? Those other vehicles have significant drawbacks that balance out their firepower advantage? Oh just ignore that, buff the M1 Abrams anyways and make it blatantly superior to any of it’s rivals!
Lol.
As if inexperienced US players haven’t been complaining about the M1 Abrams for years and years now.
This video has been relevant for years and it will remain relevant for the foreseeable future.
Yes, let’s ignore Jon farming nukes and dominating entire lobbies due to the M1 being so powerful and it having absolutely amazing attributes all around (HE EVEN EXPLAINS THIS AT THAT VERY TIME STAMP!), and instead cherry-pick literally a single engagement from this entire video, and then pretend that singular engagement is representative for the entire gameplay experience of the vehicle, when it very clearly isn’t.
Then you unironically ask me if I’ve even watched the video?
This level of ignorance regarding game balance and the experience of other nations/vehicles is exactly why I generally just ignore your replies.
If you think the BMPT is suddenly no longer a problem to deal with if you’re using DM23, L26, 3BM-42, etc. etc. then I’ve got news for you.
Maybe for you it is.
You also don’t seem to grasp the fact that this is a BMPT problem and not a M1 Abrams problem.
Every single 10.7 struggles with a BMPT, implying this is uniquely a M1 problem is simply delusional.
I welcome you to play a Challenger 1, Leopard 2A4 or Ariete (p) and then tell me how it goes fighting those BMPT’s.
Even L/55 DM53 can fail to reliably kill a BMPT, so what? Is your solution to give the M1 Abrams a 140mm gun just so that it can more reliably deal with the BMPT? And balance relative to other 10.7’s be damned?
Or should they perhaps address the artificially high survivability of the BMPT instead of buffing vehicles that face it?
2 Likes
depends, according to Lessons Learned: M1 Abrams Tank System there is just over two year gap between M774 and M833 being type classified and reaching initial operating condition.
Such as? and can you quantify them instead of just provide heuristics this time. I’d like to know empirically how much It’s missing out on.
So the BMP-T and assorted other additions others haven’t made any sort of noticeable impact on the 10.7 Bracket? More autocannons really doesn’t help reduce the occurrence of issues with the M1’s modeling of the turret ring and skirts.
Way to misread the point entirely; let me fix that for you since apparently you’ve some issues.
A person of his clearly “unmatched” skill can still get let down by the poor performance of M774, while doing everything else correctly. Do you not think that mere peons that have a fraction of that self-evidential raw authority to speak on such an issue might in fact encounter this issue more, or less frequently since the meta on the lower skill side might in fact skew things differently.
And that access to M833 or M900 would go some way to reducing it’s occurrence.
Is it not a greater pity on your end that you willfully extend such ignorance to other players, especially those endowed with lesser skill then yourself?
You sure it’s not because you just can’t come up with workable arguments that would rebut said positions?
10.7 bracket is the important bit here.
It affected ENTIRE bracket. Not just M1.