At 9.7, we have the Rooikat, which is better than or equal to the Type 16 in everything except thermal imaging quality. So, in my opinion, the Type 16 at 9.7 should drop to 9.3, and the Type 16(P) and 16(FPS) should drop from 9.3 to 9.0.
In theory, Japan basically does not have equipment that satisfies the 9.7
type 24 and Type 25 - it’s just some kind of joke against the background of the BMD-4 (this applies to all Bushmaster owners)
it wouldnt need to change battle rating, it can stay at 9.3 while given the proper ammunition bud
Yeeeeeeeeeeeah, sure, because this is how this game’s balancing works. Of course.
works for the type 74 (g)
youre not making a compelling argument
Is it really? Elaborate. Because i dont see how Type 74 is a valid argument here: 74G sits 0.3 BR higher than other late 74s, and they at 9.0 also have Type 93 Apfsds.
Maybe you should better look at Type 16, which has type 93 but sits 9.7. And them FPS variants being 9.3 without that APFSDS.
type 74g and type 16 fps/p are the same br facepalm
i elaborated you just didnt read my first contribution to this forum
again you have no argument
point is: type 16 fps/p should also get type 93 instead of a german 1978 dart that japan never used aka the dm23.
type 74 e at 9.0 gets the type 93 too, which is .3 lower than the type 16 fps/p yet it gets type 93
and honestly, the type 16 with type 93 needs to be at 9.3 instead of 9.7
exactly. or keep the type 16 fps at 9.3 with the type 93 ammunition.
You’re being stubborn on purpose dont you?
Type 16 and Type 74 are two much different vehicles, which is already shown in game on how different battle rating is compared to dart. One having type 93 doesnt justify other having it except if you can prove Type 16 is somehow worse machine overall, which you just cant. Balancing like “aw this one has it why cant type 16fps” is a german main behaviour.
Look at this:
I specifically pointed out how the game balance works. Same way you say “type 74 has 93 shell, why can’t fps” i can say “okay move type 74s to 9.7 bcoz the Type 16 with type93 shell is there”. Again, pretty questionable logic as is.
I can elaborate it even further: XM-1s have only M735 shell at 9.3, so why not move Type 16FPS to 9.7 with DM23 which is better then?
Or i can call comparison with CM11 which has DM63 at 9.3, and even more - a 5s reload rate. OR the Rooikat comparison, which sits 9.7 and only gets DM33.
This XM-1 and Rooikat comparison look most fair to me: both are same type gameplay, but one gets worse shell but some protection, and other gets better shell but higher rating. And even then you fail to recognize some very good cons that Type 16 FPS has compared to other 9.3 machines mostly.
Point is: Type 16 being where it is looks PRETTY regular for game’s balancing. It doesnt look out of place.
Based on what? Machine does PRETTY FINE as is, it is an example of great balance. Based both on experience and global statistics of it.
Believing it getting more firepower and not having to get higher is delusional. Tho japan’s 9.3 consists pretty much of Type 94G and Type 16, so japan wouldnt loose much if type 16 is up a step.
Point is: why would, based on other techs that are ingame with same stats, type 16 get better shell and not move up?
not reading all that btw, much too illogical.
also your symmetry argument falls apart when you check the numbers. base type16 at 9.7 with type93 already performs average at best, not dominating, nothing crazy. and type93’s pen is right in line with other good darts already sitting at 9.3. theres no imbalance to point at, which is exactly why “well i could say move type74 to 9.7” doesnt work, theres no stat problem to justify moving anything. type93 isnt an outlier round for that BR, its just normal.
also “it does pretty fine based on experience/stats” — type16 (P) sits at like 49% winrate. thats average, not “great balance”. if you got a real source saying otherwise post it.
and FPS/P dont just lack ammo, they have no survivability either. no spall liner or survivability. base type16 has all the same lack of survivability but at least gets the round that lets the gun actually work against mbt armor. FPS/P get the downsides with none of the upside.
my point is FPS and P stay at 9.3, just give them type93 or just the fps. give FPS at the very least, the round japan actually built for that gun. thats it. not asking for anything to move up.
also youre so focused on cross-tree comparisons (rooikat, cm11, xm1) that you completely skipped the actual point, this is about JAPANS tree being internally consistent, not about matching japan to other nations. i dont care what germany or south africa does with their ammo choices, thats a different design team decision for a different country. the point is a japanese vehicle should get the japanese round for its own gun, in its own tree, compared to its own stablemates. you keep pulling in unrelated trees to dodge that instead of just addressing why a japanese tank doesnt get the japanese round that already exists in the same tech tree for the same gun.
Expected
Exactly: it does not underperform. And both 9.3 Type 16s perform even better.
Ah but how then did you fail to apply same logic to:
there?
And ~1 KD ratio, which is exactly FINE. Not OP, not super great, just FINE. Regular. There are much worse stats on different techs which cant even get close to 1kd ratio.
It isnt if you would consider the machinery that uses it. You fail to find difference between a mobile wheeled platform with two gen2+ thermals and an MBT with gen1 thermals or without thermals and rear gears.
Mobile platforms dont get same ammunition that “regular” MBTs do.
Elaborate on how huge empty wheeler has no survivability
And that point has some logical but not balancing roots. Id rather vote to remove DM23 and move it lower by BR. As its both the round JSDF used and it likely would be better for balance.
Yes, because you cant make proper balance by using just one metric. Id say its pretty much how feudal japan was forced to comply with US: isolation led to failure in comparison of power.
Its already failed conception with this tree housing Thai and using some german cannons on the planes.
It doesnt get japanese round because its the balancing decision. It could also have only M735s (really imported and used by JSDF), how that was prior, but that also the reason it now uses DM23s.
take that smug anime gif and shove it, still my point stands as you only shallow critique and bring no real argument to the table again, all u can do is inverse my arguments and i already showed you why it doesnt work that way, now time to do it again.
the type74’s winrate is slightly higher or equal (give or take 5%) and they have type93, so still average and fine. why wouldnt type93 be fine on type16 too? your claim that type16 performs better than type74 is just pulled from thin air
and don’t hide behind “it’s a mobile wheeled platform with thermals vs an MBT, balancing is different.” that’s not a rebuttal, that’s just describing what the vehicle is. nobody’s disputing type16 has better optics than some MBTs. the question was never “can it be different,” obviously it can be anything gaijin wants. the question is whether the round choice is justified, and “it’s a balancing decision” is not evidence, it’s just restating the outcome I’m disputing back at me like that settles it.
same thing with “it doesnt get japanese round because its the balancing decision.” yeah, no shit, that’s what we’re arguing about. saying “it’s a decision” isn’t a reason, it’s a shrug.
and DM23 being “fine” doesn’t hold either. people are still filing complaints of underperformance. if DM23 actually fixed the type 16 these threads wouldn’t exist. you’re defending a round the people who use it don’t think is adequate.
dont pull the cross-tree card either, this whole thing is in-tree now, type93 and DM23 are both already sitting in japans tree, so that complaint doesnt even apply here anymore.
and “the tree already has thai stuff and german cannons on planes so its not pure anyway” doesnt answer anything either. the tree not being pure everywhere doesnt explain why THIS specific gap stays, base type16 has type93, FPS/P dont. thats not a defense, thats just changing the subject.
so pick one: either WR proves nothing about round quality, which kills your “P sits fine at 49%” point stone dead. or it does prove something, and type74 running type93 at the same WR proves type93 wouldn’t break anything on type16 either. you don’t get to use WR when it helps you and toss it when it doesn’t.
I basically brought to you on the table two only viable points here:
There’s nothing to discuss further: it doesnt need it, it doesn’t get treated unequally.
Because the Type 16 WITH type 93 does samely fine at higher battle rating. So having them on lower battle rating seems to make it too strong.
Never said that, said that it performs better than many other machines of rank 6.
No, thats the definition of machines you should compare it with when talking about battle ratings and balance. You cant point on T-72M and say “well it has better dart than Type 16 why dont make it fair” as its leaving behind huge amount of differences between machines. And if you look closer on other wheeled or super mobile platforms of the rating, you’ll notice a pattern.
And its exactly what the “wheeled platform” is all about. Balancing. Patterns. Just need to watch it.
Its the outcome of balance. Type 16 exists pretty long, it had the “historical” M735s, and the higher BR model exists with type 93 for a long time. For that time Gaijin failed to see the need of type 93 at 9.3 Type 16s, and seems to dislike the idea of keeping early and late production tupe 16s at the same battle rating. You fail to see both the path this machine had and the contexts of its balance.
People are still complaining about BMPT being overpowered. That isnt an argument: there are no to little threads about leopard a1a1 underperforming, there are none for ztz88, or if we’ll look at the “close enough” parties: no one (or little) cry for TAM or Centauro 105 underperformance with DM23 as main armament.
Stats say its pretty good, and other alike machines use the same armament too.
Show some examples please. I use it and i find it adequate
Its either that i fail to understand what you said here, or you just dismissed your own argument?
This doesnt need to be explained. Its balance decision: its either 9.7 with Type 93s or 9.3 with lower tier munitions. I dont know why Gaijin keeps the earlier Type 16s lower by BR (my best bet is to get some lineups), but thats why they dont give it type 93 and raise battle ratings.
And it was historical for long time with M735s, but players argued that its too weak, so they got the DM23s.
You cant actually believe that somehow Type 16 is so much different from Type 16FPS that them having same dart would still justify a battle rating gap.
So you again fail to make a pure argument?
Okay, then, reversing again: Type 16 late at 9.7 with Type 93 shows that it is pretty decently played there, thus all late type 74s (both 9.3 and 9.0) should move there. Other 9.7 machines also support that idea: the R400, the Rooikat 105, ext.
It has same amount of logical conclusions you make here. Tho the logic is flawn from the start.
Type 16 early doesnt stand off other wheeled or light mobile machines of 9.3, and wields the same round they do or better already. Late type 16 doesn’t fall behind other 9.7 wheeled platforms, wielding the same efficiency round that they use.
Thats the issue.
You dont, you just fail to use it properly.
If you want to use it like that, lets use it like that: T-55AM1 has better WR and KD than Type 16 FPS, but shoots a garbage 3BM25 round. So, remove DM23 and Type 93 from all japanese machines as they would work fine with M735 as its still better than 3BM25.
Your logic is flawed as fails to find a fair comparison. Type 93 definitely doesnt break balance on slow moving and slow reaction time MBT (late type74s) without thermals and rear gears. Add them? You get 9.3 Type 74G with gen1 gunner thermals and rear gears. Add better thermals and mobility? Its already type 16 late at 9.7.
thats just because gaijin gives certain equipment’s of vehicles an automatic br bump. mainly thermals and FnF missiles. its the reason why the type 24’s are both 9.7 when their performance is more inline with 9.3, its solely because they get gen 3 thermals. which while nice, is negated by the bad gun.
type 16 major problem, is the breaks, thing skids like a certain cartoon cat
Again another smug anime gif instead of an actual argument.
Sprut-SD sits at the same 9.3 and runs 3BM42 Mango. That’s a same-BR vehicle with a better round than DM23, and this was in my first post. Nobody’s touched it yet.
Type74 (E) and (F) get Type93 at 9.0, and they don’t even have thermals. Only Type74 (G) at 9.3 gets a thermal imager, and it’s still armored better than Type16, which has none. So Type93 already sits as low as 9.0 in this same tree on a tank with worse optics than Type16. Rooikat having it at 9.7 doesn’t set a floor, it just shows the round works fine across a whole span of BRs, not that 9.7 is some minimum threshold for it.
Rooikat sits at 9.7 and runs DM33, functionally the same round as Type93. It’s the closest platform analog to Type16 in the game, same wheeled role, same optics tier, same lack of real armor. It’s not proof Type93 belongs at 9.7, it’s proof the round isn’t an outlier at any of these levels, since it’s already sitting comfortably from 9.0 to 9.7 depending on the vehicle.
Matchmaking spread is +/-1.0 BR, every 9.3 match has a ceiling of 10.3, and that bracket is known for pulling the tier below it up into it regularly. DM23 isn’t being tested against 9.3 opponents, it’s fighting into that ceiling constantly, the same ceiling Rooikat itself sits under.
And the WR argument you keep running back cuts both ways. Either WR proves nothing about round quality, which kills your “P sits fine at 49%” point, or it proves something, and Type74 running Type93 at a similar WR proves Type93 wouldn’t break anything on Type16 either. You don’t get to use it when it helps and toss it when it doesn’t, that’s the same thing you just accused me of.
a same-BR vehicle with a better round, Type93 already sitting as low as 9.0 in this same tree, the closest platform analog running an equivalent dart, and a bracket ceiling FPS/P face regularly. If the answer is still ‘it’s a balancing decision,’ that’s not a rebuttal, it’s just refusing to engage with any of it
Pulling a single line out, ignoring the reasoning behind it, and slapping a smug anime gif on it isn’t a rebuttal, it’s just cherry picking a quote and calling it a gotcha. If that’s all this turns into again, we’ve gone as far as we can in this discussion
TBF a wet cough kills the Sprut. The production Type-16s are surprisingly tanky, with the turrets providing enough protection to survive most auto-cannons below 35mm.
Anyway the Type-16P and FPS don’t need Type-93 at 9.3, they have more than enough mobility to make up for any perceived downsides of DM23, which IMO is a perfectly serviceable round at that BR.
Wouldn’t mind the FPS getting Type-93 and moving to 9.7 with the TT Type-16 though.
30mm main cannons eat it for breakfast, so idk about that suprisingly tanky claim. it takes very little to kill a type 16
i can see why the p wouldnt get it, to promote the purchasing of the fps as it is a game that needs to have incentive to buy premiums, but none the less the fps at least needs type 93
yeah its mobile but with it being on wheels its brakes are bad and turn circles with wheels is pretty laughable when you have to hit the multi point turns. drifiting in it is fun tho
and if the type 74 at 9.0 has fps and its fine, why wouldnt the type 16 fps with type 93 be fine at 9.3? and when other tanks get the same or better darts at the same br or 9.0 too?
just my thoughts.