Man, those ADATS stats are brutal.
I’m curious to see what the Israeli Chaparral looks like lol.
Same goes for you, i havent seen a single evidence from you that shows on regular game Highly skilled players prefers to play with Abrams.
You mean aside from the fact the the highest skill players in the game in a competitive setting where they want every possible edge over their opponent to win chose to select the abrams over the russian tanks available to them despite the russian line-up having more higher BR vehicles than the US line available to them?
Because that happened and the footage of the tournament from a couple months ago is still there for all to view. Meanwhile you have nothing but your feelings and conjecture with nothing to substantiate it as you still have not provided anything because you do not have anything.
How ironic is that you dont even bother to prove your claims while expecting to opposite from other people, suits you.
You choosing to ignore the evidence does not mean it does not exist. This is sovcit behaviour.
Your data shows M1’s are the worst performing top tier tanks amongs others, even T80UK which is a Squadron vehicle performs better than Tech Tree Abrams variants.
Thanks for proving how clueless and coping person you are.
Your inability to read a basic spreadsheet is most alarming. But once again you’re proving my point that the only thing you’re trying to cite is winrate to say a tank is bad or not despite it being pointed out by many people how many different factors go into establishing win rate that are not dependant on the individual vehicles.
By your same logic of using nothing but winrate to say the vehicles are bad apparently near all of the german vehicles are the worst in the game and japan/france/italy have consistently the best vehicles in the game. This is peak delusion.
Thanks to chart you provided i dont need to prove anything.
Your graph shows even tech tree Abrams performs worse than Squadron T80UK and premium T80UE, i highly suggesT you should learn how to read those charts and stop acting like lifeless person who has nothing but pure hate for US but even then i will probably not gonna take your words seriously.
See above.
4 Likes
The ADATS really excels in doing multiple things poorly. At least it finally got its SP changed to SPAA costs, albeit as a SPAA most things outrange you.
1 Like
Lol. Summarized nicely. I only have the UK one and just couldn’t figure out how to do well in it.
Missile just stops pulling beyond like 6-8km against air targets, and against ground targets, man it’s hard to take down Composite / ERA covered things without wasting most your load. Idk why but the missiles seem to ‘wobble’ in game in a way they don’t in test drive. It’s really odd. Makes hitting weakspots rough. I have not redeemed my LOSAT coupon yet for the same reason.
3 Likes
It used to be slightly better at range but the blanket nerfs to SAM systems hit it pretty hard like the rest of them and control of the missile drops to near nothing at 6km+ as you said. Whenever I see one pop up on the RWR I just feel bad for it as I lob munitions at it.
The wobble you’re talking about started at the same time from the same change. It was supposed to make SAMs feel more “realistic” but really it just blanket nerfed them all. Same as the ATGM changes. The fact that they aren’t TANDEM means ERA and even NERA blocks them quite handily and no fire on the move ability absolutely hinders it in an AT role.
I have not redeemed my LOSAT coupon yet for the same reason.
I did just because I wanted to see how bad it was. I was not disappointed.
2 Likes
Yeah, everything i read / watch on it just convinces me to hold onto it and sell it a couple years down the line lol.
Also with ADATS. Idk if its a volumetric thing, but even when you do hit weakspots, the missile has an annoying habbit of still making contact with all the surrounding composite / ERA.
Trying to dispatch a 2A7 / 122 from the front felt near impossible at times. No idea why it held onto that TD SP cost for so long when it was just so mid / bad in that role.
1 Like
I’ve told you that you skilled players does not make an argument that the Abrams is meta. Their is a skill wall that is required with the tank.
The avg player struggles with the Abrams do to how easy it is to disable or kill. That said the Abrams has a fast reload alowing quick follow ups and the round is good but k5 and relic will eat the shot. The t80/90 skill caps before the Abrams but is friendly to the avg player do to they do not need to be good at hitting or remembering weak points. The v7 and 122+ have better yet for avg players do to it being good in mobility and armor. Which is why it is doing so well in game survers.
The Abrams is a problem for gaijin because if the higher skill cap if they make it more friendly to your avg player it would be OP. But with the skill wall there the W/R is low because the players are not pass that skill wall.
1 Like
The data we have available doesn’t agree with what you are saying though. The M1s perform better than the russian vehicles at top tier. The 12.0 M1s all perform better than the 12.0 russian tanks. The 11.7 M1s all perform better than the 11.7 russian tanks.
The ONLY metric we have where the M1s are lower is win rate, which is influenced by so many other factors aside from that individual vehicles capabilities that it would be near impossible to use as an argument for the M1s being worse than the russian tanks at that BR.
4 Likes
We are talking about the 120s not the 105s. Unless we are on two different subjects.
1 Like
See those WRs are reflecting what i am saying.
I don’t think you can really change the Abrams without possibly braking the game. Do to the skill cap. The only way i can think of is increase the armor and make the reload longer. But what would it be change by on either could be to much.
Did you just miss the same thing I’ve said about three or four times now?
The ONLY metric we have where the M1s are lower is win rate, which is influenced by so many other factors aside from that individual vehicles capabilities that it would be near impossible to use as an argument for the M1s being worse than the russian tanks at that BR.
2 Likes
Top tier U.S air is best. Top tier ground is top 2 or 3 if we include sweden. First being germany. The only thing kinda popo about the U.S is the helis.
We ain’t talking naval cause there are just 10 players playing.
Edit:
I forgor about the S1 and ADATS diference so you could say the U.S is kinda on par with the USSR in ground
2 Likes
This is all you have been saying PERFORM. This is a subject term. Do to the higher amount of losses it would suggest they are preforming poorly. Being that usually only the top 5-6 players ever have kills leads to the fact that there is a skill wall. The entire team on the other side will everyone will have kill shows that their is no wall. That said would more cannon fodder help the US in WR? I don’t believe so. I think all it will do is increase the KD of the tanks your saying are performing worse.
This is all you have been saying PERFORM. This is a subject term. Do to the higher amount of losses it would suggest they are preforming poorly.
No it would not because win rates, once again, are influenced by so many other factors other than individual vehicle capabilities that you cannot really draw arguments for their individual performance from it. For example again german win rates between 3.0-10.0 are the worst of any nation. The tiger 2s, tiger 1s and panthers all have significantly worse win rates than other vehicles they face. By your reasoning these vehicles must all be the worst vehicles at their BRs and in desperate need of buffs or being moved down.
Being that usually only the top 5-6 players ever have kills leads to the fact that there is a skill wall.
- This is entirely subjective.
- This is not unique to US teams when it does occur.
The entire team on the other side will everyone will have kill shows that their is no wall.
Again anecdotal conjecture.
That said would more cannon fodder help the US in WR? I don’t believe so. I think all it will do is increase the KD of the tanks your saying are performing worse.
Again this is you trying desperately to use win rate to argue about individual vehicle capabilities. See my first point.
2 Likes
If what you are saying is true the WR of the US would reflect the KD. But that is not happening. What you are seeing is players that are getting 3+ kd being diluted by players in the negative. The number reflect what I’ve said. You have the Skilled players doing well because the tanks cap is much higher then the other nations but are overwhelmed because the rest of the team dies do to a wall that they are not past.
If the whole team was getting the kds that are on that spread they would have a high WR then the other tanks.
2 Likes
You just ignored literally everything I said.
Win rate. Is influenced. By many factors. Aside from. Individual vehicle. Capabilities.
It is a terrible metric to try and use to blanket state that the abrams are worse than russian vehicles. Using the same reasoning you also have to argue that tiger 1s, 2s and panthers are all the worst vehicles at their BRs.
Do you believe that tiger 1s, 2s and panthers are all the worst vehicles at their BRs and in desperate need of a buff or BR reduction? Yes or no.
2 Likes
No they have a skill cap. Like the Abrams.
Maybe I’m confusing you with these terms so let me use regular English. The Abrams is able to do better the all then other tanks in the game. The problem with it is that it requires a player to be good. The tank is not friendly to avg players.
That said the same good player will not be able to use their full potential in the t80 or 90, but the avg player will find those tanks are more forgiving to their lower skill.
1 Like
But you’re asking for buffs to the abrams because of “low win rate”, despite the fact that they all do better than russian tanks at the BR in kills per battle and kills per death.
So why do you say no to buffing or lowering the BR of all the tiger 1s, 2s and panthers? They’ve all got much lower win rates than any other nation at their BRs.
Why do you think it’s fair that the abrams gets buffs but these don’t? Sounds pretty biased to me.
2 Likes
I’m not asking for shit. I’ve stated previously that the Abrams needs to be rebalanced. That will require nerfs with buffs at the same time. I just jumped in because say the Abrams is good because HIGHLY SKILLED PLAYERS is a bad argument.