If the TKX(P), which is 27.03 HP/TON, is noticeably worse (in terms of acceleration) than the Type 90.
The Leopard 2A4 and M1A1 (with similar HP/TON as the TKX(P) ) should also feel noticeably worse.
Type 90 does not get gen 2 thermals, it gets gen 1 and it has super low FOV of 8 degrees that means you basically have to play in third person and barely even get to use gen 1 because it’s crazy tunnel vision as Gaijin refuses to add an x1 zoom to it.
For comparison the 2A4 has an FOV of 19
And it’s 6s now but as they’re handing out reload speeds more and more are at 5s, the advantage against all those vehicles has diminished by quite a bit as their buffs are nerfs to tanks like these, there’s now another 6 vehicles against which your advantage is minimized.
This is your visibility in the 2A4, can see everything.
In the Type 90 you can see your target and that’s basically it, using your sights and thermals leaves massive blindspots.
2 Likes
My bad. I am thinking of the TKX (P).
The FOV / zoom it gets does suck, but it isn’t the end of the world.
The Vickers Mk.7 has a similar issue, so I used the binoculars more often / third-person than usual to compensate, and I believe the same can be done with the Type 90. Use the thermals at longer ranges, such that it actually is beneficial to use rather than be a hindrance.
The reload buffs are being given to vehicles that are in need of a buff, such as the Abrams, Ariete, Leclerc, and Merkavas.
The Leopards and T-80s don’t seem to need them (at least not yet).
5s reload is definitely better than 6s.
But I think the difference between a 6s reload and 5s is not as big as 5s reload and 4s.
Example: 2A6 vs M1A2 at a corner compared to M1A2 vs Type 10 at a corner.
And the mobility of the Type 90 pairs well with that 4s reload.
It’s not the end of the world yet it’s something that is permanently something you have to deal with, the FOV is small which prevents proper uses of thermals and situational awareness, plus CQC with default 9x zoom is annoying, which compared to a 2A4 is a significantly QOL issue.
Vickers is also limited but still a step better with FOV 11.
Reload buffs are given to vehicles they cannot be bothered to fix and balance properly and they’re rather just change a number than actually put in the effort, and even with a 5s reload the Ariete’s have no business being at top tier when they refuse to properly implement them.
From 6s to 5s is removing half the advantage, against 6s you have time to respond to a shot and be able to reload before they do, against 5s that advantage is pretty much gone and you will lose a lot more of these engagements.
1 Like
I suggest going third person and then start aiming, or not using the scope at all, as it’s not really necessary.
Agreed.
I understand what you mean. But this can go the other way too.
It’s harder to go on the offensive with the enemy having a 5.0s reload and you having a 4.0s reload, compared to the enemy having a 6.0s reload and you having a 5.0s reload.
However, it’s easier to go on the defensive with the enemy having a 5.0s reload and you having a 4.0s reload, compared to the enemy having a 6.0s reload and you having a 5.0s reload.
I see that you haven’t played the Type 90 much, so I suggest play it more to have a better sense on how it plays.
Here’s my friend, for example:
I suggest going third person and then start aiming, or not using the scope at all, as it’s not really necessary.
Which works in the really short range, but at the end of the street that already gets less effective and there is no good option for that.
And with the modules added getting shot at is just death, you don’t have the armor to survive anything and the autoloader gets destroyed every other shot and deletes all your ammo on top of that, at some point I’d rather have a crew member that I can replace in combat than have to hide for 30 seconds to repair and then make my way to a capture zone to get ammo.
I’ve played enough of the Type 90, the TT ones however have stock heatfs and whoever decided on that should be in prison.
1 Like
Type 90 to 11.7? Clinically insane take.
@Miragen already covered everything that can be covered.
2 Likes
Same can be said with the M1A1 abrams. The turret ring is a massive weakspot, allowing the enemy to often one-shot, if not, completely disable the Abrams. Having to go around with two crew (more of then than not) is also extremely frustrating. If the Zoom / FOV was improved, and the armour of the Type 90 were to be better, it would definitely go up in BR.
Same with if the Abrams had a smalller weakspot for the turret ring.
The fact of the matter is that the Type 90 is still one of the best tanks at 11.3, same with the M1A1. There is no doubt about it.
Your K/D for your Type 90 is 1.78, which is more than your Leopard 2A4’s, which is 1.53.
Although, the 2A4’s number of games played is much lower than your Fuji’s, and the 2A4 came unspaded whereas the Fuji was spaded. I don’t see how the Type 90 is underperforming, according to you.
My personal performance isn’t relevant for the discussion in the first place, and the 2A4 is indeed not spaded and played quite a while ago under different circumstances as well.
Also where exactly did I suggest it was underperforming? My argument was against the Type 90 going to 11.7 and the difficult to justify difference between the 2A4 and Type 90.
1 Like
Since when have we started basing BRs to peoples personal performance?
Well, not exactly. But if everyone is doing well in a certain vehicle, for example - the F8U-2, I think there is a legitimate reason to think it’s a good vehicle.
Why else would you advocate for a .3 higher BR from the 2A4, or even the same BR?
Unless, you think it’s underperforming at its current BR.
The Type 90 should stay at its current BR. No higher, no lower.
Since Gaijin began.
But if you had read the messages above, you would realize that we were talking about raw performance of each of them to begin with.
Well, not exactly. But if everyone is doing well in a certain vehicle, for example - the F8U-2, I think there is a legitimate reason to think it’s a good vehicle.
How do you judge that, vehicle performance is based on userbase, which is the thing Gaijin loves to ignore and why minor nations are so f’d.
Why else would you advocate for a .3 higher BR from the 2A4, or even the same BR?
Because I think that is where it should be, just like I think the 2A5 and 2A6 should be .3 below the 2A7 because the 2A7 is objectively a better vehicle in every metric.
Well, I’d prefer to talk about raw performance instead of player stats as much as you do. But I don’t know what to tell you. The Type 90 is better than the 2A4 in most cases, and is on the same level as the M1A1.
Comparing the 2A4 and Type 90 to the 2A7 and 2A6/2A5 is ridiculous. Of course the 2A7 is superior to the 2A6/2A5, and I completely agree with you on that.
You think it should be the same BR as the T-90A, for example?
The only benefits that the T-90 gets is a better round and better frontal protection (and the scope / thermals, if you’re so keen). Everything else is significantly worse.
Not what we are discussing.
Do you understand that frontal protection isn’t everything? 😂
I mean, I thought you had some good points, but this isn’t it.