maybe preemptively moving it up for the autoloader buff?
1 Like
the reload buff explains the br change, think this thread can be closed
1 Like
It should of been 10.0 before hand with the likes of leopard 2K and such, now iwth a reload buff I can see it hitting 10.3 quite easily.
it’s got better optics and reload than the T72s worse armour but the reload makes that up
Nah, it seems to me he made the better choice after the way you spoke to him. Moving on from someone who’s a time and energy sink.
Not really he made stupid statements then didn’t back it up at all.
Normandy is quite right here.
How does he? lol
He’s quite right to deduct that fox would hve no reply, as he often doesn’t when he’s proved wrong.
If you make a blatant statement then it is customary by default to back it up. It is also common in English if you make a statement to back it up.
Not just leave when questioned on it.
Your emotional response to his quite natural logical one screams volumes more about you, than him.
Hell I’ve debated with @Normandy_Corsair a few times, and I admit hav been wrong, and have disagreed very strongly with him.
But he’s not one to take an intellectual high ground as you say.
Sounds more like you’ve an inferiority complex on people being told to actually back up stuff they spew.
on the topic of the 64B as I stated above I believe it was already overdue a BR increase to 10.0 due to the difference in round and optic, as well as the slight change to composites and additional ERA made it a sort of Asymetrical 10.0 in comparison to say Leopard 2K which forgoes armour, ERA and the same level of penetration for mobility and fire rate.
Now however the 64B out loads the 2K
2 Likes
It was most definitely not busted at 9.7, lmao. It was quite evenly matched with opposing MBTs at its BR.
But now that it has been given a faster reload it sits quite comfortably at 10.0, I wouldn’t move it down in its current state. Or up for that matter, because then it starts facing vehicles that can pen its turret cheeks.
Gaijin could’ve done better if they had moved it up at the same time they did the loading speed buff.
1 Like
Thanks for the insight I guess? Sounds like you have more experience with Normandy than I do - but I stand by my assesment. His response seemed pretty arrogant to me - it’s a public forum and nobody is owed a response, and to make a follow up edit seemed egotistical.
Also him calling the t64B busted, isn’t a stupid remark. In - its his opinion based on his experience. In fact it seems to be the general opinion from what I have read that it is reasonabke for it to be at 10.0… that it needed to go up in BR. But I guess, by you and normandy’s logic then I am owed an explaination from you as to why him saying so was a stupid remark?
So to keep things simple, we can agree to disagree.
Aight, I can happily mute this topic now that the T-64B went where it needed to go and even got a reload buff. All is right in the world for everyone.
2 Likes
Agreed,!
T-55, Mi-8, 279 and IT-1 facing 10.7-11.0… Sure, dude, great lineup
1 Like
Nice professional assessment sir.
Its actually not arrogant, the language he used is more conceding to his own point / educated guess that fox wouldn’t respond, as i said as they often don’t when asked to provide some basis to their point.
It’s a public form, when one makes a statement, poses a question and or decides to say something they are inherently expected to provide some basis and or reasoning as to why they have made it.
That’s common practice. It’s not about being owed it but it’s about the writer doing credit to themselves and not just spewing nonsense and then not responding when questioned on it.
The manner in which he called it busted is a stupid remark.
He made it out as if it was extremely over powered which it hasn’t been for a very, very long time.
His ancedotal evidence is not basis for making a statement of the vehicle is OP.
That’s the point.
He could of stated it’s dedent armour, optics and round made it an a strong 9.7 which should of moved up.
Which I previously have stated as all other 9.7 mbts moved to 10.0.
Clearly not as people have been debating the tanks BR placement for sometime, I myself have followed multiple threads on BR placements and it always crops up for debate.
So the general consensus hell even this very topic was about it not being justified to move up
By the common logic of forum discussion sir, yes I’ll give / have just given you an explanation as to why it was pretty silly.
Whatever you say boss.
2 Likes
Sir, open your eyes, those are not the lineup for 10.0.
What is that lineup you shared for exactly?
I mean I take the object 140 up with the T64B so I’m not averse to bringing up strong tanks from lower BRs.
It’s a good lineup just, you said they don’t get used in random battles. However have given no indication as to where they are used.
Oh also, how do you see the T80UD and 80B Br being affected by these rather pleasant reload buffs?
That specific lineup is a transient lineup that gets swapped around a lot until its final form of 10.0.
Until then, that lineup is having vehicles swapped out for 9.0, 9.7, and 10.0.
And its final form will be primarily for custom battles.
Maybe T-80UD players will finally be good enough to warrant a BR increase.
1 Like
Lol,no
“Lol,no”
Incredible, this guy wins the argument.
As a person who has been primarily playing it for the last few months, it felt pretty balanced. Far less mobile than NATO tanks, plenty of weak spots, even 3BM42 couldn’t pen some of the tanks at its BR, and the worse reloading rate was rough.
Ngl it’s jumped up my used list of russian vehicles cause of how easy it is to fo well with
You not knowing prior history of a user is not my problem. Neither is it my problem if you want to whine about me speaking bluntly. Just as everyone is free to express their opinion as you say, I am also free to express mine in any way I desire so long as it does not break any of gaijin’s heavy handed rules for this forum. Me telling him to backup what he says is not even close to being problematic.
2 Likes
Fair enough.