That’s true about every 14.3 that isn’t an Su-30SM2 or Rafale. DOA means it will be completely useless, and the GE isn’t that. It would be similar to the J-10C where it’s weak for 14.3, but way to strong for 14.0.
It seems that people call every plane that isn’t meta breaking DOA these days, and it gets in the way of actual discussions.
You know, this is in fact understandable.
Sometimes I load into a match, see this:
And think - wow, it sure would suck ass to be on the opposite team right now. And thats not even remotely the worst case, mind you. The worst I’ve seen was IIRC 12 or 13 rafales.
Would you enjoy playing 15E/GE or even F18C/E against this?
cope more clown. Leo 2a7? How am i supposed to get that when im at 10.3 and get r*ped by terminators every match?
When a single vehicle is as dominant as it is, if your vehicle can’t compete then its a total dookie box and it is in fact DOA.
I would like to know where you get your line of reasoning for this statement.
Wish more people would understand this.
People should learn language that better represents their feelings.
Underwhelming is a perfect example, though there are at least a dozen more words people can use.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
If anything he is having quite the take with “J-10C where it’s weak for 14.3”
Quite the absurd statement, it’s very strong.
They want us to believe it’s weak so it can be lowered in BR.
You forgot about Israel. They might also get rafale
Leopard 2A4 in the German tree has no line up. So it either gets uptiered a lot or ends up having a weaker line up uptiered alongside it. Which still very much is in line with what I said. It’s not singular vehicles but line ups and how strong they are. From the tanks, to cas, to at times SPAAs to cover them.
If everything is weak, the line up is weak. If you have a good tank but no line up or back up for it it’ll perform statistically worse. But if you hand a decent line up some strong buffs it’ll likely excell. Which is what we see when Russia gets two of the best FAF for an already decent line up with some other buffs such as magic missile shields on the Mi28NM.
It’s the best MBT. I have no clue what metrics OP used to determine the best MBT, whether it’s best for its BR, or best overall.
@CryingDaffodils
Alvis said it well. DOA means a plane will be utterly useless, or just a very bad vehicle regardless of how good it’s MM is. The F-15C GE was borderline DOA when it was first added with only 8 Aim-120s, but now that it has 12, I can’t call it DOA.
This.
It’s probably the 2nd weakest 14.3 after the Super Hornet. I’d have zero issues with it if they gave it the upgraded engine, like they did with the Su-30SM2.
They did? Aww :(
Lmfao
A single Battleship of current date doesn’t show everything, likewise is we go by class or by through the ages than the best is everywhere in BR.
The soviets/ Imperial Russia may have powerful ships but other nations have just as many.
Capital ships by memory:
• Project 23 Sovetsky Soyuz currently
• Battleship Scharnhorst, kinda concurrent for the past few years (mechanics added just to deal with it)
• before Project 23, the Battleship Mutsu & Battlecuiser Amagi for the newest stuff
• before that Scharnhorst as mentioned
• before that the Project 69 Kronshtadt (although heavily nerfed now)
• Battleship Parizhskaya Kommuna with the 1928 HE shells
• Battleship Hyūga with a small forward weak spot, added to the game when no other nation had 14" armed ships *fun days as the US or GB back then).
• Light Cruiser USS Brooklyn / Hellena
• Light Cruiser Nürnberg
• Light Cruiser Köln
• the Original big bad, the cruiser Emden & the first set of ships to have 20k sl repairs (Emden, Köln, Nürnberg, Type 140 Jaguar, Type 143 Albatross all had 20k repairs)
Also for a current list of all ship types, the soviets I guess could’ve four maybe top ships yet many are overshadowed by at BR powerhouse ships of other nations.
Example while many shall point to the Project 35 SKR-7 as the best 4.3 frigate type, that would be incorrect for the game sense due to the extremely exposed magazines & the torturous ready racks (148 shells per cannon with a five second reload rate after) but is feared for the first stage fire rate & 6000 metre range rocket assisted depth charges.
Yet at 4.3 BR there’s the Ayanami class 1958 (technically a destroyer) yet rate a frigate the JDS Ayanami DD-103, the vessel has six older late WWII AA guns as main battery, carries slightly better torpedoes plus a reload, it’s much faster & can fire it cannons longer (if you don’t care about jamming), it has only one exposed magazine yet this can be mitigated by only taking 1800 shells along with a slightly longer range, resulting in the soviet frigate having to get closer before returning fire (you would be surprised at how ranges will effect duels & that the soviet small calibre ships struggle in this department as they’ve less range than other nations ships).
Above & below that soviet frigate in BR is the Köln class Frigates which sit at 4.7 now & were perfect counters to those ships with heavier 100 mm cannons without a ready rack an more powerful rockets & below is the British 4.0 lineup with the Restigouche class Destroyer (HMCS Terra Nova DDE-259) with a higher RoF 3" that never overheats & has a ready rack of 300 odd shells at 90rpm but even than the rack doesn’t need reloading & has a sustained fire of 75rpm, also there’s the powerful Type 41 AD Frigate (HMS Leopard F14) with four 4.5" cannons that rip those soviet ships apart (only drawback is ammunition cost for the frigate, the destroyer has free ammunition as the only shell is HE-VT ammunition).
Rafale, Leo 2A7V, 2A7HU, 122B+, F-14, Gripen, IRIS-T SLM,… Everyone will get their turn eventually, just that this time it’s Russia.
Are you going to prove me wrong?
Is the Leo 2A7 not the best MBT?
No, and that is utterly irrelevant
What is your point then?
It is not p2w. It is barely superior to the competition. It is a tank at the end of the tech tree most players will never face or own.
Do I need to draw an explanation for you to get it into your head?
Honestly though, how does that make a difference in general?
If it’s a bad player base using good vehicles or if its a good player base using bad vehicles, if in both cases it results in about the same performance then you as a player facing them both will statistically have an equal chance at destroying them. The reason a vehicle performs the way it is is much less relevant then how it performs when it (statistically) comes to you facing it.
If you in both those cases end up having a 50/50 chance of winning the engagement then why would one reason for that matter more than the other?
I did mention the BMPT at the end in my post.
The autoloader buff is not likely to change those statistics much, but i might be wrong and we’ll see how it turns out. But given that most USSR vehicles at top tier are BR for BR towards the bottom on performance likely means that the autoloader buff will bring them into the middle or perhaps slightly above it. My point with the post was to show that a lot of players that complain don’t actually know how the vehicle’s really are performing below average statistically. They really aren’t as good as many say (exceptions exist of course).
95% of the time i see players complain about vehicles, they haven’t played those vehicles themselves and don’t know some of the drawbacks those vehicles have. There are of course exceptions (Like the BMPT at release and even currently after the first BR bump imo).