This happens because theres more click baits to put on one team.
Or because they realized playing with AIM/Click bait players is hopeless?
Don’t take Alvis seriously, hes a known troll
2 Likes
Buddy real problem comes from mm.
80 percent of the time Us fights alone, thats why we so many Aim/Click-Bait players.
Thats literally not how it works. Because so many players are playing AIMs or Click-Baits, the US has so many players they need to be put together, leaving no real room for other nations.
Thats just an excuse.
We know that if Gaijin wants they can limit the amount of Click-Bait players for every match.
They did this for tech tree vehicles when they performed to well, same principle can be applied to premium/squadron vehicles to.
But i guess limiting the amount of premium vehicles per match doesnt suit Gaijin’s marketing.
1 Like
Ironnically, if we take Chally 2 and Russian T series to this argument:
- Chally 2 can’t ultilize speed and acceleration to reach destination
- T-series can’t do peek and hide or ultilize gun depression
Flanking is a no go for Chally 2
CQB is a no go for T-series
Yet Abrams can do those strategy better then most of their counterparts
3 Likes
They can’t. Back then the game just created matches with br (max_br - 1) and not higher so there was a limit of 4 players with top br.
They can, this game designed by Gaijin and if they really want it they can find a solution for this mess.
1 Like
Tries to defend how “good” the Abrams is.
Shows a video commentating on a tournament where the US got the most stacked lineup, with the best the other teams had to offer being:
- Challenger 3 TD
- CV 90120
- Ariete AMV/Centauro 120
- Leclerc (idk which variant is the best, pick one lol)
- 2A5/ 2 PL
- T-80BVM
- Type 10
- ZTZ99A/VT4A1
- Merkava Mk.4M
They didn’t allow most light tanks in the game (some of which are the main issues the Abrams have) and they didn’t allow the 2A6, PSO, 2A7V, 2A7HU, 122A, 122 PLSS, 122B+, T-90M, SEP, or the SEPv2.
When you remove most of the tanks that make the Abrams terrible, the Abrams becomes good. Shocker.
8 Likes
According to you it comes out that it’s the second best tank in the game right after the top leopards… That pretty much makes it a good tank.
3 Likes
The budget source he brought up conflicts with that, saying the SEP has improved FRONTAL armor. It never says just turret armor.
In no way does the statement of “improved frontal armor” conflict with “improved turret armor”. It is restating an already addressed and known detail of the vehicle, though in simpler terms.
In no way does the statement “improved frontal armor” entail “only improved turret armor”
In no way does the statement “improved frontal armor” imply anything other than “improved turret armor”… Especially as that same citation details the frontal turret array receiving upgraded protection.
Interesting.
What a heartfelt response that definitely adds something to the discussion.
2 Likes
You said “improved frontal armor” only implies “improved turret armor”. lol, lmao even.
Common arguments against the M1:
- ‘‘T-80BVM is massively superior’’
- ‘‘M1’s are bad in CQB maps because of their weakspots’’
- ‘‘Trading mobility for armour is better, and the armour of the SEPv3 would’ve been a better buff to top-tier USA than the reload buff’’
So firstly, the T-80BVM is not being picked over the M1A1 (!).
The Russian line-up also consists of:
- 11.7 T-80BVM
- 11.3 T-80U
- 11.3 T-72B3
- 10.3 T-80B
American line-up consists of:
- 11.7 M1A2
- 11.0 M1A1
- 11.0 IPM1
- 10.3 M1
If anything, the Russian line-up in theory should be superior going by the BR’s.
Secondly, this tournament centers around CQB maps, and yet all the best player are defaulting to using M1’s pricisely for this reason.
Thirdly, all the best players I know of have stated the reload buff was a much bigger buff to top-tier US than an M1 with heavier armour.
The M1A1 is also being first-picked due to it’s mobility advantage. Good players will consistently hit weakspots, no matter the frontal armour. At that point mobility is more important than armour.
Fourthly, I’ve always said that the Strv 122 and Leopard 2A7V are superior to the M1’s, don’t strawman me by implying I’ve stated otherwise.
My argument is, and always has been that these M1’s are extremely competitive against the average top-tier MBT. Not everything is a Strv 122.
T-90M wouldn’t change a thing, it’s just worse than a T-80BVM or T-80U in that meta.
2A6/PSO is virtually identical to the 2A5 for gameplay purposes, and the 2A5 is also not being favoured here.
The M1A2 is just a superior 2A6/PSO right now.
5 Likes
I didn’t?
…
You quite literally did.