Many nations has good amount of low skill playerbase, what saves them are either teaming up with best nations or having best vehicles overall.
This so called “skill issue” isnt something special to Us, we saw how bad German,Russian or even British players are in the past.
Only two nations does have consistent good player base and those are France and Italy.
yeah you’re right. ultimately it depends on the play style you prefer. The t90m and bvm have a completely different play style. Where one is more armored and the other is mobile. I prefer to have more armor because I rather survive first shot engagements than retreating after being shot at.
The 5 second reload is good but majority of fights ultimately depend on who ever shoots first. If you don’t hit any critical components, only then your reload will matter. But if you do, reload won’t matter that much because the enemy can’t fire back. Reload also matters if you miss or going against multiple enemies (that are aiming towards you).
Reload has saved me multiple times but it comes at the cost of very weak armor (big weakspots).
In the end all this doesn’t matter if 3/4 of your team leaves within 5 minutes.
That’s not the point. He and I have both established that the Abrams isn’t bad, but it takes more skill to play than a Leopard or T-90. The latter have spongy armor and spall liners that makes it harder to kill them in one hit than an Abrams.
But a good player, in theory, never gets hit. Refer to the survivability onion.
Which is just a useless theory in practise and has been prove wrong many times already.
Onion theory only works if you have obvious mobility advantage over your enemies and even then its not guarentee method, considering M1A2’s families mobility is nothing special and most of the maps are based on CQC designs you will get hit 80 percent of the time.
So spare me with your bullshit please because so far you did nothing but wasted my time with lame excuses.
Precisely.
If we go by the “just don’t get hit lol” logic, then ANY tank, from Ariete to Leopard 2A7V, is just about as capable.
Because you may “not be meant to be shot on the first place”: but if you are shot, and you WILL, you will be having second and third chances on an MBT with extraordinary armor and spall liners, while a tank that’s basically made out of cardboard and where every penetration is like an IED going off inside the vehicle will just have you killed every/most of the times.
If it were as easy as “just not being shot”, then Ariete and Leopard 2A7V would be equally as capable. But they are not. Why are they not? Which factor could possibly make the difference…? That’s it; protection and survivability.
And no, I am NOT going to play this game by spending the entire match hiding behind a rock near my spawn zone constantly pulling back and forth to only show 0.1 pixels of my tank for 0.2 seconds to shoot at someone who may hopefully be on my LOS. I will advance, play the objective, clean the map and push the enemy back to their spawns until they are gone. And if that makes me a “bad player” with a “skill issue” for not wanting to camp on my spawn to avoid dying, so be it.
Not going to bother putting in effort into a reply when this is what I get from you.
You are putting words in my mouth. Not once did I say the Leopard is worse than the Abrams. It is better. But aside from armor/survivability, Abrams is better than the Leopard because of the reload.
The argument that the Abrams needs a good crew to use the reload is bad faith because as a War Thunder player you are aware you’d need an even better crew on a Leopard to beat an Abrams. An ace crew on a Leopard is still slower than max reload + leadership on an Abrams).
With regard to Ariete AMV, it has no better firepower than the Leopard. So in firepower and mobility, the Leopard and Ariete are equal.
To be good at the game, you have to prioritize not getting hit in the first place. A player who does everything right will never get hit, thus making the Abrams better.
As I have said before, armor is a crutch, not a tool.
I say all of this to make the point that the Abrams is not bad; quite good actually. But you need to be good at the game and have a good understanding of its mechanics to perform well in it.
Click-Bait players and their subsequent “spawn” (players who have TT vehicles in top tier USA but are still bad because it’s the only nation they’ve played) don’t grasp this and as a result, we both get the widespread complaints of the Abrams being bad, and the terrible WR at top tier.
So yes, per the average player, the Leopard and T-90 are better than the Abrams. But that does not make it bad, and it is not underperforming because it is bad. It is underperforming because the players don’t know how to play it.
How to fix this? Start by moving the Leopards up to 12.0 at the minimum.
Breaking news: cheaper version of tank is very similar to its more expensive counterpart
Did you miss the whole
part?
I didn’t quote or mention you at any point though?
Every player will always be hit, more or less often, unless they are willing to play in a way that hardly anyone not obsessed over having “pro-performance K/Ds” could ever find fun.
I am sorry if I am not willing to spend the entire match hiding behind a rock near my spawn zone constantly smashing my keyboard to spastically pull back and forth to only show 0.1 pixels of my tank for 0.2 seconds to shoot at someone who may hopefully be on my LOS. I will advance, play the objective, clean the map and push the enemy back to their spawns until they are gone. And I can and will do that way better with many tanks other than the Abrams.
If that makes me a “bad player”, so be it, then- but I will have way more fun just storming the enemy teams off with a Leopard 2A7V, than I could possibly have sweating my butt off on an Abrams hiding behind a rock near my spawn “because I need to be good to do well on it” while my Leopard plays itself even if I drive it like a shopping kart.
If a tank virtually wins matches by itself by playing it mindlessly like a headless chicken, while the other tank requires you to be an eSports-level player to do well on it… it is clear which one is better.
That being said, for the record, I think the Abrams has more potential on the right hands than T-90M; maybe the top 20% of the players… but T-90M will do better under the hands of 80% of the players.
You are replying to a guy replying to me, so you are addressing my argument.
Yes. I agree. That is why I think the Leopard 2s should be 12.0, more or less. Maybe beside the 2A5/2A6.
A good player can do both, that is, not get hit and still be useful to the team. That’s aside from my point, anyway.
I am making the argument that the Abrams is at the very least equal to the Leopard in everything besides armor/survivability. These two factors are the least important when it comes to performance, because a good player will always work around these aspects no matter the tank, even if it’s a T-90 because they will always try to avoid getting hit in the first place.
What this means, is that the Abrams is not bad. It is a good tank. But it takes more skill to play because you can’t get hit like you can in a Leopard. Which, as I have stated multiple times, makes the Leopard better and deserving of 12.0.
I don’t disagree, but you have to consider that some tanks are genuinely worse than other except for the armor (cough cough T-90M) and so it’s more of a sidegrade. I already said the Leopard deserves 12.0 at least.
Exactly. That doesn’t make the Abrams worse, it means the players are too bad to use it properly. And this is exacerbated by the Click-Bait/AIM issue.
I didn’t look that far into the thread, I just saw first thing someone I agreed with and elaborated their point xD
That wouldn’t really change all that much though, besides the SP costs. Which is nice I guess.
Well, of course. The Abrams is at the very least equal to the Leopard in everything… except one of the three main pillars that define a tank’s capabilities (firepower, mobility, survivability).
It’s not bad, of course it is not- but it isn’t all that good either. As of now, it’s just kinda… average. Its only saving grace is the recent reload buff. Without it, it would be completely pointless.
And that’s the whole point; if you need to be a top performance player in order to do well on a tank, it’s not that of a good tank.
As of now, I think Russian MBTs and the Abrams are kinda sidegrades indeed. The Russian MBTs are easier to do well with but also have less potential, while the Abrams is the opposite.
Then there’s the objectively superior Leopard/Strvs xD.
Again; if a tank only needs you to drive it forward for it to get kills by itself, while the other tank needs you to be a top performance player… it’s not just a “skill issue”, but a vehicle issue too.
I mean, he does have a point though. There’s way more click bait and AIM players than the Leo 2PL or whatever.
M1A1 forwards is more long range than basically any Russian tank at its BR, good gun handling and good rounds, only thing holding them back except the AIM (which has worse round) and the SEP, SEPv2 are the bad thermals
Huh?
The SEP is the best tank in the US tech tree lol, the SEPv2 is the same but heavier and has more space to land HE shells on to overpressure
I think US got it worse bc they added imo the best tank premium to the US tree, more recognized tank (everyone knows what an M1A1 is) and was the first top tier premium tank added.
Sorry what I meant to say was bad thermals held all Abrams back long range except for the SEP, SEPv2, and AIM
Oh okay that makes sense
I think all the M1s are recognized about the same lol, Any variant would have been a popular buy. I think no abrams should have been released as a TT premium.
He doesnt.
The reason why we saw more Click-Bait and AIM players is that Us team mostly fights alone against other nations, as soon as other nations teams up with Usa situation changes rapidely.
Noticed something? When we had only 2 Leclerc on our team even SEP players left after one death cause they knew they just couldnt win against best nations, but as soon as we teamed up with better nations results changed rapidely.
Us player base doesnt suffer from massive ‘‘skill issue’’, they suffer from fighting against best nations combo while forced to use inaccurate Abrams.
T-80BVM isn’t even a top 10 tank anymore since the update that flooded the game with tanks as good as Strv 122.
It would not raise in BR, though SEP1 and 2 would likely be above it in decompression.
T-90M would obviously be above BVM as well since it’s superior.
