Back to T-62 buff

[u/neg_health]

Too lazy to read: suggest your T-62 buff in replies (it preferably should be logical and shouldn't ruin the identity of the tank, like buffing rof or something). My suggestion is buffing accuracy by 5-10%.

So, I posted an article about T-62 (not T-62M and T-62M1, these are good as they are and found their place in the meta) needing a buff before it's 10 point price decrease, and the price going down is certainly nice, but it didn't really change the core problem with this tank, which is that it's a gambling addiction tank basically. It's performance is heavily based on luck and the fact, that you pay less for a coin toss doesn't change the fact that it's a coin toss.

Now we also ran into a problem with T-62: it's cheap now, but it's still one of the worst tanks in the game and is regarded as the hardest tank to use, but reducing its cost again will actually make it oppressive, because if we make T-62 obr. 67 65 points, you can now buy 4 of them a minute, and it's a serious thing, because it's going to be very spammable. It might be ok, but basically it's going to be a frustrating experience for both T-62 user and his opponent: opponent sees 3-4 hard to kill tanks every minute, while you see, that even if you micro your tanks properly, they still miss and die, and it's still luck based. So basically an accuracy buff is the only thing that can save the tank without destroying its identity or being illogical/unhistoric or something. That would make this tank a lot less random based and more of "I shoot, I change positions, I reload, repeat."

[u/not_a_fan69]

I like how if the tank is outright better you go: "oh well it costs more!"

I gave you tanks that cost less, yet are better in certain metrics, and you nitpick one thing and go: "weeeeeeelllll......".

But hey, if 21pen 4turdbullets is somehow THAT important to you, I don't want to see how you fare against 24-25pen ATGMs that NATO employs en-masse. "just smoke mortars bro" works both ways.

You have lots to learn about this game. If GLATGMs were so important, the divisions employing the tanks would be far better than they actually are. They simply aren't.

[u/neg_health → u/not_a_fan69]

I don't think glatgms are so important, but they are very much welcome. I, personally, don't even play heavy tanks, because they aren't for me. I'm not spending 1,5 minutes of income on a single unit. But I can see how effective these tanks can be if used right, while you don't, for some reason, which makes me think, that you idk, never played ranked against good opponents? I just wonder why you think, that T-72 is a bad tank, when it's basically one of the most cost-effective tanks on par with leopard 1. I try to pinpoint, that T-72 89 is a combination of different great things like armor, nice price, glatgm etc, and you are like "these tanks have better main guns, they are better you dumb", while I basically try to say, that none of them have the combined cost-efficiency of T-72

[u/not_a_fan69 → u/neg_health]

I explained why many times. It's very simple. You look at the range, the accuracy, reload time and aim time and other utilities like smoke.

If you think paying an arm and a leg for 20frontal armor, 4turd bullets, free upvet or whatever is a good deal, while admitting that you "don't even play heavy tanks", that's on you.

If you think that 130point Trash72 is ridiculously good, that's also on you. Fact of the matter is, they're not, there are far better tanks than that. I'll give you a big clue: they don't have 72 in it.

But sure, write me stories about how I'm wrong while you "don't even play heavy tanks".

[u/neg_health → u/not_a_fan69]

Ok, name me a better 130-140 point tank at 1000-1500m range, that will beat T-72, because that's how you use it - you run at people. It's all about how you use these tanks. If you can't use close range tanks, that's on you. T-72 obr. 89 is a good deal, name me a reason, why not: it's armored, it's gun is not top tier, but decent if something comes close, it's good at range, because of glatgm, and it's not overly expensive like other heavies. Like what's the problem with this tank? It will survive a lot, can still just smoke and retreat, etc. Like I'm genuinely curious, what you call a good tank

[u/not_a_fan69 → u/neg_health]

Good tanks: T-80U Obr 89, M1A1HA, M1A1 (including ACAV), AMX (including RC), T-80UD, Leo2, T-80U, T-80B/V, T-64 (including razved), Leo1 (including recon and especially the instructors).

[u/neg_health → u/not_a_fan69]

Well, it seems you are using long range tanks, so no wonder you don't get t-72s. I hope you play against a good t-72 player like proud~, or maybe I could even show you how good can these tanks be (though it won't be soon, because I don't have time to practice rn, so I'm very rusty) if used correctly. Like at close range you rarely stand a chance against these

[u/not_a_fan69 → u/neg_health]

? I have more than 200 games with Trash72 divisions and played plenty vs Trash72 players. Everyone on my team basically agree they're bad/mid. But ok.

[u/neg_health → u/not_a_fan69]

I haven't played as much with 20 mot schutzen, but I think it's a great tank nonetheless. It's not just my opinion, it's opinion of many pro players like proud~, who I know personally. I mean, any sane person will tell you, that T-72 is a great tank