I’m not even going to address the glaring imbalance that this would cause in your seemingly perfect (yet
undefinable) matchmaker.
I never stated perfection, i just stated somewhere that you would have to face each other in realistic ratios
And as I’ve said, both World War and GSB exist. If you want realistic matchups, play World War. If you want a 1:1 matchmaker, play GSB.
Ww is that still going? How many matchies have you seen 4 TD’s or 4 maus
Inb4 a single Challenger tank would have to face a horde of Abrams’ despite very comparable quality cause “production differences”
The British faced most of the Tigers in Germany with the Comet what they didnt face was a howitzer from the 60s or1980 so your point is moot really. You are kind of agreeing with the OP.105 vs the Jadgtiger makes more sense than a Tiger E vs M109.
Fact is we should have era based line ups and long ago we did. It must have made sense for a little while. Those days are long gone, and we have the stupidity we have today.I do not enjoy facing a parade of any old thing in this game,it is the reason I didnt stay with WoT. Now we have it and bad.
We can’t go back in time; we have to accept a bad thing about the game. That does not make the OP an idiot for wishing the game was better.
Im not to worriedd, im just getting gritty with the current MM that uptiers 90% matchies unless you play a particular br band and theres so many TD’s in some of the teams
I haven’t the slightest what you’re trying to say here, nor does it really matter in the grand scheme of things when the topic at hand is a poorly thought out concept of how to “rebalance” the game.
Maybe badly thought out, but that is the point of a forum to discuss these pros and cons, mabe someone will think of a solution and boy i hope someone does.
Very few people on here have all the answers. One might imagine in a forum of decent people we might all work together to figure it out instead of trying to be negative and clever in a pompous way. Too many ass hats on this forum and moderators attacking the wrong people and defending the wrong people.
The OP makes sense even if at a basic level. What the hell is it with 80s AFVs vs WW2 anyway? Who supports that rubbish in a supposed realistic war game?
Surely you realize that discourse happens because people simply don’t agree on what would be the right direction for the game to head in… So many concepts exist that a compromise can’t be made and people will always have strong opinions on certain things. It isn’t indecent to disagree and voice said disagreements.
It’s ironic how you claim to wish for people working together for a solution but then proceed to insult those who have differing opinions on how to solve said “problems” in the same paragraph… doesn’t exactly create an imagine of someone who wishes to collaborate…
I think people like you will always turn a debate to shit and take personal insult out of every sentence, no offence. You seem to take delight in bombing every thread with negativity and a no can do attitude.
I mean…
I’m simply someone who is more than happy to share his POV on matters, as I have been invested in this game for a very long time and wish to see it grow into something better. My view simply differs from yours.
Just because I disagree and voice said disagreement doesn’t mean I “take delight in bombing every thread with negativity”, it is your own choice to interpret what I say as such.
I don’t think I ever saw you present any kind of fix for anything, just say no to everybody else’s attempts to make the game better. You just blindly accept all the games faults and defend them.
Have you considered that I perhaps don’t think a rework or “fix” is required? That I don’t think there is a problem?
I think I’ve made that abundantly clear by now.
Yeah sure some BR changes could happen, but that’s a different matter.
Too much is being assumed here in the idea that so many people view this BR system as it is as a problem, that’s how I view what you say.
More irony I guess, to complain about bombing with negativity while it isn’t even me who is criticising how the game is structured.
You have all the right to of course, I have my fair share of complaints too, but I find it quite funny.
Anyhow, I’ve had enough of this squabble for now and will be going to bed.
I think problems are pretty obvious and I see them not just affecting me but many others. I don’t judge everything by myself, but I do know if one person has an issue then hundreds if not more will too.
I do wonder who prefers mixed up eras to even a vague attempt to sort it out. Do you expect to see an AK47 in a cowboy movie? Maybe you do. Maybe you genuinely wouldn’t notice but it won’t make me a fool for calling it out.
Pray tell, what howitzers does it face that are from the '60s or '80s?
Currently it faces IS-2 1943s, Panthers, Jagdpanthers, M41s, and… Well, everything has moved up to 6.7, so not even Tiger IIs, no Ferdinands, no IS-2 1944, no Pershing, and… Why yes, it does face KV-1s, ISU-152s, and so on.
It’s almost as if it fights against enemies from the timeframe of 1-2 years of it!
No, not by any means. The M109 is by no means a tank/tank fighter, and all 155mm howitzers are deliberately put at lower BRs because of their laughable effectiveness against vehicles.
Then again, you’d probably want all M109s to go to 9.0 where they “belong”.
Long ago we didn’t. Sure, we had “realistic” matchmaking, but that was simply country / country. Seeing as your account was created within the last 2 years (and seeing as console-based IDs can’t be used twice for the same account, I don’t see the possibility of alts), you haven’t even been around long enough to experience historical matchmaking.
Back in time to when? You do understand that, prior to 6 months ago, the T-54 was facing Tiger IIs for about 9 years? Even after beta closed, WW2 aircraft commonly fought late 40s jet aircraft.
Do some digging and answer that yourself ,clue is the M109 for a start
Sounds sensible if we are doing sensible. You want a M16s in a cowboy film? Muskets in a Viking movie?
I know what we had and as I said the ship has sailed
The history of the game is there for anybody to see I don’t need a lecture. It was WW2 and two sides. Its no secret. Like I said a million times, those days are gone and now we live in the land of the stupid and have to endure it sadly.
You’re the one bringing up the query, so go ahead… What howitzers?
Ah, the M109. Again, this does not have any sophisticated FCS like that of the Vidar, nor does it have an autoloader like the Type-75 of AuF1.
Tell me, how does a howitzer with a worse reload than a 1.0 field gun and an equivalent shell place among enemies?
Not well.
Seeing your points, it seems as if you want F-16Cs fighting T-72Bs, and F-16 / F-15s against Leopard 1s, WZ305/ZSU-57-2s, and T-62s.
The experiences in history are for those who actually experienced it. There was no “we” long ago, you weren’t there.
Though seeing as you haven’t experienced it, and even now you’re barely experiencing the game… What ground do you have to talk about previous situations, let alone current?
I’m done with your false equivalencies. You’re no more stupid than the people who pledge for tanks vs naval.
Did gaijin state they were a historically accurate game? I know they say realistic
Yup. They got rid of it to help queue. There were plenty of times where like 70% of the player base was trying to play the same nation and it kept breaking mm.