So… 10.0 light tank gets 3BM60, but AGS at 11.0 now is stuck with practically useless M833 fighting LEO2A7 etc…
I see no problems with this. /s.
9 Likes
why are aircrafts such as A6M2 (1940 early war aircrafts) still set to fight P-51D-20/-30 (late/post war models?)
the BR’s currently are set by the results, yet, there is some incredible overlook of the ability of players.
Most USA/Russian players are very inexperienced,… this is not true for everyone else - why trying to keep a BR balance model flawed like this?
if you can ask/have an explannation over “how” you calculte BR - it would be great to see if we can add some new parameters.
Every BR changes we implement are “touched” by players feedback. We always open feedback thread and after we gather feedback, devs adjust changes.
1 Like
Thanks for considering our feedback, the list has certainly improved.
Even then there are still decisions that don’t make sense to me, and some glaring omissions.
Firstly, the 2S38 is way too strong for it’s current BR. It is equal and in some cases superior to HSTV-L both in terms of performance and most importantly it’s overall combat utility. You would expect the BR to reflect that. The 2S38 should be going up to meet HSTV-L at 11.3, or both meet each other halfway at 10.7 or 11.0.
Also, the Chinese M60A3 TTS is still inferior to the US counterpart at the same BR, changing the order of researchable modifications doesn’t change the performance in any way. My suggestion is to either give the Chinese vehicle M774 and researchable ERA module, or lower BR to 8.7.
You were on to something with the F-5E, it should be going to 11.0.
The F-5C is also ridiculously strong at 10.3, either it should go up to 10.7, or have it’s performance nerfed in some way.
T20 has no place at 6.3, even with APCR which is a sidegrade at best. The T20 should stay at 6.0, and the M26 reverted back to 6.3.
10 Likes
Alright, so if the falcon is going up to 8.3 (AA, no radar) then can we assume that every other nations AA around the rank, is going up? take the ZSU-37-2 first, 37MM with Radar, or the M-163 which has radar…
2 Likes
i would prefer bumping A-10’s A-6’s and Su-25’s than F-5’s,…
2 Likes
i feel like a broken record at this point but HOW does the somua and ebr stay at 7.7 but the two other with 210mm pen goes to the same br as an Obj 906? no idea why the sudden hate bonner for the BC25t is comming from its been 3 br changes gaijin is trying to dunk on it. Cant wait to face T-55 point n clicking me with their full stab at the same br.
1 Like
Both. Both is good.
It would still be better to have a discussion about the proposed changes first and then a discussion about potential new changes from the community.
This way is incredible inefficient and I doubt that all 1400 replies were read and taken into consideration.
It would make the job of the poor intern or who reads all the replies easier aswell
4 Likes
2S38 is significantly slower, larger, and less survivable (though the fuel tank eats a lot of stuff it shouldn’t) than the HSTV-L. the 2S38 definitely does need to go up, but it’s not equal to the HSTV-L
1 Like
both would be okay.
(MiG-21MF and superior also should get bumped by 1 step,… in my book, even the Mig-21F13 and -PFM and -S should be bumped → currently doing 2 KD in MiG-21F13,… a “difficult” aircraft to play,…)
[EDIT: Along similar one in chinese TT]
Ingame JAS39A HMD moment. Or just change one letter in name.
How is the AMX (the 10.3 plane) not going up? Two 9Ls and laser guided munitions at 10.3 is crazy low… 10.7 at the minimum Gaijn come on…
1 Like
Proposed changes ONLY FOR RB.
(Japanse Tiger premiun aka Heavy Tank No. 6) move from 6.0 to 5.7 = His model is more closer to H1 than E, suffer from nasty and useless “S-minen” launches can block his gun in critical situations with terrible consequences or just move the stupid “S-minen” .
(SPz LG3 12-3) move from 6.7 to 6.3 = This tank is extremly bad, long reload, poor post pen and mediocre movility is ridiculous he stay in 6.7 when you have by far better options in low BRs. For example M41 with HEAT, faster reload and movility is 6.3 or the Jagdpanzer 90 in 6.3 too. In another trees you cand find faster and more powerfull HEAT slingers in 6.0 , so is senseless 6.7 for this crap tank.
(ARL 44) move from 5.3 to 5.0 = Big turret with poor armor and bad movility plus reload speed.
(Vidar) move from 8.0 to 8.7 = Really dont need any explanation.
1 Like
The 2S38 compensates for it’s slightly worse chassis with other qualities such as 3x faster fire rate (0.5s vs 1.5s), much higher ammunition capacity (148 vs 26), HE-VT, IRST and higher quality thermals.
Also, the 2S38 does not have a loud gas turbine engine that makes you audible from across the map.
Even then I wouldn’t go so far as to say the 2S38 has the “worse” chassis. It is larger yes, and technically has less armor, but that works to it’s advantage. It spalls very little, especially side shots, which combined with the amount of “void space” inside the vehicle makes it surprisingly survivable. Compared to HSTV-L which is very cramped, meaning any penetration is bound to take out the crew or hit ammunition/fuel.
The upper front plate is extremely angled and can auto ricochet most rounds that land there, it is conveniently placed at the height which most people aim for reflexively. It’s turret is also entirely unmanned, whereas the HSTV-L only has a low profile turret.
In their current state I still believe the two are more similar than expressed by their BRs. I vehemently believe the 2S38 should go up. I’m not proposing that the HSTV-L goes down however, rather buffed to be on par with historical data. If it got HE-VT, aircraft tracking, penetration similar to M774, 1s reload rate, I would even be content with a BR increase. As it is now however, it is rather sad at 11.3.
What is the reasoning for maintaining the A6M5 ko change to 5.3?
Zeroes are already overtiered, stop punishing players for the incompetence of their opponents.
6 Likes
Some of your suggestions are absolutely insane and prove you didn’t play many of the vehicles you’re expecting to change.
One quick example, you suggest WZ1001 and ZTZ96A to 12.0… but VT-4A1 to 12.3… I don’t know how to put into words how knowledgeable you must be on the Chinese tech tree.
There’s a few points I agree with you, but after checking your profile, I think it’s better to avoid suggesting changes for vehicles you didn’t even used unless they’re obvious.
That T95 revert is funny to me somehow:) Was it too slow to make to 7.3 in time?:P
The F-5E is not as dominant as people think, I personally have a 49% WR after 90 battles and a KD of 1.95 (be aware that AI air targets are counted towards total air kills, without them it would probably be closer to 1.5), US teams at that bracket are laughable, 70% of your teammates are going for bases and will die to the first missile they see. I bought the F-5E exactly a month ago, if the teams get better, then maybe increase the BR, but I wouldn’t say it’s dominating the entire BR bracket)
1 Like
Another round of balance changes, another round of senseless nerfs.
T20 should be at 6.0. APCR does not justify 6.3. Ditch the APCR round and keep it at 6.0.
Why is the A6M5 going up again? And the J2M’s and J6K too? Those planes have already been up-tiered a lot, why are you making them even worse? You really want people in J6K’s to fight against jets?
Why is A-36 going down? It’s incredibly strong on that BR, to the point people use it as a fighter more so than an attacker. It should go up, not down.
And France is getting nerfed again. Those vehicles are already up-tiered as they are, they shouldn’t go any further up.
“We’re still going ahead with these as the previous increase in reload speed has significantly bettered their efficiency figures, where these French tanks are 60-70% above the average at their rank”
This is the problem. You need to STOP using efficiency as a measure for balancing vehicles, it’s incredibly misleading. At this point you could genuinely balance vehicles based off popularity (popular vehicles get nerfed, unpopular vehicles get buffed, etc.) and it would honestly be better than what you are doing now.
Stop balancing vehicles around their win/loss ratio.
11 Likes