Again, the biggest hurdle is adapting to the new style of play. Not the mechanical differences between tanks. At 9.3+ tanks still need to grind for good ammo optics and rangefinders, it just that the players who willingly occupy those battle ratings are comfortable with the meta and no longer handicapped by their vehicles.
Style is just a very small part, the mechanical differences still be the main reason this range chaotic, even you can get used to a fast style, it is not a reason that even a small BR difference has such a huge advantage, above 9.3, the ammo might different, but you never need to consider if they have laser range finder or STAB.
That sounds fair. but these differences are not enough for rising BR, they are at least 90% similar. Then we move to Tiger 2(H) and Tiger 2(p).I don’t even wanna mention M26s, that’s much sillier, for more cases, if you think those reasons could make 0.3 BR difference, then IS3/IS4 needs at least 0.7 BR differences, centurion MK3, mk10 and Olifant, each of them needs 0.7 differences.
Sure, the better gun depression on the corners and the slightly better acceleration are quite minute, but I would have to disagree with the turret armour.
The difference is considerable enough for the Tiger E to be a menace to most vehicles hull-down.
This cannot be said with the Tiger H1.
I believe there should be a 0.3 BR difference just because practically any vehicle (even in a full downtier) can penetrate the cheeks of the Tiger 2 (P). Yes, even the jumbo 75:
Not saying that it should be 6.3, but that there should be a difference in BR.
The only possible way of doing it is through further decompression (but I doubt that will happen any time soon).
The regular M26s could still be fine at 6.3.
The T26E5 is just slightly less mobile, but has much much better armour. This is fine at 6.7.
The T26E1-1 has better armour and a better gun (at the cost of slightly worse mobility and reload). This is sorta fine at 6.7. My only gripe with this one is that it effectively is a Tiger II H but with worse hull armour and reload - but slightly better turret armour.
The M26E1 is the M26 but with the T26E1-1’s gun. At the cost of slightly worse reload, but much better gun. This is also fine at 6.7.
The difference between the two is that the IS-3 has slightly worse mobility and a considerable amount worse armour.
Back then, the IS-3 was 7.0 and the IS-4M was 7.7.
The 0.7 BR difference existed but then they just had to decompress the 5.3-7.0 area a bit, and inadvertently (maybe not) compressed the 7.0 - 8.0 area.
More decompression would somewhat help that out.
Yes, Cent Mk 10 has a better gun and better UFP than the Mk3, but it has slightly worse mobility and slightly worse reload.
The difference between the turret armour is negligible, so those pros and those small cons add up to a reasonable 0.3 BR difference.
The Olifant is basically an upgraded Cent Mk.3, with the same crappy armour as the Mk.3:
The difference between it and the Cent Mk.10 is that it has a slightly worse UFP (although they are both quite bad at their respective BRs anyways) and turret rotation speed (18 degrees per second instead of 20).
However, the Olifant is more mobile (even more than Cent Mk.3), and gets DM23 + LRF.
I could see why you’d say the BR difference is unfair, but the fact that the Olifant is a slow MBT and is this squishy at 8.3 is incredible.
Again, the biggest problem here was that the Cent Mk.3 / Mk.10 used to be 7.3 and 7.7 respectively, and that was a reasonable BR difference between them and the Olifant Mk.1, which was still 8.3.
They just need to decompress everything and not just certain BR ranges.
Same problem with the Marders, BMP-1s, and even the Leopard Is being too high of a BR imo.
It is true that we need decompress everrthing, I just mentioned the serious range, due to Gaijin’s wired standard, there are still plenty of vehicles suffer at this range, even the air.
1 Like