“Guys, we’ll fix planes being at the wrong BRs”
Ignore the things that actually warrant it outside of major nations. Like the Tornado, as the most obvious example.
1 Like
Very ture! If the br seperation is like this, then it should be gone.
why would tornados go lower
they already outspeed other bombers
That’s a funny joke. Tornadoes when laden are outran by almost anything at the BR that carries rockets. Even a fair number of planes that carry bombs.
4 Likes
oh god not another “muh realistic matchmaking”
if you want that you have custom battles sir, fine a role playing community
Basing vehicles off of Era is terrible, where there would be little balance,
being “realistic” in that sense is much different, i doubt anyone wants a Panzer II fighting a KV-1, or a T-55 fighting Challenger 2s, Churchill I Vs Tiger I and then some nations would cease to exist in some periods. where bassically all their tanks are early/mid 1930s and then go stright to 1943/44
I would like realistic matchmaking if it would be balanced, but without artifically nerfing some vehicles heavily it would just be impossible,
the BR system is by no means perfect, but it is better than year based matchmaking, boy cannot wait for a Ha-Go to fight a Maus it just would not work
it makes 0 sense for the Tornado IDS ASSTA 1 to be .3 BR higher than the Tornado IDS Marineflieger, they are effectively identical in air RB
3 Likes
yep, they are very fast when slick, shame it doesnt translate when any payload is involved
and its still a brick, just waiting for gaijin to add the manoever slats, which could come out until something like 45 degree sweep iirc, that or Semi-Auto wing sweep would be nice
extend that to all Tornados and then include prop bombers which are just food then yourself a great point
1 Like
Give it a year, I’m sure they’ll look at it and decide its not a bug.
You added zero to the conversation that has not already been said.
tell that to my su17m4 grind
How soon?
1 Like
Give the Leopard 2PL DM53 it’s at 11.3 fighting in top tier and DM43 is ain’t it anymore against the vehicles it’s facing. Give the 2PSO D-tech armor and the option to install the same add-on armor like on the 2A6EX has. There is so many bug report about it with valid sources.
1 Like
Armor reports are treated as suggestions not bugs and ammo selection is a balancing decision.
Hey everyone! Update for you:
I spoke about it in the main post, it relates to this one:
The CM team saw your feedback surrounding air battles and the number of players in them and spoke to the devs about this to see if something could be done. The devs are planning something for this, I can’t write the specifics or give a timeline, but it’s being looked into as of now.
6 Likes
No
12v12 is a step in the right direction, but I really hoped for 10 or less.
Also, we need better explanations on how it would work.
“When this option is enabled, you’ll have the chance of getting into a battle with smaller team sizes (min - max: 6 - 12) instead of a regular battle (min - max: 6 - 16). Further adjustments in the future are possible depending on how sessions go.”
Will all smaller games be capped at 12v12, or can we have lower 10v10 or even 8v8 battles if the queue is high enough ?
How much people would be required to able those servers ?
When there are enough people, what would be the frequency of 8v8 games ? If let’s say, 80% of the player base able those smaller team, will they get a majority of 12v12 or will the 16v16 still be prevalent ?
Yeah thats totaly relevant, not like snail copy paste whole tech trees, oh wait
“7M and 7M” are the same 7F and 7M are not (F and M are different letters)
7M and 7M are the same