Half of my team isn’t.
Agree, this is too much.
Wait when did they add that requirement?
Previously you could get ace crew by grinding without fulfilling the level requirements. If they changed that then this makes ACE even more P2W as free aceing of midtiers gets much harder due to the Level restriction. So you do not just need crew XP for the expert qualification level , but also the ACE one.
Those are just the numbers, has nothing to do with me.
Half my team in ARB is A-5Cs ground pounding such is the game.
Research rates in Ground are not comparable to those in Air.
In air the crew level is max 75, you only need 1 crew member and you get most of the functionality from G tolerance.
A single ground vehicle requires more crew XP than half a dozen planes.
Probably because it’s another neglected system that hasn’t been touched for 10 years and never designed for ground nor naval and only for air.
Are they going to fix core features? Fix blatant issues? Why would you when you can copy paste more vehicles with generic cockpits and complain about not having time to do anything else as you refuse to hire new people to do a job.
Oftentimes in PvP environments those couple of seconds make all the difference between victory and defeat.
If Gaijin doesn’t want to remove crew skills for flat rates for everyone across the board the alternative move would be to make Ace qualifications purchaseable with SL rather than GE. Sure, there’s the nuance that someone would buy GE to convert to SL to buy Ace quicker but that would require the player moreorless going out of their way just to get it.
Imho, they “fixed” it when they introduced ground. They realized that air was too fast for their taste. So they did ground 2.5 times as big.
The most obvious alternative is to make it non-purchaseable. Earn it or don’t earn it.
Yes, and no.
Yes, I agree that ideally it should be strictly earned.
No, because remember this is Gaijin we’re talking about. Which is why I made the suggestion I did - A compromise taking Gaijin’s… Preferences in mind.
That’s not actually for a single vehicle, because you included “getting the crew up to 80” in your calculations, which is a one time thing that then benefits all vehicles in that slot.
Nitpicking a bit, I agree with you overall it’s a huge amount of time, but you shouldn’t oversell it, it just weakens the point a bit.
If that is the case we also need to consider that youi have to unlock ACE on multiple slots to ensure that a future BR change does not ruin your lineup by forcing two aced planes of the same BR on the same slot
Not sure how you’re arriving at multiple ace-ings per vehicle, there? If they’re the same BR, you should obviously have had them on different crews all along, and gotten their original aces on different crews, one each.
If you’re suggesting that one of them changed BR by more than 1.0 steps after you aced it, I think that’s probably barely ever happened in the game’s history that someone has suffered that fate.
You obviously would not put the Cent Mk 1 and Mk 3 on differednt slots when one is 6.0 and the other 7.7. But if Gajin later puts both a 7.0 youd have a problem. ofc this example will never happen, but Next Patch M26 goes to 6.7 where many had the T26E5 on the same slot. Or Tiger P going to 6.7 where many have P and H sharing slots.
There are many “pure” lineups in the game, so It is a definite possibility and will happen to some people in the next round of BR changes unless Gajin comes to their senses.
Again, just a possibility, but if you want to make sure you will have to pay/grind for multiple ACE crews for the same vehicle.
So yes you were talking about > 1.0 BR changes, with two already aced vehicles. Again I think that’s vanishingly rare and has probably screwed over like 4 people ever.
Something like tiger II P and H sharing slots will happen much more often, yes, but I dispute that that is the person “being screwed over” in any sense, and is rather a skill issue IMO. They were already rated higher in AB, they are very similar and clearly potentially will be in lineups together in general, AND (this applies even to your 6.0 7.7 hypothetical too:) If you think they’re worthy to take out together in the same match after this BR change, then why weren’t you always driving both of them together all along anyway? Thinking one of them wasn’t worthy and then now changing your mind that it is just because the BRs told you so = poor personal evaluative skills of tank quality.
E.g. I take out a Pz IVH in my 5.0, 5.3, whatever lineups, and planned ahead not to have conflicts, even though it’s 1.3 BRs off, because I can plainly see that the gun is still perfectly good at 5.3. Didn’t need BRs to tell me what to do.
Well I also mentioned the incomming changes as an example… for like 90% of the entire argument. With only the first example, making up like 2% of my text, going that way. And on top of that in a deliberate over the top way.
What? How is “Gajin chaged the BR” a skill issue? Are we to constantly look into our glass orbs to see the futrue baseless decisions gajin is making?
AB and RB BRs have absolutely 0 correlation. In fact vehicles whcih share aBE between the two modes are much more likely to receive a change in BR in one mode than those who are at different BRs are to be put on the same. AB BRs are no indication for future BR changes. Might as well play the lottery in that case.
Lets take the Tiger II example again. Maybe more than one vehicle moved in BR. lets say you had the M41. tiger II H, ferdinant and Jt in the lineup and the JT is now 7.0 and the Tiger P is now 6.7. So would you leave the slot open?
thats why I wrote “forced”.
Now your arguments are getting silly. You are constructing the most unlikely scenarious on purpose to avoid agreeing that BR changes happen and regulary change entire lineups and thereby regulary change slot allocation of vehicles. We just had such a BR change in the last two months and we are now facing one such BR change again. I am not talking about some theoretical possibility. I am talking about the current situation.
So me now being forced to play my favourite tank in a different lineup, where my other favourite tank sits is “poor personal skills”
Like go on. Your entire argument right now is "Well you should have naturally predicted that gajin woudl change the BRs of these vehicles in such a specific way and you shoudl have prepared for that specific change, because you totally could have predicted such a change 5 years ago.
Mate get real. I am talking about a real situation unfoding this very moment. And you arte trying to blame people for not being able to read the future.
That is a stupid example and contradicts you own previous statement about using AB BRs to see into the future. If you tzake the Pz IVH into 5.3 over any other 5.3 vehicle you are just trolling. And you trying to convince me that you are doing it because “it is clear that it can go up because of the gun” is utterly removed from reality .
Facts are:
BR changes happen
BR changes change lineups
Changeing lineups can cause ACE crews to overlap.
Seeing the Future 5 years from now is impossible.
1 Like
What? How is “Gaijin changed the BR” a skill issue?
Because the vehicle remained entirely unchanged. If you think they both go well together in a (the higher of the two’s BR) lineup right now, then why weren’t you ALWAYS using them in a lineup together? Even if they were 1.0 BR apart? 2.0 BR apart?
Because you (hypothetical “you” not nec. literally you) didn’t clock that the lower one was actually still a great tank. You could have clocked it, but you didn’t, you just went “ho hum, lower BR must be bad”. That was avoidable by paying better attention to the abilities of the tanks and their armor, etc. Skill issue.
AB and RB BRs have absolutely 0 correlation.
I just did the literal math using just the easy-at-hand BRs from the most recent google doc they put out for the upcoming changes, and the correlation is actually r = 0.99, lol. But sure, .99 = “absolutely 0”, potaytoe pohtahtoe, right?
In fact vehicles whcih share aBE between the two modes are much more likely to receive a change in BR in one mode than those who are at different BRs are to be put on the same.
Completely made up by you off the top of your head, which I know, because I just went through and systematically checked it in the spreadsheet, and it’s completely wrong.
I filled in all the missing starting BRs from currently for each one that only changed in one mode, and then counted up the ones where any sort of non-symmetric change moved them CLOSER together across modes vs FURTHER apart. Did not count exact copy/pastes
-
Moved closer together: 30 examples: 3 in carrier, KV-1 zis 5, ZSD63, ystervark, M4A176, KV-85, T-V, Ersatz, Panther A, Panther G, M26A1, M26, Tiger IIP, IS-2 1944, Lvrbv, So-ki, Breda 501 (by 2 steps), Cusader AA, T-34-57, M64 (by 2 steps), M18 (by 2 steps), T1E1, T-34-85, M19A1, Charioteer VII, Vickers 1, STB-1, Type 87, PGZ04A
-
Moved further apart: 10 examples: Conway, T95, IS-1, AEC AA, VRCC, Centauro, T92, leKpz, M41A1, BTR-ZD
So the modes having different BRs from this example of BR round of changes is three times more likely to lead to them moving closer to being in sync than it is for them to move more out of sync
Might as well play the lottery in that case.
Please please tell me which lottery I can play in which city/country where I have a 75% chance of winning! I would love to retire tomorrow.
Unfortunately due to wasting like 20 minutes finding out you sent me on a made up wild goose chase, I do not have time to respond to the rest. Probably not a big loss, since you seem to have a tendency of making stuff up anyway.
1 Like
Okay I do have time for this one bit.
I didn’t say BRs don’t change, but if they constantly cause your whole lineup to rearrange, then that is a skill issue of horribly organizing your lineups, and not thinking ahead.
When you make a slightly higher BR lineup, you should always–among your decent crew slots you’ve decided to invest in meaningfully–be replacing the least likely to be viable tank(s) from the previous lineup and using those slots to put in the newly available best and most viable tanks. Which basically makes you immune to any small or moderate changes.
The only reason you can’t do this and be fine is if Gaijin makes like a massive 2.0 BR swing or something (which has only happened a couple of times) out of complete left field, like with the M15 GMC, or the R3. Or if you were bad at estimating which tanks are strongest, which has to do with your experience and skill in the game knowing what features matter and what don’t. Which is a skill issue.
Irrelevant. There are nations with working 6.0 6.3 and 6.7 lineups so there is no need to bring a 6.3 into a 6.7
irrelevant, see above. I can still decide that i do not want to bring it to a higher BR just to have it be even stronger.
That is not just arrogant but also insulting. look above, You do not even realise that there are fully logical reasons to not put even a good 6.3 into any 6.7 lineup. No your only explaination is that the other sid eis an idiot.
Again pure arrogance removed from reality.
As is every single point you made against me. Pure and utter fantasy.
As do you have.
Your entire argument is
Hur dur I am sop great i can predict the future and anyone who can not predict BR changes 5 years ahead of time is just a stupid idiot and has himself to blame.
Pure and utter arrogance, nothing else.
My point stand. If you want to be 100% sure (which was the base of my argument) that you will never run into the problem of dual Aceing a slot for the same BR you will have to ACE multiple slots.
That is a fact.
And your two point argument of
- Everyone who can not predict the future is an idiot
and - There is no logical reason to not bring my 3.7 tank into a 5.3 match, because the gun is good enough so other shoudl see that the 3.7 and 5.3 tank should not share a slot
is utterly madeup fantasy
1 Like
The fact that it’s viable and will help you win, lol what on earth are you talking about?
If a 6.3 moves up to 6.7 and you now happily bring it in your 6.7 lineup, that means you think the two of them together can help you win well at 6.7
>The tank did not change<. It didn’t get a new cannon or something. If it can help you win at 6.7 now, it was exactly as likely to help you win when it was 6.3 and you were bringing it along. The only difference is you didn’t understand what tanks are good or not, and just trusted the BR instead of your own brain. Skill issue.
Everyone who can not predict the future is an idiot
“Skill issue” =/= “You’re an idiot”
It means you aren’t skilled in this task yet. I do not consider myself an idiot, yet I know absolutely nothing about classic cars. I could LEARN if I wanted to, due to not being an idiot, but I know nothing right now. I have a maximum skill issue with classic cars at the moment.
Where did I set “constantly” as a variable? is a singular occurance not enough? the simple fact that it can happen is enough proof that ACEing the same vehicle on multiple slots is a necessity to avoid dual Aceing the same slot on two vehicles.
The IS 2 will fill the void of my IS 2 No 321 in the USSR 6.3 lineup the IS 2 currently sits in my second HT slot where in the 6.3 lineup my 2S3M sits. So if I had an ace on the 2S3M and the IS 2 I would only be able to bring one of the two with an Ace crew.
Why would the 2S3M and IS 2 share a slot? because the USSR has enough HTs to run dual HTs on most BRs so I have two HT slots and I removed the weaker KV 85 from slot 2 and left the IS 1 in slot .
So just by following your own rules I would now have a problem despite having only removed the weaker vehicles and uptiering capable vehicles.
at least quote all of it so other can see that you are quoting out of context.
The answere is right there in my statgement.
If you have 6 6.7 tanks in your 6 tank lineup why would you replace any of them with a 6.3 vehicle? if the 6.3 vehicle is only as good or worse than any of the 6.7s. Especially if you have a working 6 vehcile 6.3 lineup. Why would I bring one 6.3 into the 6.7 lineup when it is full and I can also just play a full 6.3 lineup.
Your ability to read is a skill issue it seems.
You literally said
Which is a kind way of saying “idiot”, as “skill issue” does not exist outside of WT, but your phrase does. So ofcourse I take it as it and others are commonly used.