Like I said, you should always be replacing the LEAST viable thing in your next-down lineup with the newest freshly available thing in the higher lineup.
The 2S3M is an amazing tank at 6.3, so it should not have been the choice for “least viable tank” when you chose which spot to put the IS-2 in in the next lineup up.
if you had correctly chosen the least viable 6.3 tank to use that slot for your IS-2 earlier on, then in your current predicament, your IS-2 coming down in BR would perfectly conveniently be bumping out the WORST tank in your 6.3 lineup, which you would have no issue with.
I described a system that addresses this exact example before you even gave the example
(Hint: it addresses ALL examples… outside of crazy 2.0 BR swings etc)
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.
Fairly sure ground is way more than 2.5x as big, but it’s clearly not a design choice as they still have not changed crew XP gain in the last 10 years to account for a ground mode and it’s ruleset.
The IS 2 replaced the KV 85. The 2S3M replaced the IS 2 and the IS 2 no 321 replaced the IS 1 I only ever exchanged a weaker vehicle for a stronger one.
My 6.0 lineup had an IS 1 and IS 2 in it. The 6.3 IS 2 replaced the least viable tank, which was the IS 1. The 2S3M replaced the next least viable tank left the IS 2
You really want me to predict the future.
Again
What i said can happen and is happening. You are just making excuses, and bad ones at that.
If it can happen then there is no way to 100% avoid doubleacing a slot for the same BR if BR changes occur.
AGAIN 1 SINGLE INSTANCE OF IT BEING POSSIBLE ALREADY PROVES MY POINT.
No argument you can make can change that. And no argument you make can make it 100% possible to avoid doubleacing. SO I am correct and you are not
For christs sake mate. All i did was point out that doubleacing is very much a possibility and you went on a full on crusade to try and profe the impossible.
Because many 6.3 vehicles are way better than 6.7 vehicles.
That is precisely the “skill issue” I’ve been talking about – not knowing how to look at a tank’s features and armor, weapon, mobility, etc. and see whether it’s better or worse than another tank. BR not only doesn’t accurately tell you that, but it’s not even INTENDED to tell you that.
A Pz IV F2 at 3.3 is vastly better than a Dicker Max at 3.7(4 AB).
A BT-5 at 1.0 is like 5x better than a ZUT-37 at 2.3
A sturmpanzer at 1.0 is IMO quite a bit better and in the same role than a captured KW II 754 at 3.7
Yes and it now seems to contradict what you wrote later, as far as I can tell. Could be wrong, but “wall of disjointed lists of like 20 changes, where the direction keeps changing grammatically and multiple tanks have almost identical names” is a terrible way to try and explain this. Just put up a screenshot of the two lineups if you want to make it clear.
Mate READ! I already clarified that they are not. You can not change my example inorder to disproov it. My example has to remain unchanged. You changing “no 6.7 tank is worse than any of the 6.3s” to “a 6.3 is stonger than a 6.7” fundamentally changes the example. It is like me saying “2+2=4” and you answereing “no 2+3 is not 4”
You changing my example inorder to proof your point is invalidating the entire debate.
Again my example DID ALL OF THAT, AND I DID ALL OF THAT or are you arguing that the KV 85 is better than the IS 2?
again stay inside my example and do not make your own ones. You have to proof that in my example your prediction could be possible.
And again. You have already lost this entire argument.
You can not proof that it is 100% possible to avoid doubleacing a crew slot due to BR changes.
And as such it is entirely possible that a player will need to ace the same vehicle multiple times.
Nothing else matters.
You can try and argue that it is possible to negate, to an extend, but it is impossible to 100% avoid it for certain. So my point stands.
I was not changing your quote to that. I was saying that your quote of “no 6.7 tank is worse than any of the 6.3s” … is wrong, and that instead, the correct fact is that 6.3s are sometimes stronger than 6.7s. The second one is my own statement, not me quoting you.
Again my example DID ALL OF THAT, AND I DID ALL OF THAT or are you arguing that the KV 85 is better than the IS 2?
Like I said, I gave up on following your example without a screenshot of the lineups, which would take you 3 seconds and be many times clearer than walls of text with lists of vehicles. Just post images of the two if you want to discuss that example specifically.
Then you utterly failed to realise that i gave an example (a theoretical case) and not an ingame statement. Or are you telling me that it is impossible to ever have every 6.7 bee as good or better than any one of the 6.3 vehicles?
Well they are not in my example and they should not be by the games logic. Hence why I made this example.
First i would need to be at my PC, secondly I would need to re arrange my lineups to how they where like 3 or smonths ago? Because guess what, right now I have a lineup consisting of nothing but 6.3 tanks beacuse no 6.0 tank of russia is better suited to replace a single one of my 6.3 tanks.
My example:
was this. again a theoretically possible scenario. Which you instantly changed to now somehow include a 6.3 superiour to any of the 6.7s despite this very thing being declared as impossible in the example.
The example you mean was sth entirely different and is from a different post altogether. Like for real. You change my given example and then demand screenshots for a different example I gave in a different post.
And just so you can follow:
The example you fundamentally changed was from post 204
The example you said you could not follow was from post 203
Those are two fundamentally different examples as one is a theoretical one and the other is how my specific game looked and evolved.
You also answered to them seperately and only now started to mix them together.
And btw again you quoted in a way to remove any and all context from my statements. I ask one last time that you stop that, as it is bad manners.
Because my “Stay inside my example” was not what I said. What I said was:
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.
Earlier on you were talking about super specific slots also in 6.3, 6.7, “My 2S3M was here, and this other thing was here” etc. etc. That is what I thought you were talking about the whole time until right now. Duh, since, you know… you kept using the EXACT SAME BRs and everything as before, why would I ever think you’d switched topics when 90% of the details are confusingly the same as the original topic…?
But anyway, okay so apparently this is totally disconnected to that I guess, fine. That said, I have no idea why you’re even talking about “replacing 6.7 vehicles with 6.3s”, how does that relate to anything we were talking about with BR changes?
If the 6.3 was worse, it never would have been there and STILL wouldn’t be there. So what’s the “replacing” going on you referred to?
if the 6.3 was better, it should have been there all along, again where does the verb “replace” come from, implying a change? If it would have just been there in the first place?
And what is the BR change in this toy example? You forgot to explain any BR change here, the whole point of the conversation was BR changes…
And if you think you should NOT replace anything, then what even would the problem be, anyway? there cannot possibly be an ace crew clash when nothing changes…
??? This example seems really vague and underspecified and doesn’t clearly to me relate to the conversation.
So again please just stop trying to describe lineups with short novels, when a simple screenshot is going to be 100x clearer, even for a made up toy example. If you can’t until you’re back home, okay, I’m in no hurry.
What I can say in the meantime though is that I’ve been playing for years, and I have NOT ONCE ever had a set of BR changes cause me to need to retrain a crew, where I could not honestly tell myself “Yeah that was 100% my own fault and I could absolutely have prevented that had I stopped and thought carefully”. Not once.
It happened sometimes anyway because I didn’t think carefully enough, but it was a skill issue. And it happens way wayyyy less often now, because I am more skilled than I was at first.
Which confirms my whole point. Also i doubt that, as the performance of vehicles does not stay the same. We, again just recently, and in the next round of BR changes, have buffs and nerfs to vehicles going up/down in BR so that they actually fit that BR. I doubt anyone could have predicted that the T54s would face 9.0s.
And honestly I am never going to spend HOURS to think about this stuff when i have like one or two hours a day to play. And neither will the vast majority of players. And they should not need to worry. (also this whole thing ignores the fact that people who start the game will be fully capable of playing thousands if not tens of thousands of games before ever encountering their first BR changes)
The point stands that it is a very real possibility that BR changes will cause changes in your lineup and will force players to train an ace crew for a second time/ not use all their aced vehicles with the ace crew
It has to do with your experience regarding to what you talk about. So I ask again, how much experience do YOU have about what you talk about?
So it took him less than a year to ace the most advanced and expensive tank in the US tree. That is a good data point to have. (in the link, he said that he got the tank a little later, so it is under a year).