I don’t know what you talking about, I didn’t react to such a theory at all in my post.
When will the new BR be applied?
You were complaining about how, even though 20-25 MILLION people still play COD daily, you don’t like it anymore or some such nonsense.
Has jack to do with the purpose of my post. Why is gaijin willingly sacrificing profit for a few people? Makes no sense.
just like that matching making system added lately so we dont get the same map consecutively, add the same thing to br matchmaking so we dont get uptiered each match and not being able to get a single kill in every match ,i have been getting constant uptiers for 3 days in a row from 8.7 to 9.3/9.7 ,check sweden 8.7 line up (im not using a stupid British centurion)
1 Like
Just got to 8.7, it is hell, T58s, T-64 and T-72s.
- xm1s ,xm803
and kpz70/mbts70 ,my guy i have been having atleast 1 nuke everyday until 2 days ago i started getting full uptiers and not being able to get 1 kill before dying
By the end of the week, or next week.
That is easy mode if you’re in a 8.7 tank, rather a 7.7 or 7.3
And… what happens is people do not improve when they never encounter anyone above their level, resulting in a perpetual mass, of low skill players, having gameplay identical, in every lobby until the end of time.
And it still doesn’t work, I think you just may be a fanatic who can not see the obvious consequences of a system. Then why were these same games, more successful and more people actually playing the multiplayer mode (BR doesn’t count) than before the implementation of this system?
I still don’t know what you are talking about…is this trolling?
I never played CoD…
I don’t care about your post at all. This is the official discussion about what’s in the heading.
I feel like every match is an uptier to 9.3
Certainly, it has terrible armor if you know where to aim, but 2.6 second reload may be just a wee bit hard to fight.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/FZ0NJAsV7bco
Give the AIM-54C the real capabilities
Just say you’re not very good at video games? I don’t get the whole lying about your background thing just to appear more valid. Anybody who is even slightly above average at video games in general can tell you that SBMM simply looks at your top 10% of your performance and expects you to perform like that 24/7. The moment you have a good game on CoD you are catupulted into matches where you are playing like money is on the line or you go 7-32. You can try to pretend like this only impacts the top 1% of players but what really happens is anybody who tries to learn the game at all suffers.
Can we talk about why the SAV is being moved from 3.7 to 4.0 BR in Ground RB?
I understand it has an autoloader, but that’s the only advantage it has. I get that many players hate it, yet from my experience from actually owning the SAV vs the other 3.7/4.0 vehicles, it’s not worthy of a raise in BR due to its other larger downsides.
Advantages:
1: Decent mobility
2: 1.2 sec autoloader
Disadvantages:
1: No turret, limited left/right aim.
2: Paper thin armor, making it easy to take out with majority of MG’s or autocannons.
3: Open top + paper thin armor + crew is close together makes it extremely vulnerable to airplanes of any type of armament.
4: Gun has less pen than other options. M61 shot has 102mm while SAV’s hpgr M/50 has 94mm. You can’t kill what you can’t pen. KV-1 eats these for breakfast.
4: The projectile has more “drop” than others, making precise targeting a challenge. This means SAV is more useful in close-up engagements, less ability in medium range, useless at long range except against paper targets.
I consider myself a pretty seasoned Ground player, with an overall k/d ratio of 3:1 to 4:1 on most of my common-use tanks.
And I will back up my claims with my own k/d ratios:
SAV 20.12.48: 503 ÷ 191 = 2.63 k/d
Sherman III/IV: 282 ÷ 66 = 4.72 k/d
And even taking into the new M24DK while considering I mainly used it in the stock grind, most kills done without the powerful APCBC M61 shot so I was using the standard solid AP:
46 ÷ 14 = 3.29 k/d
The only 3.7 tank I’d say the SAV beats is the Finnish Panzer IV:
338 ÷ 143 = 2.36 k/d
Taking these stats into consideration, I don’t think the SAV should be moved to 4.0 where it will primarily face 4.7 to 5.0 tanks which it has no chance against. Despite the autoloader being an advantage I believe the disadvantages the SAV faces are larger.
And why do you think many players hate it?
I don’t think this justifies a raise in BR though. You can bounce 6 shots or pen 1 shot, which is better?
k/d ratios speak for themselves. The SAV may have an autoloader but it’s very easy to kill at the same time. I have watched SAV’s on my team die quickly in matches. Enemy can simply bring an AA and delete all SAV on the map. So I think complaints about the autocannon are moot due to SAV’s lack of armor nor turret traverse.
I doubt Gaijin raises BRs because of players “dislike”.
Thin-skinned it may be, but that apparently hasn’t stopped it from being successful. I guess they think it’s been too successful.
But it’s not like they raised it 2 or 3 steps…
And full disclosure - I really do dislike the Sav.20 :)
The GRB matchmaker is such a joke. Literally every single game is an uptier and it’s so miserable. 75 Shermans are substantially worse because they’re suddenly facing things that very easily frontpen them and they can’t do anything back. 8.X and 9.X can literally just be merged with how the matchmaker puts them together anyway, and it’s all exacerbated by a bunch of broken stuff being undertiered because it’s free money. War Thunder is an example of why you don’t prioritize queue times over literally everything when making a matchmaking system. And it’s never going to get fixed because of what I just said.
These changes showcase the limited visibility players have into Vehicle Performance and how that negatively affects gameplay and balance decisions.
I am a physicist. In order to make any big claim, published in a paper, we are required to provide reproducable evidence that what we said is true or happens. Otherwise the claim is refuted as inaccurate or denied, especially due to the work of a Henry Schon and his Plastic Fantastic papers.
Gaijin, however, is making changes with no burden of proof- expecting us to arbitrarily accept their changes ‘because they said’. It hurts the visibility and veracity of these claims, and makes people less and less trusting of Gaijin and what it does. Hell, I am struggling to believe that Gaijin even cares about the game. With enough of this, it is inevitable that their will be another review bomb and that it will cost Gaijin a lot of money, if not the game.
All we are asking for is data visibility. Back up the claims with statistics. The fact we don’t even get this as a bare minimum is degrading. Please, change this.
6 Likes