The grouping of the M1A1 and IPM1 was done because these tanks are the same in terms of Battle Rating and combat effectiveness, compared to the proposed grouping of the M1 and IPM1.
The Jagdpanzer IV and Jagdpanzer IV/70(V) were not grouped together due to their differences in Battle Rating. However, the Jagdpanzer 38(t) matches the Jagdpanzer IV in Battle Rating, and therefore was grouped with it.
The SU-85 and SU-85M are in different groups because of the difference in Battle Rating. Grouping these two together would have also meant the branch height would have increased to 3, and the Battle Rating principles wouldn’t have been met.
It’s not that we can’t see the rules or don’t understand what our suggestions mean, but we are saying that the new rules are dumb. Folders shouldn’t be BR dependant because that just creates weird and confusing folders. Having different rank BR cutoff points for different nations also makes no sense. All nations should have e.g. rank 3 start at BR 4.3, or else any other rule seems pointless and disingenuous. Either standardise it all, or none, don’t bother with half.
And not only that, but the rules are still broken by Gaijin. By these new rules the T32E1 should be foldered with the M103 instead of the T32. Valentine XI and IX should be foldered with the Matilda instead of the Valentine I. Cromwell 1 should be foldered with Sherman II instead of the Cromwell V. But for the love of god don’t change these now…
By foldering vehicles by similarity instead, it gives people more knowledge of the foldered vehicles and thus an easier decision if these are worth the time to research them. Just look at how folders worked before. If I liked the Cromwell V, then I would feel inclined to take the extra time to research the Cromwell I, or if I didn’t like the Cromwell V, then I could easily skip the Cromwell I without much thought if I missed something. And with foldered vehicles costing less RP, it makes the time to acquire another such similar vehicle a much easier decision now.
But being forced to research two almost identical vehicles and having to dip into the folders to get something unique is mentally far worse. And it makes keeping track of the tech trees much harder.
Voicing my discontent with the reasoning for keeping the grouping plans mostly unchanged.
Group vehicles based on similarity as a primary rule. Arrange the groups in the tech tree based on the BR of the first vehicle, or maybe the average BR of vehicles in the group.
Also limiting the logical grouping of some vehicles by imposing a 3 row limit per rank is unnecessary.
Edit: And if vehicles like M1A1 HC and WZ1001 are moving from their more appropriate positions, why not move Challenger 2E to the end of the Vickers line?
Further edit: As some other replies have mentioned, what about future BR changes? I think more foresight is required when reworking the tech trees to this degree. Foldering based on a hard BR restriction will only increase confusion as more BR changes and decompression is done.
Just want to start of saying that it’s really good to see you all explain why changes are done and just speaking more to the community in general!
So following these rules, I have some suggestions:
China:
Q5 Early and Q5A are extremely similar and even share the same battlerating, so foldering those would be great. You just did the same for the two Russia Su7s, which was greatly appreciated.
For ground vehicles, rank 6 China still feels long. Would it not be possible to also add the ZTZ59D1 to the ZTZ88 folder? They are all very similar and most importantly, at the same battlerating.
Same for the M60A3 and the CM11, which also are very similar and could need a small reduction with two new tanks being added after them.
France:
For France I suggest foldering the new AMX-10M and the AMX-50 Foch as they are both casemate tank destroyers at the same battlerating
Why is the priority on Arcade Battles as the “primary” gamemode? As far as I know, most of the playerbase plays predominantly Realistic Battles, so using Arcade Battles as the prioritized gamemode for grouping seems like a step backwards.
Additionally, grouping vehicles based on BR and not the vehicle itself is confusing, and seems like a bad choice. It would be really disheartening and counterintuitive to research a vehicle, not like it, and then have to research it again when it could be foldered with the first, but that foldered slot is taken by a completely different vehicle. As an example, consider the Marders and BMP-1. If you research and play the Marder 1A1-, and then decide you don’t like it, you still have to research the Marder 1A3. It would make much more sense to research the Marder 1A1- and then have the option to research the Marder 1A3, or skip it and go straight to the BMP.
i believe that the sherman at 4.0 has NO place on the tree with the 3.3 and the 3.7 sherman…
why? cause you said that the MAX br of the RANK 2 is the 3.7 and now you force the US tree to get the MAX BR on the 4.0… dont do that is bad. the M4A2 is fine in that position that it is… and has a purpose on 4.0 and rank 3… you actually cancel the rule you put in before…
you did not tell us yet WHY the KV1B and the KV1 E does not got BR 5.0 …
and let those things be monsters in every down tier or same tier they are in… especially in the events… people get 10-15 kills with those things.
While I agree that the head on “plague” is very detrimental to overall play(and skews the stats a great deal), I mean that move has been around a good while and gets worse all the time … seems like anyway. That is just my opinion on the P-51s, partly from my own flying experience(even tho I shy away from US fighters a good deal . . because of the fm’s) and mostly because of how often I see the P-51, especially being purposefully uptiered by it’s users . . . because it can easily hold it’s own and even excel at higher BR’s than it carries. Those are the factors I base my judgements on. I have several Russian fighters and even 109’s I use now & then that can handle any of the P-51’s I encounter. ¯_(ツ)_/¯
This is what a Russian CM said on the RU forums when they rejected moving the Sea Vixen.
Remember the A2D is 9.0 in AB while being rank IV, and yet thats not moving but everything else gets decided solely by AB BR’s.
Or the justifications given are made up so they can do what they want to do with no consistency applied and wave the RB rank for those they don’t want to use these rules on.
Standardize the rules for everything or nothing, don’t pick and choose.
The Chinese Shermans should go to rank III to match the Italian and French M4A4’s, not be left at rank II.
Vehicles should be grouped based on their similarity, not BR’s.
The Rooikat should be foldered with the Rooikat and the Olifant with the Olifant.
The FV4005 leading into the Conway is more logical than the Tortoise.
It makes much more sense to group the literally named subseries G.55 with the serie 1 rather than putting it with the 2005 solely because of a br difference.
The FW190 D-9 being split from the D-12 because the arcade meta is headon and the D-12s 30mm is better at that meta making it 6.0 in AB while both are 5.0 in RB is nonsense.
These past couple months have been amazing to see with gaijin listening to the community and now it feels like we are right back to past gaijin with them going we are doing it this way, we see your feedback, but it does not align with what we want to do so it has been read and discarded.
How about Su-17’s (ussr), F4 (air force), Q5early/a, J-2/J-4, F86 F30/F40 (china), T-2/F-1, AJ37/AJS37, SK60/Saab105, Su-22’s (Germany), Swift F1/F7, A4H/A4E/+Ayit, Vautour 2A/2N, Meteor F13/F8, Mysterie/Sambad/Sa’ar, F104S/S.ASA, G91Y/YS and a lot more for ground tt’s
I’ve been playing the F-16MLU for a few months now, 200+ battles and 200k+ RP (based on stats - which apparently kinda lie. I have earned nearly 600k RP using the F16) Getting it aced for free requires 1.28 million RP. I understand that it’s supposed to be something players would just buy with GE, but 1.28 mil is just stupid at this point. If it were like 500k RP it’d be a high price but fair for the performance upgrade. I think it should go like this: <25k RP for rank I vehicles, <50k RP for rank II vehicles, <100k RP for rank III vehicles, <150k RP for rank IV vehicles, <200k RP for rank V vehicles, <300k RP for rank VI vehicles, <400k RP for rank VII vehicles and <500k RP for rank VIII vehicles.
That has its limit as well and should be looked to more deeply. Ki-61-I Tei vs Hei is difference of german vs Japanese 20mm guns which after real shatter fix is maybe worth 0.3 br in rb but definitely not 0.7 br in arcade again hei doesnt get airspawn in air rb compared to tei.
And dont tell us arcade brs are adequately looked into and updated why is R2Y2 Kai V1 higher br in arcade than V2 and V3 while they have same br in rb and 7.0-7.3-7.7 in sim? Its pretty obvious simulator and arcade brs arent updated often at all yet you still use them to group and move ranks of vehicles. Foldering based on br is possible if u just use realistic brs for mid tier planes since it would simply fix a lot of issues.
Crusader AA mk.2 has arcade br of 4.7 while rb of 3.7 while BTR-ZD has arcade br of 4.3 and rb br of 5.3 why? SPAA doing better in arcade doesnt apply to both its probably just Crusader being added years ago at higher br and it going down but only in realistic. and BTR being added recently at lower br and only going up in realistic. ZiS-43 sitll has 4.0 in arcade while in rb it was moved down to 2.0. the older update a vehicle is from the bigger chance of arcade brs being out of place for it.
Also we got no response for only american F-84F keeping airspawn and how other planes loosing that will be handled.
It made very little sense before, and even less now.
Why have you suddenly invented that requirement, and why only solely for the US?
I naively thought that all this roadmap stuff was an attempt to please the complaining players, but this is more like a deliberate attempt to hurt them.
I’m just flabbergasted.
For me grouping to BR based is useless, people research and play chosen vehicles. Without ranks it will be easier for people… BR are useless too when you opt in +1/-1 matchmaking. Why you don’t split game to early II W, 1933-1941, WWII/postwar 1941-1947, I stage of Cold War 1947-1960, II stage 1960-1980, end of cold war 1980+.
PS. Zis-43 have 4.0 BR why it is grouped in 3 table on II rank when you have the same gun alone ZSU on 3,7 on III rank?
They said they would reduce the RP for vehicles in a folder.
Foldering S and ASA would make it easier and faster to get the second vehicle in a folder.
I have the idea, that its mostely because of new people that instantly play AB instead of RB. And after they’ve reached rank 2 or 3 they find the RB mode
