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?
Tbh it’s stupid that you cant use rank 2 stuff for bp missions. I understad rank 1, but rank 2 should be usable for missions and stuff
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
I wouldn’t mind so much if arcade brs were properly updated like rb ones. for top tier the arcade brs causing issues for logical progression for rb players isnt really present and mid tiers are mostly affected. Might as well use sim brs that are touched every few years. There are some things arcade favours more like spaas, heavy tanks. But as we can see it doesnt apply to all vehicles and ones from old updates sadly have very outdated arcade brs. There’s 2.0 br arcade gap between cannon and no cannon F8Fs F6Fs, C.205s but also 0.7 gap between different type 20mm cannon Ki-61-Is and other no cannon vs cannon only 1.0 gap. Im not saying there shouldn’t be gaps between these but im calling out arcade brs for inconsistent bs they are, even if mode has a lot of players it shouldn’t be used for br grouping when its brs are just all over the place. I think devs should keep their promise and actually do something about the feedback we are leaving and not just start to argue why they reasoning is good.
I personally think that rank 3 should start at 4.0 or 3.7 regardless of other BR differences.
WHOO! Less clutter down the main MBT line.
Nice.
As I said previously, I still think rank 3 should start at BR 4.0 or 3.7 regardless of other disparity among rank 3.
Wakes up returns to this, no one is happy still, just repeating the same thing from yesterday. Good to see the community is consistant on this
Too bad probably nothing will change though, the way this post is worded it’s more of a “here’s how it’s gonna be” and not a request for feedback to potentially change the outcome.
In a way I’m glad this debate is happening now, well into the roadmap that was the result of the giant backlash of players not happy about how gaijin is ignoring them. Now is a good opportunity to see if the roadmap was after all just a “here’s your wishlist, we will do that, now shut up and leave us alone” or if they actually changed their process to better reflect on player feedback.
If the foldering changes go through as they are now, it’s the former, they still don’t care and have not learned, the roadmap was just a concession to get us to shut up. If they did change their way and actually take the feedback seriously now, the foldering will be delayed and/or reworked.
I know I’ll change my steam review back to negative again if they ignore us. Was happy to make it positive when they started working on the roadmap, but I have not forgotten what it took to get there and I’ll happily do it again if they push more changes that clearly go against the players’ feedback and interests.
Basically, the worst part as previously stated is more than a dozen members of the community have proposed something better, and generally with only a few hours of work, from what gaijin has sat on for literally months.
Dude, the foldering changes regardless of outcome is their continued listening to players.
Just cause their methods aren’t to your specific standard doesn’t mean they aren’t listening, they need to take into account the whole playerbase, and the benefits are the same no matter where the vehicles are foldered.
Sure, I’d love 3.7 & 4.0 to be the universal start of rank 3, however events become less of a drain on new players if 4.7 is. I will fully admit that benefit, and my preference doesn’t matter if Gaijin chooses that benefit over my perceived greed.
I made a suggestion in the last changes that later would partially cause the forum backlash leading to all of this, and I regret that I was incorrect in most of what the community wanted, and thus had to change my suggestion to be more direct.
I don’t think they’ve sat on it for month. I think they just arrived at that item in the TO-DO list that the roadmap is, took a look at the tech tree, drafted some folders and called it a day.
If they had worked on it for even an hour with more than one person involved they would surely have realized that they can’t possibly rely on BR as a sole justification for some folders, since BR is the most volatile stat in the game and they change sometimes by a lot every single update. Two tanks that are the same BR now may be a whole BR apart 3 months down the line, and they know it. So clearly they spent so little time and effort on this that they failed to consider the long term result of that method of foldering, “long term” being “less than 1 major update away” in some cases.
I’m not talking about rank changes though, I honestly don’t care much for made up BR/rank rules that they don’t even apply properly on everything. I’m just talking about foldering vehicles that are wildly different while keeping near-identical vehicles mandatory to unlock one after the other, which is the opposite of what players have asked
I haven’t noticed drastically different aircraft being foldered personally.
Naval fighters, attackers, bombers, all seem to be foldered in those groups, just at BRs as well.
And missing vehicles is probably just oversight. Q-5 & Q-5A are potentially easy to miss, and the persons making the decisions aren’t the programmers, so loss of decisions in communication could happen as well.
As for tanks, I think I don’t care, especially lines where it’s impossible to folder without mixing tank types.
I’d rather dissimilar tanks be foldered than not foldered.
The benefit outweighs my desire not to learn a new placement.
I can see the reasoning for the new folders but it does not make sense to group / folder vehicles by BR when vehicles have different BRs for different gamemodes.
And if progression is the goal than the changes in the American Naval-Aircraft Tree doesn’t make
sense.
In the new one, starting at Rank 3 with the F4U-4 you go from 4.7 - 5.0 - 4.7 - 4.3 - 6.3 as opposed to the current 3.0 - 3.3 - 4.7 - 5.7 - 5.0 - 6.3 progression.
So you wouldn’t be progressing really.
My suggestion would be to keep the folders as they are and put the F4U-1C in the rank 2 folder with the others (as planed) and switch the F4U-4B with the F8Fs folder. Then there would be a BR progression from 3.3 - 4.7 - 5.0 - 5.7 - 6.3 which would be more consistent.
Also moving a lot of vehicles to rank 2 makes them practically irrelevant for dailies and events, which is sad, because there are a lot of good rank 3 vehicles.
Here we have again the issue with BR progression and making folders because of the BRs of vehicles. It has to be clear after which gamemode it is made. The new progression than could make sense in one Gamemode but not the other.
This is why:
Please do not group vehicles because of their br, rather group them because they are from a similar type of vehicle.
Also You speaking of consistent lineups: Please put the Ozelot at 9.3 where all the other rocket SPAAs are in game so Germany can have a consistent 9.3 lineup, thanks (Israel has the Stinger at 9.3 too).
(Also increase the BRs of CAS by .3 like you did with the higher Tanks)
They aren’t grouping exclusively on BR, they’re grouping on BR and type, with BR taking precedent.
FW 190 is still a fighter, even if it gains an attacker designation.
Also Ozelot fires Stingers, which have a substantially superior range & characteristics to 9.3 IR missile SPAA.
On top of that, MANPAD historical reports are finally being done to correct Mistral, Stinger, and Igla.
Vehicles that are the exact same as vehicles in other nations need to be the same rank. It doesn’t make sense to have two vehicles that are completely the same be different BRs or ranks. Not to mention you contradict your own made up rules you made up as you keep reading down the list of reasons. Vehicles around ranks 2-3 are important as all events and tasks need rank 3 vehicles to complete. There is almost no reason for vehicles in rank 3 to be put into rank 2 unless the BR of the vehicle was significantly lower than that of the average of the rest of the game.
with the BR based groupings Gaijin is just setting itself for failure, big time.
So, what will happen when next round of economy/BR updates comes and BR’s need to change, especially if AB vs RB/SB battle ratings keep diverging even more? Current groupings done based on already pretty flimsy BR values will make even less sense with new statistics, but of course Gaijin will be desperate to not look like bunch of incompetent ****** who walked face first into problem everyone else saw coming from miles away. So will we end up with balancing changes done (or avoided) based in large part on Gaijin digging their heels and stubbornly defending outdated groupings to save face?
gee, thanks Gaijin, this totally looks like a huge improvement and well thought out idea that I’m sure won’t cause any problems in the future … right?
M4A4(1st PTG) could easily be R3, making 2nd Daily Task available, after all the Chines R3 tanks start at 4.0 which is only .3 BR different. It would also be a bonus for having a premium tank, what Gaijin wants, people buying them for an advantage. Saw comment about M24 being inconsistent and I agree, Italy and Japan M24 are R3 which is good for completing Dailies. Bottom line is Gaijin can do what it wants and we either accept or quit. You can’t please everyone. I was disappointed to see some favorites move to R1 as that is useless for experienced players and Tasks. As a suggestion as I saw you mention BR related to Rank, change the BR to fit the Rank if you have to. For example the US M4A2 could be moved to BR 4.3 from 4.0 & left at R3 for Tasks. That would increase it’s RP potential as well. BTW, is Gaijin going to Compensate for Rank change and Talisman cost? If a R3 has a Talisman and is moved to R2, there could be a refund of GE’s spent on buying a R3 Talisman which would aid R4 research that is now going to be lowered to R1-3 at 100% RP with R4 getting 40%. Fig to ask but I don’t know if anyone asked about this before. I have a lot of Talismans purchased at a discount, likely, but they were bought to facilitate future RP
The Leo2 PSO should be folderd with the 2A5 and not sit at the top of the tech tree…
My point was that vehicles have different BRs in different gamemodes. AirRB to AirAB and soforth.
So when they group by BR based on AB then the progession will be different for AB and RB. And the higher in BR, the less people play AB. So you would go from a 5.0 Fw190 D-9 to a 4.7 Fw190 A-5s to the 6.3 Ta152 in AirRB, so backwards progression and then a sudden jump, just like the planned new Naval Air line in America I mentioned.
So grouping because of BR is not really a great way. Also the German Tree is already pretty foldered/grouped so there wasnt really a need to bring chaos into the tree.
The grouping on type is good
And the Fw190 changing to the Attack tree is the F-8 which is the Attacker, which makes sense.
Also Israel has the Stingers at 9.3 and a 20mm gun on top while the Ozelot only has the Stinger without gun. So 9.3 for the Ozelot and 9.7 for the Gepard A2 would make sense imo.