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.
A good example of drastically diffeerent brs by mode is the doras for example, in rb they have the exact same br, all those fw in that region do, but in arcade the first one has a way lower br for some reason. The beaufighter mk 21 being 3.7 in rb but only 3.0 in arcade is another good example. I have not looked at the plane arcade brs for years, and its honestly startling how different alot of them are from rb, as guns and turn rate out weigh everything else.
Most of this is retarded, but please for the love of the UK, move the Challenger 2E after the Vickers Mk.7 as it is an export vehicle
Can they please folder 2a5 and pso
2a6 is still better then pso
And pso is a 2a5 sidegrade
ong
Forget this BR limit BS, and folder these vehicles, no matter what!
ONLY AIR LIST! The list:
USA:
- F-104A - F-104C,
- F-4C - F-4E,
- F-80A-5 - F-80C-10,
- F-86 - F-86F-2,
- F-14A - F14B
Germany:
- Bf-109 E-1 - Bf 109 E,
- Bf 109 G(e) - Bf 109 G,
- Fw 190A-5 - Fw 190 D,
- Me 262 A-1/U4 - Me 262 A-1a/Jabo,
- Su-22UM3K - Su-22M4
USSR:
- Lagg-3 (e) - Lagg-3 (l),
- IL-2 (1941) - IL-2 (l),
- I-185 (M-82) - I-185 (M-71),
- Su-25 - Su-25T
Britain:
- Gladiator Mk IIF - Gladiator Mk IIS - Gladiator Mk II,
- Nimrod Mk I - Nimrod Mk II,
- Spitfire MK I/II - Spitfire MK IIb,
- Sea Hurricane MK IB - Sea Hurricane MK IC,
- Spitfire MK IX - Spitfire MK Vc,
- Tempest Mk II - Tempest Mk V,
- Spitfire (l) - Spitfire (Griffon),
- Vampire FB 5 - Venom FB 4,
- Meteor F Mk 3 - Meteor F Mk 4,
- Swift F.1 - Swift F.7,
- Hunter F.1 - Hunter F.6,
- Jaguar GR.1 - Jaguar GR.1A,
- Harrier GR.3 - Harrier GR.7
Japan:
- Ki-45 (e) - Ki-45,
- D4Y - D4Y3 Ko,
- T-2 - F.1,
- F-4EJ Phantom II - F-4EJ Kai Phantom II
China:
- I-16 type 10 - I-16 type 17,
- P-47 - P-51,
- La-9 - La-11,
- Q-5 early - Q-5A - Q-5L,
- J-6/7 - J-7E,
- J-8B - J8F
Italy:
- CR.32 - CR.42,
- Re 2001 - R2 2001 CN - Re 2002 early,
- S.M 79 (e) - S. M 79 (I),
- SM.91 - SM.92,
- C-205 serie 1 - C. 205 serie 3 - C. 205N2,
- G.55 sottoserie 0 - G.55 serie 1,
- F-104G - F-104S or F-104S - F-104S.ASA
France:
- VB.10C-1 - VB.10-02,
- F6F-5 - F6F-5N,
- M.D.450B - M.D.452,
- Mirage 2000C-S5 - Mirage 2000-5F
Sweden:
- S-17BS - B17A - B17B,
- J22-A - J22-B,
- B18A - B18B,
- T-18B - T-18B (57),
- J21A - J21RA,
- A21RB - A28B,
- J29A - J29F,
- SK-60B - SAAB-105G,
- J32B - A32A or A29B - A32A,
- AJ37 - AJS37,
- JA37C - JA37D
Israel:
- Spitfire Mk IXc - Spitfire MK.IX (CW),
- Meteor NF.13 - Meteor F.8,
- A-4 - Ayit,
- Shahak - Kfir,
- C.7 Kurnass - Kurnass 2000
I’m sorry but this is straight up the worst way to do groupings.
The fact it’s based on battleratings in ARCADE should be enouth to understand how deeply flawed this is.
Not to mention BRs vary wildly between gamemodes as well as over time, making the 0.3 BR spread inside the folder completely obsolete by design.
This feels a lot more like an excuse to NOT group certain vehicles to prevent the grind from geting too short (in your eyes) than an actual attempt at fixing progression and grind.
Just group the vehicles by how similar they are LIKE EVERYONE WANTED TO BEGIN WITH.
Go and remake it. We’ll wait.
Hey gaijin I’ll do one better :
Just have a community tech tree contest and pick the ones you like the most then have the community vote on them.
The community has already produced tech tree layout suggestions that are far superior to the mess you just presented us with.
Folders were introduced because people did not want to grind Bf-109W7 after Bf-109W6 just because a German changed one of its guns 80 years ago.
Not because Bf-109W7 and MiG-69 obr 1337 share the same BR.
And those BRs are dynamic you know, they can be changed. So it is easier to maintain folders when you group similar vehicles.
The maximum Battle Rating in AB for US rank II is 3.7, and the minimum for rank III is 4.7
This makes zero sense whatsoever. If the maximum for one rank, and the minimum for the next are a full BR apart, where exactly are the 2 steps between them supposed to be?
4.0 and 4.3 would fail to meet these stated requirements for both rank II and rank III. This clearly needs to be re-evaluated.
One of the minor issues I could potentially see is the change from rank 5 to rank 6 for certain aircraft, namely the F-84Fs and Vautours of various nations; with this change they will lose their airspawns, which is a significant nerf to them. Will they retain their airspawns or instead get a BR drop?
LCT being in the Taiwanese end of the tree is nuts, it’s easier to just say you guys want people to waste their time researching trash like the CM11
except having the LCT in the 2nd line made no sense either, when you had to go through about 8 MBTs to get the LCT in the first place once you hit Rank 6.
Needing 3 MBTs + the LCT (4) to finish Rank 7 of in the 2nd line was awful, moving this too an easier line in terms of less vehicles between the final tank means you can somewhat manage going down one line at a time vs being force to go down the 2nd line for the majority of your Rank 6 and 7 playthrough
I’d rather do this than research the utter trash vehicles there, at least the MBTs can be useful
except your never going to use half of those MBTs, I literally did this grind my self a few months back, I didnt touch the first line because it wasnt a requirement to unlock the Ranks from 6 to 7 as the SPAA/SPG line offered enough but the issue was I had to go through multiple MBTs that due to how quickly the grind was for that main line right now I simply never used half the MBTs other than the 4 in Rank 7 and even then I quickly unslotted the first 10.7 one because again i got through the LCT so fast it was a waste.
Moving the LCT down that line means you have less vehicles to get the best MBT for china. nothing wrong with this change at all, just means your options are more spread out now
Well, that’s fair, I see your point now
AMX-13-M24 could be moved up to Rank 3 and BR 4.0 (in RB), to match with it’s TT equivalent, the AMX-13 (FL-11).It is more than capable of being moved up in BR (being better than the 4.0 AMX-13 (FL-11) imo), and it would be a lot more useful as a premium if it was Rank 3 and could be used for tasks, etc.
I think the same should be done with the BT-7A (F-32), moving it up to Rank 3. It could stay 3.7 BR in RB, as the ZSU-37 is BR 3.7 at Rank 3. Alternatively it could be moved up to BR 4.0 (the SU-152 is BR 4.0 at Rank 3). It could finally give the USSR a proper light tank at Rank III, and it’s usefulness as a rank 3 would far outweigh the possible BR increase (the BT-7A is still great at any BR honestly).
I am genuinely upset with all these double standards fit into a single explanation.
You don’t want ranks to be just one vehicle high, yet you’re moving anything past the Leopard 1A1/1A5 out of the line so they’re just one vehicle high.
You put the Leopard 2K after the T-72M1 to make it the prototype/import/export/GDR line, yet the Leopard 2PSO, which is a PROTOTYPE, will be after the Leopard 2A6 in the “production Leopard” line.
You move the WZ1001(E) LCT over to make an unneccesarily mess off an export/prototype/RoC line, but don’t put any of the other prototypes over there.
The biggest mess of all is making every 9.7+ vehicle rank 7. The whole point of foldering is to lessen the research cost of the tree, yet you just bump up half of rank 6 so you can MASSIVELY increase their research cost.
To take the Leopard 2k as an example again, it currently costs 220k RP and 590K SL to research and buy, but at its new place in rank 7 and its corresponding economic rank, it will cost 340k RP and 930K SL, which is more than a 50% increase.
It is quite literally the opposite of what foldering is achieving, so it feels like the only reason to increase BR 9.7+ up to rank 7 is to undo all the positive changes of the roadmap regarding high rank. What good does foldering the Leopard 2A6 do if you just put several more tanks into rank 7 which will all cost 340k RP and upwards? Not to mention all of them will cost around a million SL and upwards to buy and crew, which is conflicting with the better SL economy from earlier in the roadmap to massively slow down players again.
I cannot take this as a positive change for the game. You make really good promises in the roadmap, and when you’re about to finish implementing what you promised, you just stab your paying customers in the back again. Outrageous behavior.