Sweden
-
The Strv 101 was grouped with the Strv 103A, and not the Strv 81, because they both have the same Battle Rating.
-
The Strv 103A was not grouped with the Strv 103C because of their Battle Ratings, which also puts them at different ranks.
4 Likes
Israel
- The Magach 3/6 and Magach 6A/5 groups were made because the 6A/5 are late Magachs with better shells, while the Magach 3/6 models do not have as good shells.
4 Likes
I think that 4.7 is far too high as a “minimum” for a rank III. There are already far too many vehicles stuck in tier II that should be able to be used to do BP tasks and event grinding that are excluded because of “minimum tier III” requirements. At this pace of setting even more vehicles to tier II, you are cutting out even more vehicles & also handicapping new players even more for from such events and it is a troubling trend.
If this “trend” is to continue, then it is time to rethink going back to a minimum BR requirement as opposed to the tier III we currently have. When they did this before, it was BR 3.0, which I personally think might have been too low and caused the tier III requirement to be re-implemented. I would suggest 3.3 or maybe 3.7 BR would be a more viable option and would hope the Dev team might consider this. As concentrating too hard on “progression” values is having side effects to a lot of other parts of the game. Please to pass this idea along to the Devs.
Thank You
p.s. I know this is a lot of work and sorry to seem to be adding more, but as one that does not grind vehicles so much anymore and focuses on BP tasks and events when they come along, these things are more noticeable to me . . . 8 )
69 Likes
I understand the developers reasonings but I still think its a mistake grouping vehicles that are so different. It will lead to less diversity in battles and having unique vehicles “hidden” is not good and looks very disorganized. Id prefer only similar vehicles (variants) be grouped. If the aim is to make progression faster there are other ways to do so. This is a mistake!
32 Likes
Considering that BR’s change based on gamemode, it doesn’t make sense to make folders based on BR’s over likeness.
For example, AB/RB/SB all have planes that have different BR’s for each mode. How do you determine what modes BR is the correct one for tree placement? And what about future BR changes? Are you gonna shuffle the vehicle trees everytime a BR is adjusted?
44 Likes
I have the same opinion. Most of the iconic vehicles of World War II have been moved to rank 2. This means that during game events, they are completely ignored by players.
59 Likes
I also agree that moving very capable vehicles to Rank II and making them useless for tasks is a big mistake. It’s another step that only screws over the playerbase.
The resulting effects of these reduced ranks are, you’re taking away vehicles from us, and you’re adding more barriers to new players who want to participate in events and challenges.
36 Likes
The Centurion action X should also go to rank 5 because it will line up with the other 7.7 centurions.
6 Likes
Right, but now both Strv 103s are in folders.
A better way to do this would be to folder the Strv 101 with the Strv 81 (as there is only a 0.3 BR difference), and keep the Strv 103 after the 81/101 folder.
Then at Rank VI, have the Strv 103C on its own, and the Strv 104/105 in a folder, as there is again, only a small BR difference.
This makes more sense logically and means that the Strv 103s – Sweden’s most iconic tank – isn’t “locked” behind a folder.
This is stupid. “They are in this bad arrangement because of the rules we made and could change, but we won’t.”
Have the Rooikat Mk 1D foldered with the Rooikat MTTD (0.3 difference) first, then the Olifant Mk 1A and Mk 2 foldered (0.7 difference). There is a BR gap but it makes more sense to have the 0.7 gap when they are at the end of their rank and there is no awkward situation where the vehicle after the folder is lower in BR than the vehicle in the folder. This makes more sense thematically and progression-wise imo.
I hope you implement these changes. Working solely based on BR doesn’t seem like a great system.
33 Likes
Does this mean your not going fix them? Why even folder the conway then. Unfoldered would make 3 for the tier. Br has never been an issue, vehicles have always been mixed up throughout the years.
Im assuming these justifications means they arent getting fixed?
2 Likes
That’s what seems to be the case to me, which is quite sad. They’ve taken a lot of good feedback recently, I’m not sure why they’re just rejecting all of this.
5 Likes
One question, then if some have a better bullet and others have a worse one, including the Magach 3 premium, which means that they are superior to the others, why do they all have the same Br?
1 Like
- The Leopard 2K was moved after the T-72M1 in another rank because this branch is filled with prototypes, imports, exports and GDR vehicles, among others.
Why is PSO after the 2A5 & 2A6 on the dev then? It was a prototype/tech demo vehicle. Another Leopard 2 should take its place instead (fx; 2A7).
23 Likes
A lot of these changes simply make no sense.
What battlerating/rank rules? This is the first time they have been referenced.
The IL-2-37 is rank 3 at 2.7 battlerating. Is that going to be decreased to rank 1, according to other aircraft of similar battleratings?
A lot of the changes toward the low end of the techtrees causes many vehicles to simply not be usable for events anymore. Do you plan to change it to a minimum battlerating, rather than rank? As with my earlier example; the IL-2-37 at tier 3, with a battlerating of 2.7. This makes this vehicle extremely efficient for grinding events, as it is often matched against new players.
Please change the event requirements to battlerating 3.7+, rather than rank 3+
21 Likes
could have grouped the yak-3U with the yak-9UT i mean they have the same battlerating and it is just a big waste of time researching all these plane just to get to jets
What is the PSO doing being put after the 2A5 and 2A6 then? Not only is the PSO a 2A5 sidegrade in-game and definitely not worth being after the 2A6, its also a tech demo that was never accepted into service…
14 Likes
We have a wide variety of rank III ground vehicles in the 3.7 range so where is this sudden BR requirement of 4.7 for rank III coming from?
Especially since in these same notes the XP-55 which is 3.7 in AB and 4.3 in RB is moving to rank III so its not even being applied evenly in the same topic.
This feels like a justification being made up after the fact because its not something applied anywhere else.
And the justification for moving the Leo 2K up in rank is ignoring why people are upset about how its suddenly a end of tree rank VII who’s research cost for many of its mods have tripled especially for a vehicle that doesn’t have anything more than DM23, which, as a tier IV mod is going from 13K RP to 32K RP.
16 Likes