This, and it will just get worse and more out of wack once you apply a few br adjustments a year or so down the line, as its not uncommon for planes to bump up and down .3 br
6 Likes
also random note, since when has arcade been the br that has been relevent for placing vehicles, its always been rb due to the fact it blends with ground
5 Likes
Also reading over their logic it suddenly becomes apparant gaijin has no clue why people asked for the foldering of vehicles
People wanted foldered vehicles so they could more easily rush to the top of the trees, and get to the iconic vehicles they want, normally taking the form of end of the line vehicles. the composition of what is in the folders before that goal is irrelevant to them, they literally just want ot get to top tier as quickly as possible. Putting similar br vehicles in a folder is not going to make them build a balanced line up using it, it just means they are going to skip them XD
so in fact this change will have the opposite effect of what they are intending
22 Likes
The BR limit instead of rank was used due to naval be completely restructured the previous patch.
And this update they are breaking it again because naval is an compressed mess, so now britian has 9 crusiers in one rank XD
3 Likes
I do share the same opinion as others have already replied, i do understand the reasoning, but, as other have stated already, grouping vehicles and ranking based on their BR doesn’t make any sense since BRs change based on game modes and also balancing (you might even have the situation where a vehicle might move in and out of a folder and rank based on BR changes)
I honestly think BR should be a Match Maker ONLY thing while the Tech Tree, with its lines and ranks is your progression system and determines what can be used towards events, BUT THE TWO THINGS SHOULD REMAIN SEPARATE (BR for the MM and Tech Trees for progression and event participation)
i’ll link here my previous post where i made my suggestions for the Air Trees
i might take another look at then a change a few things; i could do the ground ones but i just can’t really be arsed to do them since i don’t play ground.
I made these trees with the intent of making the progression i guess i could say linear? or chronological? for the lack of a better term? to be fair that’s how a tech tree usually works: older stuff comes first and then as you progress you get more recent stuff. Regardless, i tried to do something that would make sense, completely disregarding the BRs are those can change; i just took an aircraft, assign it a rank and all the variants of said aircraft go there with it except for those aircraft which performances span across a vast variety of versions, like Reisens, Spitfires, 109s, F4U, P51, exc.
(reminder here, i will go back and see if i can change a few things)
I know some didn’t approved some positions in my trees, but honestly under what line some planes are
or the “maybe this should be at this rank 'cause it gets missiles…” that’s honestly the last of our problems, let’s try to first fix most of the tech trees, later we can focus on the nitpicking bits.
Honestly devs, if you want someone to rearrange the tech trees, i can do it for you for free, you just need to ask, legit, just ask and i’ll do it for you.
10 Likes
Its just hillarous that members of hte community have produced more coherant tech tree foldering than what is being presented that achieves their goals, i now know of 3 or 4 including yours and mine that do what they are askign without it being a confusing mess to look at
8 Likes
exactly
3 Likes
They also more or less agree on what should be foldered too, which is why its odd, as it is clearly obvious what should be done to anyone who actually plays the tree in question XD
the way brs change makes it kind of obvious that any change done should be based on frames or chassis, and their commonality, as brs change every 3 months so are not a solid sticking point
5 Likes
You have been advertising yourself as an example of listening to players’ advices and suggestions, then what about the voices under your previous announcement of tech tree update that are dissatisfied with your rude arrangement? Have you paid any attention to these replies?
You stated that Leopard 2K as an experimental prototype should be moved under T-72M1 GDR, then what about Leopard 2PSO, a demonstration vehicle that has not been accepted into service which will be added under the current Leopard line? You are just looking for reasons that are good for you to perfunctory the players, regardless of the contradictions in your own words.
And till today, roughly 2 weeks after announcing the new tech tree, you still refuse to explain what happened to those vehicles that have their ranks increased. Take T-72B, Leopard 2A4 and ZTZ-96A for example, their rps have been increased from 270k to 340k, along with the rps required for the modifications. In your announcement when demonstrating the so called reduced rps, you refused to illustrate what would happen to every separate vehicle of rank VI and VII, and instead gave an ambluous example of British Challengers, the arrangement of which was already a total disaster.
I should remind you of the fact that you have been pointing at the players and forcing them to play in a way that you desired. In the name of thinking for the players, you have repeatedly reduced the incomes of both rp and sl and created one obstacle after another on the players’ path of grinding, and explained them in disgusting words (like the ones in your announcements about reducing player profit this spring and earlier).
You should remember how that famous proposal article aroused players’ anger and hatred this May, and what you are doing now will definitely lead to another protest. I can show no sympathy to you, since I am one of those who have emotionally and financially suffered from your tech tree and game mechanics design, and what you are doing now is digging your own grave.
9 Likes
The rp is obvious, they realize people are going to just skip the folders and are aiming for the top tier stuff is, so why not just up the rp prices there and still slow their progression. Its just funny seeing some of the folders they have done like the oilphants and rookiats, no one is grinding that line as the thing at the end is not worth it XD.
also the more i look at it the more it just sounds like they are waffling, if .7 br is too big a gap, why is the Beaufighter 21 being folded with the other beaus, its ,7 br higher then the rest XD
6 Likes
The whole point of grouping was to not have to grind the same vehicle over and over again (challengers, centurions, etc), not to just reduce the grind.
Grouping very different vehicles just because they have the same BR only serves to reduce the diversity of vehicles: we still have to grind the same vehicle multiple times at 0.3/0.7 BR difference but now for some reason we get to research an optional vehicle for half price that is completely different (roiikat/olifant, Strv81/Strv103, etc). So yeah, you reduced the grind, thank you, but that’s not the core issue which is now still the same if not worse: it’s boring to research the same vehicle over and over with barely any gameplay difference or BR difference.
It’s not too late to rethink this, please consider undoing the foldering changes / tech tree movements for now and working on it a bit longer to make folders that make sense when looking at the vehicles, not just at the BR which always change. Your “they’re the same BR so we folder them even though they are different and the identical vehicle is 0.3BR higher” justification will fall apart at the next BR update, how do you not see that.
Moving the top vehicle of a line to a completely different line is also a d*ck move. For example, personnaly I have no desire to endure another Patton or BMP so I purposely avoided grinding that line in the chinese tree thinking I would still have a full top tier lineup, but now I have to start over from scratch on the line I dont want to play just to get the tank I was grinding for in the first place. If you want to move vehicles so high up the tech tree to a completely different line, then enable cross-paths to switch to still be able to research that vehicle from its previous position.
12 Likes
I also disagree with the m4a2 moving to rank2 if the premium pz4 for Germany doesn’t also move to rank 2 the m4a2 should stay at rank 3
1 Like
The issue is they have pulled this br rule out of no where, and its not being applied consitantly, and cant be, as you have seen its basically butchered france at rank 4 and just have a gander at the italian plane line
4 Likes
They stated no premiums would have their rank decreased
Doesnt that make it even worse then, as now the inconsitancies stand out even more, seeing as alot of premiums are just variants of what is in the tree with the same br XD
4 Likes
You know that we didnt want folders because of battle ratings but because but because Researching the same two, or two very similar vehicles at increased RP cost is a bummer. Id (and i belive many others) wouldnt mind researching the marder 1 and then choose if they proceed with another marder and then move to the bmp or skip the second marder.
This is especially true to me personally if we look at low tier with a.e. The Marder III and III H. I hope you rethink those kinds of folderings.
4 Likes
so basically the whole groupings & research rework is just a smoke screen to cover all the nasty things happening in the background. This isn’t improving situation for players, this is using the stinking roadmap as a blanket excuse for optimizing monetization.
and deliberately manufacturing all those “pay for advantage” premium vehicles with rank bonus compared to TT variants by kicking TT vehicles down in rank and coaching it in terms of “oh we promised premium vehicles won’t move” … that’s downright disgusting. Either the vehicle is good enough and effective enough to be certain rank, or it isn’t, premium or TT shouldn’t matter. This way it looks like the whole “balance based on statistics” simply means statistics from accounting department with the goal of padding the premium vehicle sales.
13 Likes
This exactly, I play Germany, and honestly the fact that we do not have a medium tank at a useable BR/Rank unlike the US with the [email protected]/III and the Soviets with the [email protected]/III is a pretty large bummer for me, and I’d wish the Pz.IV G/H would go back to 4.0/4.3 at rank III both
4 Likes
The rank system is clearly getting abused to destroy viable lineups and invalidate vehicles from participating in events, daily tasks, battlepass challenges, special medals and whatnot, rank and BR has never shown to have any connection or be based on literally anything and just has vehicle arbitrarily thrown into them to limit progression by requiring a certain amount of vehicles to be purchased.
And now suddenly the statement is made that there is a minimum BR requirement of 4.7 out of nowhere in order to justify these changes, forcing people to play at these higher BRs and making hundreds of vehicles people grinded and paid for borderline useless for anything productive in the game.
The maximum Battle Rating in AB for US rank II is 3.7
the M4A2 ’s Battle Rating of 4.0 is closer to rank II’s minimum BR of 3.7, than rank III’s maximum BR of 4.7 (0.3 difference, over 0.7 difference).
3.7 is the maximum battlerating as well as the minimum battlerating for rank ll? And assuming the former, if it’s OVER the maximum, it goes into the next bracket as it exceeds the maximum, if you put 4.0 in something with a 3.7 maximum, then clearly 3.7 is NOT the maximum and once again ranks are arbitrarily nonsensical systems that only exists to annoy players and increase the grind.
Furthermore I appreciate that no mention at all is being made of the RP cost reduction, which was supposed to be an important point as well, but as the numbers have shown these reductions barely exist at all, the amount of vehicles being placed inside a folder is low, whilst the number of vehicles increasing in rank almost completely undoes the bit of RP reductions, and with the addition of all the new vehicles with the upcoming update, the end of the line penalty of vehicles, the amount of RP required IS STILL higher than it was before this update.
I can’t put into words quite how baffled I am at this reluctance to reduce the RP, in the last 5 years we went from 80 million RP to 180 million RP required for all the vehicles, with absolutely zero change to how much RP we gain, who knows how insane the jump is since 2014-15.
There is an absolutely obscene amount of vehicles in the game, half of them boring copy paste nonsense, and at top tier a singular vehicle is equal to half the freaking tech tree in cost, with an arbitrary end of line penalty that you’re going to get hit with again and again as new vehicles get added to the end of the line, or with updates like these where existing vehicles are shifted to end of the line and increase by hundreds of thousands of RP, not to mention SL cost people keep having to cough up whenever things get shifted around.
For the love of god lower the RP requirements, there’s 10 nations in the game, 10 ground trees, 10 air trees, naval trees, helicopter trees, I have been playing this game for a decade and I am still nowhere at all, drop this attitude that we’ll grind the entire game in two weeks, which is an actual statement you guys made, if RP is lowered.
You could remove 50% of all RP requirements in the game and it’s still a disgusting amount of grind that only puts it back at 2019 requirements.
All this community backlash and you guys are still doing the bare minimum, I am so tired of being disappointed by Gaijin over and over and over and over.
16 Likes