It’s honestly pathetic.
1 Like
Why would you move the J34 from Finnish tree to Swedish, but not folder A28 with the vampire?
Also F105 under harrier feels weird.
2 Likes
You just made a very large sweeping BR change a month ago. It compressed a 3rd of the ground forces battle ratings. It stands to reason there will be another change for 9.7+ to go with it and then a further case case change to vehicles afterwards. Doesn’t it make sense to sort all that mess out before committing to BR based placements within the tech tree that affect RP and SL costs.
6 Likes
Also why not folder vehicles based on same hull, similar characteristics, playstyle etc but instead of using a 0.3 spread rule use a 1 rank rule. You wont be able to folder as many as planned but still be able to make an improvement vs the pre-change tech tree while also making sense, not confusing newer players, not hiding potentially unique vehicles and generally not making a giant mess of things. And again I need to reiterate my previous comment of completely hash out your BR change mess before grouping things based on BR especially when ranks are being overhauled as well.
6 Likes
While I genuinely believe decreasing the grind to getting through tiers is awesome and I am optimistic about this change. However, one of my biggest concerns is that of vehicle diversity. While people will get to vehicles they want faster. I believe there’s a better way to boost vehicle diversity throughout the tech tree. Making the silver lion purchase cost for foldered vehicled either 90% off, or entirely removed will help achieve that. Looking at it from a mind of a player sense. Why would someone want to purchase a vehicle worth a decent amount of SL (especially at higher tiers) instead of just rocketing through. I believe reducing the SL cost and crew training would help the average player try new vehicles while working to earn enough RP and SL for the next vehicle. This is my idea to help boost vehicle diversity, make them cheaper and more accessible, and naturally more players will use them as they’re less of an investment of time and currency, doing so will not hurt the progression through the tech tree either, as these vehicles are now optional to go through. I hope gaijin reads this, and I would appreciate some feedback on this idea from anyone. Thank you!
2 Likes
Thank you for your transparency
1 Like
It seems like it’s impossible for gaijin to do something really good, every time something is improving, they make everything worse by saying they’re improving something.
I believe they should postpone these changes and listen to the changes that the community wants, not these arbitrary and meaningless changes that they are making
5 Likes
If vr players could get the 3rd person aiming from the SPAAs on all Tanks it would be alot more competitive and bearable. Such a small QoL improvement for someone who just wants to run tanks in vr would be great. The current system leaves you blind because you can’t turn the turret without turning your head entirely.
1 Like
I appreciate the explanations. Any foldering plan was always going to have an element of subjectivity. Any real problems can be identified and sorted out down the road in future updates, too. Yes I can see pluses and minuses, but we shouldn’t all be so afraid of change. Let’s roll.
2 Likes
So why f-14’s and mig 29’s are not foldered? Hell, even f-16c should be foldered…
1 Like
OR mayyybe, CRAZY idea here, wait for it… AB is more fun to most people. And more people play it because more people find it fun, the most obvious, simplest, occam’s razor solution. shocked pikachu face
I disagree for example Japan I see no reason to research the type 87 p to decide to go to the 87 production when essentially they are completely different in play styles same for say deathstar and Conway I really like these changes as it’s making my grind easier I don’t like the wedges for sweden and this allows me to skip them instead of being forced to play something that’s just unusable on some maps
I this this is a great change I understand how it can be seen as bad but there’s tanks that are completely differently played that people want foldered because of same name sake e: Type 87 p and Type 87 rcv they are the same chassis but differently which say the 87 rcv and type 89 play the same so this is good and for other situations it also helps people skip vehicles that are unplayable on some maps e: strv103 on say advance to the rhine etc it’s literally unplayable and this allows people to play the centurions which are viable on any map why should you suffer trying to play a nation with vehicles that have niches that just make it unplayable or different play styles its unrealistic to think every map will be good for say a strv 103 or even to death star and Conway so Im very happy with these changes and hope they stick to it
You don’t look like you read the thread before posting…
Nobody is saying we don’t want vehicles to be foldered, we want vehicles to be foldered in a way that makes sens !
Vehicles being unplayable on certain maps is a map design problem not a foldering problem.
Foldering is not going to resolve that issue. Or are you implying nobody wants to play those tanks ?
The foldering of vehicles should be based on progression and not on problems caused by other areas of the game.
Foldering is not a balancing feature.
7 Likes
It is a soft balancing mechanism if and when the foldered vehicles perform meaningfully better or worse than the ones that aren’t foldered, since few people on the team will bring them out now. Are they using it like that? i dunno, they aren’t admitting to doing so if they are.
The American mid to late-war naval fighter. Bruh
1 Like
It’s not a balancing fix but makes it does make it easier on people who say want to play Sweden for example
You are not decreasing premium vehicles ranks, but what if someone has bought a talisman for a normal vehicle?! I have a talisman on the La-7 and now its rank is going to be decreased. That is unfair.
6 Likes
These grouping decisions and Rank dropping are absolute garbage.
Fire whoever proposed it.
Scrap the entire plan.
Go back to the drawing board.
Do it properly.
And for whoever had the audacity to flag me; Cope harder. Gaijin deserves to be called out in full.
13 Likes
All these decisions feel very arbitrary amd hard to justify. Why do foldered vehicles need to be no more than one BR step apart? Why is the arcade battlerating taken as a reference for decisions which affect the other modes just as much? Why move so many vehicles into higher ranks, completely negating any prospective acceleration of research gained through increased foldering, since the upper ranks will now be filled with more expensive vehicles? This is especially blatant in naval (I know, doesn’t concern most of us), where many people will find that if they were currently researching their first rank V ship, with this coming change there may now be 4 or 5 vehicles which will need to be unlocked to even continue, not to mention that the grind will also be much worse for new players. The list goes on.
It’s very questionable if this is just poorly thought through, or planned in such a way that, while at the surface level it may seem like a positive change overall, in reality it only serves to maintain status quo. Either way, I’m honestly rather disappointed. I hope that this change will be completely re-evaluated.
9 Likes