I’ll make changes tomorrow
1 Like
Thanks for the information I actually needed this, Mr theKey.
1 Like
I’d review the following changes:
The 2 groups of Ki-44-I + Ki-61-I ko and Ki-44-II hei + Ki-61-I otsu
I’d put the Ki-61s back together and the 2 Ki-44 together in 1 group. It simply much more reasonable to put them together since they have the same flight characteristics and share BRs
Then the group of AD-2/AD-4/AM-1
I’d change their positions to AM-1/AD-2/AD-4, since the AM-1 has the same realistic BR as the AD-2 I’d put it before it have some kind of improvement with the AD-2 (wich has the same BR) and then the AD-4 wich is higher at 6.0 thus better
Lastly I’d put the new Leopard 2PSO after the new position of the Leopard 2K since it’s an export vehicle and fits with the line
2 Likes
I don’t know if this has been addressed, but the decision to prioritize the grouping and layout of tech trees based on the “height” of UI elements (three high max!) is…wild and incredibly myopic.
You’re crippling the viability of certain Ranks/aircraft for purposes of completing tasks and awkwardly organizing vehicles in order to cram them into a tech tree UI that is now over a decade old.
Compounding this further is the historically haphazard approach to categorizing attackers/strike aircraft which are now being moved/grouped based on these seemingly arbitrary classifications. I’m dumbfounded.
This is already a failed exercise.
7 Likes
What you said is just wrong , hence why, no
The 2A6 has a better cannon with 20m of penetration difference compared to the 2A5 boo hoo.
The 103 is not a niche vehicle.
It can perform on every map, some better some worse.
Subjecting the players to 4 centurions, which are all shit btw (there’s a reason I don’t have a single one of them spaded, with the last two skipped entirely), is pure torture and objectively makes for a boring experience as there is no change in vehicle to play.
I disagree 103 can easily get used like the soap dispenser in a public American school especially on maps such as Advance to the rhine Alaska American desert Breslau and cargo port there’s probably more I just can’t remember off the top of my head I regularly play the 103 and feel only CBT when on maps like that centurions are pain but feel better than the constant transmission losses let alone the bandaid rip of sitting there watching myself burn to death
2 Likes
I noticed that VEAK 40 SPAA has been placed on the rank 5. However, all the other Swedish ground vehicles at 8.7 are on rank 6. I think VEAK should go to rank 6 for consistency. Also, I think the ItPsV 90 should be foldered behind it or have VEAK foldered behind ItPsV so we don’t have to research 2 SPAA at same br.
1 Like
Please stop grouping vehicles by their BR
This is a historical game,i think you should grouping vehicles with their Technical Features
Do not separate prototypes to other line,they should stay with their formal model(especially ZTZ99A and WZ1001E because i think WZ1001E is totally a branch of ZTZ99A.Leo 2K should also stay with formal Leo2 like leo2A4)
And for my own opinion,please keep USA F6F-5 and SB2Cs at Rank III because they are very convenient vehicles for the daily task and challenge.Move F-84Fs and SO4050s carefully because they are also convenient vehicles and they are really weak if they lost their airspawn.
that’s all,sorry for my poor english
5 Likes
Far too many Rank III vehicles are being demoted to Rank II. For those of us who prefer WWII-era vehicles and have zero interest in what comes after, making it far more difficult to achieve daily tasks and event/battle pass challenges means I at least am going to stop playing (and paying for) the game.
16 Likes
Gaijin is trying to say:
“see we reduced grinding by grouping vehicules together”
Gaijin publicity:
→ diversity of vehicules “more than X vehicules in the game, come found your favorite one”
Now,… the gain made by grouping vehicule together could have been made by deducing by about 5% the RP Cost all vehicules of all Techtree in current live server.
5% is such a low number, but the result is too bad, as you now loose the ability to dispose of all this diversity of vehicules.
Also… 5% is ridiculous, here some exemple:
5% of 36.000 RP(Tier3) is 1800 RP → that’s about one win with 3 PvP kills in ARB, at this Rank, and WITHOUT Premium Account
5% of 410.000RP(Tier 8) is 20500 RP → that’s about 6 games with 3 kills in ARB, at this Rank, and WITHOUT Premium Account.
So what have we really gained? About 100 games to reach top tier,…
What have we lost? Nearly 400 vehicule diversity.
So,… if the real objective have been RP reduction, there was far better ways to do this.
2 Likes
I need to point out the Pyorremyrsky being in rank3 when in its new TT for ARB 4 vehicles are 4.3 at rank 4, Gaijin please address this, Pyorre is such a unique fighter and deserves Rank 4
2 Likes
At the end of the day the grind reduction didn’t happen, it’s pathetic after years of waiting for this, large community outrage they still refuse to decrease the RP.
And we get this argument that ‘if we reduce the RP you’d research the whole tree in 2 weeks’’ and that is a literal quote.
WHO?! Who would grind 200 million RP in 2 weeks? We have the same RP income as we did 10 years ago yet infinitely more RP required.
14 Likes
Well the “community” primarily consists of idiots, so if that really is what they’re doing - we’re doomed!
What kind of moronic short sighted decision is this? Vehicle foldering based off BR proximity? Really?
Foldering vehicles by similarity makes far, far, far more sense. Two vehicles will be similar forever, two BRs will not always remain close. Think the long game Gaijin, this is an entirely stupid choice.
What are you going to do, when you go adjusting BRs? Move a vehicles folder? Mess with the tree more? I hardly think so. This idea will break down the moment it hits a bump in the road, you know it, we know it, everyone and their grandma knows it.
13 Likes
It’s not all he knows,… but there he was not the best comment.
You are delusional…
5 Likes
Receive feedback, do nothing
Edit: You talk about the M4A1 being 4.0 and therefore closer to rank 2 than rank 3 for USA. Yet there is a Su-6 (M-71F) at a BR of 4.7 and rank 3, aswell as a Su-6 (AM-42) at the same BR, but at rank 4! How does that make sense according to your rules of grouping?
Edit 2: AB BRs of course, still does not make any sense. These vehicles are perfect for grouping.
4 Likes