Well seeing as me and a friend literally broke the chinese mig9’s sl cost back in the day, the br issue is definately going to be a thing
The 2s25 thing isnt true (whatever your BR number for rank 6/7 is). If you look at japan, the type 16 and type 93 are both 9.3 BR yet are in rank 7 just an example, there are way more 9.3 vehicles in rank 7 then this. It also makes no sense in my eyes, that a 9.3 br vehicle is 340k rp, when most other around that BR are 180-220k rp.
2 Likes
Again, a “whale” refers to a person who has spent thousands or tens of thousands of dollars on a game, not $70. We have no idea where whales like to play. A whale could easily prefer early WWII and have spent like $1500 on a marketplace boarhound or something. Typically whales in other games have few if any consistent patterns to them. It’s just what those handful of people randomly happen to enjoy.
4 Likes
Why P-51C go to rank ii and swap place with P-51
The first P-51 in the US tree, with the 20mm’s is far better than the next 2 - 3 P-51’s in that line. Might possibly be the best P-51 in the game. Better flight model(even tho almost all US fighters have terrible fm’s and have forever) than all others and just way too underrated and BR’d. This slight change is long over due and a BR bump is also overdue. I am from the US and I don’t “expect” US planes to dominate or anything, but . . of the Big 3, the US is by far the worst as far as flight models go . . much like a bobble on a string. You do not see this with any Russian or German fighters. So, this P-51, that actually is not that bad, really does need to be moved up the tree/BR scale more than any US fighter. The only others that perform well are the P-39’s & P-63’s. And that is just because of the last time they “sped up” AB planes, it directly benefited smaller, lighter planes far above all others. But I expect many people to be confused, unhappy and a bit disturbed by these changes . . but I think we will need to wait & see.
This sudden obsession with BR caps for Ranks and foldering things with certain limits per rank feels like it’s mostly going to damage variety in a lot of cases, especially when drastically different vehicles are foldered merely because of those rules. For example something like the Tortoise and FV don’t make sense to be together, even if the BR difference would be higher between the FV and Conway, because of the more logical progression if the latter were together.
Plus, as mentioned in some comments, the caps and limits in a number of cases are likely going to be prohibitive to vehicles played given both general rewards during events or other in-game limitations (i.e. a lot of things now in T2 used to be T3, meaning a lot of T2 is going to be ignored).
7 Likes
I’m just not understanding a lot of these changes so if the leopard 2K is being moved because its a prototype why is the leopard 2 PSO not under as well It was a one-off prototype and it never ever entered the service with the German military .
6 Likes
In general i believe it is better to group up vehicles that are different modifications of the same vehicle. This provides the player to research the first vehicle, which in course provides him the ability to select whether he would like to research the upgraded one aswell. Rather than having researched the Marder 1A-, not enjoying it, and then having to research the Marder 1A3.
8 Likes
How is P-51C have Worse performance than P-51 and BR can change it doent tie to rank is it? If anything P-51C should group with D-5 and D-30 groups with P-51H
While we’re on the topic of the economy, can we look at XP required for Crew Aces? They’re incredibly high.
For example:
- A1E1 Independent: 320,000 Crew XP required. That’s a Rank VI vehicle for a Rank I BR 1.3 vehicle ace.
2 Likes
I also wonder this. I hope that future brings 2A6ex and onced 2A7 is in the game the PSO goes into group with 2A5. It doesnt deserve to be out. Should definitely switch place with 2A6.
1 Like
cannonstang is definitely not better than the C-10 just because you have a higher chance to win a headon which everyone takes in AB
C-10 can easily outperform the cannonstang and thats why it should be a higher BR and rank
1 Like
you can see how much the “headon meta” is ridiculous if you just look at planes with good guns (bigger amount of guns and their calibers)
versus good perf but somewhat mediocre guns
lot of examples
1 Like
I know, but that doesn’t make me any happier.
Absolutely insane that a Ki-84 is at the same BR as a Sabre.
3 Likes
The grouping of the M1A1 and IPM1 was done because these tanks are the same in terms of Battle Rating and combat effectiveness, compared to the proposed grouping of the M1 and IPM1.
The Jagdpanzer IV and Jagdpanzer IV/70(V) were not grouped together due to their differences in Battle Rating. However, the Jagdpanzer 38(t) matches the Jagdpanzer IV in Battle Rating, and therefore was grouped with it.
The SU-85 and SU-85M are in different groups because of the difference in Battle Rating. Grouping these two together would have also meant the branch height would have increased to 3, and the Battle Rating principles wouldn’t have been met.
It’s not that we can’t see the rules or don’t understand what our suggestions mean, but we are saying that the new rules are dumb. Folders shouldn’t be BR dependant because that just creates weird and confusing folders. Having different rank BR cutoff points for different nations also makes no sense. All nations should have e.g. rank 3 start at BR 4.3, or else any other rule seems pointless and disingenuous. Either standardise it all, or none, don’t bother with half.
And not only that, but the rules are still broken by Gaijin. By these new rules the T32E1 should be foldered with the M103 instead of the T32. Valentine XI and IX should be foldered with the Matilda instead of the Valentine I. Cromwell 1 should be foldered with Sherman II instead of the Cromwell V. But for the love of god don’t change these now…
By foldering vehicles by similarity instead, it gives people more knowledge of the foldered vehicles and thus an easier decision if these are worth the time to research them. Just look at how folders worked before. If I liked the Cromwell V, then I would feel inclined to take the extra time to research the Cromwell I, or if I didn’t like the Cromwell V, then I could easily skip the Cromwell I without much thought if I missed something. And with foldered vehicles costing less RP, it makes the time to acquire another such similar vehicle a much easier decision now.
But being forced to research two almost identical vehicles and having to dip into the folders to get something unique is mentally far worse. And it makes keeping track of the tech trees much harder.
9 Likes
Voicing my discontent with the reasoning for keeping the grouping plans mostly unchanged.
Group vehicles based on similarity as a primary rule. Arrange the groups in the tech tree based on the BR of the first vehicle, or maybe the average BR of vehicles in the group.
Also limiting the logical grouping of some vehicles by imposing a 3 row limit per rank is unnecessary.
Edit: And if vehicles like M1A1 HC and WZ1001 are moving from their more appropriate positions, why not move Challenger 2E to the end of the Vickers line?
Further edit: As some other replies have mentioned, what about future BR changes? I think more foresight is required when reworking the tech trees to this degree. Foldering based on a hard BR restriction will only increase confusion as more BR changes and decompression is done.
5 Likes
This makes no sense to group two completely different plans toghter.
The re.2005 serie 0 should be stand alone untill the re.2005 mm.495 VDM will be added.
The G.55 serie 1 should be grouped with the G.55 sottoserie 0 regardless of it’s Br.
3 Likes
Just want to start of saying that it’s really good to see you all explain why changes are done and just speaking more to the community in general!
So following these rules, I have some suggestions:
China:
Q5 Early and Q5A are extremely similar and even share the same battlerating, so foldering those would be great. You just did the same for the two Russia Su7s, which was greatly appreciated.
For ground vehicles, rank 6 China still feels long. Would it not be possible to also add the ZTZ59D1 to the ZTZ88 folder? They are all very similar and most importantly, at the same battlerating.
Same for the M60A3 and the CM11, which also are very similar and could need a small reduction with two new tanks being added after them.
France:
For France I suggest foldering the new AMX-10M and the AMX-50 Foch as they are both casemate tank destroyers at the same battlerating
Why is the priority on Arcade Battles as the “primary” gamemode? As far as I know, most of the playerbase plays predominantly Realistic Battles, so using Arcade Battles as the prioritized gamemode for grouping seems like a step backwards.
Additionally, grouping vehicles based on BR and not the vehicle itself is confusing, and seems like a bad choice. It would be really disheartening and counterintuitive to research a vehicle, not like it, and then have to research it again when it could be foldered with the first, but that foldered slot is taken by a completely different vehicle. As an example, consider the Marders and BMP-1. If you research and play the Marder 1A1-, and then decide you don’t like it, you still have to research the Marder 1A3. It would make much more sense to research the Marder 1A1- and then have the option to research the Marder 1A3, or skip it and go straight to the BMP.
8 Likes