The Doras are virtually identical, and following the AB’s BR instead of RB makes no sense at all.
4 Likes
Literally the definition of a non-sensical change imo.
4 Likes
i believe that the sherman at 4.0 has NO place on the tree with the 3.3 and the 3.7 sherman…
why? cause you said that the MAX br of the RANK 2 is the 3.7 and now you force the US tree to get the MAX BR on the 4.0… dont do that is bad. the M4A2 is fine in that position that it is… and has a purpose on 4.0 and rank 3… you actually cancel the rule you put in before…
you did not tell us yet WHY the KV1B and the KV1 E does not got BR 5.0 …
and let those things be monsters in every down tier or same tier they are in… especially in the events… people get 10-15 kills with those things.
2 Likes
While I agree that the head on “plague” is very detrimental to overall play(and skews the stats a great deal), I mean that move has been around a good while and gets worse all the time … seems like anyway. That is just my opinion on the P-51s, partly from my own flying experience(even tho I shy away from US fighters a good deal . . because of the fm’s) and mostly because of how often I see the P-51, especially being purposefully uptiered by it’s users . . . because it can easily hold it’s own and even excel at higher BR’s than it carries. Those are the factors I base my judgements on. I have several Russian fighters and even 109’s I use now & then that can handle any of the P-51’s I encounter. ¯_(ツ)_/¯
This is what a Russian CM said on the RU forums when they rejected moving the Sea Vixen.
Remember the A2D is 9.0 in AB while being rank IV, and yet thats not moving but everything else gets decided solely by AB BR’s.
Or the justifications given are made up so they can do what they want to do with no consistency applied and wave the RB rank for those they don’t want to use these rules on.
Standardize the rules for everything or nothing, don’t pick and choose.
The Chinese Shermans should go to rank III to match the Italian and French M4A4’s, not be left at rank II.
Vehicles should be grouped based on their similarity, not BR’s.
The Rooikat should be foldered with the Rooikat and the Olifant with the Olifant.
The FV4005 leading into the Conway is more logical than the Tortoise.
It makes much more sense to group the literally named subseries G.55 with the serie 1 rather than putting it with the 2005 solely because of a br difference.
The FW190 D-9 being split from the D-12 because the arcade meta is headon and the D-12s 30mm is better at that meta making it 6.0 in AB while both are 5.0 in RB is nonsense.
These past couple months have been amazing to see with gaijin listening to the community and now it feels like we are right back to past gaijin with them going we are doing it this way, we see your feedback, but it does not align with what we want to do so it has been read and discarded.
7 Likes
How about Su-17’s (ussr), F4 (air force), Q5early/a, J-2/J-4, F86 F30/F40 (china), T-2/F-1, AJ37/AJS37, SK60/Saab105, Su-22’s (Germany), Swift F1/F7, A4H/A4E/+Ayit, Vautour 2A/2N, Meteor F13/F8, Mysterie/Sambad/Sa’ar, F104S/S.ASA, G91Y/YS and a lot more for ground tt’s
Hey all, I made a typo in this sentence regarding the min/max wording. Apologies for my mistake. It should be fixed now.
3 Likes
I’ve been playing the F-16MLU for a few months now, 200+ battles and 200k+ RP (based on stats - which apparently kinda lie. I have earned nearly 600k RP using the F16) Getting it aced for free requires 1.28 million RP. I understand that it’s supposed to be something players would just buy with GE, but 1.28 mil is just stupid at this point. If it were like 500k RP it’d be a high price but fair for the performance upgrade. I think it should go like this: <25k RP for rank I vehicles, <50k RP for rank II vehicles, <100k RP for rank III vehicles, <150k RP for rank IV vehicles, <200k RP for rank V vehicles, <300k RP for rank VI vehicles, <400k RP for rank VII vehicles and <500k RP for rank VIII vehicles.
1 Like
That has its limit as well and should be looked to more deeply. Ki-61-I Tei vs Hei is difference of german vs Japanese 20mm guns which after real shatter fix is maybe worth 0.3 br in rb but definitely not 0.7 br in arcade again hei doesnt get airspawn in air rb compared to tei.
And dont tell us arcade brs are adequately looked into and updated why is R2Y2 Kai V1 higher br in arcade than V2 and V3 while they have same br in rb and 7.0-7.3-7.7 in sim? Its pretty obvious simulator and arcade brs arent updated often at all yet you still use them to group and move ranks of vehicles. Foldering based on br is possible if u just use realistic brs for mid tier planes since it would simply fix a lot of issues.
Crusader AA mk.2 has arcade br of 4.7 while rb of 3.7 while BTR-ZD has arcade br of 4.3 and rb br of 5.3 why? SPAA doing better in arcade doesnt apply to both its probably just Crusader being added years ago at higher br and it going down but only in realistic. and BTR being added recently at lower br and only going up in realistic. ZiS-43 sitll has 4.0 in arcade while in rb it was moved down to 2.0. the older update a vehicle is from the bigger chance of arcade brs being out of place for it.
Also we got no response for only american F-84F keeping airspawn and how other planes loosing that will be handled.
3 Likes
Why aren’t you grouping the Merkava 4B and Merkava 4 LIC? They’re already 3 tanks in the rank and they’ll become more once the Barak is added.
It made very little sense before, and even less now.
Why have you suddenly invented that requirement, and why only solely for the US?
I naively thought that all this roadmap stuff was an attempt to please the complaining players, but this is more like a deliberate attempt to hurt them.
I’m just flabbergasted.
4 Likes
For me grouping to BR based is useless, people research and play chosen vehicles. Without ranks it will be easier for people… BR are useless too when you opt in +1/-1 matchmaking. Why you don’t split game to early II W, 1933-1941, WWII/postwar 1941-1947, I stage of Cold War 1947-1960, II stage 1960-1980, end of cold war 1980+.
PS. Zis-43 have 4.0 BR why it is grouped in 3 table on II rank when you have the same gun alone ZSU on 3,7 on III rank?
1 Like
Tbh it’s stupid that you cant use rank 2 stuff for bp missions. I understad rank 1, but rank 2 should be usable for missions and stuff
3 Likes
They said they would reduce the RP for vehicles in a folder.
Foldering S and ASA would make it easier and faster to get the second vehicle in a folder.
I have the idea, that its mostely because of new people that instantly play AB instead of RB. And after they’ve reached rank 2 or 3 they find the RB mode
I wouldn’t mind so much if arcade brs were properly updated like rb ones. for top tier the arcade brs causing issues for logical progression for rb players isnt really present and mid tiers are mostly affected. Might as well use sim brs that are touched every few years. There are some things arcade favours more like spaas, heavy tanks. But as we can see it doesnt apply to all vehicles and ones from old updates sadly have very outdated arcade brs. There’s 2.0 br arcade gap between cannon and no cannon F8Fs F6Fs, C.205s but also 0.7 gap between different type 20mm cannon Ki-61-Is and other no cannon vs cannon only 1.0 gap. Im not saying there shouldn’t be gaps between these but im calling out arcade brs for inconsistent bs they are, even if mode has a lot of players it shouldn’t be used for br grouping when its brs are just all over the place. I think devs should keep their promise and actually do something about the feedback we are leaving and not just start to argue why they reasoning is good.
2 Likes
I personally think that rank 3 should start at 4.0 or 3.7 regardless of other BR differences.
WHOO! Less clutter down the main MBT line.
Nice.
As I said previously, I still think rank 3 should start at BR 4.0 or 3.7 regardless of other disparity among rank 3.
1 Like
Wakes up returns to this, no one is happy still, just repeating the same thing from yesterday. Good to see the community is consistant on this
1 Like
Too bad probably nothing will change though, the way this post is worded it’s more of a “here’s how it’s gonna be” and not a request for feedback to potentially change the outcome.
In a way I’m glad this debate is happening now, well into the roadmap that was the result of the giant backlash of players not happy about how gaijin is ignoring them. Now is a good opportunity to see if the roadmap was after all just a “here’s your wishlist, we will do that, now shut up and leave us alone” or if they actually changed their process to better reflect on player feedback.
If the foldering changes go through as they are now, it’s the former, they still don’t care and have not learned, the roadmap was just a concession to get us to shut up. If they did change their way and actually take the feedback seriously now, the foldering will be delayed and/or reworked.
I know I’ll change my steam review back to negative again if they ignore us. Was happy to make it positive when they started working on the roadmap, but I have not forgotten what it took to get there and I’ll happily do it again if they push more changes that clearly go against the players’ feedback and interests.
4 Likes
Basically, the worst part as previously stated is more than a dozen members of the community have proposed something better, and generally with only a few hours of work, from what gaijin has sat on for literally months.
3 Likes