Dude, the foldering changes regardless of outcome is their continued listening to players.
Just cause their methods aren’t to your specific standard doesn’t mean they aren’t listening, they need to take into account the whole playerbase, and the benefits are the same no matter where the vehicles are foldered.
Sure, I’d love 3.7 & 4.0 to be the universal start of rank 3, however events become less of a drain on new players if 4.7 is. I will fully admit that benefit, and my preference doesn’t matter if Gaijin chooses that benefit over my perceived greed.
I made a suggestion in the last changes that later would partially cause the forum backlash leading to all of this, and I regret that I was incorrect in most of what the community wanted, and thus had to change my suggestion to be more direct.
I don’t think they’ve sat on it for month. I think they just arrived at that item in the TO-DO list that the roadmap is, took a look at the tech tree, drafted some folders and called it a day.
If they had worked on it for even an hour with more than one person involved they would surely have realized that they can’t possibly rely on BR as a sole justification for some folders, since BR is the most volatile stat in the game and they change sometimes by a lot every single update. Two tanks that are the same BR now may be a whole BR apart 3 months down the line, and they know it. So clearly they spent so little time and effort on this that they failed to consider the long term result of that method of foldering, “long term” being “less than 1 major update away” in some cases.
I’m not talking about rank changes though, I honestly don’t care much for made up BR/rank rules that they don’t even apply properly on everything. I’m just talking about foldering vehicles that are wildly different while keeping near-identical vehicles mandatory to unlock one after the other, which is the opposite of what players have asked
I haven’t noticed drastically different aircraft being foldered personally.
Naval fighters, attackers, bombers, all seem to be foldered in those groups, just at BRs as well.
And missing vehicles is probably just oversight. Q-5 & Q-5A are potentially easy to miss, and the persons making the decisions aren’t the programmers, so loss of decisions in communication could happen as well.
As for tanks, I think I don’t care, especially lines where it’s impossible to folder without mixing tank types.
I’d rather dissimilar tanks be foldered than not foldered.
The benefit outweighs my desire not to learn a new placement.
I can see the reasoning for the new folders but it does not make sense to group / folder vehicles by BR when vehicles have different BRs for different gamemodes.
And if progression is the goal than the changes in the American Naval-Aircraft Tree doesn’t make
sense.
In the new one, starting at Rank 3 with the F4U-4 you go from 4.7 - 5.0 - 4.7 - 4.3 - 6.3 as opposed to the current 3.0 - 3.3 - 4.7 - 5.7 - 5.0 - 6.3 progression.
So you wouldn’t be progressing really.
My suggestion would be to keep the folders as they are and put the F4U-1C in the rank 2 folder with the others (as planed) and switch the F4U-4B with the F8Fs folder. Then there would be a BR progression from 3.3 - 4.7 - 5.0 - 5.7 - 6.3 which would be more consistent.
Also moving a lot of vehicles to rank 2 makes them practically irrelevant for dailies and events, which is sad, because there are a lot of good rank 3 vehicles.
Here we have again the issue with BR progression and making folders because of the BRs of vehicles. It has to be clear after which gamemode it is made. The new progression than could make sense in one Gamemode but not the other.
This is why:
Please do not group vehicles because of their br, rather group them because they are from a similar type of vehicle.
Also You speaking of consistent lineups: Please put the Ozelot at 9.3 where all the other rocket SPAAs are in game so Germany can have a consistent 9.3 lineup, thanks (Israel has the Stinger at 9.3 too).
(Also increase the BRs of CAS by .3 like you did with the higher Tanks)
They aren’t grouping exclusively on BR, they’re grouping on BR and type, with BR taking precedent.
FW 190 is still a fighter, even if it gains an attacker designation.
Also Ozelot fires Stingers, which have a substantially superior range & characteristics to 9.3 IR missile SPAA.
On top of that, MANPAD historical reports are finally being done to correct Mistral, Stinger, and Igla.
Vehicles that are the exact same as vehicles in other nations need to be the same rank. It doesn’t make sense to have two vehicles that are completely the same be different BRs or ranks. Not to mention you contradict your own made up rules you made up as you keep reading down the list of reasons. Vehicles around ranks 2-3 are important as all events and tasks need rank 3 vehicles to complete. There is almost no reason for vehicles in rank 3 to be put into rank 2 unless the BR of the vehicle was significantly lower than that of the average of the rest of the game.
with the BR based groupings Gaijin is just setting itself for failure, big time.
So, what will happen when next round of economy/BR updates comes and BR’s need to change, especially if AB vs RB/SB battle ratings keep diverging even more? Current groupings done based on already pretty flimsy BR values will make even less sense with new statistics, but of course Gaijin will be desperate to not look like bunch of incompetent ****** who walked face first into problem everyone else saw coming from miles away. So will we end up with balancing changes done (or avoided) based in large part on Gaijin digging their heels and stubbornly defending outdated groupings to save face?
gee, thanks Gaijin, this totally looks like a huge improvement and well thought out idea that I’m sure won’t cause any problems in the future … right?
M4A4(1st PTG) could easily be R3, making 2nd Daily Task available, after all the Chines R3 tanks start at 4.0 which is only .3 BR different. It would also be a bonus for having a premium tank, what Gaijin wants, people buying them for an advantage. Saw comment about M24 being inconsistent and I agree, Italy and Japan M24 are R3 which is good for completing Dailies. Bottom line is Gaijin can do what it wants and we either accept or quit. You can’t please everyone. I was disappointed to see some favorites move to R1 as that is useless for experienced players and Tasks. As a suggestion as I saw you mention BR related to Rank, change the BR to fit the Rank if you have to. For example the US M4A2 could be moved to BR 4.3 from 4.0 & left at R3 for Tasks. That would increase it’s RP potential as well. BTW, is Gaijin going to Compensate for Rank change and Talisman cost? If a R3 has a Talisman and is moved to R2, there could be a refund of GE’s spent on buying a R3 Talisman which would aid R4 research that is now going to be lowered to R1-3 at 100% RP with R4 getting 40%. Fig to ask but I don’t know if anyone asked about this before. I have a lot of Talismans purchased at a discount, likely, but they were bought to facilitate future RP
My point was that vehicles have different BRs in different gamemodes. AirRB to AirAB and soforth.
So when they group by BR based on AB then the progession will be different for AB and RB. And the higher in BR, the less people play AB. So you would go from a 5.0 Fw190 D-9 to a 4.7 Fw190 A-5s to the 6.3 Ta152 in AirRB, so backwards progression and then a sudden jump, just like the planned new Naval Air line in America I mentioned.
So grouping because of BR is not really a great way. Also the German Tree is already pretty foldered/grouped so there wasnt really a need to bring chaos into the tree.
The grouping on type is good
And the Fw190 changing to the Attack tree is the F-8 which is the Attacker, which makes sense.
Also Israel has the Stingers at 9.3 and a 20mm gun on top while the Ozelot only has the Stinger without gun. So 9.3 for the Ozelot and 9.7 for the Gepard A2 would make sense imo.
A good example of drastically diffeerent brs by mode is the doras for example, in rb they have the exact same br, all those fw in that region do, but in arcade the first one has a way lower br for some reason. The beaufighter mk 21 being 3.7 in rb but only 3.0 in arcade is another good example. I have not looked at the plane arcade brs for years, and its honestly startling how different alot of them are from rb, as guns and turn rate out weigh everything else.
I’m sorry but this is straight up the worst way to do groupings.
The fact it’s based on battleratings in ARCADE should be enouth to understand how deeply flawed this is.
Not to mention BRs vary wildly between gamemodes as well as over time, making the 0.3 BR spread inside the folder completely obsolete by design.
This feels a lot more like an excuse to NOT group certain vehicles to prevent the grind from geting too short (in your eyes) than an actual attempt at fixing progression and grind.
Just group the vehicles by how similar they are LIKE EVERYONE WANTED TO BEGIN WITH.
The maximum Battle Rating in AB for US rank II is 3.7, and the minimum for rank III is 4.7
This makes zero sense whatsoever. If the maximum for one rank, and the minimum for the next are a full BR apart, where exactly are the 2 steps between them supposed to be?
4.0 and 4.3 would fail to meet these stated requirements for both rank II and rank III. This clearly needs to be re-evaluated.