One of the minor issues I could potentially see is the change from rank 5 to rank 6 for certain aircraft, namely the F-84Fs and Vautours of various nations; with this change they will lose their airspawns, which is a significant nerf to them. Will they retain their airspawns or instead get a BR drop?
2 Likes
LCT being in the Taiwanese end of the tree is nuts, it’s easier to just say you guys want people to waste their time researching trash like the CM11
1 Like
except having the LCT in the 2nd line made no sense either, when you had to go through about 8 MBTs to get the LCT in the first place once you hit Rank 6.
Needing 3 MBTs + the LCT (4) to finish Rank 7 of in the 2nd line was awful, moving this too an easier line in terms of less vehicles between the final tank means you can somewhat manage going down one line at a time vs being force to go down the 2nd line for the majority of your Rank 6 and 7 playthrough
I’d rather do this than research the utter trash vehicles there, at least the MBTs can be useful
except your never going to use half of those MBTs, I literally did this grind my self a few months back, I didnt touch the first line because it wasnt a requirement to unlock the Ranks from 6 to 7 as the SPAA/SPG line offered enough but the issue was I had to go through multiple MBTs that due to how quickly the grind was for that main line right now I simply never used half the MBTs other than the 4 in Rank 7 and even then I quickly unslotted the first 10.7 one because again i got through the LCT so fast it was a waste.
Moving the LCT down that line means you have less vehicles to get the best MBT for china. nothing wrong with this change at all, just means your options are more spread out now
1 Like
Well, that’s fair, I see your point now
AMX-13-M24 could be moved up to Rank 3 and BR 4.0 (in RB), to match with it’s TT equivalent, the AMX-13 (FL-11).It is more than capable of being moved up in BR (being better than the 4.0 AMX-13 (FL-11) imo), and it would be a lot more useful as a premium if it was Rank 3 and could be used for tasks, etc.
I think the same should be done with the BT-7A (F-32), moving it up to Rank 3. It could stay 3.7 BR in RB, as the ZSU-37 is BR 3.7 at Rank 3. Alternatively it could be moved up to BR 4.0 (the SU-152 is BR 4.0 at Rank 3). It could finally give the USSR a proper light tank at Rank III, and it’s usefulness as a rank 3 would far outweigh the possible BR increase (the BT-7A is still great at any BR honestly).
1 Like
I am genuinely upset with all these double standards fit into a single explanation.
You don’t want ranks to be just one vehicle high, yet you’re moving anything past the Leopard 1A1/1A5 out of the line so they’re just one vehicle high.
You put the Leopard 2K after the T-72M1 to make it the prototype/import/export/GDR line, yet the Leopard 2PSO, which is a PROTOTYPE, will be after the Leopard 2A6 in the “production Leopard” line.
You move the WZ1001(E) LCT over to make an unneccesarily mess off an export/prototype/RoC line, but don’t put any of the other prototypes over there.
The biggest mess of all is making every 9.7+ vehicle rank 7. The whole point of foldering is to lessen the research cost of the tree, yet you just bump up half of rank 6 so you can MASSIVELY increase their research cost.
To take the Leopard 2k as an example again, it currently costs 220k RP and 590K SL to research and buy, but at its new place in rank 7 and its corresponding economic rank, it will cost 340k RP and 930K SL, which is more than a 50% increase.
It is quite literally the opposite of what foldering is achieving, so it feels like the only reason to increase BR 9.7+ up to rank 7 is to undo all the positive changes of the roadmap regarding high rank. What good does foldering the Leopard 2A6 do if you just put several more tanks into rank 7 which will all cost 340k RP and upwards? Not to mention all of them will cost around a million SL and upwards to buy and crew, which is conflicting with the better SL economy from earlier in the roadmap to massively slow down players again.
I cannot take this as a positive change for the game. You make really good promises in the roadmap, and when you’re about to finish implementing what you promised, you just stab your paying customers in the back again. Outrageous behavior.
14 Likes
there’s also the calliope which is at BR 4.0, which is the same as the M4A2, but it is rank III
2 Likes
I have made a few changes to my previous suggested trees; i’ll post them here (the old link have been superseded)
6 Likes
For Sweden I would really like to see 2 folders changed.
That would be the Strv101/Strv103 and the Strv104/Strv103C.
I feel like putting those vehicles in a Strv103/103C and Strv104/105 folder would make more sense as both of them have a completly different playstyle. Also it would be shame putting such unique vehicles into a folder with what is basically just a Centurion.
Putting them into the mentioned folders earlier would make them easier to get and makes more sense than putting 2 vehicles with vastly different playstyles in the same folder.
3 Likes
Please folder up the PSO with the 2A5 and A6.
Also please folder the F14A and F14B !!
1 Like
Same with the Black Night. They’re already foldered anyway.
would make sense to swap those tanks later when modern ones are added. right now PSO looks like better leo in all aspects (armor, 3rd gen TVD) except for a cannon of course.
Its still a side grade, they have just slapped it where it is to force out the grind, same with that new Chinese tank, and same again last patch with the chally 2e
3 Likes
Absolutely disgusting standard 🤮. The topmost good reason of folders is ability to keep vehicles that share similar/identical gameplay at same folder (like 20+ spitfires, shermans, magahs) and not to pollute TT with clones too much. Instead you started to unfold clones and to hide unique gems.
You (lazy devs) argue this with:
- “Too big BR difference”, but what if there literally no problem with having vehicles of huge BR and even Tier (exactly this I mean) difference in same folder! Just allow different tier vehicles to be in same folder.
- That newbies skip everything they can on their rushing way to the top with ill-formed lineups. Sounds like game design problem, not folders. Several solutions can be applied without mixing research tree like: 1) Mandatory having at least two (or more) vehicles of same BR in lineup (if possible); 2) Better folder visualization so stacked vehicles will be always visible; 3) TT research assistant/planner (from lineup perspective).
- Arcade gamemode BRs priority over Realistic - lol what? I understand that managers working on these changes played arcade at most, but that doesn’t mean that realistic may be neglected.
Sad to see that effort for good changes messes half of the things in the wrong way. And reason of this - inability to hear and process needs of the player base. You just making things on your own and facing community backlash again and again. Content Creators already helped you with understanding major flaws before making the Roadmap. Try to listen to them, their touch of reality is at much more decent level then yours.
17 Likes
Why arnt Aj-37 and AJS-37 in a folder? They both are same rank and I would argue AJS-37 is a bit to high in battle rating for what it can do anyways!
2 Likes
This exactly.
Really hope gaijin plans to address this monday. The update is expected to drop this week, they conveniently posted this before the weekend so they could avoid responding to criticism and they’ll probably claim “welp not enough time now haha” now. But the way they rearranged the tech tree pretty much undoes the grind improvements of foldering, foldering which itself makes no sense as per their own explanations
9 Likes
All according to plan, they have a track record of dropping stuff like this just before the patch so they can ignore the feedback because its too late. The Hawker hunter fiasco of a few months back comes to mind, that was some bad backlash. The thing is they think its clever, as it avoids what happened with the french autoloader tank, but it just angers the people backlashing harder and its erodes their already abysmally goodwill.
6 Likes
Or SU-7B / SU-7BKL, SU-17M2 / SU-17M4 and SU-22M3K / SU-22M4
3 Likes