the total average K/D of the WT playerbase is somewhere around 0.7, which is laughably bad.
I’m not that good of a player, but the overall balance opinions of someone who can’t even manage 0.9-1.0 should definitely be taken with a grain of salt.
1 Like
The XM800T is stabilized and significantly faster. An LRF is useless on the Wiesel, and the thermals are niche as well.
5 Likes
Still overtiered though. It should be 8.3.
It was 8.3, but seeing how it got moved up again I doubt it was statistically unbalanced there.
You mean the Wiesel 1A4?
- not the same armor (25mm vs 8mm)
- not the same gun (STAB vs non-STAB)
XM has dual control, amphibious, better optics, 3 crew and Scout UAV
Wiesel has LRF but is also slower with only 2 crew
IMO the 4 step difference in BR is justified
4 Likes
The stab on the Conqueror has been bug reported. With no stab it should be fine at 7.7
3 Likes
try actually using it at the constant 9.7 br. cuz its dog ass
literally everyone can see you on thermals. you just die.
you cant pen anyway. its awful
and no ammount of gaslighting or Muh feelz about how gud it wuz in tha ol dayz, will change that.
its OVER BRed plain and simple. disgustingly so.
Stop trying to nerf my US heavies!!!
In all seriousness, though, decompression (which I think you are going for) is fine as long as you decompress everything and not just what you feel like should be.
1 Like
I concur. Plus I feel like the XM is better at 8.7 than 7.3, cuz of the lighter vehicles it faces in at that BR. 7.3 you see a bunch of WWII and Cold War heavies which you can do jack shit to.
3 Likes
I never said it was good.
But the vehicle you compared it to is worse in many ways - so there’s no justifying putting it at same BR as the Wiesel. It’s almost like you think UAV and STAB don’t have any impact …
2 Likes
Here’s a few things from my google docs of balance change proposals. I’ll probably post these on my own in the next official balance suggestion thread, but I figure I can at least gauge public sentiment with my proposed changes here.
Pz.III F
germ_pzkpfw_III_ausf_F
-
Arcade Battle BR: 1.3 → 1.7
-
Realistic Battle BR: 1.3 → 1.7
-
Reload Speed: 4.0 s → 3.7 s
Rationale:
The Pz.III F is a bit too good across the board for its current BR. The APC round has great pen and decent damage, the speed is well above average with sufficient p/w to reach it, the 70 mm effective mantlet can stop many lower power guns, and the hull armor holds up well enough against autocannons when angling correctly.
It’s a huge step up in performance for a 1.3 vehicle. It makes more sense for it to be closer in BR to the Pz.III J, as the only thing that really changes between the two is the front hull armor increasing.
While the Ausf.F doesn’t have the convenient turret ready rack of the later Pz.III variants, it still uses shorter rounds than those of the L/60-armed variants, so I believe it would be fair to buff the reload to a comparable level as compensation for a BR increase. For consistency’s sake, the Pz.III J’s reload should probably also be buffed to a comparable level, if not to 3.5 s.
Type 2 Ka-Mi
jp_type_2_ka_mi
- Reload Speed: 4.0 s → 3.1 s
Rationale:
The Ka-Mi arbitrarily gets much worse reload than most other 37 mm armed vehicles despite having a semi-automatic breech and two-man turret (+2 on-board engineers that would be able to pass ammunition to the turret crew, but aren’t modeled atm). The gun is extremely close in performance to the Swedish 37 mm, so a comparable reload to Swedish tanks is reasonable.
Type 2 Ho-I
jp_type_2_ho_i
- Reload Speed: 5.9 s → 3.3 s
Rationale:
Other vehicles with low velocity howitzers like the T-28 (1938), M8 HMC, and early Panzer IV’s have aced reload speeds of 3.3-4 seconds, but the Ho-I’s is longer than even many higher velocity 75 mm guns. This should be the opposite. The Ho-I’s rounds are shorter and lighter than the German short 75 mm’s rounds, and are more accessible than those of the Panzer IV’s due to the convenient bustle ammunition rack. Additionally, the Ho-I has greater need for faster reload than the Pz. IVs due to the much worse HEAT shell muzzle velocity, meaning misses at range are more frequent, and with the current reload rate, more punishing.
3 Likes
lol i knew that so many times that i wrote the Conquer i will confuse it with conquest one time
The Panhard is absolut garbage in the mobility department, a slight slope and it wont get up. Getting up to speed is also slow.
The 234/2 is fine at 3.7. It just needs to be bumpt up to Rank III, no BR change required.
Generally you start decompressing over preforming vehicles first.
Tiger II, and T26E5 are in need of an uptier.
You’re more than welcome to post them here. The forum moderators take down duplicate posts all h the time, and it makes little sense to start a new thread when they watch this one already.
Especially since this is for GRB. I could change the title to GRB / SB.
While we’re at it, we need to fix all these German “free traverse” rates. 25 degrees is just a ridiculous estimate based on placeholder Gaijin values. There was no math done to make even a semi-accurate free traverse rate based on other systems. Just a “Similar to other light tank turrets in game” which were all the same players bug reports referencing each other. For example, his suggested rate (which Gaijin have now used) was for a vehicle that doesn’t even have a turret.
- Pz.II C, Pz.II F, Pz.II C (DAK) should be using their geared traverse. Which is 12 degrees a second. 360/90 = 4 degrees per wheel turn X 3 wheel turns a second.
-
Pz.35(t), Pz.38(t) A, Pz.38(t) F should be using their geared traverse. Which is 9 degrees a second. 3 degrees per wheel turn, assuming 3 wheel turns a second. Pz.38(t) n.A. likely would use this value as well but I’m currently investigating.
-
Pz.Sfl.Ic shouldn’t have a turret. See hyperlink above.
-
Sd.Kfz.234/2, Sd.Kfz.234/2 TD, Sd.Kfz.234/2 “Biene” are all around the 10 degree mark as well.
-
Sd.Kfz.222, Sd.Kfz.234/1, Sd.Kfz. 140/1 could very well be slower.
It’s too early to report, but this is the issue when people create values. Free traverse is even harder to gauge than geared traverse, because now you have to factor in the diametre and mass.
3 Likes
I never reported it for the Pz.Sfl.Ic, thats not my fault.
And i referenced it based on the US light M2A4 tanks.
And the option of Free traverse (even if estimated too high, one could argue 15°/sec would have been more fitting.) isnt wrong, even if opinions may differ.
But while your at it, are the US and UK tanks correct, with their hand geared turrets? They are all quite fast. (Tho i wouldnt mind a buff for the Medium M2.)
1 Like
The M2A4 and M3 Stuarts are probably not accurate. Iirc, one of the major improvements of the M3A1 Stuart was the introduction of power traverse, but the M2A4 and M3 are still traversing at the same speed. That, and 3 other major historical nerfs for the M3 could bring it down to 1.7.
- The turret side armor is too thick, and was only raised from 25.4 mm to 31.8 mm in later models, which the in-game version is not.
- The fire rate is a bit excessive for the 37 mm M5’s non-semi-automatic breech.
- The M51 APCBC round were only capable of reaching 2550 ft/s from the M5 (2600 ft/s from the M3/M6) around the time the M3 Stuart was in service. It wasn’t until some point in 1943-1944 that the alterations to the cartridge or propellent enabled the M51 round to reach 2800 ft/s.
The M2 Medium’s abysmal traverse was definitely just some odd balance decision since they have a ton of leeway to make up whatever traverse speed for manually rotated turrets. It’s slower than the BT-42’s traverse rate atm for Christ sake. It’s also missing the shoulder stab, seen in the top images.
1 Like