How do you guy's feel about temporary (But balanced) Nerf's to new weaponry/vehicles?

Game Discussion General Discussion
,
1

Title, But to explain. (This goes for every nation)

Newer weaponry at top tier (if added with full capabilities) will mostly end up either being to op to add or warrant a few (Let’s say up to 15.0) new br bracket’s to be balanced. (And sense decompression is a long way away, this’ll be a substitute)

(This isn’t permanent but a way to even the playing field till other counterpart’s are added)

I’ll use the USA as an example of a few weapons and vehicles.

AGM-114L Hellfires
Patriot
m8229a3

  1. AGM-114L Hellfire’s
Spoiler

The usa lack’s the helicopter fire and forget weapon’s that other nation’s have. The new fnf hellfires could be very op if brought out with full capabilities.
If we were to take away their ability to track through smoke. They’d give the usa their needed fnf weaponry without breaking the game.

  1. Patriot
Spoiler

The patriot is a very long range sam sight that would make the Pantsir look close range. ( bout 160 km)

Any cas that spawn’s would instantly go defensive and try to out maneuver the missile before being blow to bit’s.

If we were to nerf the patriot’s range closer to 30-40km of effective range, this would give a better counter play for cas and spaa without having 1 side dominate the other.

  1. m8229a3a3
Spoiler

This is probably the hardest one to figure out but eh.

The top tier m1 abram’s are currently missing their top end anti-era shell’s. While the abram’s is a good vehicle on it’s own (when used at range hull down) It struggles to take out any heavily armored opponent’s it face’s at close range from the front.
Adding this new round would basically counter most of the ussr’s and china’s survivability and possibly make the abram’s very op against those nation’s.

to be blunt, Gaijin would need to actively find the Goldilocks zone for this dart.
Not having enough pen to completly negate the russian’s era, and not be a useless addition to grind for.

This should make it usable against era, and still keep the need to aim for (Bigger) weakspot’s

I’m probably missing a few detail’s but you guy’s get the gist. I’ll come back and edit this when i find the names and such.

Let’s discuss!

2

I will always be against artificial nerfs/changes to things. Even using reload times’ “human factors” element as a balance tool bothers me.

I’m entirely fine with selectively giving tools though, as it where (shells, missiles, etc). In short, Jet X not having Missile Y even though it could is fine because it’s still perfectly realistic on a technical level. Changing Missile Y to have different characteristic in the name of balance is not.

 

As for the “should this vehicle get this shell/missile/etc?” question, that would be incredibly easy to solve if the devs would actually implement ordnance-based BRs, as they should have done years ago.

For a lower-tier example, the Sherman Firefly. Currently its BR is set based on its “best” shell. If it were to be given the APDS shell, as the game is now it would be forced up in BR, even if you don’t want to use that shell. Instead, shell/etc modules should be unequippable like other mods, and adding/removing them should change BR accordingly.

That is to say, the Firefly would have a BR for its default AP shell, a BR for its APC shell, a BR for its APCBC shell, and a BR for its APDS shell if it got one; naturally different shells’ BRs can be the same if they’re very close in performance.

 

This wouldn’t even be a notable amount more work for the devs once implemented, as fundamentally it’s just like having “three/four different Fireflys” to feed into the balancing stats algorithm.

Default ordnance would of course not be unequippable (by the very fact that they don’t have a mod), ensuring vehicles have a proper “BR floor” (can’t take gun-only on a high-tier jet and go to a stupid low BR). Additionally, this should only apply to ordnance (shells, missiles, etc) and not performance mods (engine/tracks/etc) as that would just result in goofy gaming of the system as well.

 

This would be a massive benefit to overall balance and create a huge amount more lineup potentials, as many vehicles could be put into many different lineups. It’s also a far more direct balance approach to what loadouts people bring for, say, Ground RB, as it’s actual BR instead of just cranking up (or down) spawn point costs.

All upsides and essentially zero downsides.

2 Likes
3

AGM-114Ls would require a BR over 1 BR more than the top tank.
Patriot isn’t special to USA.
And M829A3 isn’t needed cause A2 is already the best MBT round in the game.

Artificial changes aren’t needed when we have accurate methods.

1 Like
4

I do agree that nerfs are needed sometimes. Brimstone missiles if they had their fire and forget mode would be extremely game breaking. a Tornado or typhoon with a dozen or so brimstones could wipe out almost an entire ground team in one go if it wasn’t handicapped, no nations can compete at the moment

5

@BleedingUranium

Spoiler

I’m for this as well, But considering they won’t even decompress normal br’s to a managable degree, it’s a long way out.
My “solution” at least make’s most nation’s on par with eachother here and now at the cost of realism and artificial nerfing. (Though I do hope your ordnance br’s come sooner rather than later.)

@AlvisWisla

Spoiler

Yea, but the usa is lacking in the fnf area. Know of any other atgm’s they could use?

It kinda is tho? they use like 90% of the worlds patriot’s if i remember correctly.
This also doesn’t adress the topic.

This isn’t true? It doesn’t have the best pen/angled pen in game.
Unless i’m missing something.

6

SPIKE on AH-64E.

Out of the same length of barrel, M829A2 has the highest pen.
Changing the length of barrel is changing the gun, not the ammo.

7

Can the abram’s get a longer barrel? or do you mean other nation’s using the a2?

Also wouldn’t mind the 64E, whenever we get it. +1

8

That’s actually another positive I didn’t mention in the post; it doesn’t affect matchmaking (in the way “decompression” would), thus isn’t an issue there either.

It’s essentially like adding a ton more vehicles to the game (to keep the same example, it’s like having four separate Fireflys) but without the added “clutter”/etc.

1 Like
9

Everyone should get a loaner Pantsir if they have their nation’s top tier SPAA unlocked. This is until each nation gets their respective usable SPAA

2 Likes
10

Let me break down some of the options given and then give a summary of ahistoric adjustment overall:

We need F&F on both the AH-64D and AH Mk.1, so an AGM-114L with a dumbed down IIR seeker would be nice to see, samr can be said for brimstone, which was added in a capacity thay allowed the maxiumum carry over increased performance, they should of come limited to an IIR seeker and only 6-9 carriable at a time, instead of 18 that you can only effectively use in single guidance

America has more than enough mobile SAM systems to justify adding over a stationary one right away, preferably SLAMRAAM since it would be relatively low capacity option yet still very capable and with the new ammo crates meaning that SAMs have much more versatility and protection from other ground units

The round itself doesn’t need to come since only Germany and France have promising 120mm APFSDS equivalents, however many other nations would be left without a high penning dart, with the ones suffering most being the same who suffer from a lack of pen now.

However the Anti-ERA tips should of been added years ago, the only reason they havent is due to the sheer drop in performance of soviet equipment in the upper echilons that would occur when their only saving grace (being overperforming ERA) losing effectiveness overnight

1 Like
11

And on the topic of ahistoric adjustments as a whole, they are a positive but only when applied fairly by Gaijin, a recent example of this is the contraversy between the HMD on the rafale (only tested) and the IRST of the german typhoon (only tested), so as we can see gaijin has implemented one of these, while disregarding the other, even though both are fictional.
This policy only works when it promotes balance or interest in a vehicle/nation, and shouldn’t juat be dished out imho

1 Like