Because spawn points arent used to balance one team to another, and BR system CAN be used but that would leave basically only two to three nations having top tier in the first place. Which wont work out well for Gaijin.
Firstly, there are at least two even with your biased view.
Secondly… Because their petards with turrets and tracks werent the ones getting “hit no damage” when hit center mass. Then again, they also got their modules added, resulting in even less survivability.
I only believe in that the devs should add (have added?) modules to all countries at the same update to not make favours to others. Cuz it just looks like bad management
Gaijin doesnt have any problem with some trees not having a vehicle of every type at the highest BR. And i said SP, because i think that Gaijin could employ SP more as a soft balancing mechanic than it is rn.
Ok there is one other with one artificial boon, true.
Thats Gaijins explanation for adding the baskets in their terrible state, doesnt really change the part where their functionality is complete artificial bs.
I mean its pretty apparent that they dont do that just so they can use additions like this for balancing purposes. Its just insanely frustrating to see people in the community work hard to get more realism in the game and then Gaijin just goes: " great report mate but russian winrates are too low rn so realism is second priority."
Ah but it HAS problems with having NONE top tier machines at all. Because there are still 12.7 Ariette and Challengers, as much as t-90M.
Its not complete artificial. Much more like it is exagerrated to make them do the thing they were added in the first place. At least with M1 and Leclerc, it is like that.
Isnt it great tho? They ply their best to make the game balanced. I believe such additions are a good thing. Tho they at the very least try to be fair, so when the NATO got turret baskets, the OPFOR got the autoloaders modelled.
which isnt always the best option tho. First of al its a game, and then secondly is a museum. So balance should stay first, its correct way. Then, the ways to make balance are to blame. But i cant see the future where there are no top tier tanks at USSR, Italy, Britain, Japan or Israel just because gaijin decided to balance them without comprmising on the gameplay matters.
The Ariete is a great example, because there is no 12.7 Ariete, Italy got the hungarian subtree for a 12.7 tank.
Its artificial in the sense that Gaijin is mashing together modules that should be separate. Im fine with more detailed electronics, hydraulics and stuff but for the love of god model them attached to the basket not together.
It would be great if they were consistent with it but the autoloader damage models are still a joke and if Gaijin wanted them to be actual equivalents then the autoloaders should have the same mechanical/electronical bits and pieces the baskets got.
Sure doing it via selective realism is easy, because at the end Gaijin can do what they want. But every other Tier gets balanced via BR, manual reload speeds and Loadout restrictions. If selective realism becomse a mainstream balancing tool then where is the end? Can Germany, Italy, Sweden and Israel get LDIRCM on their helis despite never having them?. If BR and loadouts arent enough then Gaijin needs more subtrees or, like i said, give SP a bigger role for balancing. But going to fantasy land for balancing just opens a can of worms that really shouldnt be opened otherwise the game just becomes a fancier WoT.
I must have the outdated info then. I firmly believe that there were some?
Maybe before they added the 2a7V to italy tho. Tho still, that shows that they have much trouble to have a tree without top tier tank.
Yes, that would make great sense to separate them, i believe. But then again, for strictly gameplay purposes having such simplification seems reasonable.
ah but that isnt balance if its consistent within everyone. They added autoloaders and added debuffs that autloaders create when hit, if tank doesnt explode. And they also added other electrical modules to them T-serie-alikes, e.g. the turret rotatio motor on the T-80 which is huge.
yeah, kinda the one easy way
Yes, because every other tier doesnt have such features or balance troubles. I mean them 4.0s play pretty well as is. They dont have technological advantages and disadvantages at the lower ranks, nor they shoot mostly undamaging sabots.
Well the Japan got the ATGMs at the end, even not having ones, so everything possible now
As much as i want to agree, that would only create MORE balance troubles. THey did it with the planes and anti-tank armanment, and it only got more complicated.
The highest is the AMV at 12.3 and yeah they probably have a problem with that but Italy shows how you can fix that without giving the AMV artificial buffs or making everyone else artificially worse.
How? The big selling point of this game is detailed damage models that you can play around, simplifying models directly opposes that.
Yes but thats the main point of discussion here, isnt it? Does balance overrule realism or do we go realism first and then balance around that.
Ofc they do its just balanced entirely over BR or loadouts.
Yes and thats a terrible direction.
Complicated doesnt mean worse. With SP Gaijin could minimally adjust balance every patch like most live service games do. The plane loadout stuff is only bad, because Gaijin screwed it up but otherwise it had great potential
So, creating copypastes of existing top tiers is the solution?
Having top tier consist of only Leo 2 and M1A2 sounds like a bad dream to me.
Its fairly simple solution for “free space” problem?
ah but having no turret baskets was more simple than having them current way. So its not simplifying, its the opposite. But the way they added them is simplified to extent that it makes the job done AND looks realistic, innit? Plus, game modelling should consist of simplifications to some extent. Could it be more detailed? Of course. Does it need it? Devs decided that it doesnt.
I do believe that we can make it fairly balanced with detailing it that way: the basket itself either adds debuffs to turret rotation speed and/or crew stats (e.g. spotting, aiming, reloading), but doesnt block it until the electrics/hydraulics broken, or that the basket doesnt do debuffs but creates much spalling. Current their state isnt my favour either.
Yes, and so thats why we talk about it)
Its not that huge of difference, tho. Most shoot APHEs, most only rely on thickness of armor and not spacing. They rarely get the “hit no damage” also.
Ah but just a few lines before you said its a good way to balance the tech tree as to add the copypaste?
Surely, but that does mean it requires more effort and attention from devs, and that means more troubles on early stages and more time between balance changes.
But the same justification still holds for the Autoloaders, they have a race bearing in the turret in order to permit the cassette to rotate independently of both the Turret (and are driven by a motor in the hull) so should also have the same impact as Turret baskets.
They don’t somehow freely sit in space under the turret.
Also, the Cassette’s Driven Motor housing is somehow completely omitted ( it should be very important as an effort to avoid the potential for “Driver, Engine” shots to the lower LFP magically bypassing the autoloader with no damage done.) from the autoloader module entirely, since it takes up the space under the Turret since the structural guide for the Cassette doesn’t sit on the floor of the Hull. The M1’s for example also get a Hydraulic accumulator in the fighting compartment instead of the actual pump in the engine compartment where it should be.
Well i do believe that differencess between Leopard 1, T-55 and Type 74 are abysmall in terms of whistanding shots that penetrated armor. Much unlike difference between T-72 and M1 or Leo 2.
So again, im all for the BR balance, but that leaves the question of if we want to have 2 top tier tanks and bunch of their copypaste, or we do want the uniqueness of the tanks at top tier payed by several compromises
Most people call everything bias when its not in their favour, and protect the bias when its for their favour. So yes, they are annoyed, but for no reason
Thats the question everyone needs to answer for themselves. I personally think that faithful representation is more important for the game and balance needs to be constructed around that in some way.
It does have a reason tho. People want realistic vehicles. And of course youre going to be more annoyed by it if youre on the side that doesnt get artifical pampering but only artifical kneecapping
But thats the issue. How realistic or unrealistic is fine and when does it become arbitrary. Other balancing factors can be bent and changed however Gaijin wants. Realism has a breaking point
My reasoning behind Russian tanks being the most survivable has its reasons.
With the current state of the game, the majority of western tanks, if not one shotted, lose their ability to be able to fight with mainly losing turret rotation and the engine/track so youre guaranteed death, at least if its frontally.
Meanwhile, with russian tanks, due to the ridiculus inconsistency with them you can only guarantee a one shot kill from side shot or through the drivers port frontally. With the driver port being such a small target to hit when someones moving, majority of players will just go for LFP. The lower front plate is such an inconsisten shot since ive had times were it goes through, autoloader eats the spall and ignores everything else then takes the engine. But with the autoloader being taken, if they have a round loaded they can respond instantly and shoot straight back and disable/kill you. and dont get me started on how busted on the armour around russian breaches that mean if you dont have top rounds its very inconsistent to pen.
Especially with MBTS i very very rarely get ammo detonations even if spall or the shot goes straight through against russian tanks. Only time io ever do is with autocannons and even then if they are at any sort of angle than around 80-100 degrees from where youre looking its the most inconsistent thing in the game to pen.
Its not an issue, its a game designer’s desicion tho
If such happends yes, but in many other situations?
they only loose the turret which leads to them moving back with ENORMOUS reverse mobility, and then reparing.
Like this
which you basically CANT guarantee with NATO side machinery. Especially side shots.
it may be small, but it is a center mass. Most of the shots come there.
It hardly dependent on height difference, but mostly its fuel tank explosion.
Same as if you were aiming at the enemy and got turret basket damaged, you can still shoot, and even reload.
Its a gamble with T-90M only. Others just dont have any armor around the breech. I mean, M735 is enough to pen it easilly.
