Its as much about game immersion and general happiness as anything else.Im sure apart from the ammo issue being killed by a Puma at 3.7 br is just as frustrating but its all WW2 so somehow easier to accept.Maybe many of us adults can only justify playing a game to ourselves if its viewed as historical,educational or vaguely realistic and adult.The era mix shatters that illusion for many.its just a silly kids game past 5BR for some.
1 Like
So in other words, you agree that they’re balanced at the tiers they are currently at. And it therefore follows that if you move them up to up, you’d be making them perform worse. Move them up enough, and they become unplayably bad.
You’re legitimately arguing that the Ikv-103 should be at the same tier as the Leopard 1, as if they’re anyway comparable. Giving them free spawns does nothing to address the hilarious power gap between the two.
Hell, we have trouble enough trying to convince players to spend all the SP they get instead of one death leaving, I don’t think offering them borderline unusable fodder, even at 0 SP, is going to be all that tempting. Why would you even waste a crewslot from Sweden’s excellent 8.0 lineup to slot in something that terrible?
4 Likes
I have been on this game about 5 years and never bothered to go past 8BR due to the mixed up nature of it.I played Isreal and its a sad mix of old tanks and ATGMs etc.Just no fun at all.Just feels like its a failure to me.I have seriously considered buying a good top tier premium and skipping the mid tier tedium.Made me think,have you ever considered that all these alleged newbies who only run one tank at top tier are not fresh faces but bored and lost old timers who couldn’t be bothered with the long boring grind and era mess mid game.
I dislike one death leavers, but this probably not relevant to this topic. People with the will to keep fighting will gladly take the opportunity to respawn for free.
I wouldn’t say that these vehicles are “unplayable”, even in a massive uptier of 2-3 BRs. Yes, you wouldn’t be able to solo the game like you could in a proper tank, you will need to change your tactics to support your team who still have their heavy vehicles instead.
You would choose such a teammate and operate as a flank screener, protecting them from flanking, even if all you can do is to die and give them a few precious seconds while the enemy is reloading to get into cover.
Or you can go and rush into an enemy cap point to decap it and make enemy players waste their time recapping it.
If you’re too slow, you can play defensively, sitting in the ambush on a critical intersection, waiting for an enemy to drive by and nailing them in the side armor.
If people can take a BT-7 or an M22 into a top tier game and do almost as well as in a proper tank, you can certainly make use of these Reserve vehicles to help your team to win.
How often do you make use of all 5 slots in your lineup? 1 plane, 3 mainline tanks and 1 reserve seems like a pretty good combination.
Just because people are selective about what they consider to be historically okay. Otherwise, Pumas and Panzer IV Hs would be at 6.7 with the Jagdtiger and the Tiger II.
And that’s fine. WT is literally too large a game to experience it in its entirety for a single person. Choosing to focus on an area of interest is ok. I never play above 7.7 because I’m not too interested in the modern stuff.
But that doesn’t mean I want to screw over other players.
Putting the IKV 103 at 8.0 means nobody will ever spawn it again. That’s not fun. My enjoyment of the game does not grow if someone else’s is killed.
This is the universal problem of WT. If your suggestion relies on players playing an exact specific way in order to work, it has already failed. Forcing players to behave a certain way is basically impossible. They would just not spawn it and move on.
They do it because they want to do it. But they can also play those machines at their proper BRs, which under your suggestion, would not be the case.
You should also ask yourself why people have fun uptiering those two vehicles but you never see it done with the IKV…
5 Likes
Im seriously thinking of just skipping 6 to 9 and just buying a top tier premium and running one tank to see if that is anymore fun.Spares me all this era related rubbish.I will join the ranks of the ODL brigade at top tier.
Abrams has 105mm, Dicker max has 105mm
Clearly M1 should be 3.3
3 Likes
But they are different lengths and different breeches, etc. Same actual width means nothing. Dicker Max and Abrams both have a 105mm, and you know damn well they aren’t the same gun at all.
I use Ikv 103 at 8.3
1 Like
I am not saying that system should be implemented. I don’t think it should.
I was just saying that if it was, that is how you could balance it better.
This tangent is a good example of why we really need ordnance-based variable BRs. Shell types, missiles, bombs, etc. Not normal modules though, as that’s far too gameable.
Adding in every decimal point (3.0, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, etc) would help with this as well, among other benefits.
Now I have the additional question of why you’re playing Sweden 8.3 when it has a single tank at that tier, an off meta ATGM carrier at that. Especially when 8.0 and 8.7 are some of the strongest lineups in the entire game, and include ATGM carriers of their own, so you aren’t even missing that capability.
Genuine question, what 8.0 tank (or tanks, depending on lineup size) are you not bringing to make room for the Ikv?
Maybe one SAAB-105OE and ikv-103 line up lol
I use the T-54, Strv 101, VIDAR, the Ikv 73 but with a missile thing, the U-SH, the Ikv 91, and the Saab 105G. The Ikv 103 is just filling an extra slot
(Lol, YOU are a US main?.. That was quite the thing to read)
On topic: Would there be a point where the SP cost of the latest in tree Heavies could be reduced to a medium since essentially the trade offs are not as extreme as lower down in BRs? This will be for the 7.7+ and nothing lower in my mind. Then there is less worry about spawning an essentially redundant class (for their BR position).
3 Likes
To be honest, I kinda question the nessesity of those variable SP costs between classes at all these days.
Even at lower tiers, a heavy isn’t several times as efficient combat wise as a TDs, especially on maps that favor sniping more than brawling.
Maybe tie it specifically to tiering, so top tier heavies get a cost increase while bottom tier ones are evened out compared to mediums. A bottom tier heavy still sporting an increased SP cost is just kinda sad.
4 Likes
The big issue with heavies and more modern AFVs is simply speed.Its hard to be competitive when your rivals have 3 kills before you can even arrive at the action.
Then when you do the enemy are behind you.
Not something Gaijin ever thought about or care about.
I mean I am made redundant by my own team in some games,the game is over before I even get there and the front is moving away so fast I dont even get to partake in the game unless I’m wiped out by CAS.
Hardly reason to spawn a heavy in later BRs .Spammed by fast and modern or HE firing arty one shoting me from across the map,even at 6BR now.
I gave up on the fast heavies mostly with the exception of Russia at 6.7 and even that can be a boring chore.
It made more sense before they made RB “easier” by adjusting all the SP costs many years ago. Spawn a Heavy in a Full down tier and achieve nothing and it was Return to Hangar, now people have the opportunity to burn through spawns willy nilly.
Of course the old system was flawed in its own ways and always easier to think “was better in past”.
They made it more accessible but then a lot of issues seem to stem from this “dumbing down”.
1 Like
no, Gaijin just removes them, if they can’t balance them against cold war heat and apds…
See the Maus
1 Like
We need to focus on this “Dumbing down” .Is it to allow new players to enter the game and have a chance of survival? Taking the power away from the old veteran? Fill the game with CAS ,constantly alter maps to negate map knowledge?
1 Like