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
And heavy tanks still required the most sp to spawn, even the ones at 8.3 where armor value has become irrelevant, like the T-10M requires more sp to spawn than the T-55A doesn’t make much sense, like what advantage it has over medium at that 8.3 to justify the higher requirement lol
2 Likes
Interesting points. I entered the game as a newbie of course, but I entered RB as a newbie at level 80 or so after playing AB air and ground modes. Yes the RB mode had an essentially higher learning curve due to ability to sneak around (not something easy to do in AB). So as a “newbie” I found it more challenging (AB is challenging but in different ways) but learnt to improve. So in your first item I would say it possibly for that reason (this is just one player’s take, but just because many might agree with a point does not make it correct; this is not a popularity contest), but with it new issues were created.
To casualise a mode that in a way was more “tactical” (purely from the markerless system) to increase popularity (still the least popular mode before Naval and Sim, by a margin) alters how the game is played (still a contradiction of “grind” versus “play” in every battle; this is a killer in the long run in my opinion), resulting in what we currently have. Edit: and to remember the game is basically the same through different modes, the “Realistic” is purely about the mechanics of the vehicles in comparison between modes (AB/RB/Sim) and any “aids” like friendly/enemy vehicles being marked and some control method changes.
So in regards to Aircraft, it became easier/quicker to obtain, even with the large difference in SP costs associated. This in theory might point to why “spam” is more common than it might have been.
This appears to be a GFRB thing. All other modes do not winge about Old Vets (and old vets in ground will be new in air mode, and vice versa… or maybe old vet had a break and needs to learn again; a lot is lost even with a few months off in my experience). Some Old Vets play in one of the many different ways to approach GFRB, so not all Old Vets would be “put off” by “dumbing down” (I know this is a poor description so bare with me) but in fact find it is now more to what they want. Grouping people can be problematic when trying to understand.
As I have mentioned before, to deaf ears, we do not know why maps have been altered. We know how but not why for sure. So, without such information it is almost pointless guesswork. For example, is it due to complaints (eg spawn rushing/sniping/camping) or is it due to perceived player “likes” (e.g. heat map of where players go, maybe they worked out people just want a bum rush to face smacking) or was it a reaction to certain more “cheeky” ways to accrue kills (so to lock down ability to get to positions by removing the route or the position directly).
As always with mainly “other players” to get the answers to many of these points we get no where as the hurdle is Gaijin, not our theoretical takes on the game/modes.
2 Likes
That was one vehicle. They have have not removed others. Maus was added at a very different time in WT with 2 nations (was US in then too? Regarding GF) as they had nothing to compete with Russian advancement (in regards to Performance of added vehicles as they moved into after/late WWII tech). This was way before I started in 2015/16.
It is a special case, and since then the remit of the game in this regard has evolved. So no other heavy vehicle has been removed like this (outside of Premiums being hidden for rarity I presume, therefore FOMO, and the paper tank which is no longer needed). The Maus is obtainable almost every year, but I take that as a “you can still have it but it is NOT the vehicle to base the game on”.
yes, bc it is even more a later ww2 heavy, than the IS4 etc.
It is so slow, that it just lacks the mobility unlike the T10 M, that with a stabalizer and heat-fs as well as APDS, is more on par with an uparmored idea of MBT’s.
It is just so much of a heavy ww2 tank (sometimes called superheavy) that even Gaijin cant overlook the issues it causes and can’t fix.
Namely here the era-differences being almost never factored into balancing the game, which makes the one-dimensional BR-System totally overworked in balancing the matches.
We need more tools (like asymmetric mission sets), but instead it gets ignored in favor of adding vehicles (like the F16 AJ, esp now that we have the F15 J) that never existed or even removing one that did.
It shows that the 1-D BR-system is unadequat in making a good mm.
And unfortunately this is all the mm works off. Even forcing mixed battles in top tier, even though at least most nations have competitive top tier vehicles.
I do not understand your points that well. And to relate it to a vehicle that “does not exist” but clearly also exists as F-16s exist in game in multiple trees (I am not sure if the AJ is modeled in anyway differently) is not fully equivalent. Or should Japan not have anything to use when at least there is a acceptable link here in my mind (and to be replaced when suitable replacement is added, as was done in part to Maus), and the caveat of hiding once this is resolved?
It is funny as most players you view in the Maus have amazing stats in such a “poor” vehicle with issues (I only went so far as unlocking since there was far too much to do in game).
Era-differences mean nothing in a game based upon performance in the WT environment, and for the most part it works well, just skewed by the popularity of Russia/US/Germany and how this makes nation’s vehicles harder to compare.
The Maus does not suffer, it was removed because it is hard to balance such an odd vehicle (world moved on clearly), and that is was only ever added due to different situations back in early GF days and people wanting Germany to be competitive against the only other nation in game with GF, but the game moved on A LOT since then and they handled it well with “in game, not a normal acquirable, but still available to keep us happy”.
God you lot make me want to come back and pee about with vehicles again… but I remember the players so thank fk for the forum to scratch that itch xx
Edit:
I have never found the +1 BR MM unworkable, this appears to be just how people approach the game/grind with odd expectations. If you don;t like +1 then use vehicles built for +1 and remember most of the players on both sides are EXACTLY like you can can exchange with one another, not the 4 players per side in possibly better vehicles (but also might just as easily play like poor AI). But MM is a different subject.
Heavies in the past were ALWAYS generally: Good in Downtiers, Bad in Uptiers, with Germany having the guns that can hold it up like the Tigers, or USA having the Jumbo where the stability, and dumb way players use the map/vehicles, allows for the weaker gun but trolly armor from giving them some life in the +1. The situation with Heavies starts at 1.0 and not really something to worry about for the most part.
it isn’t acceptable since unlike the Maus for the predesessor of Germany, Japan never had even one F16. The F16 AJ was just a concepted proposal, that was decided against. Not even a prototype. And now with the F15 J, at basically the same br, you don’t have the excuse to fill a hole in capability, that also could be filled by teamwork. Like the US that have many bases in Japan, that would fill the lacking capability. But War Thunder doesn’t care about that…
no, the Maus was never added as a placeholder. It was like every other tank at that time, a normal tank. It was never added as a placeholder. Unlike the F 16 AJ, that was, and now, where it isn’t needed anymore, still isn’t removed.
what? it either dominates, or gets dominated. So it sufferes…
I think your defenition of suffering is weired here.
As I wrote (bc we balance everything through a 1 D-Matchmaker), but the MM has limitations.
And I wouldn’t say it works good, if you have to remove a tank of the first days bc of those limitations.
Yes the game changed, but for the worse, requireing such things to happen. Requireing the gameplay change of esp heavies, that now have to deal with decade newer AA or IFV’s etc that get balanced against tanks, bc of their modern munitions being against tanks way better, than agaisnt the AA-needs they were introduced for. Like R3’s…
it isn’t unworkable for sure, but do you want your only balancing system to be not unworkable, or do you want it to be actually good?
no vehicle is build for +1. Vehicles are build for the threats and tasks they had at the time they were designed. And those go completely ignored in this game, and that is a big issue imo, esp when those tasks aren’t even in game or get rewarded (like escorting heavy bombers over large distances, or using modern mbt’s over actual distances), which imo they should aim to include, not exclude for a Counterstrike-like 3 lane Map-design.
Edit:
Don’t get me wrong, for arcade having such simple and small maps is fine, but not for realistic or sim, that unlike the changes in air still rely on bigger versions of the often arcade or rb maps with now the same objectives.
I think we need EC for tanks and like the group that wants EC air for RB, I think there should also be a more EC like (esp since you can get out of the match before it ends and jip without much loss) ground battle, like they kind of tried out a bit with the april fools update.