Every market transaction takes a 15% provision iirc.
Considering the price of 279 is well over 600 GJN, they are removing quite a bit of GJN from the market that way.
Happened to me multiple times as well, so I think people just can’t, or simply don’t want to see many non-USSR tanks doing the same exact things they cry about for years now.
So the fact that my friends’ account averages are below their averages in the VIDAR is meaningless, then?
1:1 is the minimum performance standard for a player that isn’t a parasite to their team. If a player who doesn’t manage 1:1 on average gets 1.3:1 with VIDAR, it means the vehicle is making up for their skill issue. Ergo, a vehicle is overtuned for the BR.
VIDAR at 7.7 is busted, regardless of anyone’s K/D with it.
But why are we even talking about it in a thread about 279 ?
Ask the person who brought the VIDAR up initially.
279 remains a bully too effective to be allowed in the early cold war pool with the likes of AMX-50 and T32E1. Perhaps even too effective against 8.0 as well with stabilized APHE touting excellent performance.
Maus is accused of the same, but against 6.7. Many heavies are too effective in -1.0 matches. The most egregious ones are “feast or famine” depending on matchup instead of consistent performance across their entire potential enemy matches.
Depends on the vehicle.
If I get 1:1 in M-18, but 3:1 in M4A2 & 279, and 2:1 in VIDAR.
They’re all different tanks with different roles and comforts.
If 279 is OP then M4A2 should be 4.3, just saying.
I have a wonderful report to share with you all.
Gaijin has made the decision to miss 279 in this BR adjustment!
Love for Soviet Russia destroys stats!
Cheers!
… topic is on fire, so raising the BR is probably inevitable. But I am disappointed that Gaijin made the decision not to raise the BR in the first place.
Hey hey hey the 279 and IS-7 is a special case bro one of them is 600 bucks and another one is 2000, if it wasn’t for their performance they wouldn’t worth shit bro remember pay to win not pay to lose bro, look at the price of the T-10A we all know why because it sucks
Yes.
I always find it puzzling how the general attitude by this playerbase ranges from “git gud” to “this is too frustrating to bother with” depending on which particular challenge/obstacle you’re talking about.
Basically 7.3 to 9.0 yeah.
It saddens me a bit to read stuff like this, because I doubt I’d be playing this game, if that was a thing. The vehicles I like to play the most, are WW2 heavies, and the WW2 tank destroyers that specialise in hunting them, and which would have no sense to exist if said vehicles were gone (just like the perpetual issue of “what about SPAA?” when people discuss a tank-only mode).
Of course having heavy tanks in game makes balance harder. Any new added plane, ship, or vehicle complicates the equation of getting a balanced game. If the solution is to give up, let’s make it a T-34 vs Pz IV game and call it a day. If I was interested in playing very limited and well-defined lineups, I’d go with IL-2 Tank Crew that recreates Kursk. And if I wanted to shoot without having to worry about armour at all, I’d go with pretty much any shooter game out there. I definitely wouldn’t seek out a game about armoured vehicles…
From a gameplay POV, the only reason to bother adding a vehicle (with all the 3D assets etc that go into it) is so that people will play it. If people are to play it, that means the vehicle should be competitive. And for it to be competitive, it should bring something to the battlefield and be able to play to its strengths at least some of the time.
What we have, instead, is a multi-layered onion of imbalance. Small maps, mission types focused on mobility, CAS discount for lights, balance made to minimise the importance of armour, and so on. Which is depressing.
Of course, from a holistic POV, there is another reason to add vehicles to the game, even if they’re not competitive. To draw players in, and then let the slot-machine-like construction of WT do the rest to make them stay, for a time at least. If you don’t treat your game as a game, or if you treat it like a collectible game (gotta catch 'em all etc etc) and don’t really care about the actual playing experience, then it makes sense that you would add vehicles upon vehicles without worrying too much about “meta”.
I agree it 100% does need to be moved up, however. Moving it to 9.0 is not going to fix the issue, unless 9.0-10.0 is decompressed. A lot of these more technologically advanced tanks do. However they shouldn’t be fighting Abrams and Leopards for gods sake.
A solution would be to hard lock the 279 to only see 8.3s in down tiers, until BR decompression at those higher BRs occurs. Thermal dart slingers should not be fighting any early Cold War Vehicles.
Here is how the ideal BR segregation should be:
Interwar/Midwar: 1.0-4.7
Latewar/Early Postwar: 5.0-7.7
Early Cold War: 7.7-9.0
Early “Modern” MBTs: 9.0-10.0
Modern Era: 10.0-15.0
Extending BRs out and having it be more era focused with some exceptions to vehicles that are not capable at all in their “historical” bracket would go a long way to making the game way more balanced.
Put it bluntly the 279 is very good, but not that good. It is like what the Ariete has to deal with in Air RB with undogeable missiles and being sub sonic, with no flares.
The biggest issue I see with the 279 is not the tank itself but how the opposing team deal with it. The majority of observations I make are players panic shooting it, facing it head on with no tactic, or caught off guard by it.
Yes there are plenty of guns in it’s BR range that really don’t have much hope but there are also plenty of guns that when aimed correctly cut it up. The entire tank is basically a tub of tnt with most crew packed into a soup bowl.
Approach a 279 appropriately and aim accordingly and in 6 months nobody will care if it exists much like the Maus is now.
It’s not always the tank that’s the issue but the majority of players who face said tank that’s the issue. You’ll be surprised when you actually adjust your strategy to counter. And you cannot expect any tank you play to face any other tank in equal measure.
(Also bombs and direct arty hits make it looks silly most of the time)
I play France and nothing above 7.7 as I don’t like top tier games.
But even at 7.7 I get uptiered a lot and always end up facing that monstrocity. And good luck penning it with solid shots.
I don’t doubt that some guns can pen it, but that means you have to change nation or stick with an ally that can pen it (which is absurd).
If no tank that I can use can reliably pen the 279, then either you change the br of the things that can’t pen it or you change the 279’s.
The thing is if it moves up (maybe by 0.3 is ok) then most things can reliable defeat it’s strength. It does however have speed unlike the Maus. In contrast the Maus right now is pretty easy to kill but still takes 2-3 shots minimum with most guns due to how spacey the interior is. 279 can be 1 shot if a shot with enough pen can get past not only the armour but detonate the ammo which is the entire tank or you 1 shot the turret crew. So 279 doesn’t get the benefit of moving up but having some chance like Maus but does get mobility. I personally think a 0.3 increase wouldn’t bury it while giving some more tanks avoidance of it altogether.
Agreed, but then again the best way of dealing with weird tanks like the Maus, 279 or T95 would be to simply implement a BR lock so it can’t face ennemies that don’t stand a chance against it.
like -0.3/+1
Boss there isn’t Russian bias for one. Two the tank is selling for 650+ because it is rare and it was a highly difficult event. Also people are playing it because it is a tank.
Yeah of course, it’s always the best to have as many vehicles as you can in the game, but then the balancing can become pretty tricky in some situations, and if devs can’t handle that, things will simply break and people won’t be happy.
As I said, plenty of heavies are either pretty damn strong or borderline useless. I guess this game was made with WW2 tech in mind, since it feels like anything newer than that simply isn’t very well balanced, and in my opinion, cold war heavies suffer the most, at least in most cases.
So many vehicles are losing their niche because of the map changes, which it’s quite sad to see.
Don’t quote me on it, because I wasn’t there - I only started playing around 2022, so most of what I know about game development in the early days comes from pure hearsay. But on the old forum and sometimes here as well, I’ve often seen it mentioned that the original vision for the game was to not go past the end of the Korean War.
Intuitively it makes sense given the maps we have and the way gameplay is like, but obviously that doesn’t automatically make it factual. That said, there is some logic to the idea, tanks until the Korean War were still designed with WW2 lessons in mind, it also explains why Germany (which unlike the Soviets and the Americans didn’t have Korean era domestic designs) got the Maus and the paper vehicles to make it viable at what was then top tier.
(An approach I don’t think should have been abandoned, but that’s a different discussion).
Btw, in my last match I finally achieved another nuke with the Jagdtiger (and the Sla for the final stretch), so for a little while at least, I’m in a state of blissful zen with the game 😁😂
You can see from the maps themselves, playing 11.7s on vast majority of them feels very cramped, no wonder since those things can cruise at 50+ km/h so you will run out of room very quickly.
At one point, vehicles like Leopard I were top dogs and to be honest, they can’t even hold a handle to top tier tech nowadays.
Our tech progressed so much, but maps haven’t progressed alongside and that’s one of the biggest problems we have.
It’s especially nice to get nukes in niche vehicles.
One of my recent nukes happened while playing T92 at 6.7, which is a vehicle that many don’t like because of it’s 76mm HEAT-FS firing gun that deals “no damage”.
I think I’ve destroyed like half a dozen German 6.7 TDs in that match, it’s really hard for them to survive while hordes of HEAT slingers are roaming around the map, so getting a nuke in Jagdtiger is quite a feat.
Yes, and the other is the stale mission types, I think.
Haha, my second-ever nuke was with a Dicker Max (well, not all of it, but the first 7 kills of that match). Frozen Pass, 5.7 lineup in a full uptier. That was really bizarre :D
I’ve obviously only played against it, so I have no direct experience, but I was really surprised when I started reading that people dislike it. Usually when I encounter it, it’s being used by very competent players, often at the top of the leaderboard in their own teams.
Granted, I imagine it presents a similar struggle to other similar vehicles like the JPz 4-5, no armour, and the calibre here is even smaller, so you’re basically throwing darts.
Yes, though I was honestly lucky this time. It was a 7.0 match for starters, and Israel was on our team, so I think we had more HEAT than they did. I mostly encountered IS-2s, arty pieces (2S1/3M), M26A1, T-44 and T-34-85, stuff like that.
The other two nukes I got with it in 7.3 matches had a lot more HEAT slingers, and thus feel “more earned” to me, although this one came completely out of the blue, I had played 5.7 all evening and realised I hadn’t touched my 6.7 lineup in a while and did a handful of games in it right before bedtime. Bam, nuke. Then you try for 100 matches straight and don’t get it… it’s a funny game, WT 😂
It’s funny that I never got one in a full downtier. One more thing to corroborate my feeling that I legit do worse in full downtiers with 6.7 than I do in uptiers, which is also weird.
Quite a lot of people dislike those low-caliber HEAT slingers because of low post pen damage. Yeah, they can go through stuff with ease, but it’s quite a different experience when compared to WW2 shells like APHE, those things will basically delete everything when they pen.
Going from APHE to HEAT will force you to aim for specific crew members or ammo, instead of aiming for weakspots.
I think JPz is harder to play, yea it has a bigger caliber gun, but also has a lot of drawbacks as well.
Regardless of vehicle, 76mm HEAT won’t have good post pen, but I think it’s more than manageable, at least when you learn where to aim your first shot at for different vehicles you can face.
I don’t even go for it, ever, if it happens, happens. Probability of a nuke is pretty small for your average player, so it’s for the best to not even think about it, unless you are one of those crazy skilled veterans.
My problem of these shells is the inconsitancy of the damage coupled with high reload times and bad balistics.
Hit a side skirt, you get no damage, volumetric spot ? no damage, optics ? no damage, weirdly shaped armour ? no damage and so on …
The only way to be sure to deal damage is firing at a perfectly flat surface with nothing on it such as bits if tracks.
For example, the only way to pen the 279 with a 90mm HEATFS is the small flat surface of the turret on the right cheek. But that leaves it plenty of time to retreat and get a new gunner.