Well I mean that part is obvious, the Indians have used many Soviet/Russian designs. So if they’re going to include India, then there are going to be Russian/Soviet designs wherever India is.
Unrelated to that, I looked up the statements from Gaijin last year when they published the original roadmap, and actually, they never said they would stop balancing vehicle BR based on player statistics, only reward multipliers and repair costs. Which is understandable, if not ideal
DM63 should be reasonable for the kat, compared to other wheeled assault gun of the BR, it lacks a good thermal, the turning radius is huge, bad elevation handling and no rear clearance, with the only advantage of 10deg depression. It should be roled something like ZLT11 focusing on firepower then.
BTW, 9Ms for F-14B was added to the list one of first… feedback? Or it just to make some activity?
Hi. I am out of the loop here as I don’t even know what is the vehicle at question. But I have to ask, are biases like player skill included in this “efficiency” metric. Like a vehicle can be played mostly by skilled players, or at least most players that do play it have good performance in vehicles of similar type. Such vehicle would appear as if it’s overperforming. It gets raised in BR, so even less players play it. After a few times only players who want to play such overtiered vehicle are those that are very good at the game, and they’ll still do well in it. Average players are going to quit after a few games, not generating any new data points.
TLDR: Is player skill included in the “efficiency” metric.
Thats the thing tho, not every vehicle that a nation operated also has to be added.
the Type 16 stays in 9.3 and the Fuji went up from 11.0 to 11.3, I think now the Type 16 will be more usable with DM23 but who knows
Gaijin going to OK the leak list to be released today to distract from BR changes :>
As far as I’m aware efficiency is purely related to the average SL gain for that vehicle per battle.
Which means yes, better players = more sl per match = directly affects efficiency
I already know that I’m going to be pissed about at least 25% of whatever is included in the leak list
I see now the Chieftain mk10 avoids being up br that’s good, but I’m still missing why we don’t have a Chieftain mk11 with TOGS placed at 9.3 atleast
Actually that might be better after I thought about it. The best armored tanks of the BR like object 292, leopard 2A4 and sometimes abrams or CR1 in a good position. You wont see them then. There will be anmoying stuff like 2S38 but you will only see them in a full uptier.
I am still unsure why the forum craves for leaks, while an update usually dissapoints most.
“Quick they’re angry go log onto that chinese site and post something”
AGS at 11.3 now without a shell better than the M833…I’m starting to regret activating it instead of selling it
Cause you know, having the same flat pen as the 9.3 Leo 1 L/44 but at 11.3 definitely makes sense, right ?
Speak for yourselves, I don’t think I can name an update that disappointed me.
Except for every one that doesn’t have submarines…
Never mind, I retract my statement
I can’t remember the last time I wasn’t disappointed about an update for War Thunder
that’s exactly what I have in mind, now 9.3 and 9.0 will be remain calm with things like t-80b, leo 2a4, abrams and more stuff far from there
There have been a few isolated diamond in the rough additons for me, But as a general rule of thumb. New additions suck for at least a year+ and so you have to wait
Each update does have something I like, so its hard to say it dissapoints me as well. But that is because I play Britain, Italy, China, Israel and France - it is hard to be upset about new additions in these trees.
Also I have like super low standards. Non C&P is a pass.
