As you can probably tell by the recent BR changes, it was not changed. Indicating it’s performance is once again generally not in a situation that requires it.
The FG.1 and FGR.2 are incredibly similar with very few effective differences between them, so why isn’t something done, like giving one different weaponry, to better differentiate them and give people a proper reason to play both and not just one?
1 Like
Actually not realy, because as we see even vehicles which are doing Very good which could eazely take an BR jump dont get moved (Yes, I look at you 2S38)
There are a few different suggestion reports open for some different ground ordinance options that are under investigation. However for air battles, both of them are currently in a balanced position. So again, the Devs prefer not to make changes to vehicles once they are already in a balanced position.
Consideration also needs to be given to if one does go up, it’s rank may need to change. Which can impact available vehicles at a given rank and economics too.
I’m reffering to it’s actual statical performance. Not perceived performance.
If a vehicle was doing exceptionally well at a given BR, it would go up.
Ah, thats why the comments allways gets Liked to the end
Because its just an perceived Performance lul
Also, If the community is also saying its doing realy fine, why cant it be changed?
Like sure, stats are an thing, but does that mean the Community is less relevant?
6 Likes
if its not named 2S38, its propably the most requested BR change of the community only reason it would not perform as “well”, is because its a premium used by newer players
2 Likes
No, you’re right it isn’t. For some reason I thought it was, but it was just based on Abrams designs.
This is too complex for Gaijin. K/D is what you get, take it or leave it. Doesn’t matter if a vehicle had 100 or 100M games played in the last year. Doesn’t matter that the average k/d of person using it is 3 or 0.5. Statistics have spoken.
Global vehicle statistics is the only holy number Gaijin has besides the max allowed RP/h (they have this one framed in the office)
19 Likes
The ones who decided on this balancing system either don’t know or don’t care that it would only work if every player was the exact same in regard to skill, something that is impossible to achieve.
The initial design is based on the XM-1 (don’t know which one) and further developed using South Korean tech, which is why it’s very similar to the M1 in many ways and underwent similar development paths.
Unfortunately Smin seens don’t wanna answer this XD
Even a simple experiment could easily break down the stupid statistics’ argument.
Put 15 eSports players on Ariete PSOs vs 15 newbies on Leopard 2A7HUs for 100 matches.
I personally guarantee you the good players in the Arietes will defeat the new and worse ones on Leoprards most of the times effortlessly.
But Gaijin, instead of looking at the picture, would say; “ah, yes, that means Ariete PSO is equal or even better than Leopard 2A7HU- statistics say it”… which is why we have Arietes sitting at 11.7 and 12.0.
Does Gaijin already abandon R2Y2’s balance, before delete them, or R2Y2 still efficient at 8.0? espcially it needs to against F86A and MIg15ish
Currently their efficiency performance is already good for their existing BR. So it’s not possible to consider decreasing them at the moment.
See? Another Italian F86 joke
4 Likes
Can you please check how many battles have been played on these aircraft recently? And if you would please graph the battles played over the years as well as their “performance”. Thanks.
The Devs check the number of battles played both in the short contextual term and longer term when reviewing BRs:
Ah I remember this post. It was the one where you suggested lowering the rewards for bombers if you lower their BR.
Putting that economicRank back into “Battle Rating”
I am pretty confused with the efficiency performance, Is it based on the data statistics or the plane? like speed, and fire power, as we know even some of 7.3-7.3 planes performance are better than R2Y2