These changes caused the later models to be moved up in BR they were so strong, and the M48s reload to get buffed originally to keep on par with the early models, I can see the M48s reload is being buffed again and I expect this is part of the cause. It would be better balanced if these speedy well armoured machines had a slightly slower output of firepower.
Its not just about the loadout, as I said, the MiG-23 FM makes up for it. You canโt compare a missile bus with a much faster and agile fighter by just looking at the loadout.
False. The mig-23 runs circles around it, it has a substantially higher sustained turn rate.
With 4x R-73 it would put it at 12.7, that would not be great because the avionics would not be suitable, but it would still make it better than the 12.3 jets and even some 12.7
Reason: It has significantly weaker armament for its BR, even when compared to vehicles at a lower BRโsuch as the Ariete Certezza, which boasts a 5-second reload and the superior DM53 round.
Sure, I donโt exactly quiver in fear when I see them. Point is though that if a T20 from a good squadron is on the flank of the map you did not choose, chances are your team is about to be exterminated and heโs about to get a nuke unless you go there yourself to deal with him.
Like I already saidโฆ I am a regular at this BR:
And I see T20s get nukes very often. I also see experienced players who only play the T20 and either get the nuke, or leave after one death, what do you think is dictating this peculiar behaviour? Does this look like a normal premium played by regular players to you?
Check Statshark for the last month, the T20 is in the top three for KPS and K/D, itโs competing with stuff like the KV-220 in terms of these statistics, can we please drop the fiction that this is a terrible tank only played by Godโs chosen WT players?
Like, bro, look at this:
If youโre being honest with yourself, you know what this means.
If you want decompression, you have to stop constantly reducing the BRs of vehicles.
Compression is a result of BRs being reduced and powercreep.
Thanks to the compression we get even more powercreep, so we end up in a vicious cycle.
Itโs the easiest approach, but not a healthy one. Again, player performance (or efficiency) can be used as an indicator, but it shouldnโt be a factor when it comes to moving vehicles down in BR.
When it comes to moving a vehicle up in BR, player performance obviously can be used as a factor.
These top BR increases almost never help to decompress the BRs below ~10, I understand that itโs a slow process, but that process can be a lot quicker when you donโt move a bunch of vehicles down in BR whenever you raise the BRs of vehicles in the same range.
Either one would be fine. They honestly should adjust vehicle specs more often for the sake of balance, especially reload time and turret/gun traversal speeds changes would help avoid vehicles becoming cannonfodder (or bullies).
Thatโs only viable if decompression is your sole objective. If you make F2P MMOs for a living though, you will have to reconcile decompression with lobby population spread, hence you would never tie your hands by only forcing yourself to move vehicles upward. Thatโd be an insane way to develop such a game.
Itโs the only approach that makes sense if your primary objective is to keep players playing.
If this was a single player game itโd be a whole other story.
It is the only factor that matters to keep the game well populated.
Ironically this is one avenue where they did tie their hands, since the adherence to technical fidelity limits their ability to do that. When you only have reload speed and BR, your options are limitedโฆ
Personally I would like them to be far more proactive and aggressive with BR changes as well as dynamic SP cost changes.
I said 2 x R-73s. And oh yes, suddenly a 3rd gen with 4 R-73s is equivalent to the F-15A with 4 AIM-9Ms and 4 AIM-7Fs. Incredible analysis
MiG-23โs flight model may be better than Phantom. But Phantomโs better BVR missiles and ESPECIALLY the quantity of it, and the better avionics (radar and RWR) makes it better than the MiG-23MLD. I play both F-4J and MiG-23MLD, and both are perfect at their BRs.
Should the MiG-23 be 12.0 with the R-73s, that would make it a weaker alternative to the MiG-21 Bison at 12.3 (which gets the better 2 x R-27Rs and 2 x R-73s). The only advantage the MiG-23MLD have over the Bison will be top speed and rate fight capabilities. Hence if you wanna make it move to 12.0, the 2 x R-73 upgrade would be perfect
Its not just about the loadout, as I said, the MiG-23 FM makes up for it. You canโt compare a missile bus with a much faster and agile fighter by just looking at the loadout
By that logic the 12.0 Tornado ADV should also go down in BR as well?
SPAAโs using 35 mm Oerlikon KDA and compatible systems.
BR: As is
Change: Remove APHE from any belts containing such and giving Target Practice rounds (TP or TP-T, basically, solid shot) in place of APHE.
Shooting in general direction of the enemy should NOT be awarded with brainless and easy frags. That way SPAA (at 8.3-9.3) would become less toxic and frustrating class to encounter and not eliminating capabilities to destroy tanks when some brain power is used.
Vehicle: M1A1 AIM, and M1A1(GB)
Gamemode: Ground Realistic
BR Change: 12.0 โ> 11.7
OR Add M829A2
Reason: Is that this vehicle is simply a copy of the M1A1 with an improved thermal imager, which shouldnโt result in a rating increase like the one seen with the MBT-2000 and Al-Khalid-I.
Also, the lack of a powerful round for tanks that are virtually identicalโlike the Click-Bait with the M829A2. These two tanks cannot have the same battle rating.
Also a bad comparison because the MBT2K has more armor coverage and thereโs the T-80UD/BE in the same tree which is a step higher than the T-80UD due to gen 2 thermals
Vehicle: Type 75 SPH
Gamemode: Realistic
BR Change: 6.3 โ> 6.0
Reason: Reduction of BR following the rest of the artillery tanks (M109A1, 2S3M, PLZ83, Rochev)
