The VT-4 should not be at the same 12.7 BR as the 99A. Compared with the 99A, the VT-4 has a larger lower front plate weak zone, worse engine horsepower and mobility, and worse gun depression. I don’t know why Gaijin thinks they belong at the same BR.The VT-4 should be moved to 12.3 rather than 12.7, and the VT-4A1 should be at 12.7 — that would be a reasonable adjustment.
Something more I wanted to point out about this. In the past, when the Italian Pz IV G was still at 3.7, I repeatedly checked Statshark to see how it was doing compared to the Sherman Ic.
This removed new German players from the equation completely, since you are then talking about two low-tier premium medium tanks being played by Italian players, and perhaps on a good number of cases, even as part of the same 3.7 lineup back then. The Pz IV G was doing noticeably worse than the Sherman. And yet it was the one selected to go up in BR.
If it can’t measure up with the Ic in the hands of the same players, it is even more outlandish to compare it to any 4.7.
German players or not, truth is, the vehicle’s just not that good.
Let’s check what things are like now actually, while we’re at it.
It is barely above the tech tree Sherman V in KPS, a tank that is not a premium (so needs to be spaded and is likelier to be played by inexperienced players who didn’t purchase a known-quantity premium to make Italy their second or third tree and thus skip the early ranks).
These are not the numbers of a 4.7 vehicle.
1 Like
No, It’s not
I beleive object 279 needs a slight br decrease to 8.7.
Excuse me? Are you being for real right now?
1 Like
i lost hope already if patch arrives as contain even a bit amount of its directional.
current aa already can counter x10 sp killstreak with one sided reward its already excessive incentive
since i did equiv of 3k0d points and aa player did 2d0e and picked aa and both players spent whole sp to spawned each vehicles, every missile trade possible and only rewards aa
if this patch arrives it become x30 sp with one sided reward and even direct kill possible with 9% sp of single plane
anyone aiming plane directly after 10br is already wrong and dumb unless plane using cheap weapons and ram towards ground like they broke
top plane cas is already dead if there aa player exist
fnf heli should be higher br than top tanks
fnf heli is better than top planes even without buildingdown or mountaindown possibilities
but if helis not have fnf mostly they garbage and no need to nerfed at all
actually mi4av needs to go 6.0 and still might struggle and stuffy to play
i mean even after ata missile buffs i never saw anyone throwing it at me
it must means death for planes like su25 but no never
and no one adressed any problem when single tor can trade and eat all rewards of 1700sp worth of attacker planes missiles without reload very safely
No, you’re thinking of their excel spreadsheet that just tells us what BR’s are changing.
I’m talking about this thread right here. As you can see at this point in time we have 1800+ comments and that’s inclusive of air/ground/naval. What Gaijin should do is have 3 separate threads, Stona could literally copy-paste the same opening post, but have each thread dedicated to a specific vehicle category. That means instead of scrolling through said 1800+ comments for everything, you’d have for example:
- 700 ground replies.
- 800 air replies.
- 300 naval replies.
For that 1800 comments. That means it’s just easier to digest for everyone.
It will fit in nicely with the PT 76 57 and balance the T58 :). On a srious note its getting redicolous for 8.3 and 8.7s to be facing Dm33 laser ranger finders and thermals, all such vehicles should be moved to 9.7. Or all that dont have such devices get moved to lower brs. Not to mention stingrrays and Xm absolute mobility advantage the most important characteristic in grb.
The mirage 4000? That thing doesnt have fox3, isnt better on bvr than the f2a either
2 Likes
I think on 4.0 the Pz IVs are pefect. I have an even higher K/D in the Pz 4 than in the Turán 3, I guess because I had to skip stock grind, and there was no point where I used it in 3.7, only alongside the Turán. And let’s not forget, they even had a reload buff. Nerfing and Buffing them the same time is such a snail thing to do.
1 Like
Imho they have AI summarise the thread for them. A bit like some sub Reddits have a claudebot that says “the most frequently mentioned point is X” etc.
If you were working 9-5 it would take you hours just to read through this entire thread, let alone make notes to summarise it for someone else, so I seriously doubt they’re manually going through it.
As I said, I would only want to increase the VK’s BR if the other vehicles don’t go down.
This is likely the case, but even then, having 3 separate threads would still benefit the players and make any summaries more concise.
1 Like
Yeah. They should have stayed at 3.7 with the slower reload imho, especially with so many Shermans staying where they are/were.
To be clear I agree that they’re “fine” at 4.0 in the sense that, like any tank destroyer, they are pretty BR agnostic, the only redeeming quality they have is the gun, so long as the gun works they work too, but suggesting 4.7 for them is bananas imho.
Even the reload buff hilariously backs up the “TD in disguise” argument, since lately they’ve been giving reload buffs to a ton of off-meta tank destroyers… Pz IVs once again not beating the allegations 😁
That would be great except gaijin just see people doing good with mediocre french tanks and go “yeah clearly its op and not just because the average french players are better” then proceeds to move everything up in BR without adding anything else like the aformentioned AMX-10RCR, AMX-10RC Surblinde or the TML-105 prototypes while adding even more overpowered 35mm spaas that never even left the evaluation stage or unnecesarily broken vehicles like the T58
2 Likes
Lol. I don’t mean to rapid fire response you, but we’re just both online at the moment.
I wouldn’t mind seeing Panzer IV BR’s look something like:
- Panzer IV F2: 3.7
- Panzer IV G & J: 4.0
- Panzer H: 4.3
But, I would also increase the Sherman and T-34 BR’s.
5 Likes
G-lynx amd lynx mk1
GBR 11.3->11.0
LYNX is unreasonable at 11.3, it’s way worse than the 11.7 helicopter.For example, compared to the AH-64A, the AH-64A has 16 Hellfires and high-definition thermal imaging.The zoom ranges from 3 to 63.5X. Look at the LYNX—8-shot Hellfire, low-resolution thermal imaging, only 12X zoom, seriously affects target spotting.
I always enjoy chatting with you mate!
I can definitely see this being workable in the context of a big decompression of the low tiers and also the BR bracket right above it.
For ex. it is insane that the Sherman III/IV is at a lower BR than any long barreled Pz IV. When I spaded what used to be Sweden’s 3.7 lineup the comparison between it and the J was laughable, and now the J is higher in BR lol. Consider merely the fact that any German casemate with the 75mm is automatically better than the Pz IV already and so you would need to move a bunch of them to 4.7, perhaps the Jagdpanzer IV even to 5.0, which in turn would mean moving all the relevant competition etc etc.
The F2 I think would already be fine at 3.7 since it has good mobility, which the later Pz IVs lack.
The only thing we strongly disagree on is the J. To me, it is easily the worst out of all long-barreled Pz IVs and the one most forced into a passive playstyle, which may be good for getting kills but it is atrocious for winning matches.
This is how at later BRs you get the Tiger Timmys that refuse to push an objective no matter what, and just wait scared and passive in cover…
9.3 is insanely low for a plane that has 4 free kills against flareless aircraft, while also having great flight performance unlike the Yak-38 or Harrier Gr.1.
As much as I hate the BI, I think 7.7 is a fair BR and it’s where the komets should be placed as well.
1 Like
I do believe you are right about the A-6E. With this change, it would be above the 2S6, which is more than capable of fighting the A-6E with its fast and relatively long-range missiles. To function properly, the A-6E needs a clear sky due to the laser, it fires slow projectiles, and has a very limited number of said ‘missiles’.
I also agree that the A-7D should not be on the same BR as the A-10A, since it only carries AGM-65As that have a terrible lock-on range.
Lastly, moving the A-7E up to 11.3 with only six AGM-62As is unhinged. The plane doesn’t even have the flight performance to back it up.
Vehicle: A-6E TRAM
Gamemode: Ground Realistic
BR Change: 11.7 —> 11.3
Vehicle: A-7E
Gamemode: Ground Realistic
BR Change: 11.3 —> 11.0
Vehicle: A-7D
Gamemode: Ground Realistic
BR Change: 11.0 —> 10.7