But it is. Because even knowing what they are couldn’t lead to anyone baking or altering them. The nature of the game wouldn’t let it. But they are asking (forcing really) players to believe they have numbers that justify this change. So back it up. Show us the data that says this SPAA needs to be a hair from the Pantsir. Show us the data that is preventing the Abrams from getting the M829A3 round. It means nothing to use it and then not disclouse it.
1 Like
The Leopard 2k is more mobile than the Leopard 2A4, fires a similar round, has no thermal solution… the difference is the Leopard 2k has “no turret armor”.
Yet they are 0.7 BR apart.
The fact Leopard 2k has dodged getting uptiered for so long is outright impressive, it shouldn’t be the same BR as worse the AMX-40.
4 Likes
Vehicles that aren’t played much could get it’s BR altered by a group of people that specifically aim to do so just for fun, which is why giving out their full stats can be dangerous.
1 Like
You’re altering them either way so I don’t understand the opposition here. How many people where playing the B-29 when it had a 49,000 SL repair cost? Why was it given such a high repair cost? Did Gaijin not want players to use it? What data backed up that decision? We eventually saw it get lowered to something still high but far more reasonable under the economy rework.
But the point is, you are forcing the general player base to trust and accept a change based on data only one side can see. And thats asinine. The player efficiency data should be something you can see on the vehicle’s wiki. Why should I waste my time using a vehicle Gaijin unilately nerfed to a “bad state” because their data said so? Not to mention you also asked for player feedback and then subsequently ignored it.
1 Like
The Problem with the Type 81C isnt just it going up in BR.
The problem is you now leave the 11.3 lineup stuck with a BR 9.3 Type 93 as its only option for SPAA, which by then is literally useless, since you are still fighting 12.3 aircraft with 10km Mavs, and things like KA-50s.
Also, you didnt mention the IR drawbacks of high tier helis being almost completely immune to it, impossible to lock beyond ~4km (2.5km for the poor Type 93) and while yes its got the optical lock, that ONLY works if its in clear sky with no clouds and they are high enough above the ground to give a clear background (which helis usually are not).
Yes, its extremely effective against high flying aircraft, but its completely and utterly unusable the second a heli that can fire from more than 4km away spawns.
And no search radar still.
As for the french tanks, I cant argue about the AMX M4, I literally said in a DM to friends the other day that its probably the most broken tank BR for BR currently, its so damn good. Im sad that its going up and ruining the lineup, but theres no real argument I can make. Though I think the AMX-13 is fine at 6.7 and shouldnt go up.
7 Likes
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
3 Likes
At this point, BR changes should involve a community vote if they aren’t going to disclose their balancing data in regards to implementation.
2 Likes
2A5 still not 11.7?
Also TKX, type81 and fuji need to be 12.0
2 Likes
Indeed, the whole tier 1 BRs for japanese coastal is illogical, nothing has been adjusted accordingly after the replacement of the reserve vehicle.
Moreover, why after all these years finally fixing B-26C BR to be the same as the B-26B in Air RB, but not doing the same for the F-100s and the F-84Fs in Air AB ? Same vehicles with the same equipment having different BRs across different nations is not a normal situation. I have alerted about this situation since years…
@Stona_WT could you please tell us if these issues have been forwarded ?
3 Likes
Or the Tornados
For the love of God don’t change the air simulator battle ratings again. The sim players are a nasty whining bunch, let them have it!
Yeah except the game is based on battle rating, which, in my head, would mean two vehicles at the same br have the same effectiveness in a match, one just trades some stuff for some other. Tiger 2 is the easiest to pick on because it has crazy good armor, gun handling, shells, smoke and also an almost 2 kd almost every month. Meanwhile you have t44 thats just sad at the same br.
And now we’re gonna have m4 that has practically no armor, alright gun handling (if we ignore how bouncy oscillating turrets are and the lack of elevation), decent pen and practically no post-pen at HIGHER br than the tiger 2 h. Which btw also get really good cas options and very very good lineup with it.
M26 is just sad at 6.7 imo i dont even wanna talk about that
Mode: Ground realistic
Vehicle: OTOMATIC
BR Change: 11.3 ->10.7/11.0
Reasoning: having only a quick-firing 76mm gun with he-vt at 11.3 and its not as good as other aa in it’s BR
4 Likes
Gotta love all of the feedback being completely ignored… AGAIN
12 Likes
Im not entirely sure why they even bother with these threads half the time.
5 Likes
Yeah and considering they already updated these BRs on dev we can easily assume further feedback wont be even looked at.
1 Like
Honestly same. Like there seems to be little point to it. And…I don’t understand the lack of CM engagment. No one is following up with player concerns and confusion.
2 Likes
Yeah, especially when the changes being requested arent based upon personal opinion but clear fact.
Im glad the B-26B vs B-26C issue finally got resolved as that was a classic one, it took too long to fix, but its not alone. The clearest at the moment imo, is the fact the J-34 is 9.3 in SB but the Hunter F6 is 9.0 in SB. The F6 is superior to the J34 in every single respect and it just makes absolutely no sense.
Its problems like that, which just confuse the hell out of me and make me question whether the CMs are really forwarding every suggestion or whether the devs even care. Though this time round there was no SB changes at all, so maybe it was noted for next time, but that is a poor excuse in itself
You’re literally in the topic proving they didn’t ignore feedback.
You can say “They acknowledged feedback in a manner I disagree with.” instead and it be accurate to the facts.
2 Likes
The quick reload speed of all tanks in the TKX (P) and Type 90s lineup gives them an advantage in many situations where fire rate plays a crucial role
Which is literally the only redeeming factor whilst being worse in practically every other category, and that advantage is already being chipped away at constantly by giving reload speed increases for other MBTs in lieu of fixing their issues or decompressing the BRs.
Despite lacking a search radar and having to deal with the drawbacks of missiles with IR seekers, such as target acquisition distance, it has a second seeker mode and embraces the benefit of such missiles that have fire and forget capabilities.
Despite lacking in every category and having to go up against jets that engage from 10-20km away, despite being unable to get a lock on anything over 5km, despite not being able to detect anything, despite being unable to lock onto drones, or helicopters or jets half the time for whatever reason, and despite all your feedback, we still treat our statistics like the holy grail of data and ignore everything else.
Statistics mean nothing, it just doesn’t die as often as it doesn’t get detected as easily BECAUSE IT DOES NOT HAVE A RADAR AT TOP TIER.
The TKX (P) will still be able to be in the same lineup as the Type 81 (C), so its Battle Rating being raised doesn’t leave it without a lineup.
A single overtiered MBT with a single overtiered SPAA, what a stellar lineup.
12 Likes