Nothing weird about this. Plenty of inexperienced mains get to the tech tree Tiger II very quickly. Mid tier premiums like the Sla tend to be purchased by people who are thinking about lineup depth etc, not by the average noob. Sure, plenty of Tiger II Sla players are also braindead/inexperienced, but it’s a well-known phenomenon for premiums at these BRs to mostly be played by people who actually have eyes and hands.
This is WT. You are very rarely safe. The survivability onion applies to all tanks. If it’s not an AMX, it’s a Fiat. If it’s not a Fiat, it’s an Ontos. If it’s not an Ontos, it’s an IS-3. If it’s not an IS-3, stop me any time - you must have your eyes and ears open and play with situational awareness. The engagement between an AMX-13 and a Tiger II is a very classic case of, whoever will see the other first will win the encounter. So it will come down to the skill of the player, not the features of the tank.
So confirms the tigers are only good if you are good at the game. Too much blame is probs being put on the tigers as the full line up is fat slow and heavy, you were spot on…no versatility.
7.0 AA shredding germany’s best from front… Pretty disappointing, I did expect a little more from the king
What tank in War Thunder plays itself? If you’re not good, you’ll make anything look bad. This is perfectly normal.
Although I also feel compelled to point out that, again, I’m still playing this 6.7 lineup in the 7.0 - 8.0 bracket and spawning the big cats even in uptiers and still getting good results with them. So, the lack of versatility presents you with an additional difficulty, but it’s not dooming you to perform poorly.
Just yesterday I got a nuke at 8.0 with the Jagdtiger on Huertgen Forest. I even ended up CQCing. I had the pleasure to send a TO-55 back to the hangar.
Treat the German 6.7s right, and they will serve you right.
You have exceptional firepower and the best reload of any heavy in the bracket short of the French heavies at 7.7, a full BR above you. If you also had impenetrable armour, the KT would be busted as fuck. Its weaknesses are mobility and situational armour that’s concentrated in the UFP. In exchange for those it gets to put out more lead than its heavy adversaries.
jag plays itself. I got over 1 KD so it has to lol
Theres no way id be getting anywhere near in the tiger2-. Real heavies and cracked AA are just 0.3 above. Its not just germany if i start getting zapped by AA in US heavies i just wont use them either, Germany u have no choice.
Im really thinking peak war thunder ground in general is lower BRs.
I’d argue the separation between 2.0 to 3.0, 2.3 to 3.3, and 2.7 to 3.7 are for more important to the health of the game than 6.7 to 7.7. Especially for new player retainment. There’s tons of seal clubber vehicles here, and the differences between a 2.0 to 3.0, 2.3 to 3.3, or 2.7 to 3.7 vehicles are massive.
Just compare something like the M14/41 to the M4A3 105. You’ve only got 48mm of penetration on your best shell point blank.
T-28E has 67mm of penetration on its best shell point blank. B1 Bis has 62mm penetration at point blank. Again, just compare it to the M4A3 105.
I’m happy this recent BR thread had some adjustments, but more needs to be done.
there is a simple solution to everything. just give UPTIER and DOWNTIER only 0.3BR and not 1.0BR. 1.0BR difference is the cancer of the game! 99% of games when I get an opponent 1BR higher, I leave the game and a large part of the players do the same with me. No game in the world has such a stupid system that you have to play against an opponent 3 levels stronger! that is madness! Especially when in super pershing an opponent kills me with missiles in a helicopter. really realistic game. or when my T90A destroys with HESH ammunition that nonsense T58! how can it be 8.7 when with one shot it destroys a T90A at 11.0Br head-on? the whole BR system according to player statistics is nonsense! mainly TOP TIER is played like counter strike 2! simply whoever shoots the tka first wins. it is no longer even a tank battle but a stupid shooter in the style of counter strike 2.
Well, I’m in favor of historical matchmaking (within the vehicle’s capabilities). For example, I want to use the M41 against the T-54, or the PT-76B against the M48 (I hope they finally add the A3 version), but one thing is crystal clear: to make this matchmaking work, the damage and penetrations would have to be reviewed. I want to use the M41 with its APDS, dealing consistent, not random, damage, and with realistic fragmentation that could kill the turret crew with one shot. The PT-76B (which finally got realistic reloading) should deal consistent damage to the HEaT-FS and have a penetration of around 280mm (supposedly its actual penetration).
Historical matchmaking is possible to a greater or lesser extent, but it would first require significant changes to damage models, penetration mechanics, and a complete overhaul of the maps. Giving the game historical matchmaking as it is would be like trying to fill a bullet wound without removing the bullet from inside.
These two statements are contradictory, because real history had no balancing mechanism. Obviously.
You either have historical matchmaking or you have performance-based matchmaking. What you’re describing is not historical matchmaking, it’s performance-based matchmaking that sometimes happens to have vehicles at the same BR that were also contemporary in real life (like the Tiger II and the IS-2, say).
You can. No one is stopping you. You can already do this within the current BR system, if you wish to fulfill your individual preferences this way. Crucially, however, the current system means not everyone who wants to play a PT-76 is forced to go through this incredibly lopsided match-up. While if we had historical matchmaking, people would have no choice, and 9/10 players would simply never spawn the PT-76 again.
So let’s translate.
“In order to successfully overhaul a core game system, we need to successfully overhaul two other core game systems as well”.
You understand why this is a complete non-starter, yeah? And we haven’t even begun to touch the economic and meta-progression aspects (which are the most important of all from a dev’s POV).
Let’s just remake the whole game while we’re at it, lol.
Where this analogy breaks down is in the fact that the game is not wounded. It is an incredible commercial and player success. So you are asking for a complete overhaul of the game when it’s already going well, with no guarantee that the new version would bring in enough money and new players to justify this incredible mountain of work.
Maybe you need to consider the alternative - which is that if you require such a large scale overhaul in order to enjoy WT, perhaps it is not WT that needs to change, you just should focus on playing something else you’re more in the mood for, at least for a while.
A serious decompression of the game in the 5.0-8.0 range would be most welcome.
If it was up to me, I’d hard split the game with ww2 plus immediate post war, and then cold war onwards. New tech trees for the cold war era, with nations that make more sense for the era (less subtrees! It’s OK to have tech trees without a low tier - look at Israel!).
There is enough low tier cold war stuff to have that become the bottom end of cold war gameplay (plus this could be an idea to alleviate the grind - reach rank 3 ww2 and get access to cold war tech trees)
Matchmaking doesn’t need to be, and shouldn’t be, purely historical. It needs to be “more historical” than it is now. Time travelling rats running around with tanks 30-40 years older than them is just silly.
This selection makes very little sense. At the moment, 5.7 - 6.7 is a lot more compressed than 6.7 - 7.7 for example. 6.7s get some of the easiest full uptiers in the whole game, while 5.7s get some of the hardest.
Then it’s a very good thing it’s not up to you. Good luck with your IKV 72 against T-54s man, lol.
This would halve the grind for people who only care about modern vehicles, so obviously it completely destroys the intended meta progression set by the devs.
The least played tree in the game by an order of magnitude? Okay. Sure.
I put this because of the Swedish tanks, many of which date from 1945, carrying low-velocity 37mm or 75mm guns.
I know, but I’d prefer to use them with their actual capabilities, not pit them against tanks from the same era but with artificially reduced capabilities.
It’s not that difficult either, it’s simply a matter of correcting the damage mechanics of all bullets and only moving some Br tanks to be more separated.
The developers have made new maps and updated old ones, and I don’t think they needed to release a new game for that. I’m not talking about changing the mechanics, I’m talking about revising them.
As I said before, it’s not about making the game from scratch, it’s about adjusting existing mechanics that are clearly flawed, such as the bullet damage model (APHE vs. Full AP or all the others), the absurd ricochets, the damage that disappears, or the CQC maps. Improving all of this doesn’t require making a completely new game; it requires the developers’ willingness. Even players themselves created better penetration calculators than the developers.
Don’t think I play that much, either. Some days I play a little over ten matches, but other days I don’t even manage that. I just do the bare minimum for clan points. But anyway, it’s the same thing. Why would I leave the game for a while if, when I come back after three or four months, I’m just going to play one match only to find the game is the same or worse? With new updates, the game has been filled with new, unfixed bugs that have been added to the old ones. Oh, and because of a new map update, now the trees drop your FPS from 165 to 28 :)
Honestly, I know the devs aren’t going to change anything, since, as you rightly say, the players are the ones who want the game to be the way it is, and that’s all the devs care about. But it’s a shame that some changes weren’t made to improve damage and other aspects to make the game fairer and so that you don’t depend on whether your tank is APHE or not. Although this change made many players cry because, due to the damage change, instead of having a kill ratio of 2.8, it dropped to 2.1.
Hardly in the same situation as I proposed. It currently competes with a bunch of tech trees that go from reserve to top tier.
If there were two sets of trees, early up to shortly post ww2, and cold war onwards, and the cold war onwards ones unlock after reaching a set point in the low tier ones, then they’d all be on a more or less equal footing.
There could be some way of having almost a tree of trees - for example, low tier USSR could unlock higher USSR which would effectively by rank 6+ of the current USSR/Russia tree, and a hypothetical East Germany tree, hypothetical North Korea tree, etc. Some of these could be accessed through other routes (obvious example East Germany from WW2 era Germany).
Some of these would have very thin lineups. That is a problem. How to solve it? Maybe you could use minor nation trees’ vehicles in lineups for associated major nations. I think this could be a much neater way to do sub trees (and it would avoid the controversy of why does X nation go into Y tree).
I’m not a game designer/developer. Just throwing ideas out there that sound interesting.
Not neccessarily. You wouldn’t start from them. You’d still have to go through low tier, but maybe not to the end of WW2.
The time it takes to reach top tier is already a problem for player retention. We have seen rebalances of research costs to address this before. It is another way to achieve the same goal. Still a grind, but one that isn’t going to make high tier ever more inaccessible.
only 1 step might be too far.
But a jumbo 75 facing Tiger 2 H is pretty stupid.
They need to try 2 step margin so a 5.0 can face up to 5.7 or down to 4.3.
Even with above mentioned changes, not sure how can slot in something like a Tiger 2 H.
Anything above it in BR will be cold war. So… it will be guaranteed top-tier every battle?
