It’s a stupid idea, and if you’re right, why doesn’t anyone play ZTZ99A? Why do most people complain about BVM? It’s ridiculous.
1 Like
I had a big reply here but I can’t be bothered so I’ll just put one remark in here that I had: your response is slightly tone-deaf.
1 Like
Congratulations on making BR changes that made more people confused and upset than satisfied.
You are a russian main thats probably because only you see good these changes.
Before the changes:
-Fighting 100% of the battles in full uptier a spam of T-72, 2S38 and BMP-2 but supported by Leopard 2
After the changes:
-Fighting 100% of the battles in full uptier a spam of T-72, 2S38 and BMP-2 but without the support of Leopard 2.
Yes, thanks Gaijin for this amazing update!!!
2 Likes
Insane ERA? It has very little use for my point, above 400 or so pen, the UFP could easily be shot through, and the mobility lets it down quite a bit, the Challenger DS is a bit… but if you play from behind hills it will work much better than Turms cause you kinda have to rush since you have 4km/h reverse and 5degree depression.
Cause BVM was Soviet’s only top tank for years, and they had a head start of players compared to China; People complain cause it’s so populace, just as people complained about Abrams from 2019 through a bit of 2022.
I played Soviets initially cause one friend was playing Soviets and it was Warsaw vs NATO. China didn’t come into the game until I was already to 8.7 Soviets, otherwise I would’ve picked up China first.
Then Warsaw vs NATO was removed and the fact my USSR was top BR in air and ground was just a statistic now.
I’m to 8.0 China on my way to ZTZ-99A. It’s my favorite of the carousel autoloaded tanks.
I prefer to say something that’s true instead of sugar coating it. I’ve also created a couple of suggestions for Chinese vehicles (and I intend to keep on doing so, when the schedule makes it possible) but i know that they’re just that, suggestions. If, for any reasons, the devs feel like what i suggested is not good for the game, then so be it.
Mind you, I’ve also stated previously that, in my humble opinion, we shouldn’t be so negative about it. I’m just saying that only because we suggest something it doesn’t mean that it automatically will be in game.
1 Like
Just saying, it’s been a bit of a constant that “suggestions” as far as BR ratings go are rarely, if ever, taken into account; it’s at a point where personally I feel it’s probably better for everyone if Gaijin just does what they want, without asking for input, because that’s what they do anyway. Saves us from feeling like we got a kick in the ass when all suggestions are pretty much ignored.
I understand it’s not easy to balance vehicles but it’s also not something that should be shrouded in various layers of mystery and unwillingness on Gaijin’s part to actually listen to their playerbase. I think what gets most people’s goat isn’t necessarily the change itself, but the apparent disdain that exists for the players.
Anyway, I said what I wanted (also not sugar coating, go go healthy habits) so, let’s agree to disagree :)
1 Like
I understand your sentiment, as i myself am a player, but we’re not part of the dev team and we don’t know some of the issues that they encounter etc…
Hopefully we can fix some of the communication issues that we have and the only way to do so is to have healthy discussions about it. I’m ok with discussing any topic that might be related to the game (in the right place) but I’m not a fan of excessive negativity as if the world was collapsing beneath us. I might be overly positive and I could be in the wrong, but that’s the way that i like to be.
3 Likes
IF you haven’t played it then why are you saying its good? I’ve done tests with my friend regarding BVM and STRV122s, the ZTZ99A is inferior in nearly all dimentions.
2 Likes
Cause I’ve played similar vehicles, and I like what I’m looking at.
A 3BM60/L27 equivalent round vehicle slightly more armored than BVM.
Like, I’ve played M1A1 AIM for quite some time before its reload was buffed, when it was 7.x second reload, and haven’t played the AIM since its reload was buffed.
Again, where does the slightly more armour come from? M1A1 AIM does not simulate ZTZ99A cause it doesn’t have a massive carousel inside and have good depression. And by simply having the loader maxed it has 6.9, expert crew 6.5, same reload time as BVM.
1 Like
Still sad that none of my suggestions ever get considered. I’ve been saying many of the same ones for years. I’m also disappointed you didn’t go all the way up to 12.7 like the air tree does. There are players who take 12.7 aircraft into ground RB who are forced to wait for an incredibly long time just to get a game. Simply due to only being able to match up with 11.7 and now 12.0 tanks.
British RB Ground BR’s:
- RB, A1E1 Independent: 1.3 down to 1.0. Terrible armour for a heavy tank, worse than many nations light tanks even at 1.0. Terrible mobility. Massive target. 3-Pdr gun isn’t a redeeming factor either, it’s not the worst gun in the game, but due to all the other factors combined it’s made much worse. It’s still not going to be an amazing tank at BR 1.0, but people might actually buy it more. So there’s incentive for you to drop it too.
- RB, SARC IVa: 1.3 down to 1.0. It’s fast, and that’s kind of it. If you compare it to the Daimler it shares a BR with, it loses in almost every respect. Worse armour, no shoulder stabiliser, gun is incredibly bouncy and kicks like a mule after firing, worse gun elevation and depression angles, and it’s open-topped. Even comparing it to the Tetrarch it does poorly against, with much of the same issues as the Daimler.
- RB, Churchill Mk. I: 3.3 down to 3.0. The 2-Pdr is horrendous at this point, mainly due to the lack of mobility to flank. Even taking it in full downtiers it struggles to penetrate Pz. III M’s, M4A1’s, T-34’s, etc. Just look at protection analysis.
- RB, Sherman II: 3.7 down to 3.3. Just get rid of the APCR and drop it down to 3.3 with the rest of the M4A1’s in-game. It doesn’t need to be artificially increased in BR due to a round it never received. Dropping it down to 3.3 also means you can add the Sherman V as a tech-tree vehicle at 3.7 and even a 3.7 premium with a pair of RP-3 rockets.
- RB, Crusader AA Mk II: 4.0 down to 3.7. I don’t understand why this vehicle even went up. Just compare it to the Wirbelwind, far less rate-of-fire, less penetration, and half the guns. The only advantage the Crusader AA Mk. II has is an enclosed turret and more mobility. The 2 were very asymmetrically balanced.
- RB, Churchill Mk. III: 4.0 down to 3.7. Less mobility than the Churchill Mk. I, same hull armour, and worse turret armour (only 3.5 inches compared to 4 inches). The gun is better, but that’s it. It’s also the same gun that’s on the AEC Mk. II at 3.0. It’s also the wrong gun, see my bug report, it should be a 6-Pdr Mk III which is even more justification for a drop in BR.
- RB, Churchill NA75: 4.3 down to 4.0. It’s more of a side-grade over the Churchill Mk. III, not a direct upgrade. You lose the good rate-of-fire, lose the shoulder stabiliser, and lose a decent amount of penetration for a better damaging shell. That’s the only difference, the shell is good but if the Churchill Mk. III goes down then the NA75 should as well.
- RB, Comet: 5.3 down to 5.0. It’s really a shadow of its former self. The A30 Challenger is a better vehicle in almost everyway. Just compare it to the VK 3002 (M).
- RB, AC IV: 5.3 down to 5.0. It’s just a better Firefly. Again, just compare it to the VK 3002 (M).
- RB, Skink: 5.3 down to 4.7. Just like the Crusader AA Mk. II really don’t understand why it keeps going up. Again, just compare it to the Wirbelwind, you still have less firepower and penetration but now have the double the guns of the Crusader AA Mk. II, and the same amount of guns as the Whirbelwind. Is that really worth a BR increase of 1.3 currently (4.0 to 5.3)? The Bosvark is a far better SPAA at 5.3.
- RB, Tortoise: 6.7 down to 6.3. Just compare it to the T28, very similar vehicles except the Tortoise is covered in weakspots, lacks APHE, and just as slow. If you add the missing APDS round then it can stay at 6.7.
- RB, Centurion Mk 3: 7.7 down to 7.3. It’s been power creeped by new additions and previous BR adjustments. Just compare it to the Centurion Mk 5/1 which has far better armour and secondary weapons, the Caernarvon which has a better front plate, and then the Conqueror which has amazing armour especially with the add-on armour module. At 7.3 the Centurion Mk 3 can make a line up with the FV4202 which it compares well against. This also opens up an opportunity to add a new Centurion 7/1 or 8/1 as a new 7.7 vehicle, with the other being a new premium.
- RB, Falcon: 8.3 down to 7.7. Just remove the APDS and/or adjust the belts. There’s now 3 British SPAA’s at 8.3 now, what’s the point? The Falcon has no radar and should be lower. Just compare it to the ZSU-37-2 and the VEAK 40 which have similar shells and radar, yet both are 7.7.
- Chieftain Mk 10: If you’re going to move it up, I know you decided against it this change for now, remove L23 ammo and replace it with L23A1. L23 never existed, it’s ahistorical. Just see the 4 year old bug report that’s still outstanding. Also, add a tier IV modification to turn this vehicle into a Mk 10 with TOGS. It’s a simple model change swapping out the IR box for the TOG box, that’s it. Both of those changes would make it fine at 9.3
Swedish RB Ground BR’s:
- RB, SAV 20.12.48: 3.7 to 4.0. This vehicle is a monster. Not much else to be said really.
Soviet RB Ground BR’s:
- RB, SU-122: 2.7 to 3.0. This, and the two vehicles below are incredibly powerful. Especially against new players. You see entire squads of SU-122, M4A3 (105), and StuH 42 G when playing these BR’s.
US RB Ground BR’s:
- RB, M4A3 (105): 3.0 to 3.3. Again, low tier monster. Armour might as well be a Jumbo in a 2.0 uptier.
German RB Ground BR’s:
- RB, StuH 42 G: 3.0 to 3.3. Same story as the SU-122 and M4A3 (105).
French RB BR changes:
- RB, AMD.35 (SA35): 1.7 to 1.0. This thing is trash. It’s basically a side-grade to the 1.0 AMD 35.
- RB, M4A3 (105): 3.0 to 3.3. Same reasons as above mentioned SU-122, StuH 42 G, and US M4A3 (105). Moving all these vehicles up would improve the new player experience drastically.
Italian RB BR changes:
- RB, M15/42: 2.7 to 2.3. It’s really not a massive jump from the M13/40 (II), M13/40 (III), or M14/41. Very small jump in penetration, small jump in top speed and power-to-weight, and better hull armour. That’s pretty much it.
3 Likes
@141_allen @AlvisWisla At this point you two are moving away from the topic, i understand that it started off as a discussion about the ZTZ99A’s BR change but if you two want to keep on discussing i would suggest to bring it to either ZTZ99A’s threads or to PM.
1 Like
We have done it there, but I will stop it here.
1 Like
It was largely a joke. Though it could be interesting if they made it a folder with both a US and British option.
Challenger 3 TD still in 11.7, is this correct?
1 Like
F-5E FCU is unplayable right now. Bravo.
1 Like
- RAD90, has better mobility +8Hp/t more the Cent,
- faster in reverse ,
- faster turret (2 d/sec but still),
- spaced armour on turret,
- better angles on the gun -9/+20 then Cent -6 / +16,
- central placed turret as apposed to rear placed turret on Cent,
- can turn better due to rear axles also steering,
- it just misses the Thermals.
PS stats are from GFRB
Since i play in GFAB, TVD is less important, i love these fast lethal light wheeled tanks, for me:
- RAD 90;
- Rooikat 105;
- Cent 105;
- Patria CT-CV 105HP;
Haven’t played any of the CHN wheely boys yet, still working on it ;P
very interested in the Boxer MGS in the current event ;)
Then why does Clickbait A2 round?
it’s at the same BR as those USA 11.7 MBT’s and the CR2’s at that BR also have L27A1 with 564-ish pen.
Now 2PL is left at 536 while most others at that have near 600 or over in penetration.
It’s still a 2A4 with enhanced turret armor, with the Gunner-optic weak spot in the turret-face.
It has better TVD gen, just make it 12.0 then with DM53, DM63 is just temp indifferent powder charge, maybe less likely to combust while penetrated but not sure.