Well I prefer turret armor over hull armor specifically because you can work with it, keep in mind that back in the day Jumbos rival in the Normandy campaign was actually Panzer IV, it was so imbalanced
Ah, what Sherman’s should fight in the first place
…now if only the Tiger’s mantlet wasn’t infinitely thick…
Yes. But the problem is that things are not balanced towards the 3 BR/3 queues.
They are balanced towards 5 different BRs while having fewer queues. So the balance is obviously not adequate at all. It’s just gimmick.
Btw. this game doesn’t have the same system as WT. That is, if the playerbase feels there is no reason to play a certain BR. BR4 for example, they can ignore it completely. They can keep playing BR3 and grind that stuff. And skip BR4 altogether. And wait until they get to BR5.
A BR that is 1 BR lower than the highest one will always be unpopular.
Let’s just say BR5 got its own separate queue (doesn’t really matter if it’s going to be artificially divided into BR5 and BR6 btw).
That would result in BR3 and BR4 being in the same queue together
Well the good players are not stupid and would have no reason to play BR3, they would just grind BR2 to skip BR3. And then go play BR4 without ever touching BR3.
Very few people want to willingly put themselves into disadvantage.
1 Like
I prefer dealing with the MG port ngl. Cupola is an easy shot for anyone with a brain, since it’s round so it’s super easy to just aim for the flat part. Same with any turret weakspots(Tiger I E turret face, IS-1 turret face(not sure why you’d aim there…)) Sherman gunner sight, etc.
I call bull on this. I have never penned the Tiger’s mantlet with a 75 nor 76 in my entire time playing WT or Enlisted
Like I said, in essence this proposal is not new. It was one of the possible proposals way back while merge was still being tested. BR 5 was always compressed, could see it coming a mile off.
The difference between now and then is BR hardlock wasnt an option because queues were so bad., Even though thats what many of us wanted
AVS-36 is actually better than AVT-40. Does more damage per shot and has less recoil, only has slightly worse accuracy and reload. They need to balance them better or just swap their places first.
1 Like
What’s the point of having 6 BRs and only 3 queues? I really don’t understand that. It just creates imbalance.
Nobody would play BR1, BR3, BR5.
Especially since:
Remember this is old (you were there). Way back when There was no possibiliy of Hardlock and BR was only in its Test stages. But the theme is still the same, gear power compression
Personally id prefer -+0 HARDLOCK and perhaps we are close to that being an option
I do as well
But.
I would rather see 3 BRs for 3 queues. Without 3 BRs (BR1, BR3, BR5) that would be made underpowered by design.
If we are going to have only 3 seperate queues, then the game shouldn’t be balanced towards 6 different BR levels. It just doesn’t make any sense. It’s just creating officially acknowledged meta (BR2, BR4 and BR6 stuff)
are we discussing the current day proposal or the old one?
IF we get -+0 we can reshuffle gear in the existing BR 5s to be pretty damn good and forget BR VI
But if we are still going to make lower queues the main priority
As long as its BR -+ 1 (or more) there is a rather large leap from BR 4 gear to BR 5 gear (Meta)
the jump from BR 1-2, 2-3, 3-4 in gear isnt too bad.
IMO anyway
No.
Both systems (5 BRs with +/-0 and 6 BRs with +/-1 MM) does require way more queues and are still basically unrealistic.
Thats right. Im talking about ideal gear balance. forgetting extra ques. Thats the endgame ideal plan
if you are worried about queues we could just go the other option and Hardlock BR 5 to itself
Well, that’s my point.
I think it’s stupid to balance things towards BRs that are not corresponding with MM queues.
What you are proposing is basically 4 queue system. But it’s still imbalanced. BR4 always would the most popular and BR3 would be least popular.
This is not WT.
already doing it
and I did say BR -+0 is the prefered goal post
and yes BR 4 would get a turn at being the sweet spot for a while, Much Like BR 2 and BR 3 have enjoyed this last year.
working towards the time when theres enough players to finally lock the BRS.
the same sweet spots exist in warthunder, And you dont have to play the bad spots (you cant grind the whole tech tree as a BR 1 no, But you arent forced to play bad BR lineups, you just pick a good one if grinding is your purpose)
Yes, but for that. BR6 is definitely not the way to go. It would be just gimmick. Not really a significant change.
Without locking BR5 and BR6 intonseperate queue, it’s not like that BR4 would become more popular. It’s still going to be about losers with semis fighting SF rifles. Who wants to put himself in such position willingly?
And with locking BR5/6 to its seperate queue. There’s no real difference between having only BR5 and having this seperated queue divided into BR5 and BR6.
lets just leave it at this…the roads to get there may be different
It should be a foundation rather than a goal. Number of BRs should reflect number of queues.
Especially in a game in which by only playing BR1 you can grind through the entire tech tree without any kind of penalty.
I’ve never seen anything like that in any game with tech tree.
Like I said, thats what some wanted way back…couldnt get it, still cant…still dealing in compromises.
I bet its only a matter of time before the same restrictions that are in warthunder are added or planned.
cant grind events in BR 1 and 2
cant grind BR 5 in BR 1
etc etc
1 Like
Well, the compromise is reducing number of BRs rather than adding another BR6.
Addition of BR6 is fundamentally against such goal.
It’s like people don’t understand that queues are the main factor in the balance, not BRs.
That’s why I find the suggestion the OP made simply not good.
I couldn’t care less if I end up with my G43 gainst AVS-36 or AVT-40. The slight difference in stats between AVS and AVT isn’t what matters. What matters is having full auto rifles vs semi rifles.
Either way I’ll be at huge disadvantage.