With the number of guns we have in-game, excluding duplicates, in the ballpark range of 200-300, with their own little nuances, I see it as a necessity.
What we have ranges from BB guns to Destroyer of Worlds, metaphorically speaking.
These either need to have more uniform stats (which would require finangling with every gun to make them extremely similar in performance), or the introduction of more matchmaking brackets.
While I understand that everyone is eager to stem the tide of a bleeding playerbase precisely because of the absence of a matchmaking system that people somehow put up with for 3 years now, without access to a player count (like when you queue in war thunder, as well as the number of those online at any given moment), I canât definitely say we donât have enough players.
Especially when console players can turn off crossplay at will, which further divides and skews any numbers of players you can actually queue with.
I really donât think so, since there always be meta weapons for certain tiers and others are just filler for progression/grind and for fun/larp plays.
Iâm all up for even more decompression. You are only suggesting the same thing I am, But just way more decompressed. Iâm expressing the bare minimum.
But Id say its at odds with some of their main priorities. Low queue time, and more players in games.
And as a Longtime war thunder player, compression has always been rampant and very slowly acted on.
Thatâs curse of basically every multiplier game, especially ones based on grindy progression with f2p concept. Huge variety of content, but majority of playerbase aims for only specific meta stuff. Because theyâre trying to compensate lack of skill with more powerful equipment.
it was already criticized cause you have too many queues that playerbase cant support. if the goal was for your proposal to be bot farm then it is successful.
cause BA with ROF of 50 is extremely different from BA with ROF of 51 so they need their own tier. certainly there are differences between weapons and their performance, but you dont need to nitpick so much between e.g. BA with slight difference in ROF or 2 low rof low dmg smg.
iirc you get 8-12k concurrent players in 6 servers playing the game(datamined stats). now divide that by server/campaign and you get average of 222-333 players playing at any given time per server/campaign. if you further divide this by average match of 20 minutes you get that every minute you have on average 11-17 players queuing per campaign per server.
now average is bad indicator cause crossplay on servers have more players than crossplay off servers. some campaigns have double or triple number of players than other campaigns. also you need to take into account playerbase disparity so you can have 2:1 split between sides.
i will probably do analysis on concurrent player count when i find some time.
That was their mistake and OP trying to fix that, now Moscow will have both low and mid BR matches, top tier BR donât really need smgs since they will get replaced by powerful ARs and LMGS with large mag size and auto rifles
50mm cannons can pen and kill t-34, same with AT crafted by the engineer
Sure that would be for the best but devs got extremely lazy after almost a year of waiting and created stupid map based BR
I still consider both ppsh / kiraly as high tier that has no place against low tier
Havent really lately checked the âlastâ BR list but Mkb probably is somewhere BR4 ? atleast ?
id choose the kiraly over it any given day so in that sense it do have place & need in higher tiers.
Which it does rather ineffectively due to lack of APHE.
At certain ranges it can indeed pen frontally but getting OHK its entirely relied on RNG which rarely favors APC rounds.
Pretty much, the BR map locks just doesnt make any sense.
Again they wonât fight against low tier only mid tier. Looks like you havenât read his post at all.
Are we talking about OPâs new BR system or DFâs awful BR system with 5 BR stages? Mkb should be in BR5 in Myrm1don BR since itâs AR, but BR4 in DFâs BR since itâs much weaker weapon than STG44
it is not that i dont like it, but problem is in number of queues and playerbase to support it. you would end up with way more queues than current campaign system.
Id say there are alot more preferable suggestions than the OP with more queues, yours included. I would love many qeues and just say go with yours (when there are players)
But i believe the OP is the optimal bare minimum between queues and balance.(currently anyway)
Also as a way to round off BR 1 (to fit the policy âeverythingâ has a chance/Option against what it will face)
Can I suggest: (these are taken straight from Warthunder)
The T-60 gets its API HV ammo (32 mm Pen @10meters. The current is 27mm API ammo) This gives it a little more mileage in its bracket For Panzer IIIS and IVs (side armors 15-30mm)
The Panzer II, Ab-41 get its HVAP (48 mm Pen @10meters. The current is 37mm API-T ammo) Gives it a little more mileage in its bracket for the T-50 and Grants. (side armors roughly 40mm, not taking into account slope)
Keep in mind the difference In side armors for nations are quite different. Which accounts for the difference in pen values needed to have a chance.
Kiraly is trash because of too big horizontal recoil. I will prefer mkb over kiraly always.
I would even prefer the final bereta from Tunisia/berlin over kiraly.
