How about we discuss future "Battle Ratings" as a community BEFORE that patch goes live?

Mess Room
1

Honestly, I am somewhat surprised that we are not having this discussion.

I mean sure, we have a rough Idea about when you unlock gear thanks to the test server, but the actual BR system is still a big “unknown”.

We as a community need to discuss this matter asap, or I fear we are bound to get an “unwelcome” surprise.

10 Likes
2

One thing first from my side, I am an Axis main - a true wehraboo.
I have a rough Idea about total balance, but I do not know the little details of all the Allied firearms - thus my view is mostly directed at Axis balance.

I expect you guys to also be transparent about your opinions, a fair discussion is the only way to actually get great BRs and balanced gameplay.

2 Likes
3

Because there isnt much to discuss due to lack of information.
At best, the tech tree can serve as some sort of basis as I guess the tech tree levels will be reflected though I doubt some BS such as PPS SMGs vs. MP3008 will happen.

5 Likes
4

I

exactly my thoughts, tho we should keep in mind that opinions in this matter will differ greatly.

ErikaKalkbrenner for example will consider the starting bolt action rifles superior to 90% of the SMGs in this game, because … well I guess someone really loves bolt action rifles.

I consider the Drum PPSH to be a god tier weapon, while others will see them trash compared to Stgs, that’s what I mean when I say we as a community need to discuss this.

4 Likes
5

Considering MP3008 is a 3-star gun at tier II in progression, it might even be put against fedorovs.
We just have no idea what devs have in mind. Almost a year since merge talks started and we haven’t seen a single coherent comment from devs on future BRs.

2 Likes
6

I have brought up on how some vehicles will have an awkward position like the 76mm T-34s and KV-1 as no early war vehicle to match them besides Panzer IV with long 75mm.

T-34-85 was like in between Panzer IV and Panther but still capable on fighting Tiger I(H1 and E) but another problem vehicle is the IS-2 where it didn’t deserve to share the same BR as King Tiger where sure it had a 122mm but it has a very long reload.

Regarding the PPSh, the drum mag version should’ve had its own BR and not share the same BR as assault rifles(STG, AS-44) and battle rifles(Fedorov, FG42s, AVT, AVS) considering sure it shreds at close range but its not as good at mid to long ranges.

Also concerns regarding guns that appeared all war that could potentially never see an early war map like PPSh, MP40, Thompson, etc

3 Likes
7

I mean, what speaks against “backwards unlocks”?
like the MKB still fighting against mid tier gear - but you unlock it super late, for this specific BR. Weird example since the MKB is pretty strong, but you get the idea, right?

The MP3008 would fit this logic, you unlock it super late, but it is nice to have in lower BRs

8

PPD-40 is another issue considering its position between box mag and drum mag PPSh. Even PPD-34/38 may not get its early war treatment for some reason despite its an early war gun. Ridiculous for the gun to potentially face STGs.

If early war guns and vehicles get the early war treatment, they better have some soft rule for HA stuff. I have fears that PPSh may not see Stalingrad at all if devs treat it as a late war gun despite it entered service in 1941.

2 Likes
9

I fear my own words, but this sounds like MKBs and STGs - just like PPSH and AVT need even more to be “adjusted” to be more obviously different in terms of power.

I guess if the BRs really need to make sense a whole bunch of weapons need to be nerfed / buffed.

2 Likes
10

I overall think BR will be convoluted and messy

For example, the KV-1 theoretically should be in say Moscow because it’s an early war battle, but for the sake of bAlAnCe it wouldn’t be allowed

Or the PPSH should be available in literally every single Eastern Front battle but for some reason people may want it only in say battles with the Stgs

Now I will admit we don’t know exactly how the BR will turn out but again we are going off of what information we do have and even when it was first announced way back then I had reservations about it

4 Likes
11

Yeah. Sorry that people dont wanna face KVs with III Es or Tigers with M5s.

4 Likes
12

well, KV 1 and early T34 should be completely fair and balanced against Panzer IV F2…
but the game just kinda treats the Panzer IV F2 kinda not right.

3 Likes
13

76mm shermans should be put against panzer 4s with long guns and sherman m4a2 75mm should be put against short panzer 4s or panzer 3n. Jumbo should be put against panthers

14

A lazy solution to just copy paste War Thunder’s system but include small arms too. Imagine such a system like this like what will be the BR for AKM, AK-74, AK-74M and AK-12 then add AKS-74U and AK-103 that’s why I called this BR system as something designed more for vehicles than small arms.

2 Likes
15

The beauty of the campaign system was that there were a variety of vehicles that each had a role to play and added diversity to the battle. As I say Scotts, Shermans, Stuarts; Pumas,Panzers,Panthers

I know it goes without saying but the system is balanced like rock, paper, scissors between infantry, tanks, and planes.

Player A spawns X, Player A gets destroyed, Player B spawns Y, Player B gets destroyed

The merge itself may not hurt variety, but the BR may

3 Likes
16

It was so beauty that people always chosed the stronger side and turned 80% of the campaigns into one-sided botfarms.

Not really because maps are too small to flank for the most part and many campaigns suffer from tanks that cant pen end tanks. That makes lights useless.
TDs are pointless because most medium and heavy tanks can already kill other tanks as good without losing the turrent and machine gun.

6 Likes
17

The BR system is going to destroy the variety in small arms too where guns that appeared all war shouldve had a special treatment.

As for vehicles, couldve split the early war and late war ones but again went for the lazy solution to go for the easy way out.

1 Like
18

Battle rating is a battle rating. Do not mess it with a historical accuracy, because it was not the point of the merge.

2 Likes
19

I understand many players are the typical “gamer type” where they just want to be da strongest, but I know I’m a different kind of player in various ways

Heck I always click join any team, I don’t main any faction whatsoever. In fact I can count the amount of times I clicked an independent faction on one hand and they were an accidental click

Many of us have discussed having larger maps with more vehicles.

But I will say after having a lot of fun battles I’m fine with the game’s current size. In fact I rarely ever encounter explicit “gray zone campers”. I’d say most vehicles are usually close to the shared play area

I don’t think front pen is the end all be all of vehicle combat. Disabling a tank is just as valid. And even then not every hit needs to be a one hit kill

1 Like
20

This is why we need to have these discussions and debate and this major overhaul needs to be treaded carefully

We can’t just dive right in

3 Likes