Planned economy changes in May

[dоt 3,457]

How would raising the repair costs of most jets to 15-20K+ SL in RB going to fix ARB? I mean, many people aren't able to play this game much above a 1:1 K/D rate and they now need to play at 3+:1 to be able to break even. This will just force more people to go for ground targets instead of you know, play air combat... What kind of logic is behind this decision? How will you entice people to learn air combat when you force them not to because it's too expensive to even bother learning for the majority of your playerbase...

 

Seems like this is not a good decision to do.

[Luixs_2 50]

Will there be a RP change for helicopters as well?

 

Because some helis are far from being effective while costing more than top tier jets, like the german BO 105 PAH-1, it performs way worse than the EC-665 yet it has the same RP cost as it

[theZJ 4]

These changes feel like a real low blow. Repair costs are already prohibitively high and for at least half the playerbase it is nigh impossible to make a reliable income at rank IV+. Yet many reward modifiers go down and repair costs go up? I mostly play italian and all italian tanks die to a mild breeze and cost a boatload to repair, and the few redeeming vehicles like the centauro get hit hard? This feels like Gaijin telling us to just go play Russia. Seriously, this is making me consider dropping the game, and that's me WITH premium account already. Because without it, the game is already unplayable.

[TheFlawlessGem 2]

Hello, I'd like to make some suggestions for the German ground tree. I will be talking with Realistic Battles in mind.

 

Panzer III Ausf. B and Panzer III Ausf. E should be reversed in their folder. While the Ausf. B has a slightly faster turret rotation, the Ausf. E's better armor seems more important; therefore, they should be switched. It is also more logical to research the later production after the limited production vehicle.

Sd.Kfz. 222 should be reclassified as a light tank. It is rarely used in its supposed role as an AA.

Panzer IV Ausf. F should be foldered behind the Panzer IV Ausf. E. Both are very similar both in ability and playstyle, and it makes little sense to research both when they are almost identical. This is more of a loose recommendation, as I understand the Ausf. E is not required to research the Ausf. F as is.

Sd.Kfz. 234/2 should be moved to after the Marder III. With it's BR being changed in the past months/ years, it makes sense that this vehicle should be moved.

Panther Ausf. F should be foldered behind the Panther Ausf. G rather than the Panther Ausf. A. This would fit much better, as the Ausf. F trades speed for armor, much like the Ausf. G does. It would also make more sense in regards to battle rating, as then one wouldn't jump from 5.7-6.0-5.7, but rather 5.7-5.7-6.0.

Ostwind II should be moved from Rank IV to Rank III. It is the only 5.0 vehicle currently in Rank IV, and it would fit the BR of other vehicles in Rank III much more closely.

Kugelblitz should likewise be moved down a Rank, from Rank V to Rank IV. This would feel like a more natural placement, as it would be separated in the tech tree from Cold War vehicles.

Jagdtiger could also be moved from Rank V to Rank IV for a similar reason -- it currently, awkwardly sits with late 1950s and 1960s vehicles.

I am somewhat unsure if this is still the case, but when I researched the KPz-70 right when the KPz- T-72M1 was added, the RP cost for the KPz-70 was equivalent to other "last-in-the-rank" vehicles at 270,000. This should be lowered to be more in line with other "second-to-last-in-the-rank" vehicles. Likewise, I believe the Leopard 2K may suffer from this issue as well, though I am unsure, as the Wiki states it to be at 220,000.

PUMA should be moved to after the Radkampfwagen 90, as others have mentioned. The current order does not make sense. To avoid issues like the KPz-70, the Radkampfwagen 90's RP cost must be lowered and the PUMA's RP cost raised to match.

 

Also, I want to express my frustration that more vehicles are being unfoldered. Grinding in this game can already be frustrating enough, and while I understand the idea of making new players take a little longer to figure things out, I disagree with unfoldering vehicles. It is quite frankly unnecessary. These vehicles are most often simply "sidegrades" to the original vehicle, and as such it makes little sense to force a player to play the same vehicle again. In fact, I believe more vehicles could be foldered, namely the M4 Sherman behind the M4A1 Sherman in the American tree, or perhaps placing the M4A2 Sherman after the M4 Sherman would be a better idea.

 

I would also like to complain that the Panzer IV Ausf. G-J vehicles are badly undertiered and should at least be moved to 4.0-4.3, though I understand this forum is for feedback on economic changes.

 

Thank you for listening to my feedback!

 

[TheGhOsTGeneral 239]

18 hours ago, MAUSWAFFE said:

Gaijin has made it abundantly clear that repair cost is a mechanic they intend to keep, and that they have reasons for that. 

 

But these mechanics still harm players, specifically during the stock grind of vehicles. Not only are these vehicles harder to play since they perform objectively worse than they should for their given BR, but for many vehicles they are also very expensive. While the vehicle may have some justification for the price when spaded, that doesn't really apply when it is lacking key factors like ammunition, missiles or parts/fpe.

 

The frustration players get when spending many battles in sub-par vehicles, which is already rather unpleasant, and then also loosing money from this unfair match up, is simply unnecessary.

 

A solution would be to stop negative SL from games. So a game where the player earns 40.000sl, and has repair cost of 50.000sl, the total would be 0sl. This would mean that by playing normally a player can't loose money, only by actively hurting the game (through teamkilling, for example). Repair cost would still balance rewards, but not actively hurt the player.

 

This would remove stress from players while retaining the basic function of the repair cost mechanic.

 

Edit: My wording makes this seem weird but it is a suggestion, and reasons why I think it is a good Idea. There is no intention to discredit Gaijin, as I believe they also work with the intention of creating an enjoyable game for us.

I actually really like this idea and think you should make a proper well written out suggestion.

[The4thAmigo 135]

T18B and T18B (57) — switched places and moved to rank III; the requirement to open ranks IV and V have been adjusted.

 

I feel a bit like Nancy Kerrigan here.  It took me 6 months to get to the T18B and I even bought a talisman for it based on my experiences with the B18B.  It went a long way towards me getting the SK60B in a not unreasonable amount of time.  I'm decent enough with it to earn good SL and RP.  Now you are pulling a Tonya Harding by kneecapping me and other players with the downgrade to Rank III and trying to remove and/or stunt our progression in the tree.  You already hit us once with the reduced loadouts and now you're making us take the 60% RP penalty from Rank III to Rank V.  There is nothing else in Rank IV that is remotely decent to complete the Swedish tree.  If alienating players was your goal you have succeeded.  Can I get the GE refunded for the talisman I spent on the now worthless plane?

[F-16D Barak II 433]

I recently had an idea regarding a new economy system.

 

Instead of a vehicle having a repair cost, it would have a linear modifier on its income where the more kills you get, the more each kill rewards you. This would help people which struggle and only get a few kills by a lower reward than someone who performs well. Each kill could grant you a 15% bigger reward than the previous one, rewarding longer killstreaks while being more modest when someone dies after one or two kills without them having to worry about paying a repair cost. 

I believe that it would not change the general progression too much, with adjustments to the modifiers and stepping making it basically the same as it is currently but without players seeing a negative SL profit after a bad match.

[Ub3rshadow 874]

The repair cost changes are disgraceful and should not be implemented. If you want to increase the variety of vehicles in matches, then you should be incentivising people to play them with repair costs that don't discourage players. If they're less played than other, more meta vehicles, and tend to do better on average as a result, then you should try and incentivise players to play them more, instead of de-incentivising them.

 

Furthermore, nerfing multipliers even more, after doing so multiple times over the past several years, is incredibly scummy. The grind is hard enough. It was hard enough years ago. At this point you aren't encouraging more people to buy premium - even with premium the grind is painful - you're just discouraging people from playing the game, period. 

Edited May 5, 2023 by Ub3rshadow

[thefoxiscunning@psn 486]

What's lost in all of this is that after the change to the "rank-based economy", the RP and actual cost of vehicle modifications was never reviewed or rebalanced. Moreover, it's also rarely taken into consideration or reviewed when a plane receives a BR or rank adjustment, or when it swaps positions with another vehicle. 

 

To wit, you have something like the He-162 at 6.0 which requires 83,400 RP and 134,000 SL to research / purchase all of the modifications (some are 14,000 RP!) which is more than most 7.0 planes.

 

Additionally, there are many planes which used to be at the 'end of line' in their respective trees with exorbitant modification research and purchase requirements that are out of sync with their BR / rank / and placement within the tech tree.

 

But I digress, respectively, I think Gaijin may have really lost the narrative here and is no longer able to see the forrest through the trees. The game would be well served by throwing out the existing algorithm/spreadsheet and performing a hard reset/rebalancing of everything associated with aircraft trees. The constant meddling and tinkering of the economy, coupled with the apparent hesitancy to redefine the gameplay experience through creative map and objective design has unfortunately led to a player base which is only able to utilize/enjoy maybe 10% of the vehicles in the game—those that the spreadsheet and algorithm deem so.

 

It's madness and incredibly frustrating to those that would love to just sit down and enjoy the game.

[Real K Soze@live 407]

On 04/05/2023 at 16:23, TheS1up said:

I just don't understand why the italian p-47 which was just added got a 3k SL increase and now costs 7k to repair, while the chinese one which is exactly the same got its price reduced and now costs 2/3k to repair. It just doesn't make any sense 

 

@Smin1080p It would be great to receive an official statement to this post. 

 

I mean (if we consider the intended balancing effect of repair cost) the only logical explanation would be that Italian pilots are simply better as they are more successful with the same plane - despite being in Air RB sucked into 70-80% full uptiers allocated to 4 Ju 288 in their team. 

 

The Bf 109 F-4 event plane was a great support for Italy, but it your data should prove that those newer players did not like the Italian Air tree. If you had the chance to follow the Italian Air Consultant discussion you might remember that more or less all TT planes are overtiered with way too high repair cost. In order to make Italy more attractive for new players the repair cost should be lowered, not increased...

 

 

[Badger325 0]

On 04/05/2023 at 05:10, OrsonES said:

Changes in the research tree

M3A1 Stuart — taken out of the M3/M3A1 Stuart research group.

Pz.III J — taken out of the Pz.III F/J group.

Pz.IV C — moved to the position before  Pz.II C.

Pz.II F — taken out of the Pz.II C/F group.

Pz.35(t) — moved to the position before Sd.Kfz.221 (s.Pz.B.41).

Pz.38(t) A, Pz.38(t) F — moved to the position after Sd.Kfz.221 (s.Pz.B.41).

Pz.38(t) F — taken out of the Pz.38(t) A/F group.

15cm sIG 33 B Sfl, Panzerjäger I, Sd.Kfz.251/9 — moved to the position before StuG III A.

Т-28 — taken out of the Т-28/Т-28E group and moved to rank I.

Ratel 20 — moved to rank IV to the position after Ratel 90.

G6 — moved to rank V to the position after Eland 90 Mk.7.

Spj fm/43-44 and Sav m/43 (1944) — switched the places.

PTL02 — moved to rank VI to the position after CM25.

Ki-109 — moved to rank I to the position after Ki-45 tei.

Ki-45 hei — taken out of the Ki-45 group.

J1N1 — moved to rank II to the position after Ki-45 hei.

Ki-45 otsu — moved to the position after J1N1.

B6N1 Model 11 — taken out of the B6N group and moved to rank I.

D4Y3 Ko — taken out of the D4Y group.

P1Y1 mod. 11 — moved to rank III to the position before B7A2.

H8K2 — moved to the position after Ki-49-IIa.

T18B and T18B (57) — switched places and moved to rank III; the requirement to open ranks IV and V have been adjusted.

while some of these changes are pretty reasonable I don't see how taking extremely similar vehicles out of folders is going to help newer players in the slightest. The M3 light tanks, the Ki-45s, the T-28s, the Panzer IIs, and the Pz.38s being removed from folders makes absolutely no sense to me because it should be up to the player to decide if they want to beef up a line up or just keep progressing. You shouldn't be forcing people to research something that A. they don't want, and B. they don't need

[Americancasmonki 128]

On 04/05/2023 at 10:23, TheS1up said:

I just don't understand why the italian p-47 which was just added got a 3k SL increase and now costs 7k to repair, while the chinese one which is exactly the same got its price reduced and now costs 2/3k to repair. It just doesn't make any sense 

I might be partly to blame for that since I tend to die in it a lot but at the same time if that is the case than Gaijin your system for balance is flawed and right there shows why

[Avetorro 215]

One other thing, why do we pay a repair cost when the game ends if you end the game with your plane intact....? Its not really a repair cost then?

[Real K Soze@live 407]

17 hours ago, The4thAmigo said:

T18B and T18B (57) — switched places and moved to rank III; the requirement to open ranks IV and V have been adjusted.

 

I feel a bit like Nancy Kerrigan here.  It took me 6 months to get to the T18B and I even bought a talisman for it based on my experiences with the B18B.  It went a long way towards me getting the SK60B in a not unreasonable amount of time.  I'm decent enough with it to earn good SL and RP.  Now you are pulling a Tonya Harding by kneecapping me and other players with the downgrade to Rank III and trying to remove and/or stunt our progression in the tree.  You already hit us once with the reduced loadouts and now you're making us take the 60% RP penalty from Rank III to Rank V.  There is nothing else in Rank IV that is remotely decent to complete the Swedish tree.  If alienating players was your goal you have succeeded.  Can I get the GE refunded for the talisman I spent on the now worthless plane?

 

Imho opinion the fellow player made a fair point.

 

Besides that most of the guys were born long after this Olympic incident - the core message is clear:

 

1. You had 2 heavy fighters disguised as bombers at Rank IV

2. Both T-18Bs and the B-18B were loadout nerfed (imho by accident) 2 months ago

3. My bug report is untouched - https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/9quRgch2UKbu

4. You cannot play the B-18B or the T-18B as a bomber as the uptier ratio to 5.0 (in Air RB) is currently 70-80%

5. At 5.0 the base health increases so heavy that even in case you would have the max loadout: You can't kill a single respawning base

6. The 57mm version with HE is borderline useless right now, i survived multiple direct hits by them in a fighter

7. The 13.2mm defensive guns got nerfed 2 times since November 2022

 

...and now you plan to downgrade both T-18s on top from Rank IV to Rank III - despite they fight mostly against Rank IV fighters.

And after your change there is no bomber left in the Swedish tech tree at Rank IV....

 

Imho you should rethink your decision. A suggestion:

 

1. Leave the T-18B where it is

2. Put the 57mm version to Rank III

3. Fix the loadout nerf described in my bug report

 

Even with this proposal it is still a pain to fly in Air RB due to this 5.0 constant uptier issue, but at least you would leave a bomber at rank IV and you would acknowledge that they face stiff fighter opposition mainly by Rank IV enemies (190Ds, IT P-47, I-225, P-38 L, etc).  

 

[KingoBingo1496@live 0]

Hi I'm new on the forum and after I saw the changes to the economy that will apply on the next update i got my suggestions that I made based on my thoughts, idk if you will accept them as a good idea or maybe sounds bad, but here they are: 

- Each action on air rb like killing, assiting, etc; needs to at least improve their sl and rp rewards, a base on top tier rb battles gives the equivalent of two kills, so i suugest to equalize the kill sl and rp amount to the current amount that you gain by a base destroyed, and if it happens increase the base destroyed sl and rp amount

-Team killing needs to reduce their sl penalty, for example, killed accidentally a teammate on rb and you get -29k sl penalty, otherwise a time penalty on the player by the time of like 20 mins.

- An alternative for the idea i just said, is to remove the action of teamkilling, which it may sound somehow crazy, but, if a teammate kills you, you lost many sl (depends on the vehicle you use), and there are lots of them doing it for fun while many other palyers passes by bad experiences when getting tk.

-Repair cost should have two alternatives: Removed or applying a system of repair costs per rank, for example all rank 1 vehicles on air battles have the same cost of repair, and so it increases rank by rank,

- repair costs on stock planes can keep the same, but when you unlock a modification on a vehicle, the price can´t go higher ( i use an f14 wich originally repairs between 8k and 9k, but later i receive a cost of 15k)

 

Those are some of  ideas, i got another one which is, already have flares included when unlocking aircrafts with this modification, instead of grinding the flares when unlocked the plane

[TyphoonCro 6,833]

Don't know if this is right kind of suggestion or not but I'll take my chances.

This is coming from player who plays AB tanks only (For RB tankers, mileage may vary) and this may be a hot take for some

 

CCVL

9.7 -> 9.0 (M833 removed and/or replaced by C76A1)

It's an ok little tank that is overtiered so badly that it's painful to even look at it.

I assume that is due to the autoloader however the shells it has are just too underpowered for the battlerating it is currently at.

The tank may have great mobility and fast reload but armor is paper at that BR and even getting sneezed at by soviet T series tanks and Leopards is enough to kill off your crew or wipe your ammunition.

Therefor I suggest to return it to 9.0 and replace M833 with C76A1.

[RomanianEULA 8]

Thank you Gaijin for this welcome economy update. I would like to recommend the following changes for :

 

Aviation research trees :

 

Japan :

-Ki-102 otsu (BR 3.0/3.3) rank III -> rank II. Alone with such a low BR at rank III.

-J2M2 (BR 4.7/4.3) and Ki-100 (BR 4.7/4.0) rank II -> rank III. Too high BR for rank II planes.

-G5N1 (BR 4.3/4.7) rank IV -> rank III. Alone with such a low BR at rank IV.

-Folder some of the Ki-49s which are very redundant aircrafts.

-Replace the F1M2 with the Ki-32 (already a highly requested change in previous economy changes) and move the F1M2 before the B5N2. Their respective roles fits better these lines.

 

France :

-Move the french F-100D between the F-86K and the F-8E(FN), it looks wrong in the attacker line.

-Instead you can move the Etendard IVM in the attacker line and maybe also the Jaguar A. The Etendard IVM has a lower BR in arcade than the previous Vautours so it makes even more sense. The top of the attacker line could be completed by the Super Etendard later when it will be added. The F-84F should also be moved to the attacker line after the F-84G, as it is also an attacker.

-Move the Potez 633 and the BR.683AB2 after the V-156-F because it is the light bomber/attacker line.

 

Israel / France :

-Mystere IVA (BR 9.0/8.7) rank VI -> rank V, it is not a tier VI vehicle performancewise and the vautours have higher BRs while being tier V in both israeli and french tech trees.

 

Sweden

-Move the J26 (BR 3.7/4.3) in front of the J21A-1 (BR 5.3/4.3), it makes way more sense progressionwise for arcade players and change nothing for realistic players.

 

Ground research trees :

 

France

-Switch places between the AMX-10RC and the AMX-13 (HOT), and also between the SK-105A2 and the MEPHISTO. This will allow to have two clear lines at rank VI with light tanks on one side and missile tanks on the other.

-AMX-13 DCA 40 rank IV -> rank III because it is the only vehicle with such a low BR at this rank.

-E.B.R. (1954) rank III -> rank IV sounds about right now that its BR is that high.

 

Bluewater fleet research trees :

 

Japan

-Switch places between the Yugumo and the Hatsuharu, because the Hatsuharu is a downgrade of this previous ship in almost every way.

Edited May 9, 2023 by RomanianEULA

[Reubeniv 7]

On 04/05/2023 at 10:23, ミーナ said:

I personally believe that the repair cost system should be abolished completely. 

There is no point in punishing people for doing good in a game.

 

If repair costs were removed, people would no longer play a certain vehicle over and over just because playing their favorite vehicle is like a punishment where unless they manage to get 1-2 kills they make negative profit. This is especially true in Sim where your plane can cost upwards of 20,000SL to just spawn which heavily discourages players from playing the gamemode at all while also encouraging scummy behavior and runway bombing.

 

Repair costs currently only serve one purpose and it is to hinder and punish an average player's progress by making them lose Silver Lions every time they die while the few players that are exceedingly good in the vehicle are not affected at all.

 

In summary:

Repair costs that are used to balance out the earnings of vehicles by people who do good in them but punish people that don't do good in them. That is why the Repair Cost feature should be removed.

 

 

As a responce to the comment by Smin1080p:

In order to balance out the removal of repair costs, SL modifiers could be re adjusted in order to reflect on the income the developers wish for the vehicle to have. For example, if a vehicle is seen having poor income average, it could have a higher SL modifier than a vehicle which has a higher income average.

The removal of repair costs will greatly benefit players which want to play the game in a casual way, people that play the game just to have fun and not grind (Where you can just get 1-2 kills per life and be happy) without having to worry about running low on Silver Lions.

Simulator Battles on the other hand could greatly benefit with a massive reduction of Spawn Costs combined with a nerf in research efficiency. Air Simulator is not a viable grinding method and will never be because of how it will be abused so at least make it a viable mode where people can have fun in.

yeah it's a horrible mechanic, just had a bad game in air rb, 138rp, -10k+sl for repairs, this is with a premium account it does feel like you're being punished for playing, what incentive is there to play if you're losing sl? Even if you don't in a non-premium vehicle you have to do quite well to offset the repairs enough to make any kind of dent on planes that are above 300k rp and 1m sl + crew, I've proposed discounts for prem subs or something, anything's better than the current system - which somehow got even worse when they shortened the amount of ways to generate points in air rb.

[Real K Soze@live 407]

On 08/05/2023 at 19:12, RomanianEULA said:

Japan

-Move the Ki-102 otsu (BR 3.0/3.3) from rank III to rank II.

-Move the J2M2 (BR 4.7/4.3) and Ki-100 (BR 4.7/4.0) from rank II to rank III.

 

I would like to keep the rank of the Ki-102 and the J2M2 were they are.

 

You can argue that the Ki-102 attacker classified as interceptor is in it's current state useless anyway as the main selling point, the 57mm HE cannon is currently bugged like hell. Just take a look at this bug report: https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/ixwFEyunCl3I

As i hope that this bug will be fixed sometimes it would be great to have an airspawn plane at rank III for daily tasks/events.

 

And regarding the J2M2 - i mean this plane is exactly like so many others in this game: Sucked in real combat and intended roles (unable to kill B-29s), but fitting perfect into the wt meta due to fast climb and decent turn. The only weaknesses are limited ammo, slow topspeed and compression at high speeds. Imho the current rank II is the only reason why lobbies are not flooded with it as most of their opponents have just a chance to kill them if their pilots make major mistakes. A decent pilot can stay almost untouchable as he has always 2 of the 3 decisive factors with him (climb, speed, turn).  So changing the rank to III might alter the gameplay in Air RB completely. 

 

 

Edited May 10, 2023 by Uncle J Wick@live

[Real K Soze@live 407]

On 06/05/2023 at 10:15, Avetorro said:

One other thing, why do we pay a repair cost when the game ends if you end the game with your plane intact....? Its not really a repair cost then?

 

Yeah, i asked this question some time ago too. Due to my habit for belly landings (in order to minimize reload time) i always pay repair cost or my free repairs got less. The answer was that repair cost will be charged in every case (without further explanation), so even if you get a full repair at the airfield, you continue playing and survive the match - u get a repair fee for belly landings.

 

So maybe this thread gives a new chance to repeat this question and ask for a convincing explanation.  

 

[Real K Soze@live 407]

On 06/05/2023 at 22:26, KingoBingo1496@live said:

-Team killing needs to reduce their sl penalty, for example, killed accidentally a teammate on rb and you get -29k sl penalty, otherwise a time penalty on the player by the time of like 20 mins.

 

I strongly disagree. I got the points of some jet players that their missiles went completely crazy after launching them and kill a random teammate not even in the area of the targeted enemy, but a reducing would be a false sign to all players constantly suffering from that, either direct (getting teamkilled) or indirect (reduced size of own team bringing in number disadvantage).

 

Yes, i read about the autoban function for designated teamkillers. But imho this works too late - so i would add a an automatic multiplier to the teamkill fee - so the 2nd TK cost 5 times more than the 1st and the 3rd 5 times more than the 2nd,....

This counter for the multiplier could be nullified after some time, maybe this would be better suited to avoid reckless shooting or intended teamkilling. But this should only be applied if you have solved this ramming issue - currently i got a TK fee if somebody intentionally ramms me, this is not ok. 

 

 

On 06/05/2023 at 22:26, KingoBingo1496@live said:

- An alternative for the idea i just said, is to remove the action of teamkilling, which it may sound somehow crazy, but, if a teammate kills you, you lost many sl (depends on the vehicle you use), and there are lots of them doing it for fun while many other palyers passes by bad experiences when getting tk.

 

At least for Air RB the removal of teamkills with MG/HMG/cannon shells would be a very good proposal.

 

And if you watch Ground RB matches you see that teamkills with tank weapons are disabled - so why not use the same approach in Air RB?

Arguing with realism would simply raise the question: Where is the realism in Ground RB? 

 

  

Edited May 10, 2023 by Uncle J Wick@live

[kkang2828 1,446]

I propose two tech tree position changes for naval.

• New Orleans to rank 4: This ship is quite weak for rank 5, and too expensive for what she is. Now with two BR 6.0 ships already at rank 4 in the US bluewater tree(which you have to research and purchase in order to unlock rank 5), fitting New Orleans into a lineup is very awkward as well. There's lots of room below the Northampton, so I don't see any reason why this ship can't be moved to rank 4.
• Moskva to rank 2: Soviet bluewater rank 1 is very cramped right now, compared to rank 2. In the early days it may have made sense to fill up rank 1 with the Moskva, but the situation has changed considerably. There is room above the Soobrazitelny, so this ship can easily move to rank 2.

[davidj123456 0]

Good changes overall

[Alghult 23]

any br change suggestions are for RB unless stated otherwise

 

M46 Tiger -> Rank V to match its tech tree equivalent

IS-6 -> Rank V to match its nearest tt equivalent (IS-3)

Magach 6B + Magach 6M should be foldered as theyre very similar

Magach 1 + Magach 2 should be foldered as theyre very similar

Tiran 4 + Tiran 4S should be foldered as theyre very similar

Merkava Mk1B + Merkava Mk2B should be foldered as theyre very similar

Besposchchadnyy + Ryany -> 4.0 or 4.3 (AB+RB), theyre effectively Soobrazitelnyy copies with a couple fewer aa guns, should not be 3.7 with their capabilities

SMS Elbing -> 4.3 (AB+RB), terrible ship, effectively unprotected and slow with awful armament, worse than IJN Yubari at 4.3, should be lowered to at least 4.3

IJN Hatsuharu switch places with IJN Yugumo, Hatsuharu was one of Yugumo's predecessors and is a less capable ship ingame, and should come before the better, later Yugumo

IJN Hatsuharu -> 4.0 (AB+RB), it has less guns and worse torpedoes than the Yugumo at its same current BR, while being effectively the same/slightly worse in all other aspects. as it is a weaker ship, it should be lower BR. IJN Nenohi could also be lowered, but as it has the long lance torpedoes of its successor Yugumo, it could probably stay where it is

HMS Calpe + HMS Grafton switch places, the tree would make more sense going V class -> G class -> Tribal class instead of V class -> Hunt class -> Tribal class, especially when theres another Hunt class is the second line in rank 2

Sambad + Sa'ar should be foldered as theyre very similar

A-4H + A-4E Early (M) should be foldered as theyre very similar

Z.1007 bis serie 3/5 should be foldered as theyre very similar

Q-5 Early + Q-5A should be foldered as theyre very similar

Ki-49-I + Ki-49-IIa should be foldered as theyre very similar

Ki-49-IIb + Ki-49-IIb/L should be foldered as theyre very similar

Ki-84 ko + otsu should be foldered as theyre very similar

Stirling B Mk I + Stirling B Mk III should be foldered as theyre very similar

Canberra B Mk 2 + Canberra B (L) Mk 6 should be foldered

Sea Hawk FGA.6 + Sea Venom FAW 20 switch places as Sea Hawk is higher BR

La-7 + La-7B-20 should be foldered as theyre similar

Su-6 (M-71F) moved before IL-10 folder, should be foldered with Su-6 (AM-42) as theyre very similar and lower BR than both IL-10s

IL-28 + IL-28Sh should be foldered as theyre very similar

Tu-14T -> 7.7, its worse than IL-28Sh in all aspects and is the 2nd slowest jet bomber in the game, only faster than the first Arado. horribly painful vehicle to play and worse than its contemporaries all for the gimmick of having a torpedo that it in effect cannot use, it should not by any means be at 8.0

Me 264 + Do 217 E folder switch places as Me 264 is higher BR

B-25J-1 moved to rank III, foldered with B-25J-20

PB4Y-2 moved to rank IV + foldered with B-24D-25-CO, its BR and capabilities are too high relative to other rank III bombers in the tree, its effectively a sidegrade of the B-24 at rank IV and should be moved there to reflect that

B-24D-25-CO -> 5.3, its effectively equal in capability to the B-17G-60-VE, being 0.3 br higher effectively removes any reason to play it when an arguably better bomber comes directly before it

F-104A + F-104C should be foldered as theyre near identical

Challenger Mk.2 + Challenger Mk.3 should be foldered as theyre very similar

Challenger 2 + Challenger 2 (2F) should be foldered as theyre very similar, Challenger 2 TES could also be added to this folder

IS-7 -> rank VI to match its closest tt counterpart, T-10M at 8.3

T-55A + T-55AMD-1 should be foldered as theyre a similar situation to the T-62 and T-72B folders

T-64A (1971) + T-64B should be foldered as theyre a similar situation to the T-62 and T-72B folders

Marder A1- + SPz BMP-1 switch places, Marder A1- foldered with Marder 1A3 as theyre very similar

M1A1 + IPM1 should be foldered as theyre similar at the same BR

Chi-Ha Kai TD -> rank II to match its TT equivalent

PT-76-57 -> rank V, having an 8.0 tank at rank iv is insane when the rank if full of mostly 5.7-6.3. it should be rank V to match its nearest TT counterpart Obj 906. honestly its true closest counterpart is BMP-2 but making it a rank VI prem might be a bridge too far, but leaving it at rank IV is much too low

Edited May 10, 2023 by Alghult
specifying BR suggestions

[WTMarc 163]

wow..... so many great changes in favor for gaijin. Reducing the Rewards (once again), increasing the costs(once again), ruining a gamemode.....

 

I guess gaijin dosnt want people to earn any SL (maybe because of the lotboxes?)

 

Let me get things right.....

-The rewards have been nerfed for years now

-RP and SL cost only going higher

-unfolding vehicles because "they dont get played that often...." this would mean that you gotta remove PREMIUM vehicles too as they get played TOO OFTEN as they are the ONLY VIABLE OPTION

 

Combine that with lootboxes and you see.... ITS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY

If you cannot earn SL anymore and you might have the rare chance to get a 2000$ IS7 from a crate why not use money to buy SL to buy crates ....

 

The grind is already long and hard enough... why degroup vehicles? Just ban premiums and people will play techtree vehicles more