Smin1080p

Table updated.

Jaguar GR.1, J 32 Lansen and Su-7 were incorrectly shown to jump 2 BR spots to 9.3.

Its now correctly updated to show them going to 9.7

11.0 is not a possible BR we can have right at the moment, that is why the changes are being made now and additional tanks will be added to better combat Leopard 2 in the future:

We cannot expand BRs upwards without the necessary population, vehicle pool in a given matchmaking bracket, 24 hour concurrent stability in all time zones for a given BR and several other factors. Right now, that criteria has not yet been met. But the developers are aware of peoples desires for a larger BR range. When its possible to do so, we always try to expand BRs.

Nobody is asking questions that have not already been answered. Since the last time I was here and you said the same thing, there have bee. No new questions that I or developers have previous answered before.

I'm not really sure what your point is to tag me once every 2 weeks here and not actually ask any questions, but just to complain that I'm "not here". So if that's all this topic has become, then indeed it is time to draw a line under it. It's also unclear why you assume I am the only person responsible for answering here.

Bug reports and suggestions are not ignore

We are saying until it's proven where his evidence comes from, we are not going to blindly trust a secondary source because it's written by a historian when there are primary sources in Russian that say otherwise. Books can be written by anyone who conducts research and no matter how reputable they are, everyone can make mistakes. Authors often have a habbit of parroting each other so much that everyone forgets where the origin source came from.

I did explain to you previously that all secondary sources would need to be properly validated.

As I had previous said, proving the components were interchangeable / the same is not sufficient. So please do not try to submit a report with only this information alone.

Actual performance figures or facts are required if you are trying to report them being wrong.

Nobody said that. Simply that saying "we all pretty much agree" on a subject of which about 5 people agree is not a suitable sample.

More people shared that sentiment in the BR topic, but for every agreement, there is a disagreement.

Like I said, all of the changes are still under review and everything is subject to change. Anything could change position.

And you are once again doing so closely here.

This topic is on the M48 and that change. If you want to discuss the BR system overall and have constructive feedback on it, you can do so here:

If you have specific BR feedback to leave you can do so here:

But this is not the place to discuss your own personal opinion on the BR system or the context of how it works. There are appropriate topics for that, which you are free to use.

You were not issued a warning, because you are well aware of the forum rules. If a post is removed, its because its

There is a difference between critical and something that walks the lines of the forum rules. Constructive discussion is more than welcome (there is 7 pages of it in this topic alone), but there is a point at which things go to far.

As I have already said. We do not solely rely on statistics and the developers are more than aware of the context and situations surrounding certain tanks. The purpose of the BR system is to be a dynamic balancing mechanic that can always be changed and adjusted.

The M48 change is very much under review and the developers are aware of ever

Neither myself or Stona are responsible for changing BRs. We collect feedback, pass it on and provide answers where we can.

You very may well. However the larger community as a whole does not. Sadly 5 players agreeing in this topic is not representative of the whole community.

The change is still very much under review.

The reason for the propose BR drop was that the German M48 is by some margin, the worst performing Medium tank on Ranks IV / V.

Whilst its American and Chinese counterparts were at the totally different position of the scale.

There is a Battle Rating discussion that has been open ever since they were introduced. Please feel free to make your point there:

The BR changes are due to come in very soon. Even if the report was processed and forwarded its not going to be changed instantly. As I explained, meeting the source requirement is stage 1. It then has to be evaluated by the consultants which means it can take any mannor of time.

We do not discriminate who is chosen and from what language. It is simply down to those who have consistently made high level quality reports on a consistent basis that have lead to many reports that were fixed and helped contribute to improving the game.

The active bug reports program is simply a yearly evaluation of all those who have contributed a lot to many bug reports. It is not a continuous payment or for only a few bug reports, but a high standard over a long period. It is our way of thanking those individuals and moving them a step closer to further options in future such as Technical Moderators should they continue contributing and wish to do so

This was all explained here: https://warthunder.com/en/news/6544-bug-reporting-active-reward-program-and-f-a-q-en

All vehicles in game are subject to Battle Rating adjustments. This has been the same ever since Battle Ratings were first introduced in update 1.37 in 2014.

No vehicle has ever been introduced, sold or rewarded with the promise that its BR and Economics cannot change. All vehicles are subject to these changes as they are dynamic systems.

This is covered by the Terms of Use and User Agreement (EULA) you agreed to both when creating your account and with every purchase.

As I was saying

Yes sure. Allow me to trigger our whole marketing team instantly by ruining the name )))

We are still too far off guys.

Potentially there is another requested change imminent soon but we have also asked for clarification on this matter too.

I'm responsible for managing the whole technical section just FYI. That includes the rules and requirements. So if I've said something, it's for a reason.

And yes sometimes I do also do reports.

Again, the Harrier has primary documentation behind it. I'm not going to go over the whole thing after the countless times of explaining it because it's irrelevant to this topic. Rehashing it over and over is not going to achieve anything here. So if you want to discuss the Harrier, do so in the correct topic. This is the PFM topic so let's focus on resolving this properly.

We said we are trying to find ones that are practically viable. Some are simply not viable based on the current information and unless new material surfaces, there is not much for us to pursue further to what is already being done.

Right now we are speculating that such information even exists to begin with. Could be, perhaps, maybes and possibly is not enough to quantify going on a wild goose chase with no clear direction or starting point.

If you have a clear example of information that can be found, please do feel free to share it. But right now, there is hardly any