Balance improvements in Aircraft Realistic Battles

[Diabel_Z_Piekla 694]

7 hours ago, Einherjer1979 said:

 

 

What's next? Maybe all-against-each-other Battle-Royale-Thunder?

 

 

 

 

"We-don't-give-a-xxxx-so-pay-and-deal-with-it-sucker Thunder"?

Edited April 7, 2019 by Diabel_Z_Piekla

[NO_DRAGON 2,374]

No offense, but at the moment this topic starts to look like an.

 

"Look we care about your opinion", as there is an ridiculous lack of response as always which such changes.

 

We had the same time over time over time. Would be nice if the officials would at least participate in this topic for once in a while and show the view of the company to this.

 

Or they do not need to wonder that some sadly lose it and jump the boundaries of the rules as always.

 

At the moment there is basically no answer to community questions about multiple topics that the community is anxious to get answers about.

 

AS Italian Tank premium.

 

T2 mm change.

 

GF temporary MM change since French tank implementation

 

etc. pp.

 

Public relations with the community is not let them talk and hide yourself in silence.

[Stavroforos 15,367]

36 minutes ago, NO_DRAGON said:

No offense, but at the moment this topic starts to look like an.

 

"Look we care about your opinion", as there is an ridiculous lack of response as always which such changes.

 

We had the same time over time over time. Would be nice if the officials would at least participate in this topic for once in a while and show the view of the company to this.

 

Or they do not need to wonder that some sadly lose it and jump the boundaries of the rules as always.

 

At the moment there is basically no answer to community questions about multiple topics that the community is anxious to get answers about.

 

AS Italian Tank premium.

 

T2 mm change.

 

GF temporary MM change since French tank implementation

 

etc. pp.

 

Public relations with the community is not let them talk and hide yourself in silence.

I think while the folks creating the content at Gaijin are great and do stellar work, those who are supposed to talk to the community are not very good.

[BlackFlagger 199]

On 05/04/2019 at 02:15, Einherjer1979 said:

LOL, dude, how can you compare it? CL-13 is 7 km/h faster than US F86F and just slighty better accelerating. Everything else is the same...oh, F2 Sabre has better guns.

While Mitshubishi T2 is 300 km/h faster than Mig19, has much more ammo for its radar aimed cannon (750 vs 210) + modern missiles and modern radar. 

This is total outclassification, not a slight advantage.

It is same nonsense situation as F84G and Yak23 fighting He162, Meteor and Me262A,

 

 

That's just not true though, T2 is about 130kph quicker on deck than the mig19 and just about 100kph quicker on deck than the f100, that gap becomes larger the higher you go and if you had the map size to fight at 10km altitude then the t2 would be  like 250kph quicker at that altitude than the mig. The T2 doesn't outclass them everywhere, mig has better climb, similar acceleration, better turn and at lower speeds it beats both f100 and t2 in dogfights. F100 has pluses too, 4 missiles, better energy retention in turn that T2 and the guns that I would say hit harder for snapshots and got more ammo + you don't have the delay of fire like t2.

     Sure overall the T2 is better than both of them, but I dont think the gap is as big as you make it out to be. I wouldn't mind if it was .7 or 1.0 higher than f100 / mig19, but I mean does it matter right now ? With mixed battles T2 sees 99% axis anyway.

On 05/04/2019 at 01:15, Einherjer1979 said:

Yes, this is the state of top tier after 1.87.

It also shows the state of the game community - constant excitement about the possibility of having an advantage independent of skills. 

In spite of broken fairplay, in spite of broken historical mood,  in spite of boring mirrored matchmaker, in spite of the fact that given vehicle even aesthetically doesn't fit to the era.

Same case as Yak23 on 7.3 BR when introduced. 

Childish hype of "I am untouchable LOL, I can kill you with impunity LOL". Pathetic.

I mean I agree however its not like we can change that, people like to win. Honestly if you don't like the T2 mixed try mig19 or f100, its much better.

Edited April 8, 2019 by BlackFlagger

[Ein79 5,752]

29 minutes ago, BlackFlagger said:

That's just not true though, T2 is about 130kph quicker on deck than the mig19 and just about 100kph quicker on deck than the f100, that gap becomes larger the higher you go and if you had the map size to fight at 10km altitude then the t2 would be  like 250kph quicker at that altitude than the mig.

0-3000 m is most common altitude range in jet matches.

 

 

1 hour ago, NO_DRAGON said:

[...] there is an ridiculous lack of response as always which such changes

[...] Would be nice if the officials would at least participate in this topic for once in a while and show the view of the company to this.

+1

@Stona ? @Smin1080p ?

 

[MH4UAstragon 9,581]

And I wonder @NO_DRAGON, will the underlying issue of objective structure imbalance between fighters and nonfighters that helped fuel this mess (with the Allies getting all the nonfighters past 6.7-7.0) be addressed, or will it be swept under the rug AGAIN?

 

It has been many months since that “Air Realistic Battles - Community Suggestions” thread was declared finished and said to be sent to dev team for review. Out of that we’ve gotten supersonics, radar, and missiles. So far every other idea to address the underlying objective structure imbalance between fighters and nonfighters from that thread has been either ignored or at least appears like its been ignored. 

[Stavroforos 15,367]

1 hour ago, MH4UAstragon said:

And I wonder @NO_DRAGON, will the underlying issue of objective structure imbalance between fighters and nonfighters that helped fuel this mess (with the Allies getting all the nonfighters past 6.7-7.0) be addressed, or will it be swept under the rug AGAIN?

 

It has been many months since that “Air Realistic Battles - Community Suggestions” thread was declared finished and said to be sent to dev team for review. Out of that we’ve gotten supersonics, radar, and missiles. So far every other idea to address the underlying objective structure imbalance between fighters and nonfighters from that thread has been either ignored or at least appears like its been ignored. 

The moment Axis teams don't suffer from having non-meta planes, you won't see them complaining about an imbalance that favors them. 

[MH4UAstragon 9,581]

3 hours ago, Stavroforos said:

The moment Axis teams don't suffer from having non-meta planes, you won't see them complaining about an imbalance that favors them. 

I’m complaining about the imbalance in general, of course each side will have its die-hard fanboys and such. 

 

I’m complaining about the lack of usefulness for ground attack and bombing objectives due to the fighter deathmatch one usurping everything by default. At the moment the Allied side is overrun with these sorts of planes while Axis have almost none.

 

I’m looking at a bigger picture here beyond just team imbalances.

[Stavroforos 15,367]

4 minutes ago, MH4UAstragon said:

I’m complaining about the imbalance in general, of course each side will have its die-hard fanboys and such. 

 

I’m complaining about the lack of usefulness for ground attack and bombing objectives due to the fighter deathmatch one usurping everything by default. At the moment the Allied side is overrun with these sorts of planes while Axis have almost none.

 

I’m looking at a bigger picture here beyond just team imbalances.

The problem is the one you've identified, but the in-game application is that the meta is (and almost always has been) in favor of Germany. The irony is that Germany is the only team in air RB right now which actually has effective bombers. 

[MH4UAstragon 9,581]

3 hours ago, Stavroforos said:

The problem is the one you've identified, but the in-game application is that the meta is (and almost always has been) in favor of Germany. The irony is that Germany is the only team in air RB right now which actually has effective bombers.

That’s due solely to their diving speed enabling them to get away easily after dropping. Maybe also the tail cannon but I don’t trust any bomber guns - every single one seems to spray much more than the corresponding fighter weapon.

[Stavroforos 15,367]

14 minutes ago, MH4UAstragon said:

That’s due solely to their diving speed enabling them to get away easily after dropping. Maybe also the tail cannon but I don’t trust any bomber guns - every single one seems to spray much more than the corresponding fighter weapon.

Yes, exactly. They're like what jet bombers are supposed to be, and what they were until fighter jocks complained about having to put in effort to kill unarmed planes. 

[Horrifior 1,373]

For those of you who would like to discuss about both RP and SL earnings, I would like to point your attention to my postings in the FAQ-part of the forum. Most recently:

 

And some time ago:

 

 

[BlackFlagger 199]

On 08/04/2019 at 13:15, Einherjer1979 said:

0-3000 m is most common altitude range in jet matches.

 

 

+1

@Stona ? @Smin1080p ?

 

Wait you were arguing stats for arcade, what about RB? Also I would say common alt for supersonics is more like 5000m to 7000m not 3000m, at least for chases / first engagement, and like I said for me in these stats 3000m seems cherry picked, the alt that are most important are basically important are deck and 7000m, I would appreciate if you added f100 and mig19s in that as well.

Edited April 9, 2019 by BlackFlagger

[Ein79 5,752]

59 minutes ago, BlackFlagger said:

Wait you were arguing stats for arcade, what about RB?

 

AB = AfterBurner / WEP
Military power = 100%

 

59 minutes ago, BlackFlagger said:

I would appreciate if you added f100 and mig19s in that as well.

Mig19S: https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/445743-mikoyan-gurevich-mig-19s/

F100: https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/436416-f-100d-super-sabre/

BTW:

@Stona and/or @Smin1080p

Gaijins silence in the discussed feedback topic is really disappointing. 

Many of us expressed critical opinions and provided constructive suggestions.

Do you really have no statement for us from the company you represent?

 

 

 

Edited April 9, 2019 by Einherjer1979

[Smin1080p_WT 60,444]

On 09/04/2019 at 15:15, Einherjer1979 said:

 

AB = AfterBurner / WEP
Military power = 100%

 

Mig19S: https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/445743-mikoyan-gurevich-mig-19s/

F100: https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/436416-f-100d-super-sabre/

BTW:

@Stona and/or @Smin1080p

Gaijins silence in the discussed feedback topic is really disappointing. 

Many of us expressed critical opinions and provided constructive suggestions.

Do you really have no statement for us from the company you represent?

 

 

 

 

As we announced last week, we are currently working on major economic changes to the game. This will be followed by further balancing changes.

 

We are still reviewing other economic feedback, so its very possible you will see that soon too

[Rainbowprincess 9,975]

economic changes don't change balance of the performance of vehicles. you can make worse aircraft dirt cheap and they still will remain worse and inferior

[MH4UAstragon 9,581]

35 minutes ago, Smin1080p said:

 

As we announced last week, we are currently working on major economic changes to the game. This will be followed by further balancing changes.

 

its not however possible to change everything at once. 

Fair enough.

 

I just hope the T-2K gets shoved to 11.3 so nothing else can meet it. With the missile warning, slower planes have no answer to it at all. 11.0 would work if we got the missile warning removed.

[Smin1080p_WT 60,444]

1 minute ago, Rainbowprincess said:

economic changes don't change balance of the performance of vehicles. you can make worse aircraft dirt cheap and they still will remain worse and inferior

 

I didnt say it did, I said that this is what the devs are currently hard at work on. They require a lot of work and attention as its a huge game changing economics review for many tiers. 

[Madwolf 10,222]

Finally got back into Air RB today for the first time since shortly after the P-38s were released and it's still the same parts of the game that were frustrating before I stopped playing. It might be worse now with the German Bombers, and aircraft like the Ta-152 having airspawn. It's a big slap in the face for the reasoning we have planes that perform well at high altitude start on the ground, and why aircraft like the strategic bombers on the allied side have such high BRs.

 

And as a lover of all things P-38, how in the flipping fudge do they STILL leak coolant and oil the moment their touched from both of the engines? Why is this still a thing? It's been years!

 

@Smin1080p and @Stona I really love you dudes a lot. You've gotten so much crap that you don't deserve. I've purposely avoided playing Air RB since I've been back because I didn't want to get stuck feeling like this again, but I made that mistake and here we are. Their just has to be some other solution than adjusting BRs, and Repair Costs on aircraft to try and make a balance, and enjoyable experience.

 

I know there are very smart and wonderful people that work at Gaijin that surely have some ideas on how to fix this, and make RB Air Battles a more varied experience than what we've had for nearly 8 years now. There's never going to be an answer that makes everyone happy 100% of the time, but there needs to be a balance between pleasure and struggle. Neither should be exclusive to any side, not just because it's unfair, but because you appreciate the good the more you have to struggle to get there. 

[Diabel_Z_Piekla 694]

22 hours ago, Smin1080p said:

This will be followed by further balancing changes.

 

What are those "further balancing changes"? Or what idea is standing behind them?

Edited April 10, 2019 by Diabel_Z_Piekla

[MH4UAstragon 9,581]

9 hours ago, Diabel_Z_Piekla said:

 

What are those "further balancing changes"? Or what idea is standing behind them?

Yeah @Smin1080p, after the disastrous introduction of symmetrical matchmaking in Air RB, we really want to know what the planned changes are before they get implemented.

 

Obviously BR changes are on the table and will be discussed like usual, but are any GAMEPLAY changes imminent as well? The gameplay of Air RB has not significantly changed since the game’s launch in late 2012. It’s still just a fighter deathmatch with tasty crumbs thrown on the map to attract attackers & bombers to be slaughtered. We still have enemy markers that artificially favor climb rate and turn radius over all else before jet BRs. We still have obviously Pay-2-Win crew skills that make jet combat horrible, we still have G-force wing snap applied only selectively to specific problem planes even after introduction of losing control. Some aircraft weapons STILL are horribly inconsistent even after 1.69’s .50cal buff and 1.79’s explosive buff. RB EC has been tested over a dozen times and we STILL don’t have it around as a permanent mode to soak up spam of bombers & ground attackers that disproportionately plague Allied Teams, including some tests w/o enemy markers that were the best of the bunch.

 

BR changes will only help so much. Balancing by SL costs does NOTHING and people just farm SL in other tiers to fund their expensive fun planes.

[Smin1080p_WT 60,444]

1 hour ago, MH4UAstragon said:

Yeah @Smin1080p, after the disastrous introduction of symmetrical matchmaking in Air RB, we really want to know what the planned changes are before they get implemented.

 

 

There was no alternative here other than forcing people to wait for horrendously long queue times if we retained the old matchmaking. Axis vs Axis + Allied vs Allied was the only way to shorten queues after the influx of players populating the higher ranks. 

 

It would have been more of a "disaster" for the game, matchmaker and players alike if we had not made this change. 

[MH4UAstragon 9,581]

1 hour ago, Smin1080p said:

 

There was no alternative here other than forcing people to wait for horrendously long queue times if we retained the old matchmaking. Axis vs Axis + Allied vs Allied was the only way to shorten queues after the influx of players populating the higher ranks. 

 

It would have been more of a "disaster" for the game, matchmaker and players alike if we had not made this change. 

Could the T-2K not have been hotfixed to 11.3 and have symmetrical matchmaking enabled only for above 10.0?

[Smin1080p_WT 60,444]

3 minutes ago, MH4UAstragon said:

Could the T-2K not have been hotfixed to 11.3 and have symmetrical matchmaking enabled only for above 10.0?

 

The T-2 was not the only factor causing the imbalance. It began from 7.7 and above. 

[MH4UAstragon 9,581]

6 minutes ago, Smin1080p said:

 

The T-2 was not the only factor causing the imbalance. It began from 7.7 and above. 

Well the Sea Hawk being 7.7 with missiles is pretty questionable to say the least. People love to point fingers at the Rocket 262s but without the Sea Hawk’s missiles making enemies slow down all but the C-2b struggle to catch things and get uptiered 99% of the time. 

 

Then meanwhile GER+IT+JP have no bombers or attackers while US+UK+RU+FR is loaded with them. With the lack of badly needed gameplay changes, this was a recipe for disaster since bombers and attackers are dead weight right now. Plus the hiking of spawn costs for all planes in GFs to protect unskilled helicopter pilots removed that as an option to take the largely useless nonfighters into - you may get a plane still but chances are there will be nothing to fight up there. 

 

They’ll remain dead weight until we either see Markerless RB EC release full time or see sweeping objective structure changes to normal Air RB that partly dethrone fighters and make nonfighters important again.

 

It just feels like the gameplay flaws are being swept under the rug AGAIN with symmetrical matchmaking, which is why there’s a lot of anger from the community over this. That and fighting yourself gets old fast.