Balance improvements in Aircraft Realistic Battles

[Salty_Raven 878]

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. 

Umm.. Am I reading this right? You're saying that you had to make Axis fight Axis and Allied fight Allied to lessen queue times after MORE players got into higher tiers, seriously.. Are you even reading what you are typing here? You're saying that when we become more players at higher tiers we have to fight the same nation we are playing, because the queue times would be too longer? It's the other way around, queue times doesn't increase with increase of player numbers, it increase with the decrease of players numbers.

But as I have understood the top tiers, you have introduced one plane that EVERYONE want to fly because it's a seal-clubber, meaning a plane that's far superior to the planes it's facing. Maybe you should fix that instead?

[Salty_Raven 878]

@MH4UAstragon I seem to remember you wanting it this way, you wanted cannon damage boosted to make up for the boosted US .50 cals.. Well.. You got what you wanted and now you're complaining that bombers and attackers die too fast. LOL

[Spindash64 1,244]

7 minutes ago, Skeptical_Bunny said:

Umm.. Am I reading this right? You're saying that you had to make Axis fight Axis and Allied fight Allied to lessen queue times after MORE players got into higher tiers, seriously.. Are you even reading what you are typing here? You're saying that when we become more players at higher tiers we have to fight the same nation we are playing, because the queue times would be too longer? It's the other way around, queue times doesn't increase with increase of player numbers, it increase with the decrease of players numbers.

But as I have understood the top tiers, you have introduced one plane that EVERYONE want to fly because it's a seal-clubber, meaning a plane that's far superior to the planes it's facing. Maybe you should fix that instead?

I think it's a loopholish way of them trying to admit that yes, the game is broken, and they don't want new players to be completely shood off from playing high ranks.

[Smin1080p_WT 60,444]

16 minutes ago, Skeptical_Bunny said:

Umm.. Am I reading this right? You're saying that you had to make Axis fight Axis and Allied fight Allied to lessen queue times after MORE players got into higher tiers, seriously.. Are you even reading what you are typing here? You're saying that when we become more players at higher tiers we have to fight the same nation we are playing, because the queue times would be too longer? It's the other way around, queue times doesn't increase with increase of player numbers, it increase with the decrease of players numbers.

But as I have understood the top tiers, you have introduced one plane that EVERYONE want to fly because it's a seal-clubber, meaning a plane that's far superior to the planes it's facing. Maybe you should fix that instead?

 

 I did not say more players = longer queues alone. You would be correct in assuming more players across all nations equally would mean shorter queues. However thats not what happened. 

 

Queue times increase when the largest portion of the queue rushes to play 1 or 2 spesific nations more so than any other. In this case, Germany and Japan. With the majority of players trying to play aircraft that cannot fight each other, it lead to mostly axis players in queue and not an equal amount of players on the allied side.

 

Thus axis vs axis was turned on to shorten queues. 

[Diabel_Z_Piekla 694]

@Smin1080p can you answer my questions?

[Kenny110 788]

18 minutes ago, Smin1080p said:

 

 I did not say more players = longer queues alone. You would be correct in assuming more players across all nations equally would mean shorter queues. However thats not what happened. 

 

Queue times increase when the largest portion of the queue rushes to play 1 or 2 spesific nations more so than any other. In this case, Germany and Japan. With the majority of players trying to play aircraft that cannot fight each other, it lead to mostly axis players in queue and not an equal amount of players on the allied side.

 

Thus axis vs axis was turned on to shorten queues. 

Maybe if you would add the correct counter parts to each nation you wouldn't have this issue. Common sense can go along way. 

Edited April 10, 2019 by Kenny110

[Ein79 5,749]

31 minutes ago, Smin1080p said:

Queue times increase when the largest portion of the queue rushes to play 1 or 2 spesific nations more so than any other. In this case, Germany and Japan. With the majority of players trying to play aircraft that cannot fight each other, it lead to mostly axis players in queue and not an equal amount of players on the allied side.

Thus axis vs axis was turned on to shorten queues. 

Yes, and unfortunately, this was not "try to kill T2 UFO" April Fools event, this was and is a toxic reality after 1.87 update:


 

This is the result of adding vehicles that completely disturb the balance on a given BR range. 

 
We already had long, unpleasant months..MONTHS with Yak23 on 7.3 BR...despite the anger of the community and openly expressed confusion of experienced game-youtubers. After about year it is 8.0 now.

 

Now we wonder how long it will take to understand that you need to raise the BR of Mitsubishi T2 at least to 11.0. Months or whole year?
 

Add to it wasting of potentially balancing factor -  missilles. IR missiles potentially allows effective combat engagement with much faster enemy BUT you decided to make them borderline useless by unrealistic, unhistorical, arcadish MISSILE WARNING POPUP.

 

You already have two big, rich in arguments feedback topics to take into consideration:

 

- pre-1.87: https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/444649-feedback-air-to-air-missile-warning-removed-in-rb/
- post-1.87: https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/445823-missile-launched-indicator-yes-or-no/

 

 

And what about permanent refusal to move from obsolete Axis-vs-Alies mindset to NATO-vs-WarsawPact matchmaker for >8.0 jets. This would reduce the accumulation of the best aircraft on one side and increase the historical mood:
 
https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/441204-possible-new-matchmaker-for-german-post-wwii-techtree-airrb-nato-vs-warsawpact-idea/

 

 

And finally - why not apply a simple temporary idea:

The main, if not the only, reason for such a drastic imbalance is the addition of the Mitsubishi T2, which in no way fit to the 9.0-10.0 BR range. 

 

If so, why are all other "axis" vehicles supposed to endure that unbearable, boring and still unfair gameplay? Unfair, because these matches are simply stolen and broken by T2s on both sides.

 

Let's make a special-sub-matchmaker for T2 .... let it create T2-vsT2 matches only - of course only until another plane with comparable performance is introduced.

 

T2 is a training plane from the 70's - let's treat it as a training phase before the appearance of the actual combat aircraft from the 70's.

 

Edited April 10, 2019 by Einherjer1979

[Salty_Raven 878]

2 hours ago, Smin1080p said:

 

 I did not say more players = longer queues alone. You would be correct in assuming more players across all nations equally would mean shorter queues. However thats not what happened. 

 

Queue times increase when the largest portion of the queue rushes to play 1 or 2 spesific nations more so than any other. In this case, Germany and Japan. With the majority of players trying to play aircraft that cannot fight each other, it lead to mostly axis players in queue and not an equal amount of players on the allied side.

 

Thus axis vs axis was turned on to shorten queues. 

Yes.. Because of what I said on the end.. Gaijin introduced a plane that's far superior to everything else it face and what happens when things like that is done? People want easy mode, they want to play what they can seal-club in. I've been playing this game since v1.25 and I've seen it over and over again, either it's a change to something in the game that make a certain plane too good, or it's the introduction of a plane that's superior to what it's facing, or something else, like the thing a good while back when the devs messed up the bombers and crashing your bomber into the ground with bombload made players get a great reward. And many players did just that because it was easy way of getting rewarded and getting their planes spaded fast and getting the next planes researched. Then there's the weapon damage.. Gaijin had it almost perfect, but there was a something wrong with .50 cals that made them under preform slightly and instead of fixing the problem with the .50's they were boosted a great deal, what happened then was that every plane with a LOT of .50's were used the most, meaning P47's and so Germany and US were the two nations that were used the most. And now with the mistake that was made of boosting the cannons instead of fixing the .50's again everyone are going for planes that climbs good and we're seeing MUCH more head on's than we had before the cannon boost.

Right now in early jet matches we are seeing a LOT of R2Y2's that is on the light bomber/attacker line, it get bomber airspawn and it's on low enough BR that is face prop planes often and people use that plane mostly because of that. The plane shouldn't spawn as high as it does, it's okay that it get airspawn, but at attacker altitude.

There's one golden rule here, for everything to work smoothly.. There need to be balance!

It's about human behavior, if something is better than everything else, then people WILL go for that.

Edited April 10, 2019 by Skeptical_Bunny

[Madwolf 10,222]

Guys, @Smin1080p can't change what's already been released. No amount of salt is going to change that. Attacking him just means punishing a person that's willing to communicate with you for something they didn't cause.

 

You can be upset at the situation without being upset at Smin and Stona.

 

I do believe there is a larger question here, and that is how do you get Allies to play the game? 

[Ein79 5,749]

2 hours ago, Skeptical_Bunny said:

Right now in early jet matches we are seeing a LOT of R2Y2's that is on the light bomber/attacker line, it get bomber airspawn and it's on low enough BR that is face prop planes often and people use that plane mostly because of that. The plane shouldn't spawn as high as it does, it's okay that it get airspawn, but at attacker altitude.

Yes, most of 7.0 matches, where Japan appear, is simply STOLEN by R2Ys - fantasy, never build "bomber" used in the game as heavy fighter with 4x30 mm cannons aaaand: BOMBER SPAWN.

Dedicated interceptors as Kikka or Me262A1u4 with 50 mm anti-bomber cannon have no chance to perform their tasks, the match is settled in the first "R2Ys rush for headon pass".

A few dozen topics have been created about this matter...and? All that feedback just ignored. 

Of course, I don't blame @Smin1080p or @Stona for that and many other annoying states of affairs in the game...but I'm expecting reasonable explanation, because this is the role of the company representative on the forum.

[Pirillo 99]

2 hours ago, Madwolf said:

I do believe there is a larger question here, and that is how do you get Allies to play the game? 

Allies still play the game. And their side is unbalanced too because of F100 and too many premium Vatour bombers.

 

Gaijin broke every nation because of their greed of money.

 

Even BR 6 to 7 games are way less populated because a lot of people bought the Japanese F86 (or other premium jets) in ordert unlock the supersonic ones.

 

It's a deadly reaction chain:

1. Low skill players (i consider myself below average, btw) are drawn away from props because they buy premium jets.
2. The now less populated 6.3-7 does not produce skilled players anymore because the point n.1;
3. High tier matches are decided by the team with the lowest level 15 players (with a japan f86) or more skilled supersonic gamers: if both condition are fullfilled matches are a couple of minutes long;
4. Because the point n.1 a lot of low level players buy the japanese F86 then spend the whole game ground pounding to rack up research points to unlock the T2. So axis vs axis is broken too.

 

[MH4UAstragon 9,581]

6 hours ago, Skeptical_Bunny said:

@MH4UAstragon I seem to remember you wanting it this way, you wanted cannon damage boosted to make up for the boosted US .50 cals.. Well.. You got what you wanted and now you're complaining that bombers and attackers die too fast. LOL

It’s not them dying too fast. It’s that they have no real purpose when its possible to end games entirely by fighter-vs-fighter action which bombers and attackers really don’t take part in save for particularly careless fighter pilots headoning armored attackers or tail-sitting bombers.

 

Even if bombers and attackers do their jobs the game gives them, “hostile team has lost all its vehicles” renders anything and everything they managed to do irrelevant, and that’s IF they managed to survive to game end at all.

5 hours ago, Smin1080p said:

 

 I did not say more players = longer queues alone. You would be correct in assuming more players across all nations equally would mean shorter queues. However thats not what happened. 

 

Queue times increase when the largest portion of the queue rushes to play 1 or 2 spesific nations more so than any other. In this case, Germany and Japan. With the majority of players trying to play aircraft that cannot fight each other, it lead to mostly axis players in queue and not an equal amount of players on the allied side.

 

Thus axis vs axis was turned on to shorten queues. 

We understand it was a minor emergency of sorts that people couldn’t get games due to a lopsided matchmaker. 

 

But with a single plane driving the problem, the T-2K, Germany was mostly just hitchhiking on the wave of opporitunist statpadders rushing madly to the T-2K. 

 

So why can we not just uptier the T-2 to 11.3 to cut it off from everything else and keep Axis vs Axis matchmaking only above 10.0 BR? That would solve most of the issues. 

 

The imbalance you spoke of before below 9.0-10.0 was still caused by the T-2 and people charging towards it or riding on the wave it was making, plus the aforementioned age-old disparity in practical usefulness between bombers and attackers that disproportionately harmed Allied teams. The latter imbalance has existed forever and yet we haven’t seen symmetrical matchmaking before. 

 

Can we just see a BR hotfix and end the symmetrical matchmaking mess?

[Diabel_Z_Piekla 694]

7 hours ago, Madwolf said:

Guys, @Smin1080p can't change what's already been released. No amount of salt is going to change that. Attacking him just means punishing a person that's willing to communicate with you for something they didn't cause.

 

Title "Community Manager" mean nothing then? No one attack them personally, but frustration level is rather high atm. Many questions with no answers, many rash "balancing" decisions, no communication between community and devs via forum Staff etc and everything is cover in mist of mystery.

Edited April 11, 2019 by Diabel_Z_Piekla

[SuperDuperOtter 655]

6 hours ago, Diabel_Z_Piekla said:

 

Title "Community Manager" mean nothing then? No one attack them personally, but frustration level is rather high atm. Many questions with no answers, many rash "balancing" decisions, no communication between community and devs via forum Staff etc and everything is cover in mist of mystery.

 

That goes further than that.

 

Players have been pointing out for years balances issues between Allied and Axis teams. And that this balance issue was pushing more player to paly Axis than Allied simply because it is easier to play Axis.

 

And yet, Gaijin choose to realese an obviously better jet than anything else ... on the Axis side. Only furthering the issue.

 

Ok, PR personnel are not responsible for this decision.

 

But many players are very crossed about this decision to implement the T-2 in game while many of us warned that it would be too powerfull and would further the lake of balance between Allied and Axis team. Resulting in more player playing Axis, making thing even worse MM wise.

 

We got to a point were we are wondering if :

PR guys are able to do their job : properly getting feedback to devs. (i don't necessary point PR guys here, rather the means at their disposal to do their job)

PR guys are useless because devs (or more likely the monetizing department) ignore player feedback anyway.

 

What we want is Allied and Axis to be at the same level of competivity. Not a MM modifications made to slip this balance issue under the rug.

 

And no, new Allied top tier jets wont fix the issue. That would just be adding a rug over the first rug. The issue is years in the making, present at nearly every BR.

 

It's the very Air RB mode design which is at fault. ANd it's been expressed by players for years.

Edited April 11, 2019 by SuperDuperOtter

[Diabel_Z_Piekla 694]

44 minutes ago, SuperDuperOtter said:

 

That goes further than that.

 

Players have been pointing out for years balances issues between Allied and Axis teams. And that this balance issue was pushing more player to paly Axis than Allied simply because it is easier to play Axis.

 

And yet, Gaijin choose to realese an obviously better jet than anything else ... on the Axis side. Only furthering the issue.

 

Ok, PR personnel are not responsible for this decision.

 

But many players are very crossed about this decision to implement the T-2 in game while many of us warned that it would be too powerfull and would further the lake of balance between Allied and Axis team. Resulting in more player playing Axis, making thing even worse MM wise.

 

We got to a point were we are wondering if :

PR guys are able to do their job : properly getting feedback to devs.

PR guys are useless because dev ignore player feedback anyway.

 

What we want is Allied and Axis to be at the same level of competivity. Not a MM modifications made to slip this balance issue under the rug.

 

And no, new Allied top tier jets wont fix the issue. That would just be adding a rug over the first rug. The issue is year in the making, present at nearly every BR.

 

It's the very Air RB mode design which is at fault. ANd it's been expressed by players for years.

 

That means Gaijin don't need community to improve game - they need only customers whith wallets deep enough to buy top tier vehicles/aircrafts which provide their income instead of loyal people which will spend their money because they like the game itself and they have will to help with improvements. 

 

So what's the point of all those  suggestions, bug reports, feedback threads? I've asked simple question according to @Smin1080p post and nothing... There can be only 2 reasons why he didn't asnwer:

 

1.He don't know what changes will be implement.

2. He knows but for some strange reasons he don't want or can't write about them here

 

Anyway this discusion is pointless IMO.

Edited April 11, 2019 by Diabel_Z_Piekla

[MH4UAstragon 9,581]

1 hour ago, SuperDuperOtter said:

And no, new Allied top tier jets wont fix the issue. That would just be adding a rug over the first rug. The issue is years in the making, present at nearly every BR.

 

 It's the very Air RB mode design which is at fault. ANd it's been expressed by players for years.

And this difference boils down to:

1. The simple ability for any single plane class to end games on its own in short order (fighters, bombers, and attackers are all equally to blame here)

 

2. The massive disparity in ease of pulling off a win by fighter deathmatch compared to the other two objectives. The fault here lies squarely on a significant portion of fighter mains that could not accept the idea that they weren’t the only thing that mattered above all else so they screamed on the forums to nerf any and all bombers or attackers that were useful (remember MK103 oneshotting tanks anyone?) to useless status.

 

3. A general lack of useful bombers and attackers in the classically “Axis” nations. Only partially addressed in midtiers with Do-217s and He-177s. Japan still lacks useful big bombers below 5.0 and their two big bombers are stuck with long range payloads that are meaningless ingame since we aren’t crossing the Pacific Ocean. Italy has decently good bombers but has literally none above the 3.7 P.108. Japan and Italy both lack practical attack planes. This is exacerbated in jet tiers where there are no non-meta planes for the Axis above 6.7 while every Allied nation is full of them.

 

4. Enemy markers making climb rate and turn radius way more important than they really should be, given how most of the good climbers are Axis. Allies have some good climbers such as Spitfires and P-38s but Axis have the entire tree lines of Bf-109s, Italian fighters, and quite a few japanese.

- When one person on the Allied team sees someone (usually a 109 or J2M or Ki-43) above them, the whole allied team does.

- Inevitably someone will panic-dive.

- Confronted with less numbers at altitude, more people panic-dive in a case of herd mentality and the game is usually lost unless there’s a squad of sideclimbing P-47s coming in clutch.

- Then, the Axis side has way more proper turnfighters than the Allied side does. Russia, America, and France lose their turnfighters past low tiers, leaving only Britain’s Spitfires up until the LF Mk IX. Japan and Italy meanwhile maintain turnfighter spam up until higher BRs. Enemy markers warn slow turnfighters of incoming BnZ attacks, allowing the turnfighter to effortlessly knee-jerk hard turn away. Since the turnfighter often climbs better than the BnZer, repeat this a few times and soon energy states equalize, forcing the BnZer to run or get killed. Without markers turnfighters fall apart so much more easily.

 

5. Map rotation is stale when not forcing mixed games, many maps are grossly imbalanced towards one side, including almost all naval maps. Only way to solve this is frankly to un-bind maps from nation vs nation matchups, but leave naval maps out of the new rotation entirely as they all suck. Saipan, Norway, & Midway have contested airbases with stupidly strong flak. Wake Island, Norway, & Midway bury mission-critical ground units UNDER the strong flak. Wake Island is too small. Midway & Norway are huge yet don’t spread out the ground units at all. Iwo Jima has all of the targets for Japan to kill under the veil of overpowered Cargo Ship AAA. New Guinea has stupidly strong flak on a tiny accessory airbase and an airspawn for Japan only. Guadalcanal is just too damn small and packs the ground units in too small of a place. Norway is massive yet packs all ground units on a couple postage stamps. In all of them, AI ships are no longer surefire kills with bombs or torps because of their DMs being buffed to levels much like player ships in Naval which is nonsense. 

 

6. AI Ground Unit DMs being buffed to levels similar to player tanks, specifically Light/Medium/Heavy Tanks and Light Pillboxes. This is AIR mode, why do we need to suffer nerfs meant for GROUND mode or NAVAL mode? Likewise, ordinance and plane-mounted AT guns got nerfed many times due to whines from GROUND mode yet the nerfs bled over here. This point and #5 only further make it nigh-impossible to win rounds as attackers in decent amounts of time. Is it not possible to copy the files for air-to-ground or air-to-sea weapons, allocate one copy to each appropriate mode, and edit them for the specs of each mode, then undoing nerfs from ground or naval only in air modes?

 

The T-2 fiasco exploded the cellar door hiding all these problems that are slowly but steadily rotting the foundation of Air Realistic for years - and some people wonder why the overall air playerbase has been slowly but steadily dropping or stagnating or being only populated by people zombie-grinding planes for use in Ground and Naval.

49 minutes ago, Diabel_Z_Piekla said:

So what's the point of all those  suggestions, bug reports, feedback threads? I've asked simple question according to @Smin1080p post and nothing... There can be only 2 reasons why he didn't asnwer:

 

1.He don't know what changes will be implement.

2. He knows but for some strange reasons he don't want or can't write about them here

You are more or less right, though I feel even if Smin knows about upcoming changes he’s bound by an NDA to not talk about them.

 

And none of us need to be so condescending, we’re all fuming at this for one reason or another.

[Salty_Raven 878]

12 hours ago, MH4UAstragon said:

It’s not them dying too fast. It’s that they have no real purpose

Nope! It's them dying too fast, AND you want it like this, so now you can enjoy the carnage you fought so hard to get.

 

Played a match where we were 1 IL 10 and 2 Su 6's and by some freakish miracle we were left alone by the enemy team and so we destroyed everything quickly and won the match for the team. I've seen what 4 AD4's can do when left alone. I was playing my G56, the plane is spaded and has a pretty good climb rate the match was over before I reached 4500m because the AD 4's were left alone.

Quote

Even if bombers and attackers do their jobs the game gives them, “hostile team has lost all its vehicles” renders anything and everything they managed to do irrelevant, and that’s IF they managed to survive to game end at all.

You need open a new thread about getting a new game mode where the victory condition is only based on the total destruction of every ground unit on the map. So please leave that fight you are on there out of this thread and stay on topic instead.

Edited April 11, 2019 by Skeptical_Bunny

[Salty_Raven 878]

14 hours ago, Einherjer1979 said:

Yes, most of 7.0 matches, where Japan appear, is simply STOLEN by R2Ys - fantasy, never build "bomber" used in the game as heavy fighter with 4x30 mm cannons aaaand: BOMBER SPAWN.

It's not just 7.7 and up that doesn't have balance, it's from 4.0 and up actually, but the higher you get the worse it get and when you get to 6.0/6.3 you're screwed up by the imbalance. A good example of it is me and Star23_16 flying Russian 6.3 BR and we get a match on the England map where the axis spawn in the air out over the sea and the allied spawn on the airfield, I took off with my Yak 9 UT and got about 3km from the airfield when we were attacked by R2Y2's, Ho 229's and Me 262's. No balance there.. IMHO Jets should not get airspawn at all, least not those that have offensive guns and all maps that are either small, or have short dirt airfields should be taken out of jet match rotation. The last there because taking off from a dirt airfield with a jet pane is not good because the jet engine suck rocks into them, that's why deck crews and pilots on the carriers do the "Walk the deck" where they line up so they cover the width of the deck and walk the entire length of it, picking up anything that can be sucked into a jet engine and damage it.

 

Other balance issues.. I miss how the guns were back at v1.61 (or was it 1.59, don't remember) back then they had pretty damn good balance, .50's were under preforming a tiny bit, don't remember now what was wrong with them, but the effective range on MG's in general were about right with the kinetic energy decrease they had and HE rounds from cannons were doing good damage, but well balanced compared to the MG's. We were using gun targeting distances that were more correct compared to what pilots were using during WW2 (150-350m were most used.) Buuuuut Gaijin went off and screwed the balance up by boosting .50's a LOT instead of fixing the issue with them and thus creating imbalance in the game resulting in the matches being dominated by US teams. It's funny how Gaijin continue to screw up the game balance they create over and over again.

Edited April 11, 2019 by Skeptical_Bunny

[SuperDuperOtter 655]

3 hours ago, Diabel_Z_Piekla said:

 

That means Gaijin don't need community to improve game - they need only customers whith wallets deep enough to buy top tier vehicles/aircrafts which provide their income instead of loyal people which will spend their money because they like the game itself and they have will to help with improvements. 

 

So what's the point of all those  suggestions, bug reports, feedback threads? I've asked simple question according to @Smin1080p post and nothing... There can be only 2 reasons why he didn't asnwer:

 

1.He don't know what changes will be implement.

2. He knows but for some strange reasons he don't want or can't write about them here

 

Anyway this discusion is pointless IMO.

 

3. He's told not to by the guys above him.

 

Which is the most likely in my opinion. But doesn't change anything : Air RB (and to some extend Air SB ?) as been let to rot away for years now.

Edited April 11, 2019 by SuperDuperOtter

[Madwolf 10,222]

You guys don't know how much guys like Smin and Stona advocate for you and the ideas and concerns of the players.

 

The problem with getting things fixed is everyone with a seat at the table is trying to get their issues addressed as if they're the most important. Everyone is going to get a little bit of what they want. The bigger the change, the more difficult it is to sell.

[Diabel_Z_Piekla 694]

1 hour ago, Madwolf said:

You guys don't know how much guys like Smin and Stona advocate for you and the ideas and concerns of the players.

That will sound funny but indeed, we don't know much and that is the main issue here.

[Smin1080p_WT 60,444]

6 hours ago, Diabel_Z_Piekla said:

I've asked simple question according to @Smin1080p post and nothing.=

 

Right now, the main focus as I have said is on the major economical changes coming on the 23rd of this month. This is not a minor change and the top ranks will see a drastic economical shift as basically everything except the very top goes down and becomes more accessible and cheaper to research/purcahse. 

 

Its impossible to change everything at once, as we need time to make sure the changes are right, deploy smoothly and dont cause issues elsewhere. After this, as we have said, we will then move on to other areas of balancing not changed in this patch such as BR, Repair cost etc. 

[Diabel_Z_Piekla 694]

6 minutes ago, Smin1080p said:

 

Right now, the main focus as I have said is on the major economical changes coming on the 23rd of this month. This is not a minor change and the top ranks will see a drastic economical shift as basically everything except the very top goes down and becomes more accessible and cheaper to research/purcahse. 

 

Its impossible to change everything at once, as we need time to make sure the changes are right, deploy smoothly and dont cause issues elsewhere. After this, as we have said, we will then move on to other areas of balancing not changed in this patch such as BR, Repair cost etc. 

Thanks for response.

But, as annoying type of guy I won't stop here

 

 

8 minutes ago, Smin1080p said:

After this, as we have said, we will then move on to other areas of balancing not changed in this patch.

That's wierd. Would you kindly explain me why Gaijin simply didn't movepatch for about month later to test all changes first on dev server to make sure if something is good or not?

 

 

13 minutes ago, Smin1080p said:

areas of balancing [...] such as BR, Repair cost etc. 

Raising or lowering repair costs has nothing to do with balance IMO...

[Smin1080p_WT 60,444]

1 minute ago, Diabel_Z_Piekla said:

That's wierd. Would you kindly explain me why Gaijin simply didn't movepatch for about month later to test all changes first on dev server to make sure if something is good or not?

 

Because the dev server would never give us the kind of figures and data needed to make such important changes. We cant balance the whole game based of the testing of under 500 ish people playing mostly in custom battles. 

 

2 minutes ago, Diabel_Z_Piekla said:

Raising or lowering repair costs has nothing to do with balance IMO...

 

Its related and as I said, also not the only thing to change. I also said BRs too. 

[Necrons31467 14,236]

45 minutes ago, Smin1080p said:

Because the dev server would never give us the kind of figures and data needed to make such important changes.

 

There isn't any testing needed to see how a Leopard 2A5 doesn't belong at the same battle rating as an M1 Abrams, it should be rather obvious.

 

Quote

We cant balance the whole game based of the testing of under 500 ish people playing mostly in custom battles.

 

Well, the developers do not seem to play their own game, so perhaps we should indeed give 500-ish players the chance to find some of these massively obvious broken aspects before they make it to live-servers?

 

Quote

Its related and as I said,

 

It's quite honestly insulting.

 

 

Employee #1: ''So... the Lorraine now has close to 300mm of penetration after the patch''

 

Employee #2: ''Yeah, maybe we should increase the battle rating accordingly? you know, the entire reason the BR system exists?''

 

Employee #1: ''Nah, let's just slap a 25 000 silver lion repair tag on the thing and make it an infuriating experience for anyone wanting to play it, that should do nicely''

 

Quote

also not the only thing to change. I also said BRs too. 

 

The battle rating changes that should've happened over a month ago?

 

Because as we all know, placing a 1995 Leopard 2A5 with extremely minor weakspots and in excess of 800mm of turret armour at a battle rating where it meets Chieftain Mk 10's and T-64A's is obviously not silly whatsoever.

The same problem seems to be happening in Air Realistic, a T-2 facing G-91's just doesn't work.

 

Edited April 11, 2019 by Necrons31467