Balance improvements in Aircraft Realistic Battles

[BlackFlagger 199]

23 minutes ago, R1seTW said:

Before you tell me stories, look at my statistics in the game.

I don't really care, I believe in balance by performance not win rates etc, If I can get like 7 or 8 kills in stuff like p51 or p47 it just proves those are great planes, now your problem is bad pilots not climbing / playing at their plane's strengths also people playing bombers/ attackers. I'm not sure mixed battles would fix this, if you got bad pilot or lots of bombers/attackers youre gonna lose anyway. You gonna tell me that cl13 has like double the winrate of f2 or other american sabers because its soo much better ? No, its because of worse allied pilots and bad team composition, like people playing f9 panther, a5 saber, b57 etc.

[R1seTW 175]

15 minutes ago, BlackFlagger said:

I don't really care, I believe in balance by performance not win rates etc, If I can get like 7 or 8 kills in stuff like p51 or p47 it just proves those are great planes, now your problem is bad pilots not climbing / playing at their plane's strengths also people playing bombers/ attackers. I'm not sure mixed battles would fix this, if you got bad pilot or lots of bombers/attackers youre gonna lose anyway. You gonna tell me that cl13 has like double the winrate of f2 or other american sabers because its soo much better ? No, its because of worse allied pilots and bad team composition, like people playing f9 panther, a5 saber, b57 etc.

It's a developer's problem to balance planes like the F9F or B57 or props attackers and bombers and teams with them. Why do people like you want to shift the responsibility for this to players? What now, do not play on F9F or B57?

[BlackFlagger 199]

Just now, R1seTW said:

It's a developer's problem to balance planes like the F9F or B57 or props attackers and bombers and teams with them. Why do people like you want to shift the responsibility for this to players? What now, do not play on F9F or B57?

You can play it in a different mode like arcade or sim, if not stop complaining about winrates when you guys bring f9s and b57s against mig15bis and cl13.

[MH4UAstragon 9,581]

23 minutes ago, SuperDuperOtter said:

 

I think he means it's a modification of the match maker intended to produce more balanced matches. Rather than a gameplay modification intended to produce a more balanced meta. Or rather than an aircraft modification intended to produce a better balance between aircrafts.

 

And that your original post sorta implies a gameplay balance improvement rather than a MM balance improvement.

Air RB has been needing gameplay improvements for years now but it’s been resigned to a distant back seat behind modern tanks, helicopters, and ships. 

 

While adding proper competition for the T-2 will help, for the most part the gameplay of the mode is as fault and adding more stuff to fly will help either very little or not at all.

Edited March 28, 2019 by MH4UAstragon
Accidental duplicate post

[R1seTW 175]

6 minutes ago, BlackFlagger said:

You can play it in a different mode like arcade or sim, if not stop complaining about winrates when you guys bring f9s and b57s against mig15bis and cl13. 

These aircraft are available for play in air RB. Why should I be playing them to have a winrate worse than those who play on other planes, also available for this mode? Where is the logic?

Edited March 28, 2019 by R1seTW

[MH4UAstragon 9,581]

11 minutes ago, BlackFlagger said:

You can play it in a different mode like arcade or sim, if not stop complaining about winrates when you guys bring f9s and b57s against mig15bis and cl13.

Then we need proper gameplay for things like Panthers and B-57s. Such planes will NEVER fit in an Air Team Deathmatch Arena Box.

 

Markerless EC has already been tested in late propeller levels and it gave much-needed tactical value to bombers and attackers on both sides, alongside giving practical value to purpose-built bomber killer planes. We frankly need to see this mode opened for a good few months for jets to see if that actually settles things down.

 

Then maybe if we give the bombers, attackers, fighter-bombers, and bomber-killers a mode they can truly call “home,” you’ll see more people in normal Air RB flying actual fighter competition. With the insanely high spawn costs, Ground Forces is NOT a home for any of these aircraft.

 

The lack of direct competition to the T-2 is a big problem. But we cannot overlook the underlying gameplay faults that are amplifying this mess tenfold.

Edited March 28, 2019 by MH4UAstragon

[BlackFlagger 199]

7 minutes ago, R1seTW said:

These aircraft are available for play in air RB. Why should I be playing them to have a winrate worse than those who play on other planes, also available for this mode? Where is the logic?

I don't get what you're trying to say, I said the winrate is bad because you got bad planes and bad pilots in your teams, if you think f9 is unbalanced in rb just take it out in sim or ab.

[Nicolaser 2,024]

You want a balanced game? just move 262 c2b and me 163 at 8.3 ( or remove their capacity to modulate the trust of their rocket engine), remove R2y2 bomb spawn and create a configuration without bomb and finally move the arado to 7.7

 

then adjust the br of the other aircraft if needed

[MH4UAstragon 9,581]

Just now, Nicolaser said:

You want a balanced game? just move 262 c2b and me 163 at 8.3 ( or remove their capacity to modulate the trust of their rocket engine), remove R2y2 bomb spawn and create a configuration without bomb and finally move the arado to 7.7

 

then adjust the br of the other aircraft if needed

That’s not going to do much of anything.

 

Only the C-2b could perhaps go to 8.3, but the 20mm Komet should go down to 8.0. The acceleration difference between the Komet and C-2b is astronomical. 

 

Also, rocket planes are doomed to be either broken powerful or broken useless in the current gameplay setup. There is no middle ground to place them on because their intended job essentially doesn’t exist at the BRs they sit at and in the mode at that tier as a whole.

[Rainbowprincess 9,975]

2 hours ago, Stona said:

I can agree that for some people it can lower the immersion, but at the end of the day, we decided to try it.

maybe you make some decisions and thoughts before adding totally imbalanced vehicles to the game that make such steps neccessary?

[Lavo 132]

There is one huge problem with supersonic jets and their introduction which is that IRL not all nations entered this era at the same time. Japan and Britain are both examples of this, with both of these nations' first supersonic aircraft being Mach 2 craft, the F-104 Starfighter and English Electric Lightening, respectfully. This leaves Gaijin with two options, to not implement any supersonic aircraft for these nations until later eras are reached, or grasp for straws by using out of place trainers/prototypes/one offs to fill the gap, which has was done with the 1975 Mitsubishi T-2, a craft that has no place against aircraft 20 years it's junior.

[Krteq 1,052]

Well, then I will stick to props till this will be reverted :/

[Stavroforos 15,367]

Weren't mixed GF battles introduced temporarily to create some balance when the French ground forces were added? Because we've had that nonsense since then, so I doubt this is as temporary is Gaijin might want us to believe. 

[Tesh_Hayayi 130]

So this is the solution to a terribly executed patch and vehicle addition eh? 

This wouldn't have been necessary if the company didn't inexplicably make a patch that was so skewed to one side. 

But I expect this kind of thing at this point. It's been over 5 years and top tier has always been messy, it's just even messier now than it was before. 

[llSolitairell@psn 5,730]

1 hour ago, BlackFlagger said:

You can play it in a different mode like arcade or sim, if not stop complaining about winrates when you guys bring f9s and b57s against mig15bis and cl13.

 

Christ this is the most sweaty thing I've read in a while

 

How about you go to Arcade or Sim and stop whinging? Not every person reads the forums or watches YT or is in general; a complete tryhard with knowledge of what planes aren't competitive.

 

Top tier MM is completely screwed in favour of the Axis nations, the Panthers and B-57s can barely compete against Italian airspawning F-84Gs and extremely overtiered and hard to use rocket planes let alone Sabres and MiG-15bis', which when they do face them in uptiers they still going to have further non competitive 9.0s like FJ-4s and A-5 Sabres on their team. I can only see this being changed when more aircraft are added to stitch top tier back together and expand the BR range.

1 minute ago, Stavroforos said:

Weren't mixed GF battles introduced temporarily to create some balance when the French ground forces were added? Because we've had that nonsense since then, so I doubt this is as temporary is Gaijin might want us to believe. 

 

iirc mixed was introduced heavily when the XM-1 and Abrams were being spammed but was eventually changed

[Ein79 5,752]

4 hours ago, Stona said:

In order to improve balance in aircraft Realistic Battles  for vehicles of BR 7.7 and higher, the priority of the creating symmetrical battles "allies vs allies" and "axis vs axis" has been temporary increased.

 

Please leave feedback!

 

I can understand this and accept it as a TEMPORARY solution because of the balance issue - mainly due to the introduction of the Mitsubishi T2, which outclasses all other planes of 9.0-10.0 BR.

But I would not want mixed to become the norm and the ordinary way to lower the queue time.
 

I hate mixed and pure "allies vs allies" and "axis vs axis" matches.
 

To me it really takes away all the pleasure of flying in the team..When I get such a match I am discouraged and frustrated from the very beginning. 

 

I want to enjoy the specificity of the national tech tree with all its advantages and disadvantages, determined tactics and specific teamwork.

 

Warthunder is not just about vehicles and fighting, it's also a kind of role-playing game. 

You play in being part of "Axis" or "Allied", "NATO" or "WarsawPact"; you reenacting "German interceptor", "American freedom fighter" or "Japan flying samurai";) ... and so on.

And because it is also a team game, we should take care to preserve the unique character of the fighting factions.

BTW - 7.7 and higher...ColdWar era...and we're still thinking in axis/allies categories? Jet matchmaker need general fix to save the remnants of historical mood, for which we loved this game.
 

 

 

Edited March 28, 2019 by Einherjer1979

[badirontree 12]

Also when you put missiles in AA ..... ADD FOR ALL THE TEAMS...

 

Now people in tank RB they just don't take out planes and helicopters if they see that RUSSIA is on the other side...

And people use it to kill tanks

And the German AA is a joke and all the American "tank Missile"s self-detonate at 3KM ... helicopters just stay at 4-5 km and kill everything... 

[BlackFlagger 199]

2 hours ago, *RAazzy91 said:

 

Christ this is the most sweaty thing I've read in a while

 

How about you go to Arcade or Sim and stop whinging? Not every person reads the forums or watches YT or is in general; a complete tryhard with knowledge of what planes aren't competitive.

 

Top tier MM is completely screwed in favour of the Axis nations, the Panthers and B-57s can barely compete against Italian airspawning F-84Gs and extremely overtiered and hard to use rocket planes let alone Sabres and MiG-15bis', which when they do face them in uptiers they still going to have further non competitive 9.0s like FJ-4s and A-5 Sabres on their team. I can only see this being changed when more aircraft are added to stitch top tier back together and expand the BR range.

You guys are the ones whining, I played both sides and I have no problem with the balance, like I said the vehicles themselves are fine the f2 for example has less thrust than the cl13 however its got the 20mm and its a bit more agile from what I've seen so you can compete with cl13, f40 no problem. The problem is people playing bad vehicles like panther, b57 etc. The B57 is not overtiered at all it the same as many other vehicles like il28 or tu14 if they were lower they would pretty much outrun everything they saw and be too good, I don't disagree that the br is to compressed however that's not something you can do overnight, you would need to rebalance like half the planes in the game. Again, if you don't like allied winrates get people to not play bombers, play right and don't play stuff like the panthers. I do support br decompression, but with the current br putting a b57 lower or f9 lower would just harm the lower brs like 7.0, imagine playing your 262, ho229, arado, mig9 and you have to fight f9s carrying air to air missiles, it would be even more imbalanced than top tier.

Edited March 28, 2019 by BlackFlagger

[llSolitairell@psn 5,730]

9 minutes ago, BlackFlagger said:

You guys are the ones whining, I played both sides and I have no problem with the balance,

 

Where have I heard that line before.

It's surely not repeated by thinly veiled wehraboos in the countless threads of discussion every time someone so much as questions the balance of German vehicles, not that I'm doing that here.

 

Yet.

9 minutes ago, BlackFlagger said:

like I said the vehicles themselves are fine the f2 for example has less thrust than the cl13 however its got the 20mm and its a bit more agile from what I've seen so you can compete with cl13, f40 no problem. The problem is people playing bad vehicles like panther, b57 etc. The B57 is not overtiered at all it the same as many other vehicles like il28 or tu14 if they were lower they would pretty much outrun everything they saw and be too good, I don't disagree that the br is to compressed however that's not something you can do overnight, you would need to rebalance like half the planes in the game.

 

?

You brought up BR compression in the first place, unless you're trying to tell me the F9Fs and B-57s are the same BR as the Cl-13A and MiG-15Bis; which they're not. The F9Fs have good enough performance for their BR; it's when they face transonic 9.0s where they start to have huge problems, unlike Axis 8.# jets like G.91, the rocket boosted planes to an extent and several USSR 8.0s. I haven't even mentioned team structure; which only benefits Axis Jets as they have no deadweight grind extension 9.0s, and your solution to this is to scream at people trying to fly them: classy.

 

And of course it's going to take forever to fix it, it's only been a few months in Ground Forces where the old tanks like the Chieftain Mk.3/Type 74/Leopard A1A1/T-10M/T-55A finally sit at a BR clear of the end game vehicles after months and months of being screwed by MBT-70s and then the Abrams after the introduction of Rank VI.

9 minutes ago, BlackFlagger said:

Again, if you don't like allied winrates get people to not play bombers, play right and don't play stuff like the panthers. I do support br decompression, but with the current br putting a b57 lower or f9 lower would just harm the lower brs like 7.0,

 

No one is suggesting that.

9 minutes ago, BlackFlagger said:

imagine playing your 262, ho229, arado, mig9 and you have to fight f9s carrying air to air missiles, it would be even more imbalanced than top tier.

 

Imagine playing a MiG-9, F3D or Meteor F. 3 and facing- oh wait, they do face AAMs on a prepaid German Panther equivalent and it's every bit as balanced as you think.

Why do you think the new MM changes start at 7.7.

[Target1331 3,055]

NEIN NEIN NEIN!!!

 

I already hate mixed battles to the point that I've recently had matches where I was about to just J out because I cannot stand it any longer how Air RB continues to be pushed into less and less immersive matches.

This is pushing it even further and the worst part is that there is ZERO notion on how long temporary is. Temporary is a very flexible term. Till the next BR changes? Till the next patch? Till all nations have each 10 rank VII aircraft? Till War Thunder decides to move to War Thunder 2.0? Those are all time frames with end points, so all can be named as temporary... just with some being effectively close to forever.

 

Best regards,

 

Phil

[Ein79 5,752]

1 hour ago, *RAazzy91 said:

Imagine playing a MiG-9, F3D or Meteor F. 3 and facing- oh wait, they do face AAMs on a prepaid German Panther equivalent and it's every bit as balanced as you think.

Why do you think the new MM changes start at 7.7.

SeeHawk is far from Pather - at most Banshee level:

 

 

 

[llSolitairell@psn 5,730]

1 minute ago, Einherjer1979 said:

SeeHawk is far from Pather - at most Banshee level:

 

 

 

 

That's the Cougar, not the Panther. and The top speed listings for the Panther are with the ~40 seconds of WEP iirc

[___SlimShady___ 1,056]

I appriciate the attempt to fix the mess you have made by adding that UFO so called T-2.
In my opinion it hasn't been a well thought addition, it has no real competitor. It accelerates fast, it has the best top speed in the game by far, it has radar with lead indicator and decent missiles.
No other plane is as capable as the T-2, the F-100D lacks acceleration, energy retention and has no radar, the MiG-19S isn't capable of lining up the guns past 850km/h and has no missiles and no radar and the MiG-19PT has the same issues of the 19S but has missiles and radar while being slower.

 

The best fix would be adding counterparts ASAP.

Edited March 28, 2019 by ___SlimShady___

[Ein79 5,752]

20 minutes ago, *RAazzy91 said:

 

That's the Cougar, not the Panther. and The top speed listings for the Panther are with the ~40 seconds of WEP iirc

Oh yeah, my mistake I mixed up F9-cats  
This way or another - top speed 930 km/h is terribly slow as for 8.0, this is speed level of F84B and Supermarine Attacker FB 1. 

SeeHawk at 8.0 will be same not-playing-worthy as F2H-2, and two missiles won't change much until they are unrealisticy easy to evade thx unrealistic, unhistorical, arcadish "missile warning".
 

 

17 minutes ago, ___SlimShady___ said:

[...] the attempt to fix the mess you have made by adding that UFO so called T-2.
In my opinion it hasn't been a well thought addition, it has no real competitor. It accelerates fast, it has the best top speed in the game by far, it has radar with lead indicator and decent missiles.
No other plane is as capable as the T-2, the F-100D lacks acceleration, energy retention and has no radar, the MiG-19S isn't capable of lining up the guns past 850km/h and has no missiles and no radar and the MiG-19PT has the same issues of the 19S but has missiles and radar while being slower.

 

The best fix would be adding counterparts ASAP.

Yes, 11.0 Mig21F and F5 Freedom Fighter pls ASAP. Together with uptier T2 to 10.7, this plane from 70's should never see any 9.0-9.3.

 

Edited March 28, 2019 by Einherjer1979

[mdrpl7 185]

Another option would be buffing existing supersonics a bit as far as flexibility in technical specifications allow this, doubt anything could get them the level of t-2 but it would certainly make life easier for allied, russian planes. Also you could add foldered planes that are upgraded to the maximum possibility versions of existing in game planes if that is actually realistic idk if theres a better mig19 or f100 version than what we have already.

Anything to keep that unique feeling in war thunder when you are on airfield and plan tactics to defeat your contender accordingly to their advantages which mixed matchmaking severely undermines.

 

Edited March 28, 2019 by mdrpl7