Balance improvements in Aircraft Realistic Battles

[___SlimShady___ 1,056]

37 minutes ago, Einherjer1979 said:

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".
 

 

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.

 

Well, the F-5A is significantly slower than the MiG21, not really a balanced choice imho.

[BlackFlagger 199]

1 hour ago, *RAazzy91 said:

 

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.

You see what I posted before, bunch of american rank 4 props with 7 kills or 8 kills per match, you can check my stats: my 4 top played planes are all russian and my most played jet is the mig17 by far (more double the number of battles compared with other stuff). I guess nothing is good enough for you, you're convinced you're the victim and nothing is gonna change that and I guess I'm a german military fetishist because I disagree with you.

 

2 hours ago, *RAazzy91 said:

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.

They're not and neither was my cl13 or f40 same br as f100 or mig19 and that's what I mostly fought last patch grinding and getting mods ready for stuff like t2, cl13mk6, mig19 etc, all vehicles have uptier and all of them do worse in it. There's plenty bad planes like two 262s at 8.0 facing sabers just because they have like 1 minute rocket boost, me 163, g91 pre series at 8.3 I'm gonna agree its better than f9 but still it gets stomped by 9.0 and 9.3. The difference is you barely see any 163s or 262s, because they're not competitive, people know that they're in a bad spot and if you get uptiered you're gonna be a sitting duck, where as I see a lot of americans play stuff like f9, f2h etc, same case for the soviets they got la15, la200, yak23, yak30 that are pretty good at their own tier but get stomped if they get uptiered, and again almost nobody plays those vehicles. You don't need to go play the entire tree to get to top tier, I've researched the vast majority of the soviet tree by playing la7 and tu4.

       I'm not screaming at anybody I'm just being honest: if you play stuff like the f9 and at the same time complain about bad allied winrates you're a hypocrite. I've got the f2h, the f9 a5 etc doesn't mean I play them, I know they're not that great.

2 hours 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.

I don't think they should've gave it air to air missiles, its clear that they did it just so its unique at that br and more people want it, however they're still not comparable, f9 gets 4 missiles and it outperforms the sea hawk in almost any way.

[druidh58 656]

This isn't news. It's already happening at other BRs and has been for some time. 

[Ein79 5,752]

@Stona - What about BR adjustment instead of such simplistic pseudo-balance-fix which kills all the fun of being a part of faction and playing in historical mood?

[Dreddex 10]

Band-Aid fix

[Jermster_91@psn 1,081]

No one likes mixed battles in Air or Tank Battles.

[Spindash64 1,244]

Meanwhile, in Strangereal

[Daffan 6,158]

9 hours ago, BlackFlagger said:

Allied planes are fine, the players need to do better. Sideclimb and play it right, I'm not an amazing pilot, I don't have 5 to 1 or 8 to 1 k/d but I can still kill most of the axis team from time to time.

Maybe try flying in a 4 man squad, it for sure will increase your chances of winning if you guys play right and climb.

 

 

 

 

 

Woah dope idea. Require a 4 man squad with bait and everything to play one faction!

 

 

[Conte_Baracca 4,547]

11 hours ago, willcliff said:

Symmetrical battles seem like they would get boring and make a large portion of the playerbase unhappy. Imagine a team of F-86F-2's and F-100's vs. a team of  F-86F-2's and F-100's.

Instead of creating stale gameplay there are other solutions tha could also balance, while keeping the somewhat historical feel.

- Remove R2Y2's bomber spawn

- T-2K to 10.3

- Sea Hawk Mk. 100 to 8.0

- 262C1A, F-80C, F2H to 7.7

I feel that these for a start would be better than fighting "Symmetrical Battles".

Additionally...

Sea Meteor F Mk3 to 7.0

Meteor F Mk 4 G.41F to 7.7

Mystere IIA to 8.3 

Mystere IIC to 8.7

Venom FB.4 to 8.7

Missiles for G.91 R/1 or reduction to 8.7

Missiles for Sea Hawk FGA.6

Fix Firestreaks on Javelin F.(A.W.) Mk.9 and give it it's proper top speed.

6.7 to 7.3/7.7 Jets for France/Italy.

 

You know... all of the stuff we've been telling you for the last year or so, plus equalling out the AAMs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 28, 2019 by Conte_Baracca

[Conte_Baracca 4,547]

2 hours ago, ___SlimShady___ said:

Well, the F-5A is significantly slower than the MiG21, not really a balanced choice imho.

Depends on which model of Mig-21...But it IS slower than the T2.  WE need the Tiger II variant F-5E

 

F-5E for America

Sepecat Jaguar for France

Sepecat Jaguar for Britain

 

 

[llSolitairell@psn 5,730]

3 hours ago, BlackFlagger said:

 

They're not and neither was my cl13 or f40 same br as f100 or mig19 and that's what I mostly fought last patch grinding and getting mods ready for stuff like t2, cl13mk6, mig19 etc, all vehicles have uptier and all of them do worse in it. There's plenty bad planes like two 262s at 8.0 facing sabers just because they have like 1 minute rocket boost, me 163, g91 pre series at 8.3 I'm gonna agree its better than f9 but still it gets stomped by 9.0 and 9.3. The difference is you barely see any 163s or 262s, because they're not competitive, people know that they're in a bad spot and if you get uptiered you're gonna be a sitting duck, where as I see a lot of americans play stuff like f9, f2h etc, same case for the soviets they got la15, la200, yak23, yak30 that are pretty good at their own tier but get stomped if they get uptiered, and again almost nobody plays those vehicles. You don't need to go play the entire tree to get to top tier, I've researched the vast majority of the soviet tree by playing la7 and tu4.

 

I saw plenty of German rocket interceptors while I was grinding out mods for the Sea Venom and still saw plenty while briefly playing the Sea Hawk FGA.6. And they're still capable of fighting 9.0s as long as they have boost fuel left (C2b has 1 min:40 of boost or smthin) which is more than what can be said with most allied 8.0s.

 

3 hours ago, BlackFlagger said:

       I'm not screaming at anybody I'm just being honest: if you play stuff like the f9 and at the same time complain about bad allied winrates you're a hypocrite. I've got the f2h, the f9 a5 etc doesn't mean I play them, I know they're not that great.

 

It doesn't make them a hypocrite, it just makes them a sucker for playing said aircraft, eventually they'll stop queuing and the end result is the current changes in MM that started this discussion.

3 hours ago, BlackFlagger said:

I don't think they should've gave it air to air missiles, its clear that they did it just so its unique at that br and more people want it, however they're still not comparable, f9 gets 4 missiles and it outperforms the sea hawk in almost any way.

I agree

It shouldn't have 

1 hour ago, Conte_Baracca said:

 

Sea Meteor F Mk3 to 7.0

 

The Sea Meteor would club, it's does have the F.4s engines which would let it outperform nearly everything upto 8.0, 7.7 along with the F.4 would be fine.

1 hour ago, Conte_Baracca said:

Missiles for Sea Hawk FGA.6

 

Neither the FGA.6 or the Mk.100 should have sidewinders, Gaijin gave the Mk.100 AIM-9s based of 1 photo of a trial fitting of 1 AIM-9B under the right wing of a Mk.100 with the other having a counterweight, the "Mk.101 modification" in the plane modification tree that's been used as an excuse to carry AIM-9s, never carried them IRL: it was an all weather modification of the Mk.100 capable of carrying extra fuel tanks and a Radar pod. Only the RNLN Sea Hawk Mk.50 carried AIM-9s.

 

7.0 - 8.0 should be entirely missile free, especially if the warnings do get removed like the other thread is pushing for.

[Spindash64 1,244]

1 hour ago, Conte_Baracca said:

Depends on which model of Mig-21...But it IS slower than the T2.  WE need the Tiger II variant F-5E

 

F-5E for America

Sepecat Jaguar for France

Sepecat Jaguar for Britain

 

 

I honestly think the Tiger II would be a bit too strong at the moment, as much as I'd love all the Wardog skins for it.

[krzys7007 1]

Quote

Symmetrical battles seem like they would get boring and make a large portion of the playerbase unhappy. Imagine a team of F-86F-2's and F-100's vs. a team of  F-86F-2's and F-100's.

Instead of creating stale gameplay there are other solutions tha could also balance, while keeping the somewhat historical feel.

- Remove R2Y2's bomber spawn

- T-2K to 10.3

- Sea Hawk Mk. 100 to 8.0

- 262C1A, F-80C, F2H to 7.7

I feel that these for a start would be better than fighting "Symmetrical Battles".

Mig-15(not bis) should be lowered to 8.7 or if the balance changes that you proposed which are quite reasonable (except the 262, I don't agree with that), it should be even at 8.3 ( imho ofc). It really suffers rn. Either this of F-86 Sabre gets nerfed/increased BR, coz of right now it's equal to F-100D, at least from what I played.

Edited March 29, 2019 by krzys7007

[Conte_Baracca 4,547]

4 minutes ago, krzys7007 said:

Mig-15(not bis) should be lowered to 8.7 or if the balance changes that you proposed which are quite reasonable (except the 262, I don't agree with that), it should be even at 8.3 ( imho ofc). It really suffers rn. Either this of F-86 Sabre gets nerfed/increased BR, coz of right now it's better than F-100D, at least from what I played.

I agree with the MiG-15 (not Bis)  But the Me262C1a is much less capable than the C2B.  So I'm fine with it at 7.7.  I don't have a Sabre.  (or the MiG-15 or the C1A, for that matter) but from what I have seen flying against them the BR changes make sense.  Don't agree with the F-100 comment.

10 minutes ago, Spindash64 said:

I honestly think the Tiger II would be a bit too strong at the moment, as much as I'd love all the Wardog skins for it.

The Tiger II is very similar in capability to the T.2.  Perhaps better turning ability... but lesser guns.   

[jakenator96 158]

1 hour ago, Conte_Baracca said:

Additionally...

Sea Meteor F Mk3 to 7.0

Meteor F Mk 4 G.41F to 7.7

Mystere IIA to 8.3 

Mystere IIC to 8.7

Venom FB.4 to 8.7

Missiles for G.91 R/1 or reduction to 8.7

Missiles for Sea Hawk FGA.6

Fix Firestreaks on Javelin F.(A.W.) Mk.9 and give it it's proper top speed.

6.7 to 7.3/7.7 Jets for France/Italy.

 

You know... all of the stuff we've been telling you for the last year or so, plus equalling out the AAMs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Sea Meteor F is too good for 7.0, given that stock it is 100mph faster than the 7.0 meteor, and while its stock speed is close to the 262 upgraded, the sea meteor has two 443kg engines producing around 1500kg of thrust; compare that to the 262 with two 710kg engines producing 910kg of thrust.

 

The Sea Hawk FGA.6 never had sidewinders from what I can find, while the German variant was being tested with sidewinders although it never saw service.

Edited March 29, 2019 by jakenator96

[sartt 1,460]

12 hours ago, Crylia said:

I know a better solution, instead of giving only one nation a top jet, give other nations equally good jets.

Sounds like... you want.. BALANS!

[Conte_Baracca 4,547]

21 minutes ago, jakenator96 said:

The Sea Meteor F is too good for 7.0, given that stock it is 100mph faster than the 7.0 meteor, and while its stock speed is close to the 262 upgraded, the sea meteor has two 443kg engines producing around 1500kg of thrust; compare that to the 262 with two 710kg engines producing 910kg of thrust.

7.3  then.

Quote

The Sea Hawk FGA.6 never had sidewinders from what I can find, while the German variant was being tested with sidewinders although it never saw service.

Fair...but Allies need a 7.7 plane with AAMs

 

Edited March 29, 2019 by Conte_Baracca

[jakenator96 158]

6 minutes ago, Conte_Baracca said:

7.3  than.

You are looking at minimum 7.7

 

6 minutes ago, Conte_Baracca said:

Fair...but Allies need a 7.7 plane with AAMs

If there is something equipped with AIM-9Bs with 7.7 performance than go for it. ^{Although I do find it funny that people were saying that AAM are useless until the Axis got them...}

[Mods_o_joy 19]

Please god dont do this, Mixed battles are the cancer killing Realistic battles, have you tried BR decompression and actually balancing the game instead?

4 minutes ago, jakenator96 said:

You are looking at minimum 7.7

 

If there is something equipped with AIM-9Bs with 7.7 performance than go for it. ^{Although I do find it funny that people were saying that AAM are useless until the Axis got them...}

One of the marks of the F2H had AAMs and it really should be 7.7 instead of xxxx 8.0

[llSolitairell@psn 5,730]

18 minutes ago, jakenator96 said:

^{Although I do find it funny that people were saying that AAM are useless until the Axis got them...}

 

People are saying AAMs are dumb at 7.7

Exactly who is complaining about AIM-9s on the Cl-13B Mk.6 or F-86F-40

11 minutes ago, Mods_o_joy said:

One of the marks of the F2H had AAMs and it really should be 7.7 instead of xxxx 8.0

 

The F2H-4, which has better engines and radar.

 

There are photos from China Lake of an F2H and F3D with AAMs, and if the Sea Hawk Mk.100 is anything to go by the bar for entry is getting pretty low, so someone might as well try their luck with a bug report 

[NO_DRAGON 2,374]

15 hours ago, Rainbowprincess said:

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

 

Totally agree with this. but that would mean actually holding something back for the sake of B A L A N C E. 

 

Spoiler

*Warning sarcasm incoming*

We can not have that in WT can we?

Edited March 29, 2019 by NO_DRAGON

[SkyEye 857]

at this point way not have top tier permanently mixed the whole axis vs allies concept isn't at all realistic for these post war machines and we seee more jet games and it take care of the problem of whole teams of X planes win battles within minutes against teams of Y planes.

[EpicBlitzkrieg87 8,350]

19 hours ago, willcliff said:

- Sea Hawk Mk. 100 to 8.0

 

 

Why? Only Because it gets missiles? Do you realize how easily you can dodge those? Especially when you get warned by a good amount of time earlier about an incoming missile. From certain angles, those weapons don't even track the player after they've been fired. 

 

About the change itself, I don't agree with it. It does not improve or change balance, it changes gameplay, and not in a good way. Facing T-2Ks in Japanese Sabres or F-100s in FJ-4Bs is called stale gameplay.

 

For actual balance, please release good BR changes for jets. 

[Diabel_Z_Piekla 694]

21 hours ago, Stona said:

the priority of the creating symmetrical battles "allies vs allies" and "axis vs axis" has been temporarily increased.

 

Please leave feedback!

 

Only symmetrical thing that I can accept is symmetrical AWD in Subaru...

 

Compressing more and more flying stuff in same stale gamemode, tiny maps with idiotic targets placement and the same objectives from BR 2.3 up to 10.0 is the real issue. 

 

But when community demands something new, fresh and different (RB EC) you didn't even answer them, even insolently tell us in all Q&A that Air RB is completely fine and don't need any improvements... Really?!

 

I'm quite dissapointed...

 

I wish you luck, but I'm done with WT atm.

Edited March 29, 2019 by Diabel_Z_Piekla

[Guinespsj 1,003]

Even though these symmetrical teams will reduce waiting times, they wont help in balance between nations. Right now all power creep is favoring so called "Axis" nations: 

 

1. Most of "Axis" jets are equipped with AIM-9B air to air missiles, while most of "Allies" jets do not have them. 

2. "Axis" premium jets are one engine fighters (with AIM-9B), while "Allies" premiums are jet bombers or one engine fighters (without AIM-9B).

3. "Axis" jets are better versions of "Allies" jets. 

 

If you want to see in which kind of state Jet Air RB was yesterday when I tried to hop on jet battle, just look at this screen shot:

 

Spoiler

 

So perhaps this change will help to shortening queue times, but it wont remove the imbalance between nations tech trees. We really need better game modes where:

 

1. Jet bombers are useful.

2. Ground attacking is in important role immediately after battle has started.

3. WW 2 era team set ups have been devastated for good.

 

BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY!

 

"Allies" and USSR have jets with similar flying and armament characteristic than "Axis" jets.

 

 

Edited March 29, 2019 by Guinespsj