Balance improvements in Aircraft Realistic Battles

[WreckingAres283 4,262]

18 hours ago, *jermster18 said:

No one likes mixed battles in Air or Tank Battles.

FACT

[FoolOnTheHill 384]

yes i love playing Germany Italy and Japan vs Germany Italy and Japan

 

very fun and interesting

^this right here

 

this is stupid 

 

why am i even playing 10.0

 

cant play challenger 2 cos 10.0 is the worst its ever been, i refuse to play another 150 games just to loose 100 of them, id prefer to be set on fire and put out with gasoline

 

flying MIG19S is almost pointless as the match just depends on who has more T2s on there team

 

if you're not a leopard 2A5 or a T2 this patch.You will suffer and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it.

 

 ggwp gaijin

 

[Conte_Baracca 4,547]

3 hours ago, Stavroforos said:

The idea that allied teams are bad and German teams are good is the type of fantasy a lot of people who play Third Reich vehicles engage in, in this game and others. The reality is that the way the game is setup and with the type of vehicles available to each team, the Allies are usually faced with longer odds of winning prop air RB games. 

There is a good deal of truth here.

 

[WreckingAres283 4,262]

2 hours ago, FoolOnTheHill said:

yes i love playing Germany Italy and Japan vs Germany Italy and Japan

 

very fun and interesting

^this right here

 

this is stupid 

 

why am i even playing 10.0

 

cant play challenger 2 cos 10.0 is the worst its ever been, i refuse to play another 150 games just to loose 100 of them, id prefer to be set on fire and put out with gasoline

 

flying MIG19S is almost pointless as the match just depends on who has more T2s on there team

 

if you're not a leopard 2A5 or a T2 this patch.You will suffer and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it.

 

 ggwp gaijin

 

FACT

[NO_DRAGON 2,374]

They're simply trying to appear to balance things after they sold an utterly unbalanced unit and try to keep as many players from both sides playing.

To keep those that paid satisfied with the purchase and those that did not, satisfied they are not constantly on the loser team.

 

And for that they sacrifice the main element that pulled players for RB at all, immersion of an actual fight nation versus another nation. They have basically done that already to all of RB without realizing that it costs them more players and will make the que times even worse over time then the other way around.

Everyone knows RB players that stopped to play RB or WT at all due mixed battles in RB.

 

So yeah, well played and another Temp that will get permanent like in RBGF.

[WreckingAres283 4,262]

37 minutes ago, NO_DRAGON said:

They're simply trying to appear to balance things after they sold an utterly unbalanced unit and try to keep as many players from both sides playing.

To keep those that paid satisfied with the purchase and those that did not, satisfied they are not constantly on the loser team.

 

And for that they sacrifice the main element that pulled players for RB at all, immersion of an actual fight nation versus another nation. They have basically done that already to all of RB without realizing that it costs them more players and will make the que times even worse over time then the other way around.

Everyone knows RB players that stopped to play RB or WT at all due mixed battles in RB.

 

So yeah, well played and another Temp that will get permanent like in RBGF.

If they dont remove it, I really think I will stop playing WT tho...I have NO FUN IN MIXED battles....its only boring and its no solution to "fix" the balance in the game

[Pirillo 99]

2 hours ago, FoolOnTheHill said:

flying MIG19S is almost pointless as the match just depends on who has more T2s on there team

 

 

Indeed. They should "throttle" the quantity of T2s instead of forcing symmertrical matches. Maybe of premium F40s too.

German Sea Venom it's not really a problem, at least for me and I am less than an average player.

 

[Spindash64 1,244]

If I may be honest, I think Jet BR's should use a date based BR system. Part of why the Axis Jets are broken is that the US and USSR both jumped to reheat jets rather fast, and so they didn't bother souping up their subsonics to be the best subsonics could be. Thus, the Axis nations, who generally got the export, not the fanciest tech of the time type planes, manage to have planes that look on the surface to be equal to subsonics like the F-86F-25, but were in fact more contemperary with F-100's and Mig 19's.  I can understand why timeline based BR doesn't work as well in prop games, since fuel quality and war time industry can dramatically effect the game, but even lopsided matches could be fun if, say, the US, on Wake Island, would receive higher rewards for winning than Japan would on that same map at the same lowish BR. that's one area where the income system could be used to make better balance. Not by boosting repair costs of japan, but lowering income for victory if they win 90% of games.

 

I guess I also just feel timeline MM has less room for being mucked up by meddling, since if these two planes could fight with each other irl, we thus have actual combat data to see how well they went up against each other when both pilots were competent, and if one plane falls behind, it could have an underdog incentive boost to earnings, rather than wondering whether the BR, the repair cost, or the rewards are the reason the plane sucks right now.

 

heck, might as well just lock repair costs for spaded planes per tier to something like:

tier I nonreserve: 1kish 5k cap

tier II: 3kish, 7k cap

tier III 5kish, 10k cap

tier IV+: 7k to 10k, 17k cap.

no plane should cost more than 20k to fix. When it does, players are incentivized to run away from fights. This makes players angry, and gaijin punishes the pilots who do this by making the planes MORE expensive to repair, and so they try to run even MORE than they did before, players get mad...

[NO_DRAGON 2,374]

28 minutes ago, Spindash64 said:

no plane should cost more than 20k to fix. When it does, players are incentivized to run away from fights. This makes players angry, and gaijin punishes the pilots who do this by making the planes MORE expensive to repair, and so they try to run even MORE than they did before, players get mad...

 

or climb to space due non working gunners and fragile fuselages like kits. aka Bombers

 

[llSolitairell@psn 5,730]

1 hour ago, Spindash64 said:

If I may be honest, I think Jet BR's should use a date based BR system. Part of why the Axis Jets are broken is that the US and USSR both jumped to reheat jets rather fast, and so they didn't bother souping up their subsonics to be the best subsonics could be.

 

That isn't really correct, Gaijin have just haven't added them despite giving Germany and Japan more powerful Sabres than the U.S tree.

 

The U.S did use F-40 Sabres and the final production block Sabre was the F-86H-10-NH which had the production M-39 20mm revolver cannons, the F-40 wings with slats and a more powerful engine delivering ~9,000lbs of thrust. And even though the later MiG-17s did use afterburners, it didn't really provide a huge boost in speed at low altitudes and was possibly slower at low altitudes than the non-afterburning Scimitar F.1 and even later Hunters. The Folland Gnat is a little different in regards to subsonics.

Edited March 30, 2019 by *RAazzy91

[Conte_Baracca 4,547]

9 minutes ago, *RAazzy91 said:

 

That isn't really correct, Gaijin have just haven't added them despite giving Germany and Japan more powerful Sabres than the U.S tree.

 

The U.S did use F-40 Sabres and the final production block Sabre was the F-86H-10-NH which had the production M-39 20mm revolver cannons, the F-40 wings with slats and a more powerful engine delivering ~9,000lbs of thrust. And even though the later MiG-17s did use afterburners, it didn't really provide a huge boost in speed at low altitudes and was possibly slower at low altitudes than the non-afterburning Scimitar F.1 and even later Hunters. The Folland Gnat is a different story altogether.

These planes should ALL be in the game...Whilst we can change BR, change the way air RB works (Enduring Confrontation as standard anyone?), and change MM, what we cannot change is the aircraft.  We need a more effective spread of aircraft to make this work.

[MH4UAstragon 9,581]

1 hour ago, Conte_Baracca said:

These planes should ALL be in the game...Whilst we can change BR, change the way air RB works (Enduring Confrontation as standard anyone?), and change MM, what we cannot change is the aircraft.  We need a more effective spread of aircraft to make this work.

Anything subsonic without missiles should not EVER be fighting a supersonic. 

 

And air to air missiles should be either stock or a Tier 1 module on any plane having them. 

[FumbleSquid 11]

So here is a radical idea to fix this problem of axis teams just having way better team composition, add worse planes for the axis (also change the battle rating but that should be obvious). Especially for 7.7 to 9.0 axis has really strong fighters and no bombers (even their bombers at 7.0/3 are basically just fighters). Most allied teams have 4 B57s, and for the most part these planes are a huge downside because on the axis side those 4 players are going to be fighters instead. Almost every B57 player doesn't go for players or even tanks/pillboxes so their ability to actually contribute to a victory is basically nothing beyond passive play to win on tickets.

 

There is also another big issue I've seen, pretty much all allied planes can carry ordinance of some kind while most axis planes can't. That might not seem like a benefit for axis but it actually is because it forces players to, big shock, ACTUALLY PLAY THE GAME instead of loading up on stuff that makes them way heavier and way slower than they should be and going after things that often don't contribute to winning the game. The amount of times I see allied teams that have both 4 bombers + 1 or 2 fighters with bombs on is basically most of the time in the 7.0-9.0 bracket. Even F-86s and F-100s take bombs what an absolute waste!

 

Allied players have basically given up on winning because they can give up. They are allowed to give up and load bombs expecting to lose a game but get some RP by bombing a base or killing a few pillboxes. Axis players however, aren't really allowed to give up their easiest way of getting RP is by actually getting frags and in doing so they win. So my solution on top of changing battle ratings (please Gaijin do this at least) is to add things (ground pounders/bombers) that the kinds of people who load bombs in the F-86 can play for axis because these players aren't going to change, so we might as well spread them more evenly among every faction.

[Nicolaser 2,024]

It's funny to read those 5 page most people seems to forget easily:

- many people complain about mixed battle but since when having allies vs axis is logical passed 7.7 ? It was already mixed before this update because there's saber in every single axis Nation. The only historical MM that we should see is NATO vs USSR ( East Germany include).

 

- axis player where saying that allied team were just bad, now that they see how it is to face the T-2 they're winning just like the allied team.

 

- there was quantitative MM once but gaijin removed it because queue time.

 

- for those who says that allied team are bad since the props: as long as the RB meta will be 'climb to win' allies will never be "good" (fun facts : spitfire griffon, p51h, f8f and all allied  good  climber are at higher br than their German equal (in climbrate).

 

- finally for the allied problem at 7.7-8.0 sea hawk is not a big deal (it is quite bad actually for what I saw in my barougan) the real problem are more the "f-84 for all" (note that we can have a "6" instead of "4" ) and rocket plane : me 163 or 262 C2b in their current state they are better than any other 8.0 and the only reason of their br is the limited fuel rocket but good luck to catch them if you're playing something else than f9f or a Russian 8.0 called yak 30 or la 200. The Problem with the rocket engine is the fact that you can modulate the thrust( me 163) and/or turn it on/off  as much as you want which is unrealistic and giving big advantage over the other 8.0 which have a poor weight/thrust ratio compare to these rocket plane

Edited March 30, 2019 by Nicolaser

[Diabel_Z_Piekla 694]

@Stona why should I re-read OP? I know exactly what you wrote there.

 

First of all, You (Gaijin as company, no personal trips here) release some planes that completely change top tier gameplay + some top premiums that everyobe can buy - game became "one-sided".

 

Add that many players have bought premium F-40, but most of them didn't have any exeperience with top tier battles... They hardly played any Jet before. What did You do? You made big bs sign in the middle of the screen that missiles is shot at them with excuse that this feature is "newbie friendly". Newbie in 9.0 - 10.0 BR bracket?! And when community gives you clear signal that they want it remove you simply ignore them... Just like with all those "feedback" threads about RB EC, Air RB, suggestions etc. When community say "we really don't need new stuff at the moment. Gaijin should focus rather on gamemodes because they're stale, boring and repetetive" what will happen? Nothing - You will add new fancy stuff...

 

That change in top tier MM is nothing more that giving an adhesive plaster to  man hit by freight train. You're breaking your own game with rash decisions and trying to cure it with other rash "temporary" features.

 

This is my feedback for You - you can ignore it like many others.

 

"Balance improvement", sure...

Edited March 30, 2019 by Diabel_Z_Piekla

[Youda008 2,791]

Imho much better would be to revert late jet match-making to what it was like 2 years ago - US + Britain + France + Japan vs Russia + Germany.

Those matches were actually balanced, because each team had similar ratio of fighters and bombers. With the current system (WWII Allies vs WWII Axis) all jet bombers are on the Allied side, which means axis is full of fighters and just dominate.

Plus, everyone wants back the Korean war - Sabres vs Migs.

 

But if you insist on Axis vs Allies, then of course as long as Axis keeps getting the best jets in game unmatched by anything else on the Allied side, high frequency of Axis vs Axis matches is the only option.

Edited March 30, 2019 by Youda008

[Stavroforos 15,367]

7 hours ago, FumbleSquid said:

So here is a radical idea to fix this problem of axis teams just having way better team composition, add worse planes for the axis (also change the battle rating but that should be obvious). Especially for 7.7 to 9.0 axis has really strong fighters and no bombers (even their bombers at 7.0/3 are basically just fighters). Most allied teams have 4 B57s, and for the most part these planes are a huge downside because on the axis side those 4 players are going to be fighters instead. Almost every B57 player doesn't go for players or even tanks/pillboxes so their ability to actually contribute to a victory is basically nothing beyond passive play to win on tickets.

 

There is also another big issue I've seen, pretty much all allied planes can carry ordinance of some kind while most axis planes can't. That might not seem like a benefit for axis but it actually is because it forces players to, big shock, ACTUALLY PLAY THE GAME instead of loading up on stuff that makes them way heavier and way slower than they should be and going after things that often don't contribute to winning the game. The amount of times I see allied teams that have both 4 bombers + 1 or 2 fighters with bombs on is basically most of the time in the 7.0-9.0 bracket. Even F-86s and F-100s take bombs what an absolute waste!

 

Allied players have basically given up on winning because they can give up. They are allowed to give up and load bombs expecting to lose a game but get some RP by bombing a base or killing a few pillboxes. Axis players however, aren't really allowed to give up their easiest way of getting RP is by actually getting frags and in doing so they win. So my solution on top of changing battle ratings (please Gaijin do this at least) is to add things (ground pounders/bombers) that the kinds of people who load bombs in the F-86 can play for axis because these players aren't going to change, so we might as well spread them more evenly among every faction.

This is a very good idea IMO, the challenge becomes what planes to give which can face the same problems, because if you go to lower tiers where Germans (somehow, astoundingly) have the best bombers, German teams always have 4 of them, so it's not as if they won't play them if they don't have them. 

 

The problem is that because both Germanies were essentially client states of the Americans or the Russians, they only get specific tech and from what I can't tell weren't trusted with bombers beyond the Il-28, which I suppose could be added but won't do anything for 9.0+ games. They can also get the Alpha Jet, the G.91 (as if we need more of those) and the Su-17 whenever that comes in game, and they all carry decent ground strike options, but I honestly don't see it making much of a difference. 

[Ein79 5,749]

@Stona @Smin1080p
 

 

If the WarThunder game community is growing, and I don't undermine this fact, what's the reason for all these problems with balanced matchmaker and queue time? 

A few thoughts and observation, maybe you'd like to forward them to Gaijin headquarters:

 

1. Continuous expansion of playable content (vehicles) with its dispersion between the new BR (> 9.0) and new factions that pre-2017 were not in the game (Italy, France). The result: increased dispersion of players among various content. This extends the length of the queue and makes potentially interesting matches such as Germany-alone vs Britain-alone almost impossible. The end result are completely mixed battles, washed out of any context, historical mood and killing the fun of being a part of faction.

2. The above also involves another problem that spoils the gameplay: Aircrafts from different nations in one team sometimes complement each other, but unfortunately very often they also "steal" tasks or even "steal" a whole match. Example: Japanese fake bomber killer R2Y with 4x30 mm AND bomber spawn simply steals the tasks of Me262A1u4 with 50 mm cannon which is real dedicated bomber killer. And when the Italian F84Gs appear in the match together with the German Me262A1/A2, the letter are reduced to poor support planes. Or how US B57s or Russian IL28 are to compete for killing bases with much faster French SO4050?  It sucks and gives rise to frustration.

3. Adding vehicles that completely disturb the balance on a given BR range. The two most glaring examples:

 

a) Long, unpleasant months..MONTHS with Yak23 on 7.3 BR...despite the anger of the community and openly expressed confusion of experienced game-youtubers.

b) Mitshubishi T2 on 10.0 BR. A plane that both performance wise and aesthetically is completely unsuitable for the early-ColdWar-era. This aircraft is 300 km/h faster than Mig19 and it looks like a plane from the mid 70's ... because it's a mid-70s airplane.

4. 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/

5. 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. Unfortunately - refusal, negation.
 
https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/441204-possible-new-matchmaker-for-german-post-wwii-techtree-airrb-nato-vs-warsawpact-idea/

I understand that some of these problems stem from the monetization model in such "free to play" games like WarThunder.
It is obvious that the work of owners, developers and staff must be rewarded. I have no problem with that.
I love this game and support it with real money paying for premium content and marketplace items.

 

But looking for more $ income by putting further challenges in grinding through techtrees or fotm vehicles, should be considered with extreme caution, because this is potentially very toxic and game spoiling matter.

Dear Gaijin, do you want our money? It is obvious that you want and nothing wrong with it.

 

But pls...think about monetization of larger amount of such content, which doesn't spoil the balance and doesn't lead to suboptimal dispersion of players in relation to playerbase growth. Develop new skins, new decals, new variants of old, not OP vehicles - sell them for a reasonable price.

 

Think also about innovative methods of making money on the group of the most involved part of the community. 

 

An idea from me - I don't expect a commission

If a certain group of players gather around an idea - for example a new map, a new competition model, a new weapon type, a missing plane variant, a 3D model screaming for improvement, and so on ....

 

- Make a valuation of the work needed to implement the idea converted into GJN.
- Create a subpage of the store with a mechanism to deposit the money needed for the implementation of the idea.
- Reward donors with an unique decal or title.
- After collecting the required amount of money, implement the idea of ASAP.

 

 

 

Edited March 30, 2019 by Einherjer1979

[ALIEN109 1,321]

Played Axis Vs Axis (Ger + japan vs Ger + japan) at BR 4.7

...is it intended ?

Edited March 31, 2019 by ALIEN109

[BlackFlagger 199]

On 29/03/2019 at 00:50, DaffanZ said:

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

 

 

Look at what I posted earlier, none of those 7kills and 8kills matches are in squads, I'm just giving advice to allied players, you can take the advice try to do better or keep complaining on the forums about bad winrates. And like I said if you saw bunch of bombers and attackers on the axis team every match, their winrates wouldn't be what they are either.

[Trotrodor 2,670]

why is France ALWAYS facing germany and italy ? are they the only one you won't balance ?

[BlackFlagger 199]

On 29/03/2019 at 14:03, Wankermotor said:

So the solution to the T2 clubbing everyone is not to spread the love around, but instead they make an Axis pool and an Allied pool and then let the T2 loose in the Axis pool? There are two possible reasons for this:

1) GJ hate the axis, so let the T2 feast on those planes while the rest of the playerbase enjoy the game. (I don’t really believe this)

2) BR for BR, the axis planes are better than the allied planes for some reason. I.e. an axis 9.0 is generally better than an allied 9.0. So to better balance the game, let’s have the axis 9.0 duke it out against their equally strong 9.0 counterparts, while the allied 9.0 can duke it out against the other riff raff 9.0s. (Other BRs are available). 

 

I do believe reason 2 is why the change happened, but I don’t see why, ad spreading the love around would also create balanced teams.

So while I think they did the MM change for reason 2, it really feels like reason 1. Last night i was playing my allied jets and it was quite pleasant.  People did comment on how they hadn’t seen the T2 in ages. I did play pretty awful, however, so i decided to fly some of my favorite jets (which happens to be axis).  I still played awful, but now i had the extra pleasure of getting clubbed by T2s on top of it all. I did log off soon after that. 

The top dogs like f2, mig17, hunter can still compete with f40, cl13, g91. Regarding missiles and for example german saber having better engine, that is a historical problem, by the time those better engines and air to air missiles were used the US already had moved to stuff like the f100, so that is why for example f2 doesn't have missiles, it never had them in real life. I don't mind if axis are fighting axis as long as match is not mirrored, maybe do something about top tier vehicles like t2, mig19  and have a limit per match or make it so that that the ammount of top tier vehicles is at least a bit balanced, because I've seen matches where we had like 6 supersonics and more and they got 2 or 3. Maybe try to make it if your team got 5 supersonics enemy team has to have 4, 5 or 6 supersonics, that way it would be more balanced atm matchmaker doesnt seem to care.

21 hours ago, Stavroforos said:

The idea that allied teams are bad and German teams are good is the type of fantasy a lot of people who play Third Reich vehicles engage in, in this game and others. The reality is that the way the game is setup and with the type of vehicles available to each team, the Allies are usually faced with longer odds of winning prop air RB games. 

That is just not true, how can then I get 7 or 8 kill games with "bad" allied props, that's not an argument when you can clear the entire team/ almost the entire team with a p51, p47, f4u etc you can't tell me allies got bad planes. Its worse pilots and worse team composition.

[LuizBarros99 436]

On 28/03/2019 at 09:04, 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 temporarily increased.

 

Please leave feedback!

Please, give us back the "USSR + Italy + Germany" vs "USA + UK + Japan" (With France thrown anywhere, doesn't really matter to me)

[Ein79 5,749]

Just now, LuizBarros99 said:

Please, give us back the "USSR + Italy + Germany" vs "USA + UK + Japan" (With France thrown anywhere, doesn't really matter to me)

What about little more historical mood (not full-historical of course)??

 

Warsaw Pact 9.0-10.0:

 

(Ru)

MiG-19PT

MiG-17

MiG-15bis

Mig-15ISH (prem)

 

 

(EastGer)

 

MiG-19S

MiG-15bis

 

 

As we see, in the context of 1.87, WarsaPact urgently needs 9.0 planes with air-to-air missiles and generaly stronger 9.0s:

 

Mig-17F (clasic with afterburner)

Mig-17PFU with 4x beam riding AAM

Mig-17AS with 2x IR AAM (Cuban skin, premium?)

 

In addition, we can expect new supersonic WarsawPact aircraft in 1.89 patch (e.g.: Su7B, Mig21F)

 

 

Japan 9.0-10.0...Japan IRL is an US ally and has a partnership with NATO, but is not a member of NATO.

 

 

(japan)

T-2K

F-86F-40

F-86F-40 (prem)

F-86F-30

 

Perhaps Japan should take part in several scenarios assuming also possible conflicts between allies and even completely reversing alliances:

 

a) Japan alone vs WarsawPact

b) Japan & USA vs WarsawPact

c) Japan & NATO vs WarsawPact

d) Japan alone vs whole NATO

c) Japan alone vs whole NATO

d) Japan & WarsawPact vs USA

e) Japan & WarsawPact vs whole NATO

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Allies/NATO 9.0-10.0:

 

(US)

 

F-100D

F-86A-5

F-86F-2

F-86F-25

F-86F-35 (prem)

F-100D

 

(UK)

 

Javelin

Hunter

 

(WestGer)

 

CL-13B

CL-13A

 

(FR)

 

Super Mystere

M.D.452 Mystere IIA

S.O. 4050A

S.O. 4050B
S.O. 4050 premium 
 

(Ita)

 

G.91YS

G.91R/1

G.91R/4 (prem)

 

 

[LuizBarros99 436]

11 hours ago, MH4UAstragon said:

Anything subsonic without missiles should not EVER be fighting a supersonic. 

 

And air to air missiles should be either stock or a Tier 1 module on any plane having them. 

I have to somewhat agree with you, although my guilty pleasure in Custom Battles is to stomp the terrible F-100D (Mainly, but if unavailable I will stomp on about any jet ) players with my Yak-3VK-107 by luring them into turning with me.

But to see 'STOCK' MiG-15 "NON BIS", Venons, etc.  vs HORDES of T-2s and G.91YSs is simply absurd...