[Discussion] Balance, Bias, Matchmaking and Battle Ratings

[Scarper 45,517]

 

 

Some quotes from the past discussions to keep you acclimatised.

 

Introduction

War Thunder - is an unique and complex game from different points of view. We are making things that were never ever done before by anyone and our challenge is that we have ambitious goals for our players satisfaction.

 

Players are fighting using vehicles that reproduce the actual ones with a high degree of reliability. Vehicles in the game are from different dates of release and operations, different countries, types, they were used for different tasks and which cannot be compared directly one to another: bombers, attackers, hydroplanes, fighters, carrier-based fighters, heavy tanks, anti-aircraft artillery, tank destroyers and so on.

 

In real life most of the vehicles would never be fighting together in one battle (or even at the same theatre of operations).

 

At the same time the battles themselves are made for random players. A player may choose any aircraft or ground vehicle and press “To Battle”.

 

Matchmaker (and the battles themselves) should be made so it won’t just create battles, but create them for any vehicles that will be in the queue, for example, there could be only bombers in there, or fighters, or only attackers (in any combination for any country and at any rank), and battle still need to start, since players won’t (and shouldn’t) choose specific vehicles to get balanced teams on both sides.

 

Matchmaker will try to select the most optimal combinations, but for battles with no ability to re-spawn multiple times, nothing can technically guarantee the ability to select teams based on vehicle combat roles.

 

Additional nuance is the fact that players progress is personal and not team oriented, a player should have ability to earn, and progress in research and play in any vehicle he chooses.

 

No real balance based on “technical characteristics”, or “historically fought against each other”, or “production date” is even theoretically possible.

 

For example, B-17 was produced in same years as I-15, it even has similar speed characteristics, but it is obviously not an equal foe for I-15. In an imaginary duel of B-17 versus I-15 (even against four I-15) the B-17 will most likely will be the winner.

 

At the same time in hypothetical battles (its impossible right now by ranks of the planes and their BR), where in one team there were one or two B-17’s and in another team - one or two I-15’s, victory can be achievable by any side given decent team play - more so, the personal effectiveness for the I-15 may be higher than for the B-17 (because there are obviously more aircraft than just B-17s on the other team).

 

The matchmaker system (and the battles themselves) are calculated this way:

• it will gather battles for any vehicles in the queue

• it will provide the maximum possible balance in sessions (in average)

• it will provide maximum equal personal efficiency (based on research points and silver lions amounts) in battles (in average)

 

Matching occurs only based on the BR and the vehicle rank: vehicles of 3 rank differences cannot be in the same battle, only one rank or two, the BR difference will not be more than 1 for aviation and 0.7-1 for ground forces (we are not counting that there is a possibility to get weaker vehicles into a battle while in squad or in games with multiple re-spawns).

 

We are calculating BRs based on statistical data. It is gathered from the amounts of fly outs, average life time, shot down enemies, lost vehicles, critical hits, destroyed AI vehicles, destroyed bases and generally by everything what affects victory and personal progress, but without accounting if the team won or lost (we collect that information as well and analyse it to evaluate matchmaker job and also balance of the mission, but since teams are not necessarily created balanced by the type of vehicles, the fact of the victory and loss is not considered for BR calculation).

 

This happens approximately once per month and also usually after 2 weeks after changes in FM/DM/Missions etc. The BR update is not always happening right after it.

 

Incoming changes:

Incoming changes to BR are aimed to complete two goals.

 

For aviation - it is just a regular re-calculation based on the statistics. We have taken into account players opinions and, possibly, will change only the most changed planes BR (by statistic) from last patches. It will allow us to better analyse those changes and make them smoother.

 

For ground vehicles we also plan to increase possible brackets, while saving the possibility of any tank is able to destroy any tank it meets in battles. The old brackets (for 0.7 BR that is more than 20 possible brackets) was leading to the possibility of very long queues for tank battles, especially at 3-5 ranks, and at the same time variety of the vehicles in combat was very limited.

 

Discussion and further changes for matchmaking

Players always discuss matchmaking saying that its not ideal. Partly it happens because people instinctively think that vehicles with equal BR should be “equal” and “fair” (based on technical characteristics, date of construction or participation in real battles), while forgetting that comparison of the incomparable - different types of vehicles made for different tasks and often never encountering each other in real life battles, like carrier-based fighters or long-distance fighters and frontline attackers and fighters.

 

Often players forget that specific aircraft can meet other planes more often from the list of possible opponents, than those which they are comparing one to each other, vica-versa, its rare that there will be teams made from one type of vehicle only. At the same time balance should be based on teams and within the limits of our in game missions.

 

But we are listening to every constructive suggestion and are ready to participate in any dialogue.

 

Of course we cannot physically participate in dialogue with all the hundreds of thousands of our players at the same time.

 

So if you will collect suggestion for matchmaking (with taking into account specific points, like, for example, not excluding from the system any type of vehicle and not creating the situation that some player may never get into the battle if the rest of the players select same type of the vehicle as he did) - then we will look into it and will answer to them. At least to those that take into account all the specifics tasks required of the matchmaker.

 

We are also ready for online discussions and answers to questions in real time with “emissaries” of the community - of course you will need to select those who will be presenting your case and asking your questions.

 

I hope you understand where I am coming from with this and would ask, rather than assume we are not listening, try and appreciate we are really only doing our best for the entire community, not just one group or another.

 

Todace (Kirill Y)

 

 

A Reminder

 

This topic was allowed to be left open as a discussion about BR Rating and matchmaking - I would request you stay on topic and take any other discussions elsewhere, this is an emotive topic, as many of our merged and herding topics are, and we don't need you mixing them up. It doesn't help anyone.

 

This is the Match making and BR! Look at the pinned post as to what we are supposed to be discussing in here, not connectivity, not balance. Please look at the other "major" topics we have pinned in the general area, as you can see, there are clearly other areas where you can discuss them. It isn't here. If you prefer, we can merge them all into one, but as im sure most of you would agree that isn't practical.

 

Stay on topic.

As designers the devs have to choose 1 of 6 options

 

1. Historical matchup, obviously this will be good for some of us (Historically accurate), situations like reserve pz II meeting the KV1 would obviously narrow that group even more as although it is a historically correct matchup, it would be a very emotive encounter generally. Of course there are a group that would not want to even entertain this.

 

2. Performance matchup - vehicle stats alone - some might say this is satisfactory, but in opposition to number 1 above many match-ups would be way of the mark in terms of reasonableness, this would tend to upset the fair balance of some players in game as a good performing vehicle isn't always easy to fly for example.

 

3. Player performance - if we based match-ups on this, although some would welcome it, probably many thinking about, people like me or sim guys would really get annoyed with it. I consider myself a team player rather than a high scorer. So I would in effect be put into games where the teams are less goal orientated (random flying or driving about shooting at seagulls).

 

4. Absolute balance (where vehicles are exactly the same as you in battle) red vs blue - no interesting encounters - purely competitive matches (good for some tourney work i guess).

 

5. No mm at all - well i guess we can imagine the games that would be played using this.

 

6. A mix of 1 to 3 above (mixing 4 or 5 into the formulae negates their effect)

 

So 6. is where we went with this, it may not suit all, but it suits more than the numbers not happy with any other choice.

 

The answer was always going to be complex but we strive to reach the ultimate balance.

 

edit - i firmly believe the key to this is spread as many have observed, but whilst we can edge aircraft to a narrower band due to sheer numbers of vehicles available, ground vehicles are not quite there yet. We could narrow it right now sure, but this would create more chance of FOM standard matches (a la wot) which would tend to be more individually competitive. I'm sure there are some that this would suit, but I do believe the majority would find it boring.

 

So as we add more vehicles to the lineups (and this includes aircraft too as that could still be narrowed) the situation will improve. Hence why we have to add vehicles with every major.

 

Relating to BR - what you see in game is what you get in terms of rating (failing errors) but that a players performance is not checked on the mm sort (BR isn't adjusted on the fly), it is done on a broader scale or indirectly if you prefer, before the BR is set in game (and periodically updated), we don't weight players knowingly  on entry into a match.

 

For BR changes to occur periodically -

Player a) performs well in non premium specific vehicle - that is treated as a " + " (fractionally) in terms of BR rating so the aircraft will tend to be uprated (higher) obviously this isn't obvious when only one or two perform well with it but rather a large chunk of players performing well in it will generally cause it to go up.

Player b) performs badly in exactly the same vehicle (all counts) but in the premium line. this will be treated as a " - "(fractionally) and so the BR rating will tend to go down (in reality again it takes a fair chunk of players to cause this.

 

After BR changes have been applied by the formula (we list changes when they happen) we observe the behaviour in game and follow WTPC and player feedback on the changes and may manually adjust them soon after the change.

 

At this time, we do not apply player performance in terms of MM directly instead relying on the use of the vehicles  before to determine what is "balanced" for the grouping within the matchmaker.

 

Many MM problems(not all) seen by players are a result of poor choice of lineup or indeed a complete ignoring of BR tending rather to look at tier.

 

As seen by recent chronicles - many in the community cannot work with historical matchups which is why we tend to favour aircraft/player performance to provide the balance. The theory is that ultimately the mix will balance itself out and provide no OP or UP vehicles in a battle. Every time we add a vehicle via updates, we actually help the situation and ultimately this will allow us to reduce the spread and keep "Flavour of the month" vehicles to a minimum. Obviously it isnt the only answer and it is quite a complex system, especially when you also consider that QM is taken into account which adds another filter into the mix to make sure that team power is balanced or even pre chosen when used exclusively. Obviously it isn't fool proof yet, (as we need to manually adjust from time to time) but it is getting there.

 

Within the MM, the BR will only be applied after the Tier (or year grouping if you prefer) has been applied thus keeping the greater number of year groups separate.

 

Scarper (Keith)

 

1. BR changes (when they occur) are patched in and the changes/patch notes are made avail at same time (sometimes pre-planned alterations are announced in develop or news ahead of time).

2. Again changes to BR come with patches (major or minor) which are never specific about their release.  As far as technological advances go. This doesn't mean what you think it does. It is not this tank is more advanced-therefore it shouldn't fight this other one or vice versa.Simply put in war especially WWII. Each side enters into a race to make all aspects of their prospective arsenals better in one  way or another until they win (or that is the goal). So for instance the German's used a 88mm cannon variations (a lot). There were tanks specifically designed with defeating THAT tank family that they were obsolete after the war and new stuff was needed by Korea, and the coming Cold war (interested parties designed things for possible war with the other). That is natural occurrence and cannot be compared to MM putting better or worse vehicles into a game nor influence it's BR. The tanks are listed in 5 development eras their BR's adjust to how well they do based upon player usage) Its complicated but it's simple,

FryingTiger(Clay)

 

 Russian Bias! A statement that is very often discussed on forums and communities...

 

"My favourite one! There is well-known Russian Bias in War Thunder for the International community, but what is much less known for these communities is the U.S. Bias and German Bias, which are very lively in the Russian community, where people hadn't heard about Russian Bias. So, depending on the country you are coming from, Gaijin is biased against it. We are Russian biased because we are Russians, we love Russian vehicles and thus make them overpowered and everyone else underpowered. We are also biased towards the U.S., because players from the USA pay more. So, we make their vehicles overpowered as a reward for the money they are investing, and the Russian players have to suffer because of that. We are also Germany biased, for two combined reasons. They also pay more than Russians, and in addition to that - it's untranslatable, but in Russian it just means we "simply love Germans" ("Немцефилы").

So, I think if all communities would speak one language and we could combine them, the whole Bias thing would just "annihilate". But before that, we have to live with mainly three biases. Well, there is also British Bias because Spitfires are cool. The only bias we really don't have now is Japanese Bias (or we simply haven't get it translated from Chinese\Korean community)."

 

Anton Y

 

 

Previous Topics (merged)

 

When discussing in this topic - keep it constructive, civil and on Topic! Do not break the forum rules! You have been warned.

[TA4Life 6,520]

Ok. I got a question about RB BR. 

 

 

Why is Fw-190 A5 flying alongside with late 109's and Dora's? Why A5 faces planes that are far, far superior?

 

And at the same time, why is J2M2's BR so low? Why a 4.3 plane is sitting at 3.3? Same for Bf 109 F-1.

Edited April 25, 2016 by TA4Life

[PantherAl 4,883]

Ok. I got a question about RB BR. 

 

 

Why is Fw-190 A5 flying alongside with late 109's and Dora's? Why A5 faces planes that are far, far superior?

 

And at the same time, why is J2M2's BR so low? Why a 4.3 plane is sitting at 3.3? Same for Bf 109 F-1.

 

If I had to guess, it is based off of a combination of expected performance and how well the aircraft are fairing in the hands of players - sure, it is the dreaded 'statistics' coming into play, but if I had to place a wager, that would be the cause - players are either on average, very good or very bad with those particular air frames, hence the way they are more or less in the same BR range even though the book stats would say otherwise.

[SMS_Elbing 7,052]

rb air here
why is the a6m5 so high? or like all the british jets at 8.0. whys the horten at 7.0?
a6m5 is overtired as is the meteor f3 and the like
and the horten is no 7.0 jet its a 7.3-7.7 jet
or why the heck is the j2m2 at its br!?

[BigBoyMuscleMan@psn 156]

I'd like the HEATFS shells to be reduced, because a german tankers life isn't very fun at the moment (not only german tankers suffer). You have tank that depends on armor, but the armor isn't effective. 
What's your opinion? 

Edited April 25, 2016 by *the_Stalker_of_s

[SMS_Elbing 7,052]

I'd like the HEATFS shells to be reduced, because a german tankers life isn't very fun at the moment (not only german tankers suffer). You have tank that depends on armor, but the armor isn't effective. 
What's your opinion?

id rather heat-fs be gone
its irritating playing a heavy tank like cobra king
and a pt-76 just fires frontally and you die from first shot or if you dont you cant fire back
like whats the point of playing a tank that depends on armor when this thing shows up and pens you with ease ;-;

[BigBoyMuscleMan@psn 156]

id rather heat-fs be gone
its irritating playing a heavy tank like cobra king
and a pt-76 just fires frontally and you die from first shot or if you dont you cant fire back
like whats the point of playing a tank that depends on armor when this thing shows up and pens you with ease ;-;

The Maus and the E-100 are nightmares to play at the moment, too. I agree that HEAT-FS should get either removed or greatly reduced.

[SMS_Elbing 7,052]

The Maus and the E-100 are nightmares to play at the moment, too. I agree that HEAT-FS should get either removed or greatly reduced.

they must be hurt by it a lot to
whats the point in angling if their just gonna rip through your tank anyway

[kevQC 2,814]

If we can't have a 0.7 BR spread, then we absolutely need a BR 10. It would solve a lot of the issues where some vehicles are too good against the lower BRs and too bad against the higher BRs.

[MalleusTempus 803]

Cant set teams based on combat roles?

Then what was the quantatative MM all about? Guessing that's not going to happen now?

Also, the Stat based BR has been shown quite often to be awful in SB yet it is still persisted with....why? A performance/historic based BR makes much more sense for this mode yet it is constantly refuted even when it has been used and well appreciated by the forums (yes yes forums don't show squat and all that but that's all we have to go by).

Added to this a further query, why are some BRs not modified based on role? As an example the terribly under tiered P-47, this thing is constantly being used as a bomb truck and getting murdered, hence poor performance by 'stats' low BR.....but what happens when it's taken as a pure fighter...suddenly it's not so sucky especially when it's compared to what it faces, are such things taken into account? Edited April 26, 2016 by MalleusTempus

[slavoyew 5,155]

One thing I'd like to know is the current state of Quantative Matchmaking. At what BRs is it implemented? In what game modes? Is it ON 24/7 or only during prime time?

 

Why do I ask - there are numerous reports, screenshots and replays here on the forums and at reddit showing that it apparently does not work at all, no matter the game mode or BR.

[Caesaroftheskies 639]

 

 

 

-snip-

May the community be allowed to view the statistics as you at Gaijin HQ see them? (I understand the Mods probably don't see them either, but I feel like if Scarper, you could push it to the uppities back in Moscow it would save the community a lot of whining, and we would fully understand the BR calculation process)

Otherwise, I feel like there need be no discussion on this thread anymore, Matchmaking and Battle Ratings have been explained in detail above. If something is wrong, then its something being looked at, having data gathered on, or it simply is fine where it is, such as the a5 being high br, cause most people do well in it, thus pushing its effectiveness up. (Its why planes that perform on a 3.3-4.0 level (I'm looking at you Macchi 202) are so low br'd cause people who fly them are bad at them) and vise versa.

 

Thats just my two cents,

 

Caesar

[Billaster 5]

May the community be allowed to view the statistics as you at Gaijin HQ see them? (I understand the Mods probably don't see them either, but I feel like if Scarper, you could push it to the uppities back in Moscow it would save the community a lot of whining, and we would fully understand the BR calculation process)

[...]

 

Caesar

I don't think it would be a good idea, since people may see the planes that does best well be overplayed and the other ones may be deserted, there you can have a bias.

(forgive my english, it's not my mother tongue)

[TA4Life 6,520]

I don't think it would be a good idea, since people may see the planes that does best well be overplayed and the other ones may be deserted, there you can have a bias.

(forgive my english, it's not my mother tongue)

Because of those........... "statistics", WW2 Meteor is facing Korean War jets.

 

I would like to see them.

[Caesaroftheskies 639]

Scarper (Today, 05:56 PM):
I see them, so do the CM's when they need to. Unfortunately it isn't something we can show, it's policy.

 

Ah, I understand mate, sometimes company secrets need to stay that way. However, policy can be changed. I'll respect this though, as the potential drawbacks could outweigh the plus'

[Griffon_65 68]

Why can't you show statistics? Any brief reasons? Sorry I just can't understand the intention, just curious.

[funkierfawn21 4]

Question:

Why do Russian tankers, and other nations have to pay like 1200 lions or 1600 lions for HEATFS and sabot rounds at tier 5, yet the British get the Chieftain with stock free 400mm penetration sabot rounds. I think its unfair how there 120 mm gun has free ammo, especially how there tank has 7 second reload, compared to T10M with only 339mm penetration sabot rounds and 20 sec reload and their expensive too.

[japes 292]

Thanks for the thread merge Scarper, but I still feel like there's varying information (over the years at least) in what's been presented.
 

In the second quote, for example:
 

 

3. Player performance - if we based match-ups on this

 

Then point six goes on to say that it uses a mix of 1-3.

 

There's currently a thread going in the WTPC section where players are claiming that the better you play the higher chance you have of being uptiered (ie. If you're in 4.0 Vehicles, being placed in a game with a BR Spread of 4.0-5.0. As someone with an Average Percentile above 90% in AB, I don't believe this is the case, and you would assume if that system was in place I would be regularly tiered up.

From my experience, so anecdotal, it depends more on how many players are available in each tier at any given time. In Ground Forces for example, BR 5.7 features some of the most popular tanks of the war with the Tiger I and Panther, so queuing at a BR of 5 will tier you up in the majority of games.

Are you able to confirm or deny that matchmaking has any control over what BR spread you end up in based on performance?
 

 

it will provide maximum equal personal efficiency (based on research points and silver lions amounts) in battles (in average)

 

Can I get a ELI5 on what this actually means?

Edited April 26, 2016 by japes

[LIGHTNINGG 10]

Is there really a "Russian Bias" in War Thunder?

 

ill answer this from the Air RB side.

text copied from my answer on another website

TL;DwR: Nope!

 

 

Russian bias was merely just a funny joke that spread out. Then some ignorant guys interpreted it wrongly and made it a "fact".

Let me give you some examples first

I, as a guy who had decided to grind mainly on the american tree (i play mainly onRealistic Battles mode), have good experiences on fighting Russian air crafts, especially when using the plane that got me the reason to go through the american line that is, the P-51 D-30 (tier 3, BR 4.7), that got me a decent almost 2 K/D Overall.

[attachment=198274:Untitled-1.png]

And no, im not a stat polisher that does un fun things for my stats. i play for fun, and i'm not here to show off , i'm telling you my point and just how it is (and not saying that i am particularly impressive). Often times in a match, i would be the only one or two guys alive, against 3 yak 9 and 3s', and 2 lavochkin 7s'. of course,  with some simple to advanced tactics, some skill, and a little bit of luck, i managed to kill all of them. That shows how capable this plane is. And i could do that all day. I even TURNFIGHTED one Russian P-63 coupled with a Yak-9 coming later on the fight, at low speed, low alt. Flying solo using the seemingly heavy american P-47 D-28 And won (and against some Japanese planes in similar situation with the same result), and then killed an IL attacker air craft to win the match. This brings us to the next point.

These people ( the ones whom I've fought with, including my dead team mates) are either ignorant, untrained, unlucky, or all of it. The real victim of the term "Russian Bias". My enemies, underjudged my plane and overexpecting theirs. Then my allies, who just gave up.

Although there are some fluctuations in the balance, majority of the planes in warthunderis considerably competitive. If not, got at least one slight advantage over their opponent aircraft that he could abuse.  I've seen one guy in a chaika biplane evading, killing, and slingshotting their jet opponents to the ground using the chaika's superior turn rate. A ground attacker AD-2 turnfighting a BF-109 K-4 by  getting the 109 to underestimate and go to a turnfight with him at very slow stall speeds. Then somehow, by abusing his massive wing lift in a very slow speed turn fight against that 109, he won (i was the guy in that 109 :p). So it's all about knowing yourself and your enemy. What advantage does one got over the other. Even a slight tiny bit of any advantage you got. For example, me in the earliest sabre series, the Sabre A-5 (note that this is the most inferior sabre of all, the first sabre you get) no advantage whatsoever against the mighty russian MIG-17 BIS, other than just the superior roll rate. If i know exactly on how to roll out off his crosshairs by utilizing my superior roll rate and somehow latch on his six, i could kill him. Though ive got less chance in winning.

I would think the term "Japan bias" is more valid over all others. As i get roughly 85% of win rate and K/D close to 5 using the Ki-43 otsu. That plane's ONLY disadvantages are speed, and linear energy retention (it's turning energy retention is great). To be fair, its a bit fragile too but no one smart enough should put this paperly designed plane over the enemy airfield. And the enemy  shouldn't get a chance on even reaching it's six. This plane climbs like a champ, behaves very well at high speeds at all altitude (turn, roll), rolls good, turns real good, exceptional low speed maneuverability and stability, and 2 simple overworking cannons. I haven't even mentioned the J2M2, R2Y2 "Bomber" jet (gets bomber start all the time which is high), G8M, etc. And then, japanese planes very oftenly gets airstart compared to their airfield-start opponents (New Guinea map, others i dont remember). And then there's the tendency of the majority of all the warthunder newbies, or even oldies who aren't even trying to win, to turn fight regardless on what plane they are on or what they are facing. As Japanese planes are generally highly superior in their turnfighting capabilities, they will win most of the times. And all other stuff.

But even with all this, the term "Japan bias" is still not valid. As many other nation got its own advantage on their planes, as long as the players know about how to fly their planes in their own advantage compared to the opponent's, all this shouldn't be a problem.

Regarding the MiG-17. yes, it might be more superior than all others to some extent. But you could counter it if you know how.

• The MiG-17 has a relatively low dive speed (gravity assisted) compared to the hawker hunter and ALL of the sabres.
• Lowest roll rate. All fighters from the 9.0 - 7.0 BR (except the Horten) could out-roll it and trick it to overshoot and then reverse back the attack
• Low rate of fire cannons. while this might not be a clear disadvantage, this gun takes some time to get used to

but if Gaijin were to add a "substitute" for the MiG-17, then the "substitute" would again break the balance, as no two jets at that era are the same. then the war of "balance" would result in a non missile carrying, cannon only F-22 (as gaijin wouldn't add missile because it would remove the classical dogfight, good idea) and keep on going.

Actually, there is already a plane in-game that would match the MiG-17. Planes, actually.

• Sabre F-2. This jet got all-round capabilities, including the fancy roll rate, arguably better gun than the MiG-17, higher dive speed (gravity assisted). all of this with only slightly less disadvantage compared to the MiG-17's top speed, and a slower acceleration
• Meteor Mk-8. if the pilot is skillful and patient enough to trap  a MiG-17 to a slow speed turn fight, the MiG-17 wouldn't get a chance as the Meteor got superior acceleration at slow speeds.
• The Hawker Hunter.
  • Climb Rate: yes! you heard it. this thing could lose a MiG-17 off its tail by climbing very shallow (like 5 degrees up) at 950 kph+ by it's superior engine performance at top speeds. there's a reason why this plane should never be slow. it has pretty much inferior acceleration at slow speeds maybe because of it's high speed air intake design.
  • Roll Rate: it could roll better giving the MiG less chance to hit the Hunter if flown correctly.
  • Guns: The Hawker Hunter packs the biggest amount of punch it's cannon gives compared to all planes in warthunder, the 4 of the mighty ADEN 30mm cannon, sending 20 kg of projectile that travels so fast at 790m/s. followed by the 2nd biggest puncher, the Me262 variants that has has 4x 30mm german cannon that lobs about 14 kg of projectile at a slow 540m/s. with the MiG's 2x23mm and 1x37mm slow-firing Russian cannons having only about 10kg of projectile and both at 690m/s

as i said, as long as the players know about how to play in their own advantage, all this shouln't be a problem.

Edited April 26, 2016 by lorddingdong

[Scarper 45,517]

-snip-

added a bit more to my quote from a discussion elsewhere on the OP, maybe this clarifies it. o7

Cant set teams based on combat roles?

Then what was the quantatative MM all about? Guessing that's not going to happen now?

Also, the Stat based BR has been shown quite often to be awful in SB yet it is still persisted with....why? A performance/historic based BR makes much more sense for this mode yet it is constantly refuted even when it has been used and well appreciated by the forums (yes yes forums don't show squat and all that but that's all we have to go by).

Added to this a further query, why are some BRs not modified based on role? As an example the terribly under tiered P-47, this thing is constantly being used as a bomb truck and getting murdered, hence poor performance by 'stats' low BR.....but what happens when it's taken as a pure fighter...suddenly it's not so sucky especially when it's compared to what it faces, are such things taken into account?

QM only affects tier 5 at the moment.

[ReachForTheSky 3,825]

Only current BR problem in Ground Forces that comes to mind is the T-54 1947 and IS-3, both at 7.3. But the point I'll be making largely concerns late WW2 vs Cold War, these two tanks are just the biggest culprit at the moment.

 

The IS-3 is more than capable at 7.7, and I think could hold its own at 8.0. The T-54 1947 is just as capable in gameplay terms, perhaps marginally worse due to the turret design, nothing major though, but it gets a lower BR than the 1951.

 

The only reason I can think that these two vehicles have strangely low BRs (the IS-3, at least) is that new players driving them for the first time aren't used to Tier 5 gameplay yet and keep having bad games in them, which produces 'statistics' that tell the devs to knock down the BR.

 

Either a 10 BR system is needed like another player mentioned, or a 0.7 spread (which was apparently "tested" and didn't work, but it's safe to say that if it was tested it was done in a controlled, artificial environment because the general player base never got to test it, which strikes me as very odd).

 

If not simply to enrich game play as a whole and make matches fairer and less afflicted by BR compression, it's needed to separate late-war tanks and late-war prototypes from post-war tanks which have a big performance gap. A little crossover is okay, but not so much that WW2 tanks see cold war tanks on a regular basis.- especially when one nation has far more cold war tanks to choose from - in regular random match making, it just causes problems.

Edited April 26, 2016 by ReachForTheSky

[japes 292]

added a bit more to my quote from a discussion elsewhere on the OP, maybe this clarifies it. o7

 

Thanks Scarper. Doesn't flat out answer my question but it provides enough information.  :good:

[Scarper 45,517]

Thanks Scarper. Doesn't flat out answer my question but it provides enough information.  :good:

Keep it simple (I'm a simple man) and ask.

Only current BR problem in Ground Forces that comes to mind is the T-54 1947 and IS-3, both at 7.3. But the point I'll be making largely concerns late WW2 vs Cold War, these two tanks are just the biggest culprit at the moment.

 

The IS-3 is more than capable at 7.7, and I think could hold its own at 8.0. The T-54 1947 is just as capable in gameplay terms, perhaps marginally worse due to the turret design, nothing major though, but it gets a lower BR than the 1951.

 

The only reason I can think that these two vehicles have strangely low BRs (the IS-3, at least) is that new players driving them for the first time aren't used to Tier 5 gameplay yet and keep having bad games in them, which produces 'statistics' that tell the devs to knock down the BR.

 

Either a 10 BR system is needed like another player mentioned, or a 0.7 spread (which was apparently "tested" and didn't work, but it's safe to say that if it was tested it was done in a controlled, artificial environment because the general player base never got to test it, which strikes me as very odd).

 

If not simply to enrich game play as a whole and make matches fairer and less afflicted by BR compression, it's needed to separate late-war tanks and late-war prototypes from post-war tanks which have a big performance gap. A little crossover is okay, but not so much that WW2 tanks see cold war tanks on a regular basis.- especially when one nation has far more cold war tanks to choose from - in regular random match making, it just causes problems.

Problem is, if a vehicle is not being used correctly, or let me say, efficiently - it will tend to drop in BR - BUT, if it is enough of a problem for many players (here and in game) then it can be "adjusted". These vehicles are "Trophy tanks, if you get my meaning and yes, new players will strive towards them asap. With time they will settle in to a position until the next bunch of new guys destroys the "image" of them. Best solution, talk to the WTPC, garner support in a reasonable manner and Our BR heroes (+smin) will cogitate , ruminate and recommend to Moscow. (I thought you were a plane guy anyway????)

[japes 292]

Keep it simple (I'm a simple man) and ask.

Problem is, if a vehicle is not being used correctly, or let me say, efficiently - it will tend to drop in BR - BUT, if it is enough of a problem for many players (here and in game) then it can be "adjusted". These vehicles are "Trophy tanks, if you get my meaning and yes, new players will strive towards them asap. With time they will settle in to a position until the next bunch of new guys destroys the "image" of them. Best solution, talk to the WTPC, garner support in a reasonable manner and Our BR heroes (+smin) will cogitate , ruminate and recommend to Moscow. (I thought you were a plane guy anyway????)

 

I did in the initial post:
 

There's currently a thread going in the WTPC section where players are claiming that the better you play the higher chance you have of being uptiered (ie. If you're in 4.0 Vehicles, being placed in a game with a BR Spread of 4.0-5.0). As someone with an Average Percentile above 90% in AB, I don't believe this is the case, and you would assume if that system was in place I would be regularly tiered up.

From my experience, so anecdotal, it depends more on how many players are available in each tier at any given time. In Ground Forces for example, BR 5.7 features some of the most popular tanks of the war with the Tiger I and Panther, so queuing at a BR of 5 will tier you up in the majority of games.

Are you able to confirm or deny that matchmaking has any control over what BR spread you end up in based on performance? Lets keep it simple and stick with Ground Forces since it's not averaged.

Edited April 26, 2016 by japes

[Scarper 45,517]

I did in the initial post:
 

There's currently a thread going in the WTPC section where players are claiming that the better you play the higher chance you have of being uptiered (ie. If you're in 4.0 Vehicles, being placed in a game with a BR Spread of 4.0-5.0). As someone with an Average Percentile above 90% in AB, I don't believe this is the case, and you would assume if that system was in place I would be regularly tiered up.

From my experience, so anecdotal, it depends more on how many players are available in each tier at any given time. In Ground Forces for example, BR 5.7 features some of the most popular tanks of the war with the Tiger I and Panther, so queuing at a BR of 5 will tier you up in the majority of games.

Are you able to confirm or deny that matchmaking has any control over what BR spread you end up in based on performance? Lets keep it simple and stick with Ground Forces since it's not averaged.

No - the matching is done on the Tier and BR rating. Performance is only relevant before the "Announced BR Changes" and not used on the fly with matching.