[Discussion] Balance, Bias, Matchmaking and Battle Ratings

[Haneullim 115]

17 minutes ago, Hunternz said:

 

Let's find out upload replay 

I'd love to.

But how would i?

[Sh4g0h0d 1,852]

On July 18, 2016 at 11:19 AM, Luminoth said:

I'm probably not the only one, but it is really demoralizing and outright unfair when one keeps being match made in the following way: playing tanks with max BR either 3.7; 4.0; 4,3 and you get put in almost exclusively 3,7 till 4,7 matches. It happened so often and for the entirety of a good week of progressing through those tanks that I was already looking forward to playing 4,7 and finally being the top BR player!

 

Guess what: now that play 4,7 BR tanks, most of my games range between 4,7 and 5,7. IF I'm lucky I get one or the other where 5.0 or 5.3 are the highest BR, but not a single time do I get to be top BR. IT is really frustrating to be constantly playing with glass cannons and having to face other tanks which require multiple shots of one's weak cannon.

 

If the maximum game BR variation would be 0.7 then maybe the problem wouldn't be as bad, and I really couldn't care less about waiting longer for matches to form. Which incidentally I think is a BS excuse as there were plenty of max 4.7 BR matches going on when I was playing lower BR games, so having to up-tier me now that I play 4.7 is just ridiculously arbitrary and unfair. Why is it that I have to play the game in hard mode, while the people I face play the easy version of War Thunder ground forces?

 

It just isn't fair. And if I do want a fair game I need to start and quickly lose 2 to 3 games within less than 10min to be able to exhaust all the high BR games and finally be put into something where I am at even odds with other players.

 

But, let's get serious for a sec: why can't we have games with only one BR range? I know some BR values are under represented and those should indeed be shifted over to more populated parts, but even so, with the amount of players currently playing you can easily have more even BR games. Being on the lower end of the BR stick just sucks and shouldn't be something the game promotes.

 

As I've already read before: giving the option to chose for longer search and smaller BR range vs shorter search and higher BR range should be in the game. And I'm certain everyone would use the long search for tanks and short one for planes. BR variation on planes aren't such a big deal except for bigger calibre jumps, but with tanks 1BR is just too big of a difference and Gaijin should recognize this!

Congratulations! You just now figured out how the BR system works! The higher you go in BR, the spread stays the same. BR is much more about the range of games a vehicle can see and what vehicles it is most likely to see. 

 

I would definitely support a .7 BR spread for both planes and tanks, or an expanded BR bracket to do basically the same thing. The problem with Tanks is that there is a gigantic hole in the German line in Tier III: you go from the Panzer IVH at 4.3 and the Panzer IIIM at 3.3 to the Tiger IH and Panther D at 5.7 

 

This creates a rather large problem. You can't raise the IVH or IIIM's BR because they would be overtiered, and you can't lower the first Tiger or Panther because they would club everything lower. It would be like the current T-34/85, but much worse. Germany is not alone in this problem either; British tanks have a hole between 4.0 and 5.3. 

[Sh4g0h0d 1,852]

On July 22, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Kovu11 said:

I am playing with  Russians. My best BR is 7.0 and i must say i  didn´t see any advantage in Russians. German have so good frontal armor and good weapon. Britain and American have good armor and very good weapons. Russians have bad armor (except IS-3) and bad gun (in high tiers). Russian SPG are worst in game. I have very big problem to penetrate German SPG or things like Turtle and Tortoise. But i do not have any problem penetrate Russian SPG. One of most important things is cannon depression which Russians do not have. I see one only one advantage which have Russians best in game-explosives equivalent. But your explosion is nothing when you can´t penetrate anything. For example T-44-100 have BR 7.0 and Tiger II H have BR 6.7. Tiger have bigger gun, Tiger have bigger penetration, Tiger have better armor, Tiger have more powerful engine,Tiger have faster reloading, Tiger have better cannon depression, T-44 have better only speed and turret drive so why Tiger have BR 6.7 and T-44 have 7.0? Russians have one good tanks and that are T-34 family. All other tanks for me is bad. German have all Pzkpfw V and up very good. For my real bias is Germans.

Because the T-44 has much better overall mobility than the Tiger II due to its much lower weight. The Tiger II weighs more than most modern MBTs, and by that standard is underpowered with its engine. 

 

The Tiger II definitely has the advantage at range, but if the T-44 can close the distance it can run circles around the Tiger and penetrate its weak spots. 

 

6.7 is another sweet spot for German BRs, same with 5.7. You have some of their best tanks at that BR range and tier. 

[Attic_Annie 488]

I'm a firm believer that all balance should be done purely through BR changes.
Odd variables like changing repair costs and whatnot just make no sense.

[Svartmetall 166]

I'd love to know how the post-war Yak-3P is BR 5.0, same as the mid-war Bf 109-G2 and G2/Trop and Fw 190 A-5, all of which it vastly out-performs; sensibly, with the current BR overcompression the Yak-3P should be BR 5.7 or 6.0. And how the La-9 is BR 5.7 while the Fw 190D-12 and both Ta-152s are 6.3...again, sensibly with the current BR overcompression the La-9 should also be BR 6.0 or 6.3, or the 190D-12 and the Ta 152s should be 5.7.

 

We really, really, REALLY need BRs expanding out to about 20 or so.

[fufubear 6,705]

Only thing post war about the yak 3 is the fact that the gun configuration was equipped after the war ended in Europe. Performance wise the yak 3 is pretty bad imo.

 

La 9 is probably overall just as strong as a d12 or d13. At low altitude it is faster and climbs better but at higher altitudes it is slower and climbs worse. Turns are close enough not to matter much and the 190s roll better. 

[PL_Andrev 7,386]

Let's enjoy with patch 1.61!

 

 

RB, Fields of Normandy map

Red team killed 5 tanks

Blue team killed 27 tanks.

 

Thanks for the "ballance" and "matchmaking" at new patch.

 

 

[tovarisch_ivan 87]

12 minutes ago, PL_Andrev said:

Let's enjoy with patch 1.61!

 

 

RB, Fields of Normandy map

Red team killed 5 tanks

Blue team killed 27 tanks.

 

Thanks for the "ballance" and "matchmaking" at new patch.

 

 

What br?

Thats never been anything special by the way.

 

One team secured most of the map early on and the other team just got overrun by numbers.

Edited August 3, 2016 by chickenispro

[Sh4g0h0d 1,852]

10 hours ago, PL_Andrev said:

Let's enjoy with patch 1.61!

 

 

RB, Fields of Normandy map

Red team killed 5 tanks

Blue team killed 27 tanks.

 

Thanks for the "ballance" and "matchmaking" at new patch.

 

 

Germany vs. everyone usually turns out one of two ways: either the Germans get stomped or they stomp everyone, depending on the competency of the german team. 

[MaybeMaybeNot 1,759]

1 minute ago, Sh4g0h0d said:

Germany vs. everyone usually turns out one of two ways: either the Germans get stomped or they stomp everyone, depending on the competency of the german team. 

 

 

"competency of the german team" so your saying that the competency of a player has a big part of the overall outcome of a match.. are variable not able to be changed correct 

[Sh4g0h0d 1,852]

2 minutes ago, Hunternz said:

 

 

"competency of the german team" so your saying that the competency of a player has a big part of the overall outcome of a match.. are variable not able to be changed correct 

Yes, the competency of players can vary greatly depending on an individual's experience, knowledge, and playstyle. That is why I will always advocate for a matchmaking system balanced around vehicle performance not player skill. 

[MaybeMaybeNot 1,759]

Just now, Sh4g0h0d said:

Yes, the competency of players can vary greatly depending on an individual's experience, knowledge, and playstyle. That is why I will always advocate for a matchmaking system balanced around vehicle performance not player skill. 

 

it is ,  tank performance can only be determined by its use in game by player and then the approach we give a base BT on said vehicle.. don't mix the two up

 

[Sh4g0h0d 1,852]

Just now, Hunternz said:

 

it is ,  tank performance can only be determined by its use in game by player and then the approach we give a base BT on said vehicle.. don't mix the two up

 

But that leads to problems in the system, like the P-47 at 3.7 or the early D-series Mustangs at 4.3 (in RB), where the plane has powerful performance but the majority of War Thunder players don't use it properly. 

[MaybeMaybeNot 1,759]

3 minutes ago, Sh4g0h0d said:

But that leads to problems in the system, like the P-47 at 3.7 or the early D-series Mustangs at 4.3 (in RB), where the plane has powerful performance but the majority of War Thunder players don't use it properly. 

 

again down to player issue . its really hard to implement counter predictions to a value that's so immediately changeable by outside sources . should there be a limit of bombers yes and there is , should there be a limit on top br vehicles per game yes there is . will a change in the BR fix everything no  we would keep matchmaking to a within 1+br range 

most know how to use a plane and we see this , there will always be one better than the other, and everyone will want to use it once they learn what 

[Sh4g0h0d 1,852]

Just now, Hunternz said:

 

again down to player issue . its really hard to implement counter predictions to a value that's so immediately changeable by outside sources . should there be a limit of bombers yes and there is , should there be a limit on top br vehicles per game yes there is . will a change in the BR fix everything no  we would keep matchmaking to a within 1+br range 

I see your point. Ideally this system would apply to all game modes; to my knowledge top-tier vehicles are limited only in GF and at the highest BR ranges in AF. I would like to see this system extended to apply to all BR ranges and game modes, as I believe it would make for more balanced gameplay. Furthermore, the idea of limiting certain classes of vehicles would also be very effective in RB GF where certain heavy tanks are spammed. 

[MaybeMaybeNot 1,759]

Just now, Sh4g0h0d said:

I see your point. Ideally this system would apply to all game modes; to my knowledge top-tier vehicles are limited only in GF and at the highest BR ranges in AF. I would like to see this system extended to apply to all BR ranges and game modes, as I believe it would make for more balanced gameplay. Furthermore, the idea of limiting certain classes of vehicles would also be very effective in RB GF where certain heavy tanks are spammed. 

 

i'm with you on this  let's make a change ?  now where ?  you see the delimar ?  so from this point forward restrictions of top br will be approached 

[Sh4g0h0d 1,852]

Just now, Hunternz said:

 

i'm with you on this  let's make a change ?  now where ?  you see the delimar ?  so from this point forward restrictions of top br will be approached 

I would like to see vehicles that are 1.0 BR above the lowest BR vehicle in a match limited to four in all game modes. Currently there is a very large gap between performance for vehicles between BR 1.0 and 2.0, 3.0 and 4.0, and 5.0 and 6.0 in RB Air. For RB Ground Forces there are problematic gaps with BR 2.0 and 3.0, 4.0 and 5.0, 5.0 and 6.0, and 6.7 and 7.7. 

 

For some specific examples, let's take the Bf109E-4/E7 at 2.7 BR. While it is very good and balanced against aircraft in the 2.0-3.0 range, it gets dominated by aircraft at the 3.7 BR like the P-47 and P-38G. If there was a limit to the number of top-tier aircraft that could get downtiered to a lower bracket, the lower-tiered aircraft would stand more of a chance at victory. 

 

Another example for RB Ground Forces is the Tiger I at BR. 5.7. This heavy tank is better than most any medium tank for Germany at that tier, and as a result is heavily spammed. This leads to problems for American and British tankers at 5.0 and 5.3 as their medium tanks cannot compare to the Tiger. If Tiger I's were limited to four per team and at the highest BR, British and American tankers would have more balanced gameplay at that BR bracket. 

[Leandrys 4,241]

I can't agree on the way you said it but i'm totally agreeing on the meaning.

[oVoVicious 45]

On July 30, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Sh4g0h0d said:

Because the T-44 has much better overall mobility than the Tiger II due to its much lower weight. The Tiger II weighs more than most modern MBTs, and by that standard is underpowered with its engine. 

 

The Tiger II definitely has the advantage at range, but if the T-44 can close the distance it can run circles around the Tiger and penetrate its weak spots. 

 

6.7 is another sweet spot for German BRs, same with 5.7. You have some of their best tanks at that BR range and tier. 

True, the T-44 can run circles around the Tiger at close range but its gun is absolute trash IMO and usually takes multiple shots to kill anything. I have it in my 6.7 lineup because I don't have any TD's so I run the is2 1944, T44, Is2 and I find the T44 to struggle on almost any tank. The APCR doesn't work well for me and I usually use that mostly because of its 235 pen at the highest one unlocked for the T44. Maybe its just me who knows but I thought Id at least voice my opinion on the matter.

[Svartmetall 166]

When are bombers going to get the massive nerfing they so clearly need? The ridiculous DMs they currently have mean they're practically bloody indestructible, they end games far too fast and their AI gunners are far too effective. Bombers need hard, hard nerfing and they need it now, the current state of the game is pitiful.

[KillstreakGaming 656]

1 hour ago, Svartmetall said:

When are bombers going to get the massive nerfing they so clearly need? The ridiculous DMs they currently have mean they're practically bloody indestructible, they end games far too fast and their AI gunners are far too effective. Bombers need hard, hard nerfing and they need it now, the current state of the game is pitiful.

   Not all bombers need a nerf, you need to consider British bombers, mainly the Lancaster as they are a pain to fly.

Edited August 6, 2016 by KillstreakGaming

[Svartmetall 166]

1 hour ago, KillstreakGaming said:

   Not all bombers need a nerf, you need to consider British bombers, mainly the Lancaster as they are a pain to fly.

Believe it or not, in a game in Cliffed Coast earlier today a Lancaster shot me down twice while taking 3 whole belts' worth of 20mm hits from my Fw-190 A-5 and A-8. I don't want bombers to go back to being helpless XP pinatas, that's crap for bomber pilots, but right now they are crazy overpowered. In order to stop this nonsense of bombers ending games so fast, I would triple (at least) the hit points for bases, add 2 more bases, and put the bomber DMs back to their 1.55 levels where - if you were in a good position and knew where to aim - it was actually possible to kill them before their AI gunners shredded you.

[Sh4g0h0d 1,852]

Regarding bombers: what has made them tankier is that Gaijin has buffed the structural integrity of wing struts on all planes. What makes it obnoxious is that bombers now have very few weak spots; you basically have to either shoot out their engines or go for a pilot snipe. 

[cccpzjw 1]

ki100！ki100！ki100 I only say this one plane！its too bias！

[Sh4g0h0d 1,852]

2 hours ago, cccpzjw said:

ki100！ki100！ki100 I only say this one plane！its too bias！

Hilariously, given how ridiculously underperforming it is, 3.0 BR suits it well.