[Discussion] Balance, Bias, Matchmaking and Battle Ratings

[Sh4g0h0d 1,852]

2 hours ago, captcole117 said:

Reduce the M4A2 to br 3.7 and give the M10 a decent turret rotation speed so that it isn't a complete joke.

M4A2 is a significant improvement over M4A1. 

 

M10 has its historical manual traverse rate. Consider yourself lucky that you don't have the traverse rate of a Panzer IVJ or Achilles without Horizontal Traverse upgrades. 

[Nomad_Gaming 6,221]

On 8/28/2016 at 11:38 AM, Loongsheep said:

Ground Force AB games are basically IT-1 Simulator now. You drive anything else? You die immediately. IT-1 seems to be more deadly than before as I haven't survived a single hit for the last 5 rounds (in Chieftain and Conqueror).

 

Snapped (my print screen doesn't work) near the end of match:

 

They:

 

My team:

 

And the waiting time for this tier is getting very long (2+ mins vs 30 seconds before) lately. I bet players are leaving.

 

More likely that they're leaving for other BRs.

[DrussTheLegend 239]

55 minutes ago, Nomad_Gaming said:

And the waiting time for this tier is getting very long (2+ mins vs 30 seconds before) lately.

Try AB Air at 9.0 BR - I have tried 3 times to get a jet match in the last week - I have abandoned after 20mins wait each time.  And thus, it becomes a downward spiral.  Failjinn sees the massive queue times for High tier, quick get more players in by expanding the BR range for MM or force all jets to have the same BR - ha, many much more players in MM Queue - that will sort it! Nope, more players see that Jet combat is a waste of time, less players - longer queue time. 

[Wunterslaush 622]

ATGMs were a mistake. I'm saying this after I got the sheridan, bought the Shilleilagh and uppercut 5 enemy tanks in hürtgen with it. Yes, it might be fun for me, not quite for others. I can't even imagine how broken the IT-1 is, since that thing has armor and a lower profile. Top tier AB is pretty much dead, and not just ground forces, I barely get a match in my MiG-17 there as well. People are abandoning arcade at that tier, and I don't like grinding upgrades in RB, stock syndrome really ruins some aircraft in realistic.

[Stoikc 1,469]

well i am pretty ok with the game, but:

1) HEAT-FS was a mistake. basically it killed the reason to drive a heavy tank with all that armor and angles.

2) ATGMs. Guided missle, what can possibly go wrong? oh-oh even better. let us change how missle do damage, from heat-fs damage model to a apcbc/hesh model with 500mm of pen, so now even a glancing hit on a tank would kill it. sure why not?

Edited August 31, 2016 by Althix

[MartosG 287]

Is there anyone else here who agrees with me that matchmaking should be 0.5 tank difference or at least 0.7 instead of 1.0? 

[Tigertracks 38]

Reducing BR to 0.5 or 0.7 would reduce the already small player base in queue.  The result would be longer waits for battle, or no battles at all.

 

Better would be for Gaijin to concentrate more on balancing gameplay than introducing new content.  The IT-1 is a perfect example of just throwing a tank into the mix without regard for the effect on overall balance, but there are others.  New tanks or planes affecting balance is a common issue in games like this, but I just don't see much effort on their part to correct their problem.

[Sh4g0h0d 1,852]

16 hours ago, Tigertracks said:

Reducing BR to 0.5 or 0.7 would reduce the already small player base in queue.  The result would be longer waits for battle, or no battles at all.

 

Better would be for Gaijin to concentrate more on balancing gameplay than introducing new content.  The IT-1 is a perfect example of just throwing a tank into the mix without regard for the effect on overall balance, but there are others.  New tanks or planes affecting balance is a common issue in games like this, but I just don't see much effort on their part to correct their problem.

But surely ATGMs can be balanced within the game? 

 

MCLOS ATGMs are hard enough to use and must remain stationary. The problem is with the IT-1 and Sheridan. What about reducing the accuracy of their tracking ability (they are 1st generation SACLOS after all) or implementing a realistic input lag between mouse commands and the missile tracking?

[FusionKnight 206]

I say BR system is unique and appropriate but BR should be balanced among tanks. Some tanks are not given BR properly. Like

Strv 81 should increase to 7.0 from 6.7

All ATGM tanks should be BR 9.0

KV220 should increase to 6.0 from 5.3(once I killed Tiger ii(p) from front, some op)

 

[DocProfit 2,663]

Reading those GF posts makes me glad I quit tanks.

 

It was a mess a year ago, seems like it's even worse now.

[MaybeMaybeNot 1,759]

How often is this happening 

 

 

If you could pm me with , screenshots and clogs file please those who are finding this more of a frequent occurrence. Thanks guys 

[Loongsheep 5,339]

On 1/9/2016 at 5:12 AM, Althix said:

well i am pretty ok with the game, but:

1) HEAT-FS was a mistake. basically it killed the reason to drive a heavy tank with all that armor and angles.

2) ATGMs. Guided missle, what can possibly go wrong? oh-oh even better. let us change how missle do damage, from heat-fs damage model to a apcbc/hesh model with 500mm of pen, so now even a glancing hit on a tank would kill it. sure why not?

I think HEAT-FS is fine for low ROF tanks, like T-10M and M103. This gives them higher chance to deal great damage. Remove them from mediums and Tier 5 will be more fun.

120mm HESH should be remodeled to deal damage even it does not "penetrate", the 120mm WOMBAT deals damage up to 400mm armour.

Edited September 4, 2016 by Loongsheep

[Stoikc 1,469]

dude, nobody in the right state of mind would use heat-fs on a T-10. there is no point in that, at all.

there are certain vehicles in the game for which heat-fs is the only way to kill something. like m103, m47, m48 etc. sure, they would greatly underperforming otherwise, but this is mostly because of map design which, in the most cases, negates flanking.

 

as for 120mm hesh, 105mm hesh is better, simply because of tnt equivalent value. and i also see no point in using it when i have a sabot. well, only to kill those pesky zsu 57-2.

providing all tanks with heat-fs didn't made all tanks equal, far from that. what good heat-fs does for let say t-54, when that tank can't fire a round at the enemy, because of vertical guidance?

but in the end we have spawn camping leos with heat-fs, or heat-fs spamming leo. it takes 4-7 shells for them to kill a tank. because they don't even aim. they don't need to. and when we have a leo with decent player using it, we have a overkill machine, the best tank in the game.

 

such amazing game design of T5.

Edited September 4, 2016 by Althix

[d0e5nTlicKbOot5 45]

hi, all.  My first post here i think.

 

Anyway, quite a long thread, and i have not read it all (just the first post, which has been updated to reflect the latest developments?).  i just want to contribute a couple thoughts.

 

First, one of the key components i see being discussed is this somewhat nebulous concept of "BR"n which is not the same as the vehicle BR.  It would be really helpful--especially for the less veteran among us--to apply a different term.  "PR" perhaps, for Player Rating?

 

Second, when it comes to "Player Rating", i think crew training level absolutely must be taken into account, and weighted at least as heavily as any "prior performance" metrics.

 

Third, it's good to see that some effort is made to provide at least some historical basis to the matchups, though obviously this is a complex issue.  I don't know the history of WT's development (what vehicles have been added, and when, etc.), but there are definitely some problems related to vehicle matchmaking which makes the BR of some vehicles almost meaningless.  Something really needs to be done about this IMO.  Either downgrade (or upgrade, depending) the BR of some vehicles, or make some adjustments to research paths so that less experienced players can more easily escape the cul de sac they unwittingly walked into (or make it less expensive to progress through to the later vehicles in a particular series which are the ones which make taking said path worthwhile).

 

Fourth, the third point above might be made irrelevant if there were more maps available which were better suited (or worse, depending) to some of these dubiously rated vehicles.

 

(I know my third point is a bit vague and perhaps poorly worded, but I hope I get the general idea across.)

 

Anyway, I hope this is helpful to someone.

[hunter4574761 250]

Tu 4 in RB is really annoying, if your team ignore it, you will loose since your base is blown up. If your team don't ignore it and send some fighters to deal with it, you will find yourself in a situation where nearly whole enemy fighters are trying to kill you. Also, you cannot guarantee that your teammate can knock down Tu 4 unscratched. Also, gaijin thinks that stock plane is as well as maxed out plane and I think gaijin also believe that US naval fighters can face Mig 17 and hawker hunters. Actually they don't, which is also the reason US navy developed couger, demon and other swept wing fighters. I think the BR should extend to prevent some planes facing far superior enemies, and interceptor spawn point should also be introduced for jet battles.

[lebanesewarrior 140]

experimental match maker:

let the develloper make an optional MM in the game option like join already going battles

the experimental match maker is +/- 0.3

and the players if they want more balanced game and a little long queue they can activate this option .

[EukalyptusBonbon 499]

i play a game with 4 tu4 and clouds in all map (3000 metter to 8000 metter)... impossible to find them and kill them, that was just ****...

[BIG_MACer 176]

SPAM REMOVED

 

- Mortiferum

[Sh4g0h0d 1,852]

Russian Bais

 

I'm all about that Bais, 'bout that Bais, no treble...

Edited September 7, 2016 by BigBawsBarabus
Removal of red text

[Alex_Tow 289]

Could the T32 recieve some love through a BR reduction ? Pleeasseee ? :3

[TA4Life 6,520]

In lower tiers can devs do something about MM? 

 

Spam of P-47's, 38's, 63's and Spits against spam of 111's and 87's is not fair. The games turn into clubfest.

[Sh4g0h0d 1,852]

20 hours ago, TA4Life said:

In lower tiers can devs do something about MM? 

 

Spam of P-47's, 38's, 63's and Spits against spam of 111's and 87's is not fair. The games turn into clubfest.

Tell German teams to stop spamming useless bombers at low tiers. The Stuka handles very well at low speed and can be a real menace with no ordnance, but most Stuka pilots are too tunnel-visioned on ground-pounding to know this.

[xUSSRx_Jesus_PwN 0]

So here is my question on balance issue, I have a feeling that there are tanks out there that are really uptired and some are really downtired for now I wanna talk about

The Is2 mod 44 , this tank is rarely seen at AB or RB for obvious reasons

 Why is it 6.7 It is way more underpowered than any other heavy tank at 6.7

They even gave it a post war ammo just to make it compete and still not able to.

FV221 has better armor , penetration and reload speed , same with Kingtiger H also the Super pershing .

I don't feel its fair for it to be 6.7 it should be 6.3 like the tiger 2 p , which is even better than it but at least the gap between both is small,

Everytime I hear " Russian bias " I just look at this tank and laugh .. 

I'm looking forward to hear from you people and whats your opinion about it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 11, 2016 by xUSSRx_Jesus_PwN

[warrior412 14,723]

8 minutes ago, xUSSRx_Jesus_PwN said:

So here is my question on balance issue, I have a feeling that there are tanks out there that are really uptired and some are really downtired for now I wanna talk about

The Is2 mod 44 , this tank is rarely seen at AB or RB for obvious reasons

 Why is it 6.7 It is way more underpowered than any other heavy tank at 6.7

They even gave it a post war ammo just to make it compete and still not able to.

FV221 has better armor , penetration and reload speed , same with Kingtiger H also the Super pershing .

I don't feel its fair for it to be 6.7 it should be 6.3 like the tiger 2 p , which is even better than it but at least the gap between both is small,

Everytime I hear " Russian bias " I just look at this tank and laugh .. 

I'm looking forward to hear from you people and whats your opinion about it.

 

Change the red text to a different color or the moderators will be after you.

 

Also balance is seriously borked and will probably never be totally reconciled.

Edited September 11, 2016 by warrior412

[xUSSRx_Jesus_PwN 0]

 

I am new to the forums so I do not know really much, so thank you for warning me,

and yea i know but something has to happen about it.

Edited September 11, 2016 by xUSSRx_Jesus_PwN