[Discussion] Balance, Bias, Matchmaking and Battle Ratings

[Zucc_Boi 656]

21 minutes ago, Thodin said:

 

It is. Just cause vehicles are identical, they might generate different server stats. If one variant seems to perform alot better, its BR gets bumped up. Its rare, but not uncommon. See German M48 and US M48.

I have a really hard time seeing that. Vehicles should be placed in a BR that suits their capabilities, not player capabilities. Besides, Israel's WR on those BRs (6.0 - 12.0) is horrendous. Plus, 8.7 for the US Merkava 1, and 9.0 for the Israeli Merkava 1/2, has been the situation since they were introduced. Neither was moved in BR since introduction.

[Valcour 1,141]

Steamroller matchmaking again today.   Clearly this is a result that Gaijin wants.

 

[SKurj 234]

21 hours ago, Zucc_Boi said:

I have a really hard time seeing that. Vehicles should be placed in a BR that suits their capabilities, not player capabilities. Besides, Israel's WR on those BRs (6.0 - 12.0) is horrendous. Plus, 8.7 for the US Merkava 1, and 9.0 for the Israeli Merkava 1/2, has been the situation since they were introduced. Neither was moved in BR since introduction.

 

regardless how you see it, that's how it is done.  likely the easiest by far too

[Zucc_Boi 656]

7 minutes ago, SKurj said:

 

regardless how you see it, that's how it is done.  likely the easiest by far too

There is, however, plenty of evidence to the contrary. How do we know it's not something that was forgotten, or a policy of bias? If we look at the Israeli air TT, all aircraft and tanks there are 0.3-0.7 BR above their counterparts in other nations. WR across the board is lower than in other nations. 

There's also the subject of skill - if not through WR, how does Gaijin even measure it? It must first apply a de-biased version, test-run it, and then reapply biases every now and then, and it doesn't do that.

Edited May 7, 2023 by Zucc_Boi

[SKurj 234]

4 minutes ago, Zucc_Boi said:

There is, however, plenty of evidence to the contrary. How do we know it's not something that was forgotten, or a policy of bias? If we look at the Israeli air TT, all aircraft and tanks there are 0.3-0.7 BR above their counterparts in other nations. WR across the board is lower than in other nations. 

There's also the subject of skill - if not through WR, how does Gaijin even measure it? It must first apply a de-biased version, test-run it, and then reapply biases every now and then, and it doesn't do that.

 

it will be balanced by more than just wr

[Zucc_Boi 656]

2 hours ago, SKurj said:

 

it will be balanced by more than just wr

Hence my point, that biases should not exist. The other factor - not being in the top 3 (USSR, Germany, US), is the most prominent. But for Gaijin that's the norm.

[maximumpingas 30]

I see a discussion of balance by skill and I raise you the lovely, lovely topic of "why is Leo 7.3"
Because, well

 

Why is Leo 1 placed at 7.3?

OF-40, its direct clone for all intents and purposes, is 7.7 (indirectly worse because it doesn't get the absolute KILLER lineup that Leo gets, by the way)

AMX-30, french equivalent that is an all around worse slower tank with unbearable gun handling and armed with a HEAT shell only (not even HEATFS meaning it does significantly less post-pen damage), is 7.7

105 Centurion variants are all 7.7 and higher.

M47/48 are 7.3, sure, but they're not exactly an equivalent - that would be M60 which is, coincidentally, also 7.7

 

An equivalent to or outright better tank than its competition sits at a lower BR because of ~le statistics approach~ tied to the fact that German ground tree players are outright bad at the game. If you have a counterpoint to this I'd like to see it, but only if you include an explanation as to why Jagdpanther is a balanced 6.0 vehicle. Or Panthers in general. You get the gist.

 

It's inane.

 

I don't care how much "easier" it is for the snail as long as it makes my experience that much more miserable.

It needs to cease.

Use one of those newfangled neural networks or whatever to redo balancing by stats if you're that lazy but stop accounting for player skill issues in balancing.

It creates a tangible rift between trees for no justifiable reason.

[SKurj 234]

21 hours ago, Zucc_Boi said:

Hence my point, that biases should not exist. The other factor - not being in the top 3 (USSR, Germany, US), is the most prominent. But for Gaijin that's the norm.

 

eh?  it will be balanced by things like damage done/received, earnings in sl and rp etc, repair costs...

 

 

Edited May 8, 2023 by SKurj

[Zucc_Boi 656]

3 hours ago, SKurj said:

 

eh?  it will be balanced by things like damage done/received, earnings in sl and rp etc, repair costs...

 

 

I am aware of the existence of balancing factors. But they are not nearly as relevant as BR. They're for micro-balancing. BR is balancing on a more macro level. 

What I meant is that the decision to change BR, and not the changes themselves, should be made objectively, whereas Gaijin take the subjective approach.

[SKurj 234]

11 minutes ago, Zucc_Boi said:

I am aware of the existence of balancing factors. But they are not nearly as relevant as BR. They're for micro-balancing. BR is balancing on a more macro level. 

What I meant is that the decision to change BR, and not the changes themselves, should be made objectively, whereas Gaijin take the subjective approach.

 

eh... BR is the result of reviewing all those 'balancing factors'  all I was pointing out is wr is not the deciding factor, and may have a very small influence on how a vehicle is balanced vs it's peers.

[Crusherheads 113]

On 04/05/2023 at 18:49, Smin1080p said:

 

My personal thought/opinion on any matter is a bit irrelevant as I am just one person and player myself and my personal opinion is no more important or significant than any other person or player. Its not my job and also not really relevant to post my personal opinion on any matter. I'm only here to provide answers and information where its possible to do so 

Pantsir is a new top tier vehicle that naturally a lot of people will flock too and a lot of attention will be drawn to it. Content creators will cover and use it a lot and of course competitive players will use it a lot, meaning more players will also have to fight against it / see it more so than perhaps other top SPAAGs. Increasing the chances its going to be fighting against you and cause a perception to be formed. From a statistical perspective, its inline currently with other top rank SPAAGs in efficiency and we will continue to monitor this should it massively deviate in any way from the others. But as of currently it has not. 

Meanwhile VT1 nerf made many of SPAA useless at close range due the activation time was increased...resuming when a ka50 comes nukes us close those SPAA are useless again's its, who was the i that made the decision too nerf VT1 than bring pantyr into the meta...Russia is already dominat at top tiers making it unpleasant too even play at it...theres so much too swallow down, the frustation bulding in, making less desire play the game.

Edited May 9, 2023 by Crusherheads

[spaceAngel 1]

hey, what are your opinions od BR of F-105D Thunderchief (10.0) as aircraft from 50' and retired in early 80' with AIM9-D facing plane from late 70' still in active service, like A 10 (BR 10.0) or SU-25(BR 10.0). T thing that F-105D should be little downtier to 9.7 or 9.3....

Thougs on this?

[Morvran_ 661]

I've tried, but for the life of me I just cannot figure out why the Tornado Gr1 has the same battle rating as the british phantoms and Tornado F3 in ARB, and in sim, actually has a higher BR than the british phantoms and even most mig-23s. If it was 10.7-11 it would be fine, but 11.3 is WAY too high. Especially in Sim where it routinely has to try and avoid Mig-29s on its sorties. With it lacking so much, like ECM pods, it really needs to go down for now

[Toxindragon 10]

On 06/05/2023 at 16:15, Zucc_Boi said:

Anyone knows why the Merkava 1 and 2 in the Israeli TT are 9.0 while in the US they're 8.7?

The israeli Mk 1B and Mk 2B get thermals. The US Merkava only has NVDs

[Zucc_Boi 656]

11 hours ago, Toxindragon said:

The israeli Mk 1B and Mk 2B get thermals. The US Merkava only has NVDs

Okay makes sense. Thanks!

[PzII_is_a_Crutch 359]

Has Gaijin commented about the matchmaker recently?  At least for AB (Ground) it's a complete shіtshow.  I'd guess that probably 50% of battles are effectively decided within 3 minutes.

 

My impression is that both this and the resulting increased rate of players quitting matches early is actually the intended outcome (faster queue times).

[Valcour 1,141]

I often get annoyed with the Snail for wasting my time.   Too many battles are comprised of the team predestined to win and a set of targets.   This is not good gameplay.

 

[MemeticMemory36 7]

I still do not understand why French aircraft in Rank 7 and Rank 8 are being increased in repair cost when they are clearly at a disadvantage against other players. Gaijin still hasn't allowed players to add more than 2 Magic 2 missiles to the Mirage 2k, and yet it went up to 11.7. Now you also want to raise its repair cost by 10, 15%? Please stop making the French air tree next to unplayable compared to other nations.

[jd_hog77 332]

3 hours ago, MemeticMemory36 said:

I still do not understand why French aircraft in Rank 7 and Rank 8 are being increased in repair cost when they are clearly at a disadvantage against other players. Gaijin still hasn't allowed players to add more than 2 Magic 2 missiles to the Mirage 2k, and yet it went up to 11.7. Now you also want to raise its repair cost by 10, 15%? Please stop making the French air tree next to unplayable compared to other nations.

Only the version used by Greece was able to use 4 Magic’s. 

[Edo_惊鸿游雪 4]

On 26/04/2016 at 01:59, Scarper said:

 

 

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.

59A, f84G, wz305, is2 (402) these economic adjustments are reasonable, should not be a correction, other vehicle income adjustment is unreasonable, but does not mean that these vehicle maintenance is unreasonable, why is the maintenance cost of wz305 in arcade mode so high, arcade mode planes are zero cost and the enemy is suicide attack, As a result, the revenue experience of this vehicle is very bad and the revenue capacity is very low, which makes it impossible to get a good experience at all. While the next door 2s38 has lower maintenance cost, photoelectric locking, thermal imaging and other things that wz305 does not have, but the maintenance cost is lower than wz305, which is unreasonable. 59A and is2 (402) are also unpopular cold war vehicles. Maintenance revenue ability is not high, especially their loading and relatively long, the revenue ability itself is not high, it is easy to be destroyed in the battle, it should need lower maintenance cost and higher revenue coefficient, f84G31, as a homogeneous vehicle, should pass lower maintenance cost and higher revenue coefficient. ztZ-59A and f84G31 are not as good as other vehicles, they need a lot of money to buy and should attract players with lower maintenance cost and higher revenue coefficient. The original adjustment of these vehicles is reasonable, I think the official should keep the maintenance cost and revenue coefficient of these vehicles at the adjusted level

[Andychumbo289248 3]

On 07/04/2023 at 14:08, Uncle J Wick@live said:

 

 

 

Imho the reasons for frequent full uptiers are obvious:

 

At certain BRs you get to very popular premium vehicles, so just due to the large amount of their players - bundled at some specific nations - you have from a statistical aspect a much higher probability for a full uptier. Certain additional factors like BP challenges even increase those effects

 

An example:

If you fly a non US/GB aircraft at 5.0 - u get currently 75% full uptiers due to the Ju 288 spam at 6.0. So just very passionate or plain stupid players are willing to fight total superior and very popular 6.0 us premiums like the F2Gs in a 5.0 German or Italian fighters - in a clear number disadvantage as you have mostly 4 Ju288s with you in 7vs7 matches. 

On the other hand i see 25% full downtiers in the same Italian tech tree P-47 at BR 5.0 due to the recent BP challenge for the Italian 4.0 109F-4. And 4.0 is currently flooded with the also extremely undertiered XP-50 and Wyvern premium planes at BR 4.0.

 

It is practically impossible to get out of this uptier xxx if you fly a tech tree plane at the wrong BR for the wrong nation.

 

Imho this logic applies to all other modes (Ground or Naval) too.

 

So if your aim is to avoid frequent full uptiers; 

 

Buy a popular premium vehicle or choose a tech tree vehicle at exact the same BR of popular premium vehicles and play for exact those nations. I do not wear a tin foil hat, but i would not be surprised if premiums would have had some special "reasons" leading to higher full downtier chances, from a certain point of view this would make sense in a f2p game. But this is just a weird theory....

 

But i would see the whole uptier issue also from a positive side. As long you are good and are a real master of your vehicle (best with maxed our crew and earned ace status) and you are therefore able to compensate pure performance or just technological superiority of your enemies with experience or superior tactics, you will find out that the popularity of those vehicles is also their major weakness. They attract a hell of new and or inexperienced players - and allow you to beat them frequently quite easy.

 

Of course this does not work against good players playing in very good/op/undertiered premium vehicles, but usually really good and passionate players are looking for challenges and do not use premiums at all (outside events). They mainly prefer good and mostly undertiered tech tree vehicles able to play them to their strengths and are also able to compensate weaknesses. And they play for fun and not for statistics...

 

oh, I completely understand how those xxxx morons do the BR match-making system, it is still completely unjustified. there is no balance, I could not give a crap about the premiums in the game and how they affect the Br system, if I'm getting uptiered, then by default they are getting down-tiered to some degree. Gaijin's whole system within the game is appalling, the economy is a complete joke, and it does not improve. The BR system benefits Russia, and only Russia as they have the most premiums, of which most of them are under BR'd and the only reason they do not change them is that a high volume of players use them which doesn't properly just their KD. Don't get me wrong, I do stomp at times when I am up-tiered, but the number of uptiers that i get is beyond ridiculous, and that is at every BR I play. It needs to stop, FACT. gaijin need to put more options into its player base. They do not listen to the community, if they did there would be fewer cheaters in the game.  

[Balanced_Game 19]

On 13/05/2023 at 01:28, jd_hog77 said:

Only the version used by Greece was able to use 4 Magic’s. 

This doesn't matter. Gaijin takes liberties all the time. It can be done the absolute millisecond they will it and it should be done.

[Zucc_Boi 656]

https://warthunder.com/en/news/8253-development-xxxx-bombs-en

 

This is a good step toward unscrewing the game balance. Gaijin needs to understand, and hopefully this announcement shows they do, that to maintain balance they need to implement new vehicle types, new mechanics, new features, across ALL nations at once, and not for one nation at a time. Even if it means delaying said new feature/vehicle.

[Edo_惊鸿游雪 4]

26 minutes ago, Andychumbo289248 said:

oh, I completely understand how those xxxx morons do the BR match-making system, it is still completely unjustified. there is no balance, I could not give a crap about the premiums in the game and how they affect the Br system, if I'm getting uptiered, then by default they are getting down-tiered to some degree. Gaijin's whole system within the game is appalling, the economy is a complete joke, and it does not improve. The BR system benefits Russia, and only Russia as they have the most premiums, of which most of them are under BR'd and the only reason they do not change them is that a high volume of players use them which doesn't properly just their KD. Don't get me wrong, I do stomp at times when I am up-tiered, but the number of uptiers that i get is beyond ridiculous, and that is at every BR I play. It needs to stop, FACT. gaijin need to put more options into its player base. They do not listen to the community, if they did there would be fewer cheaters in the game.  

In fact, the game between the arcade zero cost aircraft and the high maintenance cost of wz305 is not balanced, wz305 income is low, maintenance cost is high, he almost had to kill four full wave of aircraft before it is possible to pay back, gaijin income makes this vehicle accessories play very difficult and often loss

[Zucc_Boi 656]

With economy changes reverted, I think it's a step too little too late. I occasionally return to Israeli aircraft, and their repair costs are absolutely horrendous. Compared to their actual capabilities, they're just horrid. Most top tier Israeli aircraft like the F-16, Kfir C7, Kfir C2, Kurnass, Kurnass 2000 are still using their stock AAMs as their main ones, with only the Kurnass 2000 having AIM-7F in addition. 

France has been using an almost exact equivalent of these aircrafts' AAM - Python 3, named Magic 2. Their stats are near identical, both being short ranged and having 35G pull. France has 35G missiles at 10.0, while their all-aspect variants are around 11.3.

I suggest either lowering Israeli aircraft BRs at top tiers, e.g. Kfir C7 down to 10.7 to avoid 12.0, or keep them where they are and give them Python 3.