[Discussion] Balance, Bias, Matchmaking and Battle Ratings

[MalleusTempus 803]

Who the hell even plays SB anymore? The events are so unbalanced and so infrequent it's not worth mentioning. RB right now is the de facto game mode for Ground Forces and T-34's just pub stomp everywhere there.

Quite a few actually. I'll have to take your word word for it in RB as it certainly isn't the de facto mode for me, are the 85s in a BR range that excludes Tigers and Panthers? RB isn't that much different from SB that I would think they suddenly suck vs them, AB i could fathom as those mechanics negate a lot of the issues with T-34s.

[SuperEtendard 1,509]

Na, you're just bad. Had you selected a 5.0-6.0 Soviet lineup you'd win with your eyes closed. T-54's are excellent but that's the most likely BR range for Soviets to lose. 

 

You could have picked any of the T-34's (all of which are grossly over performing both in terms of shell penetration/filler and armor), and it'd essentially be impossible for you to lose. 

They are not grossly over performing, they are overperforming in some aspects like reload rate for example... and the RNG armor affects other tanks as well. AFAIK the special shell had it's filler corrected some patches ago (it's still a good filler, but not the 150g it used to be I think). The armor layout is overall well modelled, only overperforming aspect is the gun recoil cover in the 1941 variant which is 45mm thick were should be like 25mm thick, but that area is flat and anything can penetrate it so it's kind of the same anyway. The game meta fits them very well.

Edited April 28, 2016 by SuperEtendard

[KyleRittenMouse 1,795]

They are not grossly over performing, they are overperforming in some aspects like reload rate for example... and the RNG armor affects other tanks as well. AFAIK the special shell had it's filler corrected some patches ago (it's still a good filler, but not the 150g it used to be I think). The armor layout is overall well modelled, only overperforming aspect is the gun recoil cover in the 1941 variant which is 45mm thick were should be like 25mm thick, but that area is flat and anything can penetrate it so it's kind of the same anyway. The game meta fits them very well.

You just listed 4 areas where they are over performing, if that's not grossly over performing I don't know what is.

[SuperEtendard 1,509]

You just listed 4 areas where they are over performing, if that's not grossly over performing I don't know what is.

 

I meant it in the way they are overperforming, it is more due to how the game is set up than rather than the grade of overperforming aspects. For example the Kursk event put them away from the close quarter agility environment, and their 'overperformances' aren't that much of an issue anymore. I could just get away with a StuG bouncing quite some of their shots at distance. Then again when playing T-34 in the event I managed to flank the hill and killed 5 enemies securing the match (a Panther and a Tiger-assist among them) getting into the comfortable close quarter environment.

 

And even then RoF difference isn't that much of an issue, already if a Panzer IV gets you by surprise it is very likely that it will destroy you, it's rate of fire is fast enough to keep reseting the gunner or setting you on fire (and with the short barreled HEAT it's even a certain loss most of the time).

Edited April 28, 2016 by SuperEtendard

[Garfield_Pilot 1,596]

My comment from an RB Air point of view (I have played a few thousans RB Air matches):


The current model of a single BR number per aircraft, combined with the nature of the RB air matches where any player can use their aircraft in any way he sit fit and still get rewards as long as killing SOMETHING os flawed.

We can have matches with more bombers than fighters, matches with attackers on maps that hardly havesny viable targets for attackers, or matches with half the fighters loading bombs and rockets to go ground poinding (and being very vulnerable doing so). We can habe matches with just a few heavy bombers - but they scatter in all directions to chase different ground targets as they would "run out of" hit points on the minibases if they stick together.

In my mind we need a way to create more predictable matches, where MM determine how many aircraft of a certain type to allow per team, and then set clear objectives per such type.
As incentive the economy model should give practically no reward if you ignore that "order".

By making the objective clear at the loading screen the user can configure the load of the aircraft properly. E.g a P47 pilot SHOULD load bombs and rockets if the objective is soft targets - but not if it is high altitude interception.

The main point in my suggestion is that each aircraft would then get a BR per such task.

Another main point is that match making should not be balanced by brackets of BR - but by a sum of BR. I.e. There would be more P47s on the team if they are tasked with ground attack than if they are tasked with high level interception.

For this to work the targets for heavy bomber should be able to take much more damage before being destroyed - to promote the idea of bombers sticking together.

I also think that only one side of a match should have bombers or attackers, as that makes it easier to calculate BR and thus get balanced games.

To avoid that people get stuck in queue waiting fir a game , the MM should allow (at least non-squadded) players to enter multiple aurcrafts from any country, type or tier/BR. This will artificially increase the combinstions fir the MM to make interesting matches.

The above should be seen and commented as ONE suggestion, and not be picked appart.

I think that most players would find the above system easier if the same aircrafts would be matched against each other independently of task - for example if Bf109G2 is mstched against Spitfire F IX on high level intercepts, it should aldo be that if tasked to do ground attack.
The ise of "match by sum of BR" makes that possible.

[lIIlIl 631]

I feel less and less enjoyment from ANYTHING 6 BR and higher.

While getting bored by constantly getting uptiered in USA tree by playing overtiered crap Jumbo 76 (only becouse i won talisman on it) Decided to go for a ride in a MAUS just to get  hoardes of t54s

Not only that but it seems i was the ONLY 7,7 br tank in my team while enemy team had ATLEAST 8 tanks of  br 7,7s and rest T44 100s with same stupid RNG armor

[nanoJ_ 771]

 

Call me crazy, but I think that the 3.3-3.7 BR range on RB got more ballanced.

 

 

I'm managing to get roughly 50% win rates on my Cromwells (keep in mind that those thanks fight T-34's and F2's). It is not nearly the Soviet playground it was some months ago (I have 92% win rate on the 34-1940 lol).

 

 

My T-34-100 is getting roughly 55% win rate with 119 deaths and 341 kills (detail: I only played it when it was at 6.3 and had 5 degrees of gun depression).

 

 

I'd say that things are generally balanced. Some issues with some BR's here and there (mainly at tier IV) but things are better than they were some months ago.

[cowboycomando54 324]

My beef right now is with the BR system in general. If i remember correctly it takes the average BR of all you crewed planes to determine what you tier are matched up against. This runs into problems where people can sneak aircraft into a battle that are superior and normally would face their own tier but are under-tiered due to a low average BR from low BR planes in their line up. I have been in a 3.3 average match and some guy shows up in a Fw 190-A4 which is a 4.3 and ends up dominating the match. I also hate how vehicles in general can take on vehicles 1 BR lvl higher and lower than them. Thus people can get lucky and sneak in a superior vehicle and dominate a match or be unlucky and end up using an inferior vehicle and get dominated.It should be that you can play up to 0.5 high and low BR levels instead of 1. 

[Albertrossi 67]

Okay so MM can go +- BR1.3 and all that. Plus its possible to down-tier by 0.3. But how does the MM determine how you are going to be matched taking those parameters into account?

 

I set up a Brit line up of 4.3/4.3/3.7/3.7/4.3/4.7 (Typhoon 1b/late). The next 3 battles I face off against BR6.0 line ups. Mk22/24 and 5.7 everywhere. My average BR remained at 4.7

 

Then just after I go to my US line up of 3.0/3.0/3.0/3.7/2.7 and I see players with Brit line ups including 4.7 Typhoon 1b/late at BR4.7 down-tiered to 4.3 average BR. Fine its plus 1.3 BR but most of the opposition was ~3.7.

 

My German line up is 3.7/3.7/3.7/2.7/2.3. I can count on my one hand how many times I was matched against line ups with BR5 G2/trop or F4U-1c. At most its max average 4.3.

 

I don't understand why I get such unfavorable match making with my British line up compared to my US and German line ups. Flying British 4.3 against 6.0/5.7 super-props is awful. The Typhoon 1b/late is no better, it performs similar to a P47 at 3.0 but for the 4x 20mm it has a BR4.7. Flying US/German 3.0-3.7 against 4.3 is fine. And why is my British line up not down-tiered to 4.3 and matched against 3.0-3.7 like the other Brit players I see when flying my US/German line ups?

 

[BiRKUT 33]

WT management believes mixing tanks from different periods as a good idea but it discourages me to play. M41A1 Walkier_Bulldog (1953). Distance 800 - 900 m destroyed the front Ferdinand (1943). Three shots. I would not blame me if he had to drive around and shoot from the side or back of such a task light tanks but from the front it is a job for the destroyer or heavy tank. I played one battle, I wrote this post and I went for a run, and I was so keen to play but the damage nerves.

[Albertrossi 67]

My beef right now is with the BR system in general. If i remember correctly it takes the average BR of all you crewed planes to determine what you tier are matched up against. This runs into problems where people can sneak aircraft into a battle that are superior and normally would face their own tier but are under-tiered due to a low average BR from low BR planes in their line up. I have been in a 3.3 average match and some guy shows up in a Fw 190-A4 which is a 4.3 and ends up dominating the match. I also hate how vehicles in general can take on vehicles 1 BR lvl higher and lower than them. Thus people can get lucky and sneak in a superior vehicle and dominate a match or be unlucky and end up using an inferior vehicle and get dominated.It should be that you can play up to 0.5 high and low BR levels instead of 1. 

 

The FW190-A4 is bit of a seal clubber yes. Unfortunately you do get high level, highly experienced players who 'come down' to lower tiers/BR to do just that, seal club newer and more inexperienced players with the FW190A4.

 

How ever, it's not invincible. Its a sitting duck in a low energy state and cannot turn fight. The 109F4 can match its performance and outmaneuver it. The Spitfire IIb/Vbtrop/MkIX can outmaneuver it. The P51/Mustang1A can BnZ it.

 

The key is to force it into a low energy state or entice it into outright turn fight it, but then you will have to survive head-on engagements because that is how most players in a 190A4 will attack you.

 

Alternatively you can with patience and discipline, place yourself in an advantageous position and sneak up on it. Attack while its focused on someone else or coming in when it is in low energy state after a BnZ attack.

[StarsWalker 658]

The balance on the game still is the main issue the game has. And regarding this issue the players have given their feedback, which is the fact that this is  the main issue that affects the balance between vehicles/nations. Feedback provided anywhere they can (forum, livewarthunder, facebook, youtube, reddit, etc) and done by so many, so many times. Yet nothing has really changed, and balance remains the game main issue. Which leads to what many players are feeling right now, they feel that their efforts/time/dedication to this matter (among many more) fall into "deaf ears". The players are tired to point the same things over and over again, for nothing. Is that the feedback regarding balance is not enough to elucidate how they feel? Let's look to other pertinent questions regarding balance, and just covering a bit of air realistc battles, as you raised the argument regarding technical characteristics, historical meetings and production date, mainly technical characteristics has the game has been so many times defined "a game about vehicles" instead of being an historial recriation on a PC program.

 

Is it fair the F8F-1B Bearcat facing the Horten Ho 229? Being the Horten faster, with better energy retention, better turn rate (currently as it is turning better than a Spitfire) and with a remarkable armament?

 

Is it fair the Bf109 F-4 or the F4U-1d figthing Yak-3p? A post war plane, which exceeds the others on any parameters.

 

Is it fair that the Spitfire LF. Mk IX, the P-51 Mustang D-5, the Tempest MK V or the F4U-1c fighting the La-9? Once again a post war fighter, which once again, thanks to it's characteristics do not give a chance to the opponents.

 

Is it fair the Gloster Sea/Gladiator, or the Catalina, or the Ki-21, or the B5N2, or the F2A-1, or the P-36C have to fight Lagg's or Yak-1 or Yak-7B? Just the cannons the soviet planes have is already enough to make the difference.

 

Is it fair the Ki-84 otsu fighing P-80's ot F-84's? Planes which are a lot more faster and have better energy retention.

 

Is it fair the Meteor F. Mk3 or the Attacker FB 1 or The Vampire FB 5 fighting Mig-15/bis, Mig-17 's or Sabre's? Do i need to add anything here?

 

Is that the statistics do not show the win ratio the soviet teams/planes have (mainly against the germans, and even more highlithled against the Allies)? Due the fact of the battle rating of many soviet planes being too low and also the flight/damage models completely defies the laws of physics.

 

 

The thing is that the video games are intented to be entertaining and to have fun, not to let the players be frustated by characteristics they can not avoid. Therefore the balance as it, at certain battles with certain vehicles is not contributing to the players sense of satisfaction, the fun they want to have, not at the expenses of other players, but with all the players. I share this myself, i play to have fun not to be fustated, always concerning that there's a difference between learn to play and fairness. If the issue regarding balance do not change or get improved i'll skip the battles i enter where i find that there's no balance. 

 

Remember and retain this, players play to have fun. Is all they want!

Edited May 5, 2016 by StarsWalker

[Airbeast 322]

Is it fair for the SPIT LF MKIX, the fw 190D13, The Seafire, the F8F1and the N1K fighting a russian biplane?

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSonVQy_Rzg

 

 

Well...YES!!! I Love my little monster, you dont need any other plane than this Biplane to kill them all at any altitude!!!

 

 

PS:

Hey, the Spit LF MK IX can out climb and out turn any propeller fighter even the La9 or ta 152 at high altitude, no doubt that the spit LF mkIX is the best propeller of them all... just a 45 ms per second climb rate and a turn rate of 13 seconds  + 700+ dive speed makes the difference.

 

F4u1d can out dive and out zoom the yak3p and out roll it in a dive keeping energy like a beast,even you can pull a hard turn and the Corsair will lose les energy than the yak3p and then out run it.

 

but of course I agree that the flight models are a little screwed up and  not very representative of any real plane, energy models in game are not very good...MMaker is not good also but its a fact that if you play to your plane strenghts any plane can out take any other (if hit detection works of course)

Edited May 4, 2016 by Airbeast

[LordMustang 7,405]

I was determined to get my first battle task (victory with 50% activity) done in a T-54 but in the end I just had to give in and switch to Leopard.

T-54 is an absolute pain. Leopards and M60's stomp the hell out of you, and the IS-3's won't save you. But hey, it's Russian so it must be OP.

[Cryptocurrency 1,197]

If you think the t54 1949 is gonna save you hell no :) and spamming HEATFS in the 1951 will let you survive a ttad longer but not for much.

[Swearengen 653]

One mans statistics.

 

Must be right then.

[LordMustang 7,405]

One mans statistics.

 

Must be right then.

Result of an afternoon of T54. HEAT-fs unlocked. Not an astonishing win ratio is it?

One of the victories was 6.7 match.

Try it for yourself, it's fun.........

Edited May 4, 2016 by LordMustang

[Sh4g0h0d 1,852]

The balance on the game still is the main issue the game has. And regarding this issue the players have given their feedback, which is the fact that this is  the main issue that affects the balance between vehicles/nations. Feedback provided anywhere they can (forum, livewarthunder, facebook, youtube, reddit, etc) and done by so many, so many times. Yet nothing has really changed, and balance remains the game main issue. Which leads to what many players are feeling right now, they feel that their efforts/time/dedication to this matter (among many more) fall into "deaf ears". The players are tired to point the same things over and over again, for nothing. Is that the feedback regarding balance is not enough to elucidate how they feel? Let's look to other pertinent questions regarding balance, and just covering a bit of air realistc battles, as you raised the argument regarding technical characteristics, historical meetings and production date, mainly technical characteristics has the game has been so many times defined "a game about vehicles" instead of being an historial recriation on a PC program.

 

Is it fair the F8F-1B Bearcat facing the Horten Ho 229? Being the Horten faster, with better energy retention, better turn rate (currently as it is turning better than a Spitfire) and with a remarkable armament?

 

Is it fair the Bf109 F-4 or the F4U-1d figthing Yak-3p? A post war plane, which exceeds the others on any parameters.

 

Is it fair that the Spitfire LF. Mk IX, the P-51 Mustang D-5, the Tempest MK V or the F4U-1c fighting the La-9? Once again a post war fighter, which once again, thanks to it's characteristics do not give a chance to the opponents.

 

Is it fair the Gloster Sea/Gladiator, or the Catalina, or the Ki-21, or the B5N2, or the F2A-1, or the P-36C have to fight Lagg's or Yak-1 or Yak-7B? Just the cannons the soviet planes have is already enough to make the difference.

 

Is it fair the Ki-84 otsu fighing P-80's ot F-84's? Planes which are a lot more faster and have better energy retention.

 

Is it fair the Meteor F. Mk3 or the Attacker FB 1 or The Vampire FB 5 fighting Mig-15/bis, Mig-17 's or Sabre's? Do you i need to add anything here?

 

Is that the statistics do not show the win ratio the soviet teams/planes have (mainly against the germans, and even more highlithled against the Allies)? Due the fact of the battle rating of many soviet planes being too low and also the flight/damage models completely defies the laws of physics.

 

 

The thing is that the video games are intented to be entertaining and to have fun, not to let the players be frustated by characteristics they can not avoid. Therefore the balance as it, at certain battles with certain vehicles is not contributing to the players sense of satisfaction, the fun they want to have, not at the expenses of other players, but with all the players. I share this myself, i play to have fun not to be fustated, always concerning that there's a difference between learn to play and fairness. If the issue regarding balance do not change or get improved i'll skip the battles i enter where i find that there's no balance. 

 

Remember and retain this, players play to have fun. Is all they want!

The Yak-3P is post-war in the same sense that the F-51 is post-war; technically true, but missing the point that they are fundamentally WWII designs. The only difference between the Yak-3 and Yak-3P are the extra 20mm. 

 

The La-9 is a similar case, but not nearly as undertiered. You might think it's OP if you insist on turnfighting it on the deck where it shines. The La-9 has sea level performance on par with a late Tempest, but while it can fight effectively up to 6000 meters it loses a lot of its engine performance. It you stay above 6000 meters you can energy fight them all day long. 

 

The reason some Russian planes club so hard is not because they have made-up flight models. It is because those planes are performing accurately to their designs. Furthermore, the vast majority of players stubbornly insist on dogfighting the Russians at low altitudes, where the Russians were born to excel. 

 

The BR system isn't working, but it's equally ineffective for all nations. Every nation has their undertiered clubbers (Japan arguably has the worst ATM), and every nation has their overtiered planes struggling at their BRs. The fact of the matter is that whatever statistics Gaijin are using to determine BRs is not accurately reflecting the experiences of players in-game. At this point historical matchups between similarly-performing planes are all that can be hoped for. 

 

Is it fair for the SPIT LF MKIX, the fw 190D13, The Seafire, the F8F1and the N1K fighting a russian biplane?

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSonVQy_Rzg

 

 

Well...YES!!! I Love my little monster, you dont need any other plane than this Biplane to kill them all at any altitude!!!

 

 

PS:

Hey, the Spit LF MK IX can out climb and out turn any propeller fighter even the La9 or ta 152 at high altitude, no doubt that the spit LF mkIX is the best propeller of them all... just a 45 ms per second climb rate and a turn rate of 13 seconds  + 700+ dive speed makes the difference.

 

F4u1d can out dive and out zoom the yak3p and out roll it in a dive keeping energy like a beast,even you can pull a hard turn and the Corsair will lose les energy than the yak3p and then out run it.

 

but of course I agree that the flight models are a little screwed up and  not very representative of any real plane, energy models in game are not very good...MMaker is not good also but its a fact that if you play to your plane strenghts any plane can out take any other (if hit detection works of course)

The Spitfire Mk. IX has bugged performance at high altitude, like the Spitfire II. some of this is because their flight models are older and have yet to be updated, but I'm confident that they will be fixed. 

 

The Corsair can outmaneuver the Yak at high speeds because the Corsair was designed for excellent high-speed maneuverability, while the Yak is in great danger of ripping it's own wings off if it pulls too many G's. At low speeds, it's a very different story. 

 

If you are going to make a blanket statement like "the flight models are screwed up and the energy retention is incorrectly modeled" you are going to have to provide some credible proof. The burden is on the one making the argument. 

Edited May 4, 2016 by Sh4g0h0d

[StarsWalker 658]

Is it fair for the SPIT LF MKIX, the fw 190D13, The Seafire, the F8F1and the N1K fighting a russian biplane?

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSonVQy_Rzg

 

 

Well...YES!!! I Love my little monster, you dont need any other plane than this Biplane to kill them all at any altitude!!!

 

 

PS:

Hey, the Spit LF MK IX can out climb and out turn any propeller fighter even the La9 or ta 152 at high altitude, no doubt that the spit LF mkIX is the best propeller of them all... just a 45 ms per second climb rate and a turn rate of 13 seconds  + 700+ dive speed makes the difference.

 

F4u1d can out dive and out zoom the yak3p and out roll it in a dive keeping energy like a beast,even you can pull a hard turn and the Corsair will lose les energy than the yak3p and then out run it.

 

but of course I agree that the flight models are a little screwed up and  not very representative of any real plane, energy models in game are not very good...MMaker is not good also but its a fact that if you play to your plane strenghts any plane can out take any other (if hit detection works of course)

 

On arcade battles flight/damage models are not supposed to be realistic.

 

 

The Yak-3P is post-war in the same sense that the F-51 is post-war; technically true, but missing the point that they are fundamentally WWII designs. The only difference between the Yak-3 and Yak-3P are the extra 20mm. 

 

The La-9 is a similar case, but not nearly as undertiered. You might think it's OP if you insist on turnfighting it on the deck where it shines. The La-9 has sea level performance on par with a late Tempest, but while it can fight effectively up to 6000 meters it loses a lot of its engine performance. It you stay above 6000 meters you can energy fight them all day long. 

 

The reason some Russian planes club so hard is not because they have made-up flight models. It is because those planes are performing accurately to their designs. Furthermore, the vast majority of players stubbornly insist on dogfighting the Russians at low altitudes, where the Russians were born to excel. 

 

The BR system isn't working, but it's equally ineffective for all nations. Every nation has their undertiered clubbers (Japan arguably has the worst ATM), and every nation has their overtiered planes struggling at their BRs. The fact of the matter is that whatever statistics Gaijin are using to determine BRs is not accurately reflecting the experiences of players in-game. At this point historical matchups between similarly-performing planes are all that can be hoped for. 

 

Maybe if i started to play War Thunder yesterday (or didn't knew anything about aviation or even aviation simulators) i would give any credits to your comment regarding my post. 

[Albertrossi 67]

The Spitfire Mk. IX has bugged performance at high altitude, like the Spitfire II. some of this is because their flight models are older and have yet to be updated, but I'm confident that they will be fixed. 

 

Could you elaborate? Bugged performance how?

[TA4Life 6,520]

Okay so MM can go +- BR1.3 and all that. Plus its possible to down-tier by 0.3. But how does the MM determine how you are going to be matched taking those parameters into account?

What do you mean MM can go + 1.3? That means that planes like Emil will face Yak-3 or Spacefire Mk 9.

[TA4Life 6,520]

Yeah, MM is working as intended

 

[spoiler][/spoiler]

[SgtMayhem 126]

I have 2 concerns about the BR spread and the BR Tree.

1. The current BR spread (0.0-1.0) and the total BR's (up to 9.0) are lacking. The spread does NOT look into players with vehicles that are lacking parts/FPE and other upgrades for tanks OR ammo, engine, weight and turn-speed for planes. This NEEDS to be adjusted as if you just unlocked something new and get thrown into a 1.0 battle, you're SERIOUSLY under prepared for your opponents. Even a stock plane against a fully upgraded version of itself will still lose.

 

2. The current BR tree is way too small. With how it is now, it's way too cramped with things that are placed in odd BR spots that don't fit or give it an odd advantage or disadvantage (anyone trying to play between 5.7-6.7 tanks knows what this means [IE if you're not a King Tiger or IS2, good luck]). This also includes things like technology that wasn't previously used or introduced (HEATFS and other ammo types) gets an edge over vehicles that are behind. And from what I've heard, if the Sheridan is ever introduced to this game that means we'll be seeing missile technology arriving. Which means the MiG-17 will probably lead to the other MiG-17 variant with AIR TO AIR MISSILES. NOBODY wants that.

[Oddball1945 48]

i have just been killed by a kv2, which has a BR of 4.3.all my vehicles are tier 1 except a Cromwell 5, which is 3.3. the maximum BR for any British tank in tier 2 is 4.0. how can this be? i keep seeing these vehicles in my battles that are so much more powerful than me. how do they do it. example. i was playing russian tanks and all my vehicles were t3 or less and i saw a pt-76 fighting in my battles. i thought great i'll train for that, so i did. i never had any other t4 vehicles, and as soon as i got one i was fighting in t4 battles. how is it that a t3, BR4.3 heavy tank can be fighting against tanks where the maximum possible Br is just 4.0? somebody please explain this.

thanks.

[SmartSkull007 2,991]

The MM is on a 1.0 -/+ spread, and 1 +/- tier spread. The Cromwell at tier 2, 3.3 can see the KV-2 that is at tier 3, 4.3.