[Discussion] Balance, Bias, Matchmaking and Battle Ratings

[Bringer_Of_War 901]

Oh man if i'll have to fight meteors in my n1k..

[slavoyew 5,155]

It's really not that hard to see that the Meteor Mk.3 doesn't belong at 8.0 tho... I don't think anyone would complain if it was brought down to 7.0.

 

People who play 6.0-6.3 vehicles will. P-80 is bad enough, and Mk.3 is simply way more effective.

 

See? This is THE problem here. Mk.3 is too good to be 7.0, but not good enough to be 8.0. It either clubs or gets clubbed.

 

It's like R2Y2 - this thing is ridiculously OP vs props, but dies easily vs even other 7.0 jets. Put it highier, and nobody will want to play it - leave it where it is, and the misery of poor Bearcats will continue.

[Goldeneye55 67]

All they do nowadays with patches is pump out as many premiums as possible to be honest.

[Bringer_Of_War 901]

They just put more and more gimmicks in the game, tT5 tank games will be quite ridiculous..

[Defenestrator47 103]

Gaijin is a bad dev that mainly copy/pastes planes into tech trees.  Actual balance, complex game design, or anything more interesting than 'spam type X to win' seems beyond them.  So no, they will not balance the game.

[SLMFKRZ 1,231]

the misery of poor Bearcats will continue.

Not sure if sarcasm or if you're actually sympathizing with the pilots of the easiest aircraft in War Thunder to fly.

[King_CSS_Salty 783]

People who play 6.0-6.3 vehicles will. P-80 is bad enough, and Mk.3 is simply way more effective.

 

See? This is THE problem here. Mk.3 is too good to be 7.0, but not good enough to be 8.0. It either clubs or gets clubbed.

 

Just Like the 229 right?  :crazy: the Mk.3 doesn't club at 7.0, props just need to learn how to fight it.

Edited May 25, 2016 by King_CSS_Salty

[BeefJerkyHunter 2,099]

People who play 6.0-6.3 vehicles will. P-80 is bad enough, and Mk.3 is simply way more effective.

 

See? This is THE problem here. Mk.3 is too good to be 7.0, but not good enough to be 8.0. It either clubs or gets clubbed.

 

It's like R2Y2 - this thing is ridiculously OP vs props, but dies easily vs even other 7.0 jets. Put it highier, and nobody will want to play it - leave it where it is, and the misery of poor Bearcats will continue.

This is why I think the game modes need to be more than just Vehicle vs. Vehicle. It's too difficult to balance with just the vehicles themselves.

[armando30 493]

it's obvious the game isn't well balanced and there's a certain amount of BIAS towards russian/soviet content, that doesn't necessarily stop you from enjoying the game while playing with other nations content but it's also true that some things are just too wrong to accept

the russian/soviet tech have always gotten more attention with a clearly advantage in the number of vehicles added for it, while it's true that the soviets DID make many different vehicles (more than most countries, for example the soviets used several tank designs throughout WWII while the US used mostly the M4 with some variation in SPG and TD vehicles) that isn't the same as completely forgot the "build-up" of other nations tech-trees (with the Japanese being the most obvious example)

of course this implied a larger variety of choices for the soviet tech tree while most of times they are just different variations of the same aircraft with little difference between each of them, while some other nations have kept a single variant ingame of some of their most iconic vehicles (F6F for example, the aircraft that won the war in the pacific) while seeing the soviet tech tree getting "too much" content that wasn't really needed at the time

 

so in conclusion the attention paid by the devs towards the individual tech trees is clearly leaning towards the soviet, that brings us to a different kind of problem

why must the soviet tech tree cost less RP to unlock both aircraft and also it's parts than most of the aircarft in the other nations of the same rank and BR?

a rank 2 BR 4.0 Pe-2-83 injection modification only costing 1100RP? while a aso rank 2 BR 3.3 Wellington Mk.X costing 2900RP for the same modification?

how fair is that, the most exensive modifications on the BR 4.0 Pe-2-83 cost as much as the tier 1 modifications on the BR 3.3 Wellington Mk.X (1100 RP), sure there might be some cases that are the reverse but I've noticed countless cases like this, while I brought this one up since I've recently grinded both

 

of course there are some more serious issues like how the Yak-3 is known to be OP at the BR it's placed and hasn't been balanced forever but I think there's also some even more serious issues than that

 

I know that some players have created rumors about the soviet vehicles DM not being correct, more precisely being "improved" so that they will last longer than other nations vehicles (some talk about T-34-57 or T-34-85 turrets causing "unnatural" ricochets) but that is something I can't agree nor disagree since I haven't spent any time testing that

 

I can't take my position regarding those rumors but there's one thing I noticed regarding the Yak-3 DM/FM, it's written in the ingame information page that the Yak-3 turret is made of wood yet it never seems to "burn down" wich is unnatural when you have a ruptured fuel tank that is dripping everywhere, some of it is even reaching the tail wich is made of wood and highly flamable

I can say this not only because of the many times I have put Yaks on fire and the times this same "error" saved-me when playing with the Yak or the Mig-3-15 (BK) (also has wood tail)

 

the tail not burning is already an issue but there's another that seems to be even more evident, many of the US aircaft have self-sealing fuel tanks and while this doesn't mean it won't ever burn down it should at least have a reduced chance and yet even P-47s (wich are known for being tough aircraft IRL) burn most of the times it catches fire, the same doesn't seem apply to soviet aircraft like Yak-3 or Yak-9 (even La-5 sometimes) that more often than not are able to "extinguish" "their" fires even considering the whole tail of the Yak-3 is made of wood

 

I agree with some tht just reply "if you don't like to play against it play with it" or "everyone can play with OP vehicles", while it's true what would it do to the game? just imagine that you are playing and in that same moment everyone is playing with the Yak-3P and qeueing for RB, how would anyone be able to get some gameplay?

of course they have to balance the game better and end with the OP vehicles being them soviet, american, german, british, japanese or even italian and they should already have lots of data on wich vehicles are OP just by the difference in the number of battles and average RP per battle of those same vehicles

it almost seems lime they don't notice how they create those historical events and players stay long on qeue since there's pretty much no one playing with the side at a disadvantage

[blasterion 623]

it's obvious the game isn't well balanced and there's a certain amount of BIAS towards russian/soviet content, that doesn't necessarily stop you from enjoying the game while playing with other nations content but it's also true that some things are just too wrong to accept

the russian/soviet tech have always gotten more attention with a clearly advantage in the number of vehicles added for it, while it's true that the soviets DID make many different vehicles (more than most countries, for example the soviets used several tank designs throughout WWII while the US used mostly the M4 with some variation in SPG and TD vehicles) that isn't the same as completely forgot the "build-up" of other nations tech-trees (with the Japanese being the most obvious example)

of course this implied a larger variety of choices for the soviet tech tree while most of times they are just different variations of the same aircraft with little difference between each of them, while some other nations have kept a single variant ingame of some of their most iconic vehicles (F6F for example, the aircraft that won the war in the pacific) while seeing the soviet tech tree getting "too much" content that wasn't really needed at the time

 

so in conclusion the attention paid by the devs towards the individual tech trees is clearly leaning towards the soviet, that brings us to a different kind of problem

why must the soviet tech tree cost less RP to unlock both aircraft and also it's parts than most of the aircarft in the other nations of the same rank and BR?

a rank 2 BR 4.0 Pe-2-83 injection modification only costing 1100RP? while a aso rank 2 BR 3.3 Wellington Mk.X costing 2900RP for the same modification?

how fair is that, the most exensive modifications on the BR 4.0 Pe-2-83 cost as much as the tier 1 modifications on the BR 3.3 Wellington Mk.X (1100 RP), sure there might be some cases that are the reverse but I've noticed countless cases like this, while I brought this one up since I've recently grinded both

 

of course there are some more serious issues like how the Yak-3 is known to be OP at the BR it's placed and hasn't been balanced forever but I think there's also some even more serious issues than that

 

I know that some players have created rumors about the soviet vehicles DM not being correct, more precisely being "improved" so that they will last longer than other nations vehicles (some talk about T-34-57 or T-34-85 turrets causing "unnatural" ricochets) but that is something I can't agree nor disagree since I haven't spent any time testing that

 

I can't take my position regarding those rumors but there's one thing I noticed regarding the Yak-3 DM/FM, it's written in the ingame information page that the Yak-3 turret is made of wood yet it never seems to "burn down" wich is unnatural when you have a ruptured fuel tank that is dripping everywhere, some of it is even reaching the tail wich is made of wood and highly flamable

I can say this not only because of the many times I have put Yaks on fire and the times this same "error" saved-me when playing with the Yak or the Mig-3-15 (BK) (also has wood tail)

 

the tail not burning is already an issue but there's another that seems to be even more evident, many of the US aircaft have self-sealing fuel tanks and while this doesn't mean it won't ever burn down it should at least have a reduced chance and yet even P-47s (wich are known for being tough aircraft IRL) burn most of the times it catches fire, the same doesn't seem apply to soviet aircraft like Yak-3 or Yak-9 (even La-5 sometimes) that more often than not are able to "extinguish" "their" fires even considering the whole tail of the Yak-3 is made of wood

 

I agree with some tht just reply "if you don't like to play against it play with it" or "everyone can play with OP vehicles", while it's true what would it do to the game? just imagine that you are playing and in that same moment everyone is playing with the Yak-3P and qeueing for RB, how would anyone be able to get some gameplay?

of course they have to balance the game better and end with the OP vehicles being them soviet, american, german, british, japanese or even italian and they should already have lots of data on wich vehicles are OP just by the difference in the number of battles and average RP per battle of those same vehicles

it almost seems lime they don't notice how they create those historical events and players stay long on qeue since there's pretty much no one playing with the side at a disadvantage

Yak3 doesn't have turrets it's a fighter, Lavochikins and Yaks are made partially from wood (mainly wings for the yaks, Lalas are wooden pretty much all over)but wood that is treated and laminated to not burn

 

On metal planes burning, have you ever tried to burn aviation metal? oh man those thing burn. Light metals burn so good, crazy good even.

Edited May 25, 2016 by blasterion

[Quetzalkoatl 136]

How to fix BRs for jets?

Here's the answer...

Edited May 25, 2016 by Quetzalkoatl

[hunter4574761 250]

Putting f86f2, cl13, Mig15bis and Mig17 to 9.3 seems a good idea

[Twisted_Tea 327]

As we await the new patch thoughts of nerfing run through my mind. What's next which country or plane will get hit with the nerf bat. Planes that have been nerfed in the past, will they go back to normal as they should be or will they continue to be sub-par. Which country and or planes will become OP. Will hit detection finally be fixed? Will client nerfing finally be fixed? Will flight models finally be fixed? Will bombs finally be fixed? So many thoughts lead to so many questions which will remain unanswered. When the update comes I hope for everything but expect nothing.

[Thunder421 9,398]

I love the fact that the Russian P-47 has a lower BR than the already undertiered US P-47 with minimal drawbacks in AB. (The only difference is that the Russian P-47 uses russian bombs)

Atleast the German P-47 having a low BR is somewhat justified due to no bombload options + No API-T tracer belts, both of whicht he Ruskie P-47 has.

Edited May 25, 2016 by Thunder421

[Twisted_Tea 327]

I love the fact that the Russian P-47 has a lower BR than the already undertiered US P-47 with minimal drawbacks in AB. (The only difference is that the Russian P-47 uses russian bombs)
Atleast the German P-47 having a low BR is somewhat justified due to no bombload options + No API-T tracer belts, both of whicht he Ruskie P-47 has.

Don't forget the nerf that came out a while back on them. They made it go from a somewhat fragile plane to a sheet of thin glass and also ruined the flight characteristics. Basically making it a five to target, drop bombs and slam it into the ground. Edited May 25, 2016 by I_AM_ALLAH

[Pacifica 15,971]

no real such thing as "nerf" or "buffed" in War Thunder... Machines maybe tweaked according to datasheets, there maybe conflicting data at times and so Developers will try and use the best official source and or as users hand in suggestions for official records as evidence where data maybe lacking   

 

 

the moral of this allegory? its impossible to please everybody all of the time so keep an eye on the bigger picture 

 

Well said !

 

No mater what game, Developers will never please everyone... "the perfect game for you has a population of one." as a wise man once said ^^

 

Its not really about going with the popular crowd in War Thunder, not to say the Devs do not listen to the community concerns, BUT the Devs however do follow what the database is telling them as well, and so they may "Balance" the position of machines based on both point of views of the Community and what the Database is telling them... and unlike some other games, machines in War Thunder are not "nerfed or Buffed" or categorized entirely by the weapons that they carry, and or such weapons are not buffed or nerfed to keep in line with other machines in that category...

 

Devs will balance the game based on historical data sheets, including ballistic/physic data as much as possible with the data that they have... so sources from the community maybe highly sort after since such data can be very very rare and or lost forever... 

[Twisted_Tea 327]

Where can we find which data sheets have been used in the past and are currently being used by the developers?

[Pacifica 15,971]

Where can we find which data sheets have been used in the past and are currently being used by the developers?

 

That area can be found here:- https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/forum/312-aircraft-data-sheets/

[Twisted_Tea 327]

Thank you. I'll see if I can find some more accurate information and hope that one day I can help make America great again.

[slavoyew 5,155]

Not sure if sarcasm or if you're actually sympathizing with the pilots of the easiest aircraft in War Thunder to fly.

 

You should see the lakes of tears poured on me when I rekt them in R2D2s...

 

And it's not the easiest plane to fly. For most effective planes which require little to no skill to pilot I'd look at japanese. Ki-43-III comes to mind. Ki-84 Ko being second. Spitfire LF Mk IX is somewhere around the top as well.

[armando30 493]

Yak3 doesn't have turrets it's a fighter, Lavochikins and Yaks are made partially from wood (mainly wings for the yaks, Lalas are wooden pretty much all over)but wood that is treated and laminated to not burn

 

On metal planes burning, have you ever tried to burn aviation metal? oh man those thing burn. Light metals burn so good, crazy good even.

 

Yak-3 doesn't have turrets, and who would be dumb enough to say otherwise? I at least didn't comment about turrets on the Yak-3

 

when mixing something about how there are rumors that some T-34s have incorrect DM on their turrets with someone saying the Yak-3 has turrets means something is wrong with either that person eyes or brain

 

if you really think there's nothing wrong with the DM of soviet aircraft you must be blind, here's a video of a LA-5F sucessefully putting out 3 fires before crashing into the ground

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMnw7dw50WE

 

first fire is obviously a ruptured fuel tank on the wing, the other two are set on the fuel tank directly below the pilot and it was still able to put them out

 

even the first fire would more often then not result on a US aircraft to lose it's wing even considering they have self-sealing tanks, the other two would reult in either the pilot death or the plane to completely burn down in aircraft of any other nation

 

it's possible for it to put out 1 fire but 3? add to that the fact that you can't find anywhere in the information page gaijin created for the La-5/5F that it was fitted with self-sealing tanks, so how do you explain a fuel fire being put out? why didn't the aircraft completely burn down?

 

you say it's because of the materials they used, wich still doesn't explain why fuel on fire simple stoped burning, but then again the Ho.229 was also made with laminated wood that was also treated to resist fire yet pretty much every time a Ho.229 catches on fire it will burn until it gets destroyed

 

the materials are the same so why is the behavior different?

 

that's not all because there's plenty of other examples on how aircraft on other nations don't behave as they did in real life, like the F6F achieving a 19 to 1 kill/death ratio in the pacific while being pepered with 20mm ammo yet surviving the fights becoming kown as the single most tough aircarft in history while ingame you get beind it with a Hurricane and can easily snap it's wings off with 7.7mm ammo, wich are known for being weak even in WT, on the other hand you play with a La-5 and can even survive with massive holes on the wings done by 20mm or 23mm ammo

 

there's a lot of things wrong with WT and it will take a really long time before everything is fixed

[Keijo_Kalmakoura 613]

Well, I dont think game cannot be ballanced with using players stats when lately there has been 90% teams that have big fat zeros on their stats after battle big rows of zeroes atleast in ground forces.

[sgtlongbow 1,936]

hey gaijin i think the american ground forces tree needs a shuffle on its br's as the other nations have out gunned and armor  them. some tanks need a 0.3 to 1.7 down shift to be in a balanced br scale with other nations.

[John_Dabel 7]

I'm starting to be bored and frustrated by balance of tank battles. Especially US tanks are battle rated pretty high and even element of surprise is useless when you are not able to kill/damage enough Russian or German tanks at battle and you are destroyed by their counter fire. This problem appear when you have tank with BR 5.7 and higher. Compared to planes battles tottaly f*cked up battles match making model and BR classification of tanks.

[SLMFKRZ 1,231]

How to fix BRs for jets?

Here's the answer...

Why hasn't Gaijin just done this yet?