Battlerating Overview updated

[HochgeborenKlown 1,276]

What I have noticed...Just got a JU-87 and I am trying to grind out the mods, this is difficult to do when it seems all I can get is1 bomb dropped and maybe part of a strafing pass before I am trashed by some red...The JU-87 has a BR of 2.0, the two planes I have paired with it are a CR.42.Falco, BR 1.3 and an HE-51A, BR 1.0...My final flight last nite I led with my JU and he got to meet an F4-U, which after reducing me to falling debris I found that he was a BR of 3.3...Not very fun, and very hard to grind RP when you cannot even get your first bomb away...The rest of my very few seconds in battle were just as bad since planes with a BR of 1.3 and 1.0 are really more like towed targets...It seems that the planes on my team are for the most part always showing a lower grouping of BR than the red team...Not every person up and down the lineup, but more than 1/2 of the lineup seems to fly inferior planes compared to the reds...While I know that in RL pilots faced disparities like this and even worse, I am constantly told this is a game, so it seems like this new BR and MM is designed to make grinding out RP very hard so you will buy gold out of frustration...If there is an adjustment for when you lose, mine must not be working, because looking over my last grouping of battles, I have a 5-14 record...The wins came 3 in a row and 2 in a row...Just a note, I have tried pairing the JU up with higher BR planes, but since they are all stock and I face even higher BR planes that did not work...Not even gonna comment about the handling of the 1st Do 217 I acquired, that one will sit for a very long time...Cheers!!!

[Quax0815 1,989]

I have updated the Battlerank-Overview. Download the new PDF Version 1.41 in the initial post or from my signature.

 

If you find any mistakes, please post them here.

Edited May 15, 2014 by Quax0815

[HochgeborenKlown 1,276]

I am curious about something, I use the BR and tier to set my planes to go out, I try to fly planes in the same tier with similar BR's, unless I am trying to grind upgrades in which case I will have a lineup as pictured below...My question is, how am I coming up against what is highlighted in the 2nd pic from the same mission, and how is the ave BR calculated???...I see this frequently, and it does make it somewhat difficult to fly after the plane I am grinding goes down...Is MM using Common Core Math???...Cheers from a Klown, when there's no one around...http://i.imgur.com/tgkxPNU.jpg    http://i.imgur.com/JwdHRvw.jpg

[Quax0815 1,989]

The 2nd BR-calculation is wrong. You should report that on the Bug-Forum.

In the initial post of this thread you find a link to the BR-calculation-formula. 

[Luft_City_Rocker 69]

Very useful thread for a relative newcomer like me and explains a lot.

 

So, when i take up two P26's @1.0 each plus an SBD @ 2.0 and a P36A @1.7 the average is 1.56 plus the 1.7 which comes to 3.26.

 

Round that up to 3.3 and that is why the red team's Airacobra's kept one-shotting me with their bazooka's in several recent arcade battles.

 

A bit like a dwarf fighting Andre' the Giant.

Edited May 16, 2014 by A_FRIDGE_TOO_FAR

[CoolJ 1,082]

I don't know why they insist on basing the BR on what players have done with the plane instead of what the plane is capable of. I don't really remember seeing anyone doing really well in a D9. Sure it's a nice plane, but it isn't a better interceptor than a G6 and it isn't as good an air superiority fighter as a F4. So I am pretty sure that the whole "BR based on performance" is a lie anyway. It's based on whatever they feel like at that particular moment.

 

At this moment they feel that the P-63-A10 should be a 4.0 BR plane and that the two Fw's that no one uses should be even higher. At some point they need to realize that most people have no clue how air combat works and just point the plane at enemies and shoot. The stats will never show what is truly a good plane. They will show who is a good pilot. I have nearly as many air kills with the nose guns of my B-25 than most people have with a Mustang. Does that mean that the B-25 is OP? Better make those 4.7 BR. Oh wait it's American. There are probably over 9000 single celled organisms crashing them into the ground as I type this.

Edited May 16, 2014 by CoolJ

[Quax0815 1,989]

I updated the overview according to patch 1.41.7.81 in the initial post.

 

Enjoy the utter madness.

[vhaaagen 1,600]

F4F 3 BR 2.3 introduced December 1940, its successor the F6F introduced or rather reaching operational readiness in February 1943  BR 2.7, A6m2 Zero operational readiness July 1940 BR 3.7, BF 109 E 3 another late 1939 early 1940 plane, similar armament as the Zero similar speed better climb rate  but worse maneuverability BR 3.0.

 

Why the hell is a 1943 plane that is faster, climbs better and does have a similar armament in terms of destructive power (6x0.50s are quite competitive vs the 2 7,7 and 2 20 type 99 mk1 ) rated a full 3 BR ranks lower than the Zero m2 a plane which it was build to fight? Why is the Zero 2 ranks higher than the very similar Bf 109e3  it should be 3.0 as well, that would make a hell lot more sense to be honest! 

 

If you move the A6m2 to BR 3.0, the A6m3 which is BR 4.0 not 5.0 btw to 3.7, the A6m3 mod22 to 4.0 and the A6m5 ko to 4.3 it would make a hell lot more sense! 

 

Oh and why is a S.M 79 1936 a BR 2.7 plane ( as the naming indicates a fuggling 1936 plane! it should be BR 2.0 max as well) and a Lagg 3-8 a plane that entered service in 1941 a BR 2.0 ....more BR shenanigans WHICH have been pointed out over and over ,yet nothing is done, but hey lets down tier several russkie planes and US as well, oh right A6m5 used to be BR 5.0 so sometimes even the most obvious are touched and "adjusted".    

 

Under tiered out of the drop of my head:

Lagg 3 all variants

F6F should be 3.3 

P-47 D should be 3.7 at least

P-38G should be 3.7

Corsairs......oh good what a mess

Yak 15

Yak 17

I 185

F8F 1

P 80a

 

Over tiered out of the drop of my head:

All Zeros

S.M 79 all variants

He 111 H-16

Arado Ar 234

Me 163b

Me 262 A1

Beaufighter Mark 21

Wellington X

Lancaster

B 17/ B 17g/ B 24 ( DM needs a desperate fix first though)

Boomerang

Spit Vc (The Corsair F4u 1c also with quad 20mm and quite a bit faster is a BR 4.7 plane vs the Vc 5.3 value)

 

Feel free to add anything I missed.

 

These things should not be that hard to fix especially not the one being argued for, for more than a year, cough A6m2 cough.   

Edited June 6, 2014 by vhaaagen

[Hopit 4,416]

F4F 3 BR 2.3 introduced December 1940, its successor the F6F introduced or rather reaching operational readiness in February 1943  BR 2.7, A6m2 Zero operational readiness July 1940 BR 3.7, BF 109 E 3 another late 1939 early 1940 plane, similar armament as the Zero similar speed better climb rate  but worse maneuverability BR 3.0.

 

Why the hell is a 1943 plane that is faster, climbs better and does have a similar armament in terms of destructive power (6x0.50s are quite competitive vs the 2 7,7 and 2 20 type 99 mk1 ) rated a full 3 BR ranks lower than the Zero m2 a plane which it was build to fight? Why is the Zero 2 ranks higher than the very similar Bf 109e3  it should be 3.0 as well, that would make a hell lot more sense to be honest! 

 

If you move the A6m2 to BR 3.0, the A6m3 which is BR 4.0 not 5.0 btw to 3.7, the A6m3 mod22 to 4.0 and the A6m5 ko to 4.3 it would make a hell lot more sense! 

 

Oh and why is a S.M 79 1936 a BR 2.7 plane ( as the naming indicates a fuggling 1936 plane! it should be BR 2.0 max as well) and a Lagg 3-8 a plane that entered service in 1941 a BR 2.0 ....more BR shenanigans WHICH have been pointed out over and over ,yet nothing is done, but hey lets down tier several russkie planes and US as well, oh right A6m5 used to be BR 5.0 so sometimes even the most obvious are touched and "adjusted".    

 

Under tiered out of the drop of my head:

Lagg 3 all variants

F6F should be 3.3 

P-47 D should be 3.7 at least

P-38G should be 3.7

Corsairs......oh good what a mess

Yak 15

Yak 17

I 185

F8F 1

P 80a

 

Over tiered out of the drop of my head:

All Zeros

S.M 79 all variants

He 111 H-16

Arado Ar 234

Me 163b

Me 262 A1

Beaufighter Mark 21

Wellington X

Lancaster

B 17/ B 17g/ B 24 ( DM needs a desperate fix first though)

Boomerang

Spit Vc (The Corsair F4u 1c also with quad 20mm and quite a bit faster is a BR 4.7 plane vs the Vc 5.3 value)

 

Feel free to add anything I missed.

 

These things should not be that hard to fix especially not the one being argued for, for more than a year, cough A6m2 cough.   

Ki-61 Hei

[vhaaagen 1,600]

Ki-61 Hei

Actually I think 2.7, 2.7 and 4.7 respectively is not that far off to be honest.

[anyuser 5,136]

F4F 3 BR 2.3 introduced December 1940, its successor the F6F introduced or rather reaching operational readiness in February 1943  BR 2.7, A6m2 Zero operational readiness July 1940 BR 3.7, BF 109 E 3 another late 1939 early 1940 plane, similar armament as the Zero similar speed better climb rate  but worse maneuverability BR 3.0.

 

Why the hell is a 1943 plane that is faster, climbs better and does have a similar armament in terms of destructive power (6x0.50s are quite competitive vs the 2 7,7 and 2 20 type 99 mk1 ) rated a full 3 BR ranks lower than the Zero m2 a plane which it was build to fight? Why is the Zero 2 ranks higher than the very similar Bf 109e3  it should be 3.0 as well, that would make a hell lot more sense to be honest! 

 

If you move the A6m2 to BR 3.0, the A6m3 which is BR 4.0 not 5.0 btw to 3.7, the A6m3 mod22 to 4.0 and the A6m5 ko to 4.3 it would make a hell lot more sense! 

 

Oh and why is a S.M 79 1936 a BR 2.7 plane ( as the naming indicates a fuggling 1936 plane! it should be BR 2.0 max as well) and a Lagg 3-8 a plane that entered service in 1941 a BR 2.0 ....more BR shenanigans WHICH have been pointed out over and over ,yet nothing is done, but hey lets down tier several russkie planes and US as well, oh right A6m5 used to be BR 5.0 so sometimes even the most obvious are touched and "adjusted".    

 

Under tiered out of the drop of my hat:

Lagg 3 all variants thrown away in turnfights against biplanes and other better turners

F6F should be 3.3 thrown away as one way bombers

P-47 D should be 3.7 at least thrown away as one way bombers or in low level turnfights

P-38G should be 3.7 thrown away in low level turnfights

Corsairs......oh good what a mess thrown away in low level turnfights

Yak 15

Yak 17

I 185 thrown away in turnfights or in high level dogfights

F8F 1

P 80a

 

Over tiered out of the drop of my head:

All Zeros only flown by specalists for a very long time now

S.M 79 all variants S.M.79 are work where they are. S.M.79B - i don't get it.

He 111 H-16

Arado Ar 234

Me 163b

Me 262 A1

Beaufighter Mark 21

Wellington X

Lancaster

B 17/ B 17g/ B 24 ( DM needs a desperate fix first though) wait what? B17E(/L)? undertired?

Boomerang only flown by specalists for a very long time now

Spit Vc (The Corsair F4u 1c also with quad 20mm and quite a bit faster is a BR 4.7 plane vs the Vc 5.3 value)

 

Feel free to add anything I missed.

 

These things should not be that hard to fix especially not the one being argued for, for more than a year, cough A6m2 cough.   

Don't get it wrong as a "its good that way".

Its just the "why". Bad enough.

Edited June 6, 2014 by anyuser

[vhaaagen 1,600]

Don't get it wrong as a "its good that way".

Its just the "why". Bad enough.

All your "thrown away" arguments are related to morons not knowing how to play the game, not how the planes actually performed historically or in game, the moron benchmark is not usually the mark I strife to achieve.

But maybe I play the game wrong since I hardly ever use planes as one way throw away items.

 

Who the heck turn fights in a P 38 or in a I 185??? 

Edited June 6, 2014 by vhaaagen

[anyuser 5,136]

All your "thrown away" arguments are related to morons not knowing how to play the game, not how the planes actually performed historically or in game, the moron benchmark is not usually the mark I strife to achieve.

But maybe I play the game wrong since I hardly ever use planes as one way throw away items.

 

Who the heck turn fights in a P 38 or in a I 185??? 

And based on the performance of all players of one plane devided through the number of players of that plane gajin is building the BR.

Wellcome to Idiocracy

 

Who turnfights in an P38 or I185? Who the heck tries to turnfight a Zero in a Do217 or Me410. Who tries to stallclimb a fighter in a B25? Who dives down for every bombdrop at high alt because he does not now that he can use C to look down or how to change the view to the bombingview...

Edited June 6, 2014 by anyuser

[Quax0815 1,989]

Gajin will never introduce a historic tiering. They stated clearly, why this would be too unfair for a pvp-game and why they don't see a chance to balance it otherwise.

 

What they try is, to match planes according to their ingame performance, which is never historical. Deal with it or leave the game. Simple like that.

 

I also think, that statistics may help to get and analyze data for a better tiering. However, Gajin obviously does not use sophisticated statistic methods and therefore runs into the well known general traps of statistics. Their statistic method obviously does not regognize players "throwing planes away" or using them wrongly as shown above (e.g.P-47). They also do not take devotees into account, which are still flying a plane, even if it is badly overtiered (e.g. Zeros, Me-262, ...).

 

This way some planes become lower and lower and the sealclubbing becomes worse, because the statistic effect of the bad players jumping on such FotMs is overruling the effect of the few sealclubbers flying the plane correctly. On the other side, some planes are just used by a few devotees, which have still good results, because they learned everything about their beloved plane. But the numbers of pilots of this planes are sinking with every new uptier.

 

The statistic approach of Gajin is obviously flawed. And they should adjust their statistic model urgently or switch to another model asap.

[GreekFirethrower 686]

Gajin will never introduce a historic tiering. They stated clearly, why this would be too unfair for a pvp-game and why they don't see a chance to balance it otherwise.

A histroical tiering wouldn't be balanced.

 

The fights in AB are at low altitude, where some planes perform better than others. 

 

But at least they should BALANCE the BRs, and a BR. of 4.7 for both Me 109G-2 and Fw 190D-9 or 5.0 for F8F and Griffon Spitfires fighting Me 109G-6 isn't really balanced...

[Don__Karnage 743]

A histroical tiering wouldn't be balanced.

 

The fights in AB are at low altitude, where some planes perform better than others. 

 

But at least they should BALANCE the BRs, and a BR. of 4.7 for both Me 109G-2 and Fw 190D-9 or 5.0 for F8F and Griffon Spitfires fighting Me 109G-6 isn't really balanced...

yep historical tiering would be unbalanced (war isn't balanced, but pilots on both sides made do with what they had and often overcame the shortcomings of their aircraft), but this BR BS sure as heck ain't balanced either, I'd rather have a simple, arbitrary system like doing it by date of introduction than some complex weird system that has seen this game go from dang good to mediocre.

 

It is clear, that things have only gotten worse since the release of 1.37, the BR ratings have gone from stupid to so absurd it doesn't even figure into reality, I doubt Gaijin even thinks about the numbers the computer spits out, surely if they did, no rationale human would think they were good, let alone someone who wants to make money! this BR system (read BS system) really needs to just go, we have tried it for long enough, it is completely and utterly inferior to the old way, it is time to let it die, and either go back to the old way, or readjust it to base it on something concrete, and not something influenced heavily by outliers like player skill.

Edited June 6, 2014 by Don__Karnage

[Franigo 2,253]

While historic tiering would be not better balanced than this, at least there would be a clear rule behind it. Personally, I think they should do performance based tiering, but not like the system that is trolling us right now. Gather statistics, have a system analyse them, but present the results to actual humans to filter the stuff that is obviously erroneous or simply broken.

Edited June 6, 2014 by Franigo

[Quax0815 1,989]

Gather statistics, have a system analyse them, but present the results to actual humans to filter the stuff that is obviously erroneous or simply broken.

 

As far as I have understood Gajin's statement about the BR-adjustment-process there are already humans checking the final results. But obviously they do not recognize the fully weird rankings of some planes and the obvious consequences.

Edited June 6, 2014 by Quax0815

[Don__Karnage 743]

While historic tiering would be not better balanced than this, at least there would be a clear rule behind it. Personally, I think they should do performance based tiering, but not like the system that is trolling us right now. Gather statistics, have a system analyse them, but present the results to actual humans to filter the stuff that is obviously erroneous or simply broken.

performance based, if you mean aircraft performance, would be a good way, but in the past they have failed to take into account all the aspects, and instead usually focused on one, usually either maneuverability or firepower, which lead to overtiering. to make it work, they need to focus on all of them to see the big picture, maneuverability, climbrate, level speed, dive speed, firepower, ammo (good guns are worth less with little ammo). we have seen in 1.35 how they failed with the japanese, the a6m being tiered higher than the 109E despite being slower and having worse guns (I keep hearing they have good cannons, but I have yet to actually see it. and we all know the rice machine guns are a horrible joke) the Ki-61 with cannons was also a big screw-up, its basically similiar to a 109E yet it sat at tier 11.

Edited June 6, 2014 by Don__Karnage

[Don__Karnage 743]

As far as I have understood Gajin's statement about the BR-adjustment-process there are already humans checking the final results. But obviously they do not recognize the fully weird rankings of some planes and the obvious consequences.

which is why this system needs to die, it doesn't work, they haven't succeeded in making it work, its been 6 months, if you can't fix something in that time, it won't ever be fixed, and I still have no idea why they implemented it when they had a far superior system in place.

[Franigo 2,253]

As far as I have understood Gajin's statement about the BR-adjustment-process there are already humans checking the final results. But obviously they do not recognize the fully weird rankings of some planes and the obvious consequences.

 

If that is the case, they need new people. Nobody knowing anything about the game would allow the F-4 and F-4/trop discrepancy.

[Don__Karnage 743]

tanks is alright now, I can't wait to see how long it takes for the BS ratings to screw up that game.

[PzGren 4,043]

109s are also over tiered. All of them. Some more than others. It's cause not enough people throw 109s away.

I suggest giving 109s bombs and rockets. So more ppl use them as 1 way bombers.

/nod

[Skpstr 167]

My biggest beef with things so far is the unequal variety of planes of a given BR.

For example, I can easily put together a 3-plane lineup of BR 1.3-2.0 fighters for Germany/Italy, which lets me have all my planes better than reserves, but nothing that is going to skew my BR. But if I want to fly Japanese planes, I have an A5M, a KI-43, and then I either have to use a reserve plane, or a BR 2.3+ plane. I can't ease my way up gradually like I can with the German/Italians.

[Quax0815 1,989]

At least they will cancel soon this bonus of 0.3-0.7 for a bad winrate in the last 10 matches.

 

I already changed the Rules of Matchmaking in the initial post.

 

This is a step into the right direction and will surely help to reduce the insane spread of BRs lately.