Tu-4 is a very easy to mention aircraft that has been “balanced” by repair costs.
Yes, it’s very factually a lie.
All super heavy bombers are given very large repair costs but they are not “overpowered” they are merely annoying to balance.
Too low - Planes can’t reach them in a reasonable amount of time
Too high - They face jets and are completely worthless
They simply should not be in the tech tree similar to the MAUS, their repair cost is irrelevant to their balance they simply exist because people would complain should they not.
Where is the lie? It is what they said about stuff having different rep cost. How would you balance vehicles that are at the same br?
Russia’s entire lineup at 11.3 has a 70% winrate and they have the cheapest vehicles in the game lol
Did they release the win rates? I thought they hide that stuff. Would be pretty cool if they showed us stuff like k/ds and winrates along side br changes and what not.
Yeah they don’t want people to examine legitimate statistics you’re forced to use Thunderskill.
So you are making a baseless claim… Can we just agree to request that gaijin makes the info public when they do br changes? Tired of people using unreliable numbers to argue something.
“baseless” no it is a claim using the evidence provided by thunderskill which is reinforced by general experience at the BR
If Gaijin was balancing tanks off of win rate the Russian tanks would be more expensive but they aren’t.
Gaijin balanced tanks off of their real world performance, not their ingame performance.
The MAUS is expensive because it was a super tank.
NATO tanks are expensive because they are the best tanks in the world in terms of features / fire power.
Russian tanks are tinder boxes and are given the repair costs to represent that.
The game’s performance of vehicles is irrelevant to their repair costs.
When real numbers are not provided then the playerbase is forced to use what is available. What is available is realistic to the ingame experience and therefore has credence.
The unreliable numbers fit my opinion therefore they are correct.
Never heard such “unique” theory. I’ll give you that.
It’s the majority opinion of the users of the game.
Everyone feels Russian top tier win rates are high due to their more complete lineups, Russian armor, Russian SPAA, CAS, Helicopters, more top tier tanks to bring out, more trolly armor (though this isn’t really the tank’s faults it’s Gaijin’s programming in regards to volumetric), NATO teams ODL’ing.
Whatever the reason, people feel that way. Statistics provided seem to reinforce that. If Gaijin wants to start publishing their own win rates to combat “misinformation” I would be very very thrilled should they choose to do so. As it stands we work with what we’re given.
That is how the confirmation bias works. They see the “70%” win rate and the next time they get killed by a russian tank, they can go “i died because russia is overpreforming” and the loop continues. A majority of the posts talking about russian bias and what not will use that data as proof.
Yeah, this issue would not be as bad if gaijin showed stats. My guess for why they dont is that they dont want people to figure out the algorithm because they fear a group of players might figure out how to abuse it. Personally, i think the pros out weigh the cons but i dont run a game company so maybe its the other way around.
Russian tanks aren’t overperforming. They’re shit tanks.
Gaijin’s choice to not fill NATO line ups properly is what leads to poor win rates for NATO countries. Italy and Japan don’t have top tier SPAA.
France has no support vehicles.
Britain has no support vehicles.
Germany has only two top tier MBTs.
The only functional NATO country which has a complete lineup is the USA and they still don’t have as many support vehicles as Russia.
Sweden is the outlier it has been showered with vehicles for some reason since the Finnish line was added.
Win rate goes beyond Stalinium making my 626 pen APFSDS round disappear because it hit some chocolate bars on the side of the track cover. Not being able to field a full line up of vehicles is the biggest driver of bad win rate for any nation.
There is some trouble with that ‘source’ as such…
When checking a player, it’ll only update when you actually check their name. So any stats you’re getting are likely only from those who are checking themselves or those that got them.
At least that’s how I’d assume it would work as it’s not grabbing the data directly other than on a request from someone checking someone.
Yes.
I fully acknowledge Thunderskill is not a true accurate representation of the win rate. It is what we have to work with though.
Thank you for admitting they use repair cost as a balance measure and that it has in fact worked.
I am very surprised that you would say that you believe this.
Then dont use it as proof if you know it isnt accurate?
It has zero bearing on whether people play those planes.
They have a high repair cost because IRL they were the top of their class.
The reason people don’t play them is because their BR is so high they are functionally useless.
3 man crew w/ average auto loaders worse mobility / gun depression than any NATO tank and an ammo carousel under their turret, extreme obvious weak points that are only negated due to their very low profile compared to other MBTs.
They’re shit tanks, but the mechanics of the game provide them some advantage depending on the situation.
The more specific issue is the lack of lineups provided to NATO nations.
I told you in every response it’s not 100% accurate representation. It can still be used as evidence towards the performance of certain nations.
Though it’s not 100% representation it is still some representation and the only we have.
It certainly did.
Idk what IRL has to do with what happens to repair costs in Warthunder.
It is most definitely a balancing measure as it was common practice with Gaijin to increase repair costs to lower their occurance. And it certainly works even tho it has some unfortunae side effects