Despite Gaijin’s efforts BR compression is still terrible, many battle ratings are boarder line unplayable, especially at battle ratings where premiums are common. War Thunder is at an all time high for player count, so I think 2025 the batt rating difference in games should be changed to 0.7 instead of the current 1.0. For example if you were to play at BR 4.0 you would be put in games from 3.3-4.7 instead of the current system of 3.0-5.0
18 Likes
God this would make match quality so much better. Easier to balance the BRs as well.
3 Likes
Nope. That would make the compression even worse.
1 Like
We should’ve had 0.7 BR spread years ago. WT playerbase has grown enough to at the very least try it.
9 Likes
And since Gaijin is mostly against decompression, I don’t see a reason why it shouldn’t be tested.
Full and thorough decompression is ideal, but 0.7 will work good enough for now. Maybe 0.7 could only apply for 7.0+, since lower BRs are still relatively balanced.
3 Likes
Ideally we’d have both decompression and lower spread in place. Decompression would help vehicles that clearly aren’t on par to get new BRs (for example, no reason why 2A7s and Arietes should share the same BR), and smaller BR spread should make matches more fair as, for example, 8.3 - 9.0 match is surely more fair than 8.0 - 9.0 one.
Pushing for smaller BR spread should really be the goal of the community for 2025.
If proper decompression is done, then an 8.0-9.0 match would be fair.
Lowering the BR spread too much is bad, because it allows for less balancing in an individual BR bracket.
Should be fair enough, yes.
But, 9.0 vehicle is at that BR because, obviously, it’s noticeably better than 8.0 ones, and should be “less better” than a 8.3 one. So in theory, the most fair matchup would be among 9.0s themselves, but getting to that is unrealistic.
I agree that lowering BR spread too much might create some issues, but I believe 0.7 should be fine to begin with.
This would ruin the game and cause no variety.
Most of the BRs overall is decompressed while compressing the match maker.
We don’t need to try it, WoT did that for us, and they’re far more compressed than WT has ever been.
The results of this would have WT in the bin due to the matchmaker compression and lack of variety.
I’m sure you can elaborate on that.
Challenge is why people play games, differences in capabilities of vehicles creates tension and struggle, both of which are healthy for games.
At a BR of 6.7 for example, I am in an M26 firing APCR. That creates unique challenges when I can face anywhere from M18 to IS-4M. My tank can deal with all of the vehicles, it’s a capable tank firing a capable round. The question is what tactics do I use for each engagement [rhetorical].
Right now there are 4 modes of separation for vehicles within the match maker.
M26, M46, IS-3, and IS-4M can all be different BRs while being similar enough in capabilities that any one of them can’t objectively frag the other.
What causes issues is when tanks can’t physically frag the enemy tank no matter what they do: M5A1 vs M4 Sherman.
Cause while an aware IS-4M can still be out-played by an M26 firing APCR, a Sherman will never be consistently tracked/barreled by an M5A1 to allow it to flank. Sherman also has a massive mobility buff over IS-4M in this comparison.
You compress the match maker from 4 to 3 and you either create staleness of the same vehicles fighting each other, or you create BR compression as well, as Gaijin would correctly move balanced vehicles that use to face each other closer together in BR.
Decompression requires less work as it’s easier, and doesn’t screw up the majority of BRs that are already balanced such as but not limited to 6.7, 12.0, and 9.3 ground [not counting CAS in 12.0’s case, decompression can’t fix that].
Even with how compressed World of Tanks is, it’s rather stale cause it’s the samey matches.
If I pick a random BR for War Thunder there are at least 40 different play styles in ground, and at least 10 different play styles in air to consider.
Even the compressed BRs like 9.0 air and 2.7 ground are more fun the infuriating cause the chances of an M4 Sherman or a Mitsubishi F1/Mirage 3 are still rather low. Or in the case of if I pick an 8.7 jet to play: The chances of seeing Ayit is low.
Compression is an issue that needs resolved of course.
The solution is never to compress the matchmaker itself.
Gaijins “challenges” are too extreme.
I agree that changing the MM from 4 steps to 3 steps isn’t good, but it’s the only way we will get something resembling BR decompression at this point.
We either needs lots of decompression, or we need 0.7 MM.
Staleness shouldn’t be used as an argument against this either.
2 Likes
I would rather people keep pushing for actual decompression over a small br spread.
If gaijin changes the spread to 0.7, they will no longer see any need to decompress because “we already decompressed the mm by a huge amount”
It would make balance changes worse because it will increase the difference between brs.
EX: now a br increase might change 25% of the vehicles you face. With 0.7, it will change 33% of them.
2 Likes
hear me out. increase ground to 15.0 and spread the 6.7-8.7 BRs out a load and the worst offending BR is fixed and everything else can slowly heal around it
Except changing the matchmaker requires more work.
You have to analyze all the BRs, change them to meet the new standard. You have to do almost all of the work of decompression anyway.
@Caernarvon02
6.7 and 7.7 are among the most balanced BRs in ground.
Maus and IS-4M are objectively two of the most balanced heavy tanks.
I know you’re the biggest troll on the forum but this bait is too much for me.
6.7 ww2 tanks face fully stabilised early mbts and see ATGMs. 7.7 seeing more ATGMs and APFSDS. the compression is more noticeable than at any other BR
4 Likes
6.7-7.7 isn’t terribly compressed imo, it’s 7.7-9.3 that’s more compressed.
6.7-7.7 isnt the worst bit but is certainly more unfair. the poor ww2 tanks facing cold war giants and 1970s British Combat Recce Vehicles. Its brutal for them
@Caernarvon02 Your post accusing civilityof malice again… can your posts just not antagonize people for once?
First of, stabilized cold war tanks are 8.3 - 8.7. Technically the earliest is Centurion Mk3, but it’s firing 84mm APDS without range finder equipment. Maus shrugs that off with the tiniest of angling.
Milans are at 7.7, and useless keyboard guided missiles with the reaction time worse than that of a Maus. MILANs are useful but they’re on platforms that… die to APHE very very easily.
Oh, and you’re over-rating two-plane stabilization. The best 8.7 tanks in the game are T-55M and AMX-30B2. One has a stabilizer the other thermals. Stabilizers are semi-important for sniping and sometimes medium range [~450 meters] brawling, stabilizers are marginally useful <100 meters but so is throttle control. If you’ve played Tiger 1s, Tiger 2s, and Panthers as much as I’ve had you learn how to fire on the move without a stabilizer below 100 meters with over 90% consistency.
Now, when tanks that can go 60+ KPH [XM-1] with stabilizers start appearing, then yeah they matter more. Not at early-mid cold war speeds though which 6.7 doesn’t even see.
Oh, and you know those two meta 8.7s I mentioned earlier? They are the ONLY tanks using APFSDS that can pen a marginally angled Maus.
105mm HEATFS is superior to all other tanks’ APFSDS in angled pen.
It’s okay to have difference experience and different opinions, Caenarvon. Your username is one of my favorite heavy tanks that I’ve been playing since 2015 in WT, and earlier in WoT.
You and I having different opinions doesn’t mean those opinions are there because of malice.
It’s better to try and understand each other than think everyone is out to get you just cause they have an opinion different than yours.
wrong
aim for turret cheek and you’re going through, or hit the engine deck with HE and one shot
wrong
heat sucks at the moment you’re better off using APDS at the moment with its inconsistency
3 Likes