A vehicle’s performance should be based on reality. If it’s too strong, raise its BR. Don’t sacrifice realism just for this ridiculous idea of “balance.”
Even if one vehicle really is stronger, would you want to play it every single day? I certainly wouldn’t. I’d get sick of playing the same supposedly overpowered vehicle, and I imagine you would too. How many players only play one or two nations? Most of us play all sorts of nations anyway.
What we should be discussing is whether a vehicle’s characteristics match reality, or at least come close. Bring solid evidence, such as data and screenshots, and ask Gaijin to correct it. I think convincing evidence should get Gaijin to respect the facts. Without evidence, what’s the point of arguing?
This game sells itself on realism, not competitive balance. If you want a vehicle combat game focused on competition at the expense of realism, there are plenty of games that do that better: World of Tanks, World of Warplanes, World of Warships, Armored Warfare, and so on. Those games put competitive balance ahead of realism. They can change a tank’s autoloader reload time simply for “balance.”
Other games are already showing what they can offer in terms of realistic tank combat, such as GHPC and Steel Beasts. Who knows? Years from now, games like these might give War Thunder some serious competition.
Let’s keep realism at the heart of this game and push Gaijin to spend more effort getting the vehicles right. Personally, I just want to experience more realistic Leopard 2s, Abrams, Type 99s, T-90Ms, and so on. I don’t care whether the Leopard 2 ends up being too strong or too weak. I can always switch vehicles.
Don’t exactly know what you are complaining about. There have been very few cases where vehicles have been artificially nerfed past missing armament options and systems. And if there is something that is wrong you got the forum and bug reporting site right there. (often it takes months to years I know)
Let’s not forget that WT isn’t a simulator but an arcadey shooter with realistic mechanics. GHPC and Steel Beasts will never be a competitor to War Thunder because they cover a whole nother niche in gaming. It’s like saying battlefield is a direct competitor to squad or Hay Day vs Farming Sim.
Inspired by reality would be a more accurate term.
Realism is not healthy for an arcade game.
We should not be changing things primarily because “muh realism” because it will make the game intolerable to play for 95% of people.
Just look at how simplified top tier air mechanics are regarding notching etc…
People already struggle with just that.
Artificially nerfing a vehicle for the sake of maintaining at a perticular balance usually does more harm than good.
Like for example the state of BOL.
It was artificially nerfed 2+ years ago now to nerf the Gripen, and in the process nerfed a dozen other aircraft which have suffered every day since.
Even the strongest of the BOL carriers are impacted hard by having Chaff that basically does nothing.
Fix BOL, balance afterwards, imo, almost nothing would actually need correcting in terms of BR, because more than half of what is reliant on BOL is under performing loads anyway
Tbh, at this point, I think bug reports are entirely actioned based upon balance. Something performing too well? a few nerf reports get actioned. Performing poorly? here lets fix these things for you.
You cannot with one hand claim its based upon realism, whilst on the other use bug reports as a balancing tool, because that is just unfair.
They need to state and do one or the other, and not state one and do the other.
Its not balanced this way either, usually Gaijin picks the FOTM vehicle and buff the hell out of it, and everything else is just left to suffer quietly, ignored.
And heck, even bug reports that dont have any impact on balance at all. Take for example the Typhoons UV Filter missing for its cockpit HUD, reported back on the dev server dec 2024… Still not fixed…
Let alone the fact the Bug reporting site is trash. You search for something specific and you get everything but. Should work on a tag system. Search for reports about a weapon or vehicle, you only see reports for that weapon or vehicle.
I just dont think artificially nerfing certain vehicles, because an entirely different vehicle is performing okay is fair. Like they are doing with BOL currently.
BOL chaff is 1/4 the strength of regular chaff and about 1/5 to 1/6 the strength it probably should be.
Trying to notch in the Tonka F3 or FA2 is basically impossible.
And had multiple times today in the Typhoon, with the MAWS giving me precise notch angle, where 50-60 BOL chaff did absolutely nothing.
meanwhile in a Tonka GR4, I can usually defeat basically any fox-3 without any effort at all, with its Large chaff.
But if CM size can be used as a balancing tool, then drop the Su-30SM2 and Rafale down from large chaff to regular chaff and if they are still performing too well, micro chaff
Artificial nerfs will be needed, otherwise it’s impossible to balance them in a way that makes them fun.
IIR missiles for example, I see 0 ways in which they could actually be balanced properly with their actual IR seekers. You just end up cucking over pretty much everyone.
The issue is that you need to implement them in a way that actually is fair. Which gaijin cannot do
and so long as all seekers were handled the same, that would be fine. But if we have a situation like MICA EM again, where one missile is just way better than the rest… that isnt balanced anymore.
But again, is it really fair that hte Tonka F3 is artificially nerfed because the Gripen was performing well 2+ years ago?
I drop on average 40-50 chaff per missile and even then, it sometimes does nothing.
This is with the missile at the right notch angle according to MAWS.
without that… you just cannot achieve the level of precision required in anything else. Its why I want Phimat pods on the F3s, because at least then we’d have chaff that worked.
But if it would change nothing, why deny the nearly 3 year old report?
