Can we stop arguing over whether a particular vehicle is too strong or too weak?

[Knuckles7080-live]

@MiGoon Fox-3

lemme go try this with a gripen then. Will that satisfy?

Well wouldn’t its rcs/ir signature be thing to note though?

[Morvran]

No, RCS for a lot of aircraft is the same. Would be if comparing to something like an Su-30 which does have a larger RCS signature, but Tornado, Gripen, Typhoon, etc, fairly certain they have the same RCS

Fairly certain everything is just grouped as either small, medium or large, with the exception of the F-117

[MiGoon_Fox-3]

@Knuckles7080-live

Well wouldn’t its rcs/ir signature be thing to note though?

IR signature won’t matter since it’s testing radar missiles.
but if needed I can also run F-15C GE which is quite big

[Knuckles7080-live]

@MiGoon Fox-3

IR signature won’t matter since it’s testing radar missiles.

Well I just mentioned ir signature to be specific and the recent ir missiles rework and since bol have flares

Also wouldn’t load out also be factor as well?

[MiGoon_Fox-3]

@Knuckles7080-live

Also wouldn’t load out also be factor as well?

loadout doesn’t change RCS so it’s irrelevant for this test

• Currently waiting on a friend with rafale to boot game

[Knuckles7080-live]

No but it does affect FM

[MiGoon_Fox-3]

Don’t think that’s really necessary to compare but I can go full fuel F-15

[Morvran]

BOL flares are an entirely different problem, given they arent even meant to be modeled as flares, However, BOL flares do work fine vs something like 9Ms because of how 9Ms work, and most aircraft have at least a few alternative CMs which are usually enough for the limited number of IR missiles you actually have to deal with.

But fixing BOL Chaff would be a major QoL upgrade and a direct buff for a LOT of aircraft currently, given the degree in which its nerfed

[Morvran]

The test is more about how BOL chaff actually works when in the notch, and less about getting into the notch.

But even then, I find notching in a fully laden GR4 way easier than a F3

[Knuckles7080-live]

I mean if you can also test it with a full load out of armaments as well

I’m just curious if theirs a huge difference in those factors

[Knuckles7080-live]

But wouldn’t positioning be factor in notching and if you don’t have enough energy to notch especially against missile buses

[Morvran]

It might in an actual battle, but at the moment, its purely about how much chaff you need to drop to get a missile to switch targets

[Knuckles7080-live]

Oh okay

[Beeschurger]

@sunkaiwin

Even if one vehicle really is stronger, would you want to play it every single day? I certainly wouldn’t.

Thats entirely subjective and theres well estabilished term of “meta-chasers”. You see this with FotM on smaller scale, you see this with premium Su-30s on larger scale.

@sunkaiwin

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?

Gaijin doesnt care, being evident by them not moving premium Su-30s to 13.7, and some players also dont care about statistics, as evident, well any balance discussion in the past several months?

Also dont know what part of balance discussions you were part of but all those i was part of in the past had people asking for for BR changes, not artificial nerfs/buffs.

@sunkaiwin

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.”

Balancing by BR isnt a thing apparently.

@sunkaiwin

What do you guys think?

You oughta give your post more thought.

[mineLo]

@Morvran_

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.

Always has been the case and this will not change anytime soon. War Thunder is a WiP project and will be until every notable vehicle has been added and all mechanics have been refined to an acceptable degree. The Leopard 2 armor rework has still not been actioned upon. Does it matter? Not really since it is very competitive and perfectly viable as is. Do I expect this to change once other tanks with more modern shells get added? Absolutely, just like with the Puma.

Same thing with BOL. There are soo many things that need a full rework. Basically everything radar and IR related that will affect the use and effectiveness of countermeasures and require rebalancing. Just not the time for that yet.

[ScimitarsCurse]

I dont think you understand why people argue about it.

Some people want the game to reflect vehicles correctly down to the exact ammunition they use (for example removing the german apds from XM800T and leaving it with only APCR) and changing its BR to reflect that.

some people want semi-realistic setups where the vehicle is close but video game logic takes over for some things (service ammo withheld to keep it at a lower BR or a questionable modification like the spaced armour on conqueror)

and some people want WT to devolve into WoT random fake vehicles by readding panther 2, tiger 2 105, ho-ri and then also adding the O-I and FV215b just to name a few.

@sunkaiwin

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.”

Thats generally what everyone is in favour of, making vehicles correct (until certain biasesreally kick in from some people). Where they are actually fair within the BR system is where the bunfights start

@sunkaiwin

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.

I have a thousand matches in the FV721 fox, 900 in the mk24 spitfire and 800 in the FV107 scimitar. Not because they are op but because i actually like the real vehicle.

There are people that genuinely have thousands of games in one tank because its OP, you will see them frequently if you look at players stats during matches out of curiosity. Especially at low tier, lots of sealclubbers do thousands of games at reserve tier in an OP tank there just to bully new players.

@sunkaiwin

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?

we do

@sunkaiwin

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.”

it sells on realistic vehicles, being played authentically but facing similarly capable vehicles. This is why the game uses BRs instead of flat ranks or historical matchmaking.

@sunkaiwin

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.

lets hope they do, WT doesnt have any actual competitor within the genre. a lack of competition breeds laziness and the expectation that they will be on top forever.

Gaijin needs a kick up the arse to fix some serious problems

@sunkaiwin

I don’t care whether the Leopard 2 ends up being too strong or too weak. I can always switch vehicles.

When you constantly get killed by players you can tell are trash and have zero way to actually outplay you because they are using a moderately superior vehicle at the same BR you will start caring.

vehicles can both be almost perfectly accurate and balanced. theres plenty of vehicles are exactly that, we can push gaijin to make more be in the same state

[Pangolin_Fan]

@sunkaiwin

What do you guys think?

I think the game being playable is pretty key to actually playing it.

[MiGoon_Fox-3]

- YouTube

@Morvran

Funny MICA 360 but I doubt that’s truly relevant here lmao

[MiGoon_Fox-3]

Here’s the sensor view of the MICA shot for you to enjoy

Spoiler

[sunkaiwin]

I’m not saying WT is a full simulator, or that every inaccurate vehicle was deliberately nerfed. My point is that vehicle characteristics should stay as close to reality as possible, with BR adjustments used to handle balance.

“An arcadey shooter with realistic mechanics” doesn’t contradict that. Arcade gameplay doesn’t mean the vehicles themselves have to be less accurate. And yes, the bug reporting site exists. I’m talking about the priority behind development, not where to submit a report.

I agree GHPC and Steel Beasts aren’t direct replacements for WT. But “never a competitor” is a pretty strong claim. Different games can still appeal to some of the same players and compete for their time. Your Battlefield and Squad example actually shows that: different experiences, but someone can still choose to spend their evening playing one instead of the other.

I could have worded parts of my post better. What I want is more attention to getting the vehicles right. If accurate modelling makes one too strong for its BR, change its BR.