Change the br algorithm from "mean of all players" to "mean of top %10"

We all know that gaijin uses a “mean of all players” type of algorithm to balance the br for every vehicle. This, in and of itself is a flawed way of doing things. Instead what should be used is to balancing the metrics of the top 10% of the playerbase of a vehicle. If this was implemented today and the br changes was done tomorrow, the game would be in a VERY good spot then.

Edit: only the good players of a vehicle can represent the potential.


wont happen because too many people dont want change

id say top 30% because it gives a larger data array of decent players. it would delete the premium noobs from the data entireley

1 Like

So let’s try this. You get a vehicle like the M-18 in which experienced players can flank and engage effectively while having effectively no armor to speak of. Vehicle goes up because the most skilled players are very good at using them. Now you have the average player, who cannot successfully implement the same tactics as the experienced player, being forced to use a weaker vehicle pushed into higher battle ratings by much mored skilled players.

This game is made for the average person and should be balanced as such. The top 10 percent shouldn’t ever be in charge of what the other 90 percent of the playerbase has to deal with.


If we take into consideration that we also take data from only experienced players, then tanks around that B.R. will be also taken into consideration. Thus, the data will be compared and only if vechicle is overperforming, it will be adressed.

Most of WT problems come from it being balanced around average player.


One way or another they need to have a consistent way to measure across nations, they come up with some nonsense about how they consider skill and lineups and everything when they clearly do not, blatant lies are extremely annoying and unproductive when they clearly don’t consider anything but just some basic formula about vehicle earnings, regardless of what nation the vehicle is placed in or what lineups are there.

Otherwise they wouldn’t do things like place the Type 81 at 11.3 or the recent BR changes where they move planes to 10.7 whilst there are only 2 nations and 6 vehicles at that BR, so a US plane at 10.7 is pointless.

Do you actually believe this?

What is more likely:

  1. BRs aee determined by a plain average approach (success/results) of all players using a certain vehicle.


  2. BRs are determined by a plain average approach (as in #1) and consider economic goals (pushing sales of certain products) together with conscious / sub-conscious bias or political goals to push certain nations.

The forum is full of bias/stalinum threads - if you check the average WRs in certain BR brackets you see a lot of circumstantial evidence that BRs are used to “steer” WRs - just look at these data:

This statement makes zero sense. If some guys are “premium noobs” they are already excluded from the top 10%.

This game is designed to earn money without the necessary time investment to learn and to improve - because as soon as players became smart enough to understand how wt works they won’t invest money in it. So by avoiding too steep learning curves those 90% can still be somehow happy - and spend real money.

Exactly. It is the same with artificially lowering standards irl. Good guys are punished by lowering standards whilst the overall quality drops.

2 examples:

  1. Lowering educational requirements to increase the number of college/university degrees of certain minorities is lowering the overall value of degrees and of education as a whole.

  2. Lowering recruitment standards of Armed Forces to increase the number of certain minorities or genders is actually lowering the combat effectiveness of Armed Forces as a whole.

For both examples: Google presents some rather convincing data to support these views…


But then why should everyone else be beholden to bad players pushing good vehicles down in BR? XP-50, Yak3U, P-39N and many others sit far below the BRs they belong at because bad players suck in them.


Actually. Bad idea. I get the idea. But then that means for 90% of the playerbase vehicles could be over BRed and unreasonably hard to use.

Better that 90% of the player base can use “X” vehicle well enough, but 10% do too well. Than 90% of player base cant use “X” vehicle because its too hard and 10% of the playerbase do well enough.

For example. If you based the BR of something like the Tornado F3 after the really experienced players (go look at someone like Gunjobs Youtube channel for him in the F3) it would be like 12.0. But for most of the player base. 11.3 is actually quite hard work.

No, because that just means that someone with bonkers wild stats will throw off the whole rating of the vehicle.

I have a positive KDR in the Strv 103 C, around a 1.5, something some people may consider hard to pull off, I by far do not have the best stats overall, at least I don’t think so, but by my gameplay standards it could go to 9.0, probably 9.3 comfortably.

I agree with the idea of this post but I would say definitely not top10%.
Instead I think the median stats should be used more for balancing, not the average.
Some weight should also be added from the top maybe 2 percent, to prevent pros slaughtering rest of the field.
This of course will be addressing the issue of premium vehicle being OP, however it’s up to Gaijin to consider if they will adopt such idea

1 Like

A better way to do this, rather than simply neglect all players under a certain threshold, is to compare a player’s global stats to how they perform in a given vehicle. This is what’s known in other games as a winrate curve.

Here’s an example of a vehicle that’s more or less well balanced:

As you can see, lower skilled players tend to perform worse than average, while better players perform better than average. Counterintuitively, this indicates a well balanced vehicle, as it indicates that the vehicle is not so braindead as to play the game for the lesser skilled, and that it has advantages that allow skilled players to do well. While it would technically be more balanced if it were a completely straight line, some variation is expected if we want vehicles that don’t all perform identically.

Here’s one for an unbalanced vehicle:

As you can see, the line is solidly above the average of players all across the skill gradient, and particularly for more skilled players. This is a textbook overperforming vehicle. You can imagine a corrolary curve under the average being an underpowered one.

This system is better than just looking at any arbitrary stat alone, since it can give you more information as to why a vehicle is performing the way it is.

If it’s overperforming with lesser skilled players but averages out as you get higher, that’s a vehicle with a low skill floor but a balanced skill ceiling.

If it goes negative at the higher skill levels, that indicates a low skill ceiling, implying it’s a one trick pony that’s easy to play but also easily countered and with low potential. Looking at you, Zeros.

This holds for vice versa too, a high skill floor vehicle would have lower than average low skill performance, but average to higher than average high skill.

Of course, this all implies good faith analysis from the only people who have these stats, which is probably too much to expect. They’re a business whose model thrives on frustration and the percieved advantages of spending money. A perfectly balanced game goes against their monetary interests.


One of the worst ideas I’ve seen on these forums, and that’s saying something.

No, balancing around “top players” is always awful.


Balancing around raw vehicle performance would be better than “top players”, but arguably still worse than balancing on the overall playerbase’s performance as they do now.



Imho you missed this part:

So there is no threat that a few “super-humans” are able to lift a S-199 from 3.3 to 3.7 in Air RB, but some aircraft preferred by whole stat padder squads (like P-39 N-0 at 2.7 or F4U at 2.7) might see a raise of their BRs.

I got your point - but imho placing vehicles at “more reasonable” BRs, so based on their actual combat power has 2 major effects:

  1. It prevents less experienced players to be clubbed by objectively undertiered vehicles (see examples above) used by far above average experienced users
  2. It enforces less experienced players to invest time to learn their vehicles instead of using them not correctly (and thereby dragging the BRs artificially lower).

So even considering that gaijin would not even think about such a proposal (as stated above) in the long run the less experienced players would benefit, whilst experienced players would face way less opportunities to exploit severely undertiered vehicles.

1 Like

If its alright to throw my 2 cents in, Could having certain vehicles be locked to a Br help along with this idea.

Lets say usa get’s these vehicles locked.
At 4.0 The m4a2, 5.0 the m4a1 76, and 6.0 the m4a3e2
Then for the ussr we have
kv1s at 4.0, t-34-85 at 5.0, and is-2 at 6.0.

Basically we get a baseline of how/what certain vehicles should have at said br’s and we balance other vehicles around them. Combine this with the mean of the 30% for the more moderate player’s and it could even the balancing out a bit better.

I dont believe we have any firm information on this at all.

We have vague hints about how they do it, but no details. So idk how “we all know” when we have no firm information on it

If you want to experience this play any minor nation besides Sweden.

M41A3 is a good example … mostly only used by good players … with 5.3 hard on the edge of playability.