Certain BRs appear to be absolute Vacuums to make uptiers less pain full what if we lowered it From a full one 1.0 uptier to .7 uptier it solves many problems as we have a average of 100,000 players on so reducing uptiers should be possible in this way with current player count what yall think ill try a suggestion if this goes well but most mine get denied so.
Feel free to disscuss thoughts and questions below
Since Gaijin continuously refuses to decompress the BRs despite it being universally positive, I support an 0.7 BR range until Gaijin is able to adequately decompress War Thunder.
If Gaijin decompressed more than 0.7 per year (we are literally 2.0 whole BRs behind where we should be in air at this point), I wouldn’t support 0.7 MM.
this would go for air and ground (naval maybe) for every br
now instead of (example) Me262a1a 7.0 vs F86-A5 itll be Me262a1a vs F80c-10 which is far more fair than the first Or F14B 13.0 vs EUROFIGHTER 14.0 itll be F14B vs SU27SM far more fair
I’d say that the spreads for ground would be 1.0 for 2.0-3.7/4.0; 0.7 for 1.0-1.7, 4.0/4.3-12.0.
For naval, make it 0.3/0.4 spread max for basically all BRs, at least for bluewater.
oh yeah naval need this the most. the fact that you can bracket armorless 5.0 destroyer from 20km away from your pocket battleship is crazy
We really dont need 1000+ threads, all about lowering the max BR spread.
Changing it to 0.7 would make sure you only ever get uptiers.
Uptiers are exclusively caused by BR popularity compared to other BRs.
Most BRs are also balanced.
Of course @Ion_Protogen opposes decompression now. Accelerationism isn’t the answer.
to be fair i wouldnt Say 75mm jumbo (5.7) vs (6.7) Tiger 2 H is fair
or 10.3 J35XS vs 9.3 F100A is fair or 6.0 HMS Dreadnought vs 7.0 Kronshdhat is fair
I support decompression, and I fully believe that full and proper decompression are better than 0.7 MM. My main issue comes from gaijin refusing to decompress.
They’re quite compressed above 6.0 for ground, and 7.0 for air, with some being better than others. 7.0-8.0 ground isn’t compressed, but 8.0-9.0 is for example. And in air, 9.0-10.0 is extremely compressed, but 10.3-11.3 generally isnt.
The easiest way to illustrate ground compression is to look at the 76mm Jumbo, M26, Tiger II P and T-44. None of those are balanced at their current BR relative to stuff either at, or just above their BR. However, none of them can go down without being considered too powerful.
As I said, it’s a minority of BRs or in the Jumbo’s case just one tank being over-BR’d.
9.3 is 0.3 - 0.7 BR.
@Ion_Protogen
There is zero ground compression above 8.0 ground, nor 5.7 - 7.7.
10.3 is the most decompressed BR in the game.
M26, Tiger IIP, and T-44 show balance not compression. All of those are balanced at their BRs.
And Jumbo easily goes down cause it only has a 75mm gun.
70% of my 5.7 games are Uptiers to 6.7 playing 6.7 yesterday basically every match was 7.7 in a sqaud of 4 couldnt get a single match at our BR there where MAUS in every match and we played 9 matches that night
Having objectively better tanks at the same BR, or considerably better tanks just 0.3 higher shows BR compression. The tiger II P, M26, and T-44 are all worse than other 6.7 tanks, yet they would all be too good for 6.3. You also can’t say the Tiger is balanced when the II H exists at the exact same BR.
Complete lie. If you said 10.3 I’d believe you, but there is no way that an Obj-122 is just 0.7 better than the original Amx-30. And it certainly isn’t 9.0 capable because it’s 0.7 worse than the Xm-1.
You can’t just say that one of the the most compressed areas in ground (7.7-9.0) isn’t compressed. You go from unstabilized APDS users, to stabilized, APFSDS users, that often have thermals an and LRF in just 1 BR bracket.
Denying that 5.7-7.7 isn’t compressed is also false, which I have already proved.
I agree. I’m not sure why it went to 5.7 in the first place.
That’s how healthy 5.7 is. It’s a strong and healthy BR thus is very popular. Most tech trees have 5.7 lineups, and most don’t have 6.7 lineups, thus uptiers will happen.
However, that also means you have 6.7s on your team.
6.7 lineups are also more common than 7.7 ever since most 7.7s were moved up to 8.0.
6.7s also largely easily deal with 7.7s compared to even 4.0 uptiers to 5.0.
The biggest struggle is 1.7s dealing with 2.7s and 2.7s dealing with 3.7s where it’s impossible most times.
5.7s dealing with Tiger 2s? Flanking, HEATFS, etc.
2.7? Flanking doesn’t even help you against Shermans in a large number of tanks.
@Ion_Protogen
Marginally* better tanks at 6.7.
Tiger 2, T-44, and M26 are among the best 6.7s in the game.
IS-2, M41, Ferdinand, FIAT 6614, Zachlam Tager, AUBL-74, Type 60 ATM, G6, M50, T34 are all either harder to use, worse, or arguably worse tanks than T-44, Tiger 2, and M26.
They’re still all usable, but they’re not better than those three tanks.
If you’re struggling with Tiger 2, T-44, and M26 I have advice.
T-44 has speed and armor, use BR-367.
Tiger 2 has gun stability, advance around corners at a steady speed. Tiger 2 P/H are the same tank with different turrets, that turret armor doesn’t matter as much as you think, cause at 6.7 all tanks pen 2H turrets just as easily as 2P turrets, and a number of 5.7s pen both equally.
M26 has APCR… get good with it and it’s your strongest round.
5.7 - 7.7 is not compressed and hasn’t been compressed since 2 years ago.
The first APFSDS user is Strv 104 at 8.7, the rest use APDS-FS, which are their APDS rounds modified to be fin stabilized rather than rounds specifically designed to be fin-stabilized from the start such as DM23, M111, M734, etc.
Thermals, laser range finders, no stabilizer is beaten via game knowledge.
Stabilizer, laser range finders, no thermals is beaten via game knowledge.
IRL these tanks faced each other too, and in-game they’re balanced via the BR system.
Object 122 is a bad - mediocre 8.7, it’s never been a good 8.7. It’s effectively a T-55A with 4 ATGMs of low gun depression, and the T-55A is 8.3.
The Tiger II P is bad at 6.7, and I doubt the “I cant pen a panther UFP” M26 is good when the objectively superior T26E5 is at the same BR.
Us 90mms? Russian 85mms? Anything not at 6.7 that was uptiered? All of those tanks have issues with the II H, but not the II P.
They’re still considerable advantages. An M18 can beat a Leo 1 with game knowledge, but that doesn’t make them equivalents. For example, if you have a stab and the enemy doesn’t, get them moving and push them. This is especially effective in tanks with armour. Don’t bother sniping against tanks with a stab+LRF, or a stab+thermals either.
And 8.0s also struggle with 9.0s. I agree that it’s bad at 2.7, but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t also bad at 8.0-9.0.
I consider it quite good. It’s mobile enough, weirdly tanky, with an OK gun, and very useful ATGMs. It’s also fully stabilized with a laser rangefinder, which makes it exceptionally good in downtiers when it regularly faces tanks with neither.
This is where the imbalance is. The AMX-30 or Leopard 1 are both solid 8.0s, but they lose almost every advantage when facing an 8.7 you call mediocre. They can’t snipe because the stab+LRF combo is very powerful, they can’t flank because the difference in mobility isn’t as large as people would claim, and they can’t face it in CQC because a stabilized, decently mobile tank wrecks everything.
In air, BR compression is incredibly easy to see, especially in the 9.0-10.0 bracket. You go from subsonic/transonic planes with 9Bs at best, to supersonics with R-60s or 9G/D/Js in one BR bracket.
American 90mm guns easily pen 2H turrets. Over 200mm of pen vs 185mm flat turret, straight to the ammo/gunner/breech.
Tiger 2P is among the best 6.7s in the game.
T26E5 and M26 both pen the Panther UFP if you use their best round which isn’t APCBC.
8.0s and 9.0s are closer to each other in capabilities than B1 Bis and M10.
AMX-30 and Leopard 1 have the same ammo as almost all of the 8.7s and some of the 9.0s
only with apcr can they pen or they have to be in there face