Ever heard of 80-20 rule?
That’s not what I meant and you know it.
A human, preferably one that actually plays the game and is good at it or at least is knowledgeable, should examine vehicle’s potential and decide it’s BR. Statistics can only be a suggestion.
Another approach is that a data scientist would process the data and decide vehicle’s BR based on that.
Raw data is well, raw.
Again, won’t work.
Again, it is F2P PVP game.
There already were a suggestions about best players deciding on things like B.Rs., maps, gamemodes, etc., yet we are still here.
Why no WW2 Israel when we know they had WW2 tanks? Why does it start at 6BR?
What do you mean it won’t work, I’m asking you if you’ve ever heard of it.
The last 20% of something is as difficult to achieve as the first 80%.
Putting all the effort into balance doesn’t make sense and only hurts realism.
Do you agree that it would take some considerable work to make a WW2 only mode ? I do see where the nay sayers are coming from to be fair.I just think if the game is intending to stick around then it would be worth it.Of course if Gaijin are just milking this old game at its death then maybe not.
It doesn’t take considerable work (relatively, a new game mode or BR overhaul is always a lot of work), the problem is that Gaijin doesn’t see any way to profit from this. And sadly they are right, average player doesn’t care and isn’t nearly as into military tech and it’s history as you would imagine.
This is a fallacy, what would be historically accurate about using a light/infantry assault gun against main battle tanks, when Sweden already had the Strv 103 and Centurions available. Maybe in a theoretical last stand where Sweden was down to their last, repelling a russian armoured invasion but this still isn’t historical or accurate.
If players are insisting on ‘historical’ matchups between vehicles, let them have sandbox versions of actual battles with known force compositions and they can re-enact or try to change history with the vehicles that actually fought each other and use Spawn Cost to balance disparity.
Its difficult to support the desire for historical matchups when player’s aren’t asking for history, they’re just trying to use the 'date of introduction/development as an excuse to leverage more advantagous matches for a select list older vehicles and easier matchups for later vehicles by uptiering obsolete post war designs.
Its as if the players have made the exact same mistake as tank designers at the end of world war 2 in that heavy tanks are meant to have a more significant role on the battlefield. It was hardly true in WW2 and definitely wasn’t true afterwards. Now players are here trying to lobby the developers to create an unrealistic artificial ecosystem for armour meta and have the ausacity to call it ‘historical accuracy’
You know I want what you want but I think we have found our answer here my friend : )
You’re right of course. The concept of the game overall isn’t realistic, because we don’t have infantry.
The point is that if Ikv 103 were to fight any tanks, it would probably fight T-54s and T-55s or other vehicles of that era like BMP-1 etc. This game is about plane, tank, ship combat, so we try to make the game realistic under these assumptions.
That’s just belittling realism advocates. “Go play in the sandbox, you can play war and reenactments there.”
That’s your opinion that realism advocates just want what benefits them, perhaps you’re projecting.
War Thunder was never about strictly historical scenarios, it always included alt history. It’s supposed to throw you into the specific era and experience this time period and possible matchups.
Sim was supposed to be strictly historical with available vehicles list/BR brackets and a strict divide between Axis and Allies or NATO and Warsaw Pact. Realistic battles always included alt history.
I may be a little guilty of this, when I advocate for a stronger divide between WW2 and Cold War.
However, for the most part I don’t want to lobby armor meta. I just don’t want heavy tanks to face opponents with unrealistically high firepower. Just put them against realistic opponents and see what happens.
I don’t mind getting killed by an IS-2 or SU-100 in a Tiger II, but whenever some HEAT slinger does it, I get annoyed, even though the outcome is the same.
HEAT made heavy tanks like the IS-3 obsolete, but not heavy tanks like KV-1 or Tiger II. HEAT might have only been the final nail in the coffin, as medium tanks were more worth it even during WW2, but still WW2 heavy tanks weren’t completely obsolete and had something going for them. In fact WW2 was the only era where heavy tanks were used with great success.
All said and done I just don’t enjoy 6BR like I used to before the post war artillery spam.Its a game enjoyment issue not a historical fixation for me. Gaijin are trying to mix oil and water and it just doesn’t work for me.
I just feel the game unravels at 6-7 BR where old slow WW2 legends are smashed out of the park by 70s AFVs ,do I want to be part of that? No.
I think you are misunderstanding my use of sandbox. I mean it the game development/game genre context of a free form environment where players can experiment with gameplay elements.
I’m using the term sandbox to mean the opposite of a predermined scenario. I’m posing the sandbox in good faith as an environment that allows players to play the game the same as they would in typical Rb/Sim matchups as opposed to having objectives and capture points that would interfere with tylical playstyle more so than the vehicle restrictions wluld have already.
You could say the exact same thing about the Pbv 301 or Ikv 72, and expecting those to fight them is madness.
Face the damn music, please.
Historical accuracy and balance is not possible here, especially given the large amount of countries and eras. As an example, lets take your oft-quoted Ikv 103. Against a Leopard I, it has exactly one advantage - gun depression - and that is it. It is inferior in every other way.
Same with most of the other “issue” vehicles. Where they are now is fine. Most of them are only decent at best, (With the Ikv just being bad), and while yes, they can punch through heavies, they have so many disadvantages that it is heavily outweighed.
I sure as hell would take a KV-1E or -B over a Ikv, thats for sure. War Thunder isn’t a hardcore military simulator, it isnt a historical reenactment software, it is a game where players run around maps capturing circles in tanks.
None of this is relevant to the idea that the game should stick closer to historical themes than it does.
If they were to do so, most minor nations would be completely useless or irrelevant. I see zero reason to do this, it is simply wasted effort that will make the game worse.
You say this as if its a binary decision and not a gradient between no realism and full realism.
oh the BR is wrong ie 1,0 tanks ae now facign 2,7 3,0
2,7 are facing 4,0 4,3
so no wonder they get 10 kills and can pick u off leaving the spawn
i dont know how to join a game im 1,3 -max 2.0 and not face 2,7 ,3,0 tanks so i dont spimly loose 3 tanks in under 2 mins this has ti stop
In some ways it is. The Ikv 103 would be very bad at 8.0, and utterly outclassed by anything there. Its telling how you object to the Ikv and not the Sav m/43 (1946)
Listen. I can genuinely understand why y’all may not like it - getting smacked by HEAT through your UFP can be very annoying. However, you must understand that the vehicles aren’t even good, are very niche, and compared to the tanks they face have very few advantages.
WT isn’t a historical sim, and isn’t intended to be. It is an arcade game with realistic vehicle modeling (To an extent), and that is it. Gaijn understands this, understands that for a good game balance must come first, and will not change it.
Except the option isn’t “current BR or 8.0”
I didn’t object to anything in specific…
it once carried a far more immersive and realistic overtone that was lost throughout the years. People are definitely valid in wanting to return to that.
War Thunder is immersive and realistic, if it wasn’t I wouldn’t be playing.
I don’t play arcade games, it’s not my thing.
Arcade and historical reenactment are in the same never play category.