[Development] Collecting Your Ideas for the 2024 Roadmap

[Tristacomand]

@Cpt_Bel_V

First of all you didn’t take everything but Tanks in account for your solutions

Have you played naval? Probably the most compressed in the game. Completely messed up. 6.7 ships are almost entirely inferior to 7.0, the only way many 7.0 ships can be taken down is concentrated fire from many lower BR ships. Stuff like Scharnhorst is essentially unkillable to even other 7.0 ships, never mind 6.0.

@Cpt_Bel_V

But since you’re showing a table generally spreaded out without any consideration for the current game

Since matchmaker would use 1.0 BR spread exactly as before, it would mean that vehicles which are currently top tier could not fight.

Leopard 1 is 8.0 and it would become 15.0
It therefore could not fight T-55AM1, which would be 16.3
It would only fight vehicles which had been underperforming at 8.7 but currently can’t be at 8.3 because they’re too strong.

@Cpt_Bel_V

First of all :
→ decompression is ONLY needed in parts of BR range where technology difference within 1.0/1.3 is bringing trouble

I can’t agree to this at all.

A MiG-21bis isn’t suffering because it has no radar missiles or a bad radar. It’s not about technology. It has flares, it has all aspect missiles. The “technology” is there, but the problem is it’s compressed. It’s trapped where it can’t be moved down but isn’t strong enough for current BR. It has nothing to do with technology.

@Cpt_Bel_V

in the end each changes in each kind of TT should be done in order to not create a gap between type of vehicules, because the game itself is proposing combined arms gameplay.

Yes. So since some jumps in technology require radical BR spacing. If we want planes, tanks, helicopters and ships to all have BR’s that work together, we need to space things out much more.

I refer to the basic point.

@Cpt_Bel_V

But since you’re showing a table generally spreaded out without any consideration for the current game

Almost all BR are heavily compressed, too many vehicles are overperforming or underperforming at their current BR but are trapped by a lack of options. the BR 23.7 proposal I made would give an additional space above and below each BR except for below reserve and above current top.

Having vehicles like F2G-1 or XP-50 which have really exceptional characteristics, these kinds of vehicles exist at every BR in the game with no exceptions.

Or do you want to explain how a vehicle like BT-5 is the same BR as M2A2, or M8. Many such examples of vehicles too strong for current br, but to weak for higher one, or too weak at current br but way too strong for lower one. That’s the essence of compression and it happens at literally every single existing BR with 0 exceptions.

The alternative proposal I made is also a solution.

@Tristacomand

Or they could start at the lowest BR.

1. take the vehicles underperforming and leave them at their current BR.
2. take the vehicles performing fine and shift them and every higher BR vehicle up 1 step.
3. take the vehicles overperforming and shift them and every higher BR vehicle 2 steps up.

Underperforming vehicles are fighting things too strong for them to handle, creating space is the only way to see what’s underneath.

Expanding the top cap doesn’t help, space MUST be created bottom up, not top down.

Vehicles should only be shunted down in BR as a last resort.

[Cpt_Bel_V]

@Tristacomand

A MiG-21bis isn’t suffering because it has no radar missiles or a bad radar. It’s not about technology. It has flares, it has all aspect missiles. The “technology” is there, but the problem is it’s compressed. It’s trapped where it can’t be moved down but isn’t strong enough for current BR. It has nothing to do with technology

What is the reason for it to be trapped?
Oh the technical advantage of the guy in front of him,…

It’s always technological,… the advantage are given by the ability of a Manufacturer to produce the best systems.

[Cpt_Bel_V]

@Tristacomand

Yes. So since some jumps in technology require radical BR spacing. If we want planes, tanks, helicopters and ships to all have BR’s that work together, we need to space things out much more

Nope,… those BR additions can be different for Tanks/aircrafts/helicopters

But the number of additions should be the same in order to reach the same max level.

[Cpt_Bel_V]

@Tristacomand

Almost all BR are heavily compressed, too many vehicles are overperforming or underperforming at their current BR but are trapped by a lack of options. the BR 23.7 proposal I made would give an additional space above and below each BR except for below reserve and above current top.

Having vehicles like F2G-1 or XP-50 which have really exceptional characteristics, these kinds of vehicles exist at every BR in the game with no exceptions.

Or do you want to explain how a vehicle like BT-5 is the same BR as M2A2, or M8. Many such examples of vehicles too strong for current br, but to weak for higher one, or too weak at current br but way too strong for lower one. That’s the essence of compression and it happens at literally every single existing BR with 0 exceptions.

The alternative proposal I made is also a solution.

Mostly due to a BR range unabling to balance them correctly,… yet most of those are simply 0.3/0.7 away from the BR they should have.

Wyvern might be the sole exception of having such a low BR despite better perfomances than anyone.

[Tristacomand]

@Cpt_Bel_V

What is the reason for it to be trapped?

Weak flight performance? Where’s the technology in that. It’s a jet. It has all-aspect missiles. It has almost every technology available to top planes except IRCCM and SARH. But it’s bad because of flight performance.

@Cpt_Bel_V

Nope,… those BR additions can be different for Tanks/aircrafts/helicopters

Tanks and planes must synchronise, AA and planes and helicopters. Planes must syncrhonise with naval and helicopters.

ALL BR’s are related to each other.

@Cpt_Bel_V

yet most of those are simply 0.3/0.7 away from the BR they should have.

So. It’s almost like. We need extra spaces for them… Like if current BR’s had space between them for vehicles that don’t quite fit.

Like exactly what I propose in either case.

[Cpt_Bel_V]

@Tristacomand

Weak flight performance? Where’s the technology in that

You Serious?

@Tristacomand

and SARH

Basically Fox-1 missiles → Mig-21 Bis uses R-3R no?

Don’t lie the info is there:
https://wiki.warthunder.com/MiG-21bis#Offensive_armament

https://wiki.warthunder.com/R-3R

“The R-3R (K-13R, AA-2C ‘Atoll’) is a is a Soviet semi-active radar-homing air-to-air missile.”

@Tristacomand

But it’s bad because of flight performance.

Well no,… but no,…
It’s bad because people uses it differently from what it have been purposed to,…

You (the sad unknowledgeable community) expect a MiG-21 to be a maravelleous aircraft in every ways because it somewhat killed a F-16 in mock combat, or whatever BS about 'Nam,…

The aircraft was maravelleous by the design and purpose it was required and built for, nothing else.

It’s Design that makes it bad in your hands? Well design is also responsible for technical performances (oh technical-god, where are you?)

But it’s ok to not know how to fly an aircraft, because it’s a game right?
(Wrong again,… game is based on Physic models, not fantaisistic ones,…)

[Cpt_Bel_V]

@Tristacomand

So. It’s almost like. We need extra spaces for them… Like if current BR’s had space between them for vehicles that don’t quite fit.

Like exactly what I propose in either case.

Nope… cuz there is only a few (about 12 aircrafts in my mind) that are just missplaced,… and just require a BR balance update.

[Tristacomand]

@Cpt_Bel_V

Basically Fox-1 missiles → Mig-21 Bis uses R-3R no?

It can equip it. But It’s not like anyone will use it since 10g missile and bad radar is basically obsolete at 11.0. It doesn’t have a comparable missile to a plane like a Phantom at 11.0 which has a better radar and AIM-7E is much better than R-3R.

@Cpt_Bel_V

The aircraft was maravelleous by the design purposed it was required and built for, nothing else.

Ok. What does that have to do with 11.0 BR?

The characteristics of the plane, the rip speed, the engine power, the weapons. They make it very inferior to many 11.3 planes. It only has the strength of good turning, but it will lose all it’s speed if it turns, so you must rely on a strong engine… It doesn’t have one. It has R-60M and R-13M1. These missiles are very easy to flare and don’t have great range. Everyone has flares at 11.0.

Compare MiG-21bis to MiG-23MLD at 11.3. Compression. Very radical difference in performance for only 0.3 br difference. It should be at least .7 difference if not 1.0 difference.

@Cpt_Bel_V

It’s bad because people uses it differently from what it have been purposed to,…

Please explain how MiG-21bis is supposed to be played in an 11.0 match or even a 12.0 match?

[Cpt_Bel_V]

@Tristacomand

10g missile and bad radar is basically obsolete at 11.0

@Tristacomand

It only has the strength of good turning, but it will lose all it’s speed if it turns, so you must rely on a strong engine

@Tristacomand

These missiles are very easy to flare and don’t have great range. Everyone has flares at 11.0.

And i thought this wasn’t about technology,… but what do i hear?
All those points are technological lacks.
What a surprise ^^"

[Mytho-GR1]

@Cpt_Bel_V

“The R-3R (K-13R, AA-2C ‘Atoll’) is a is a Soviet semi-active radar-homing air-to-air missile.”

This is about the bis right as that missile is useless at its br

[Tristacomand]

I assume you don’t consider engine thrust to be technology, since you mentioned earlier about difference between propeller and jet.

So I thought the difference between having no radar and having any radar, that’s technology.

But if you consider all vehicle characteristics to be technology, then yes it’s about technology.

BR should consider what a vehicle can fight. MiG-21bis is obsolete compared to Yak-141 and yet they can fight together.

In my opinion F-16A should never fight MiG-21bis because they are so radically different in ability.
Or Leopard A1A1 and PT-16/T14.

These are basic examples of compression.

A good example of how BR should work is BT-5 vs BT-7M.

Very marginal difference in capability, but still different. The result? 1 br apart.

[Cpt_Bel_V]

Stop assuming things,…

'M currently having to play MiG-21F-13 and PFM, at 9.3 BR i consider both of those as too low for their BR and could easily climb to 9.7 as a bare minimum.

But when i do tell you that those MiG’s are played by brute players,… i’m right.

[Tristacomand]

@Cpt_Bel_V

could easily climb to 9.7 as a bare minimum.

Both are worse than MiG-21S. MiG-21S struggles at the BR due to ineffective radar and not strong enough engine to dogfight lots of opponents.

Now put it against F-5C. Sure MiG-21S can outrun due to higher rip speed and top speed than F-5C, but it’s basically unable to effectively dogfight it or win in most ways.

[Cpt_Bel_V]

I’m doing 2KD without forcing on the F13,…
So tbh,… it is too low that’s a fact,…

[Zannafrancy12]

the r3r wasnt designed for fighters, it really isnt a matter of technological inferiority as much as it is a difference in design, also its the first SARH missile to enter service for the USSR

[Cpt_Bel_V]

“While the R-3S was being introduced in 1961, work started on a semi-active radar homing (SARH) version for high-altitude use, the K-13R (R-3R or Object 320) with 8 km range, similar to the little-used US Navy AIM-9C Sidewinder (carried by the F-8 Crusader). This took longer to develop, and did not enter service until 1966. This version was designated AA-2B by NATO”

But sure,…

[Zannafrancy12]

you are right that it was not as advaned as wester sarh missiles, you’re wrong that it made the mig21 so inferior, it also wasnt as inffective as you make it seem like

[PowerofHunter]

There is such a thing as 7.1 headphones

[Cpt_Bel_V]

@Zannafrancy12

you’re wrong that it made the mig21 so inferior,

Never said that,… i said that people are using wrongly,…

[Zannafrancy12]

most aircraft in game are played wrongly, im pretty sure irl the mig 21 was a point interceptor.