Well, how 'bout statistical matchmaking?
Pro gamers will play against other N̶o̶l̶i̶f̶e̶r̶s̶ High-skill players.
Average skill lads and gals will play with other normies.
And newbies will play with equals.
All happy, no more whining like “why i must play with those noskill losers/base bombers/etc.”, or “game too hard - i must somehow fight against players, who know map better, then their own house”.
At the very least it should be an event that happens a few times a month.
It is a shame that they are so rare like last “floats!” event when there are older but awesome things in the game such as the Korean War event, the Intercepting V-1 buzz bomb event, etc.
Historical MM based on dates would see the end of some types entirely…
Eg. The first F-15A, F-5E and A-10A flew within months of each other yet sit at 12.3, 10.7 and 10.0 respectively.
Even worse for the A-10A ‘late’ from the 80s which sits currently at at 10.3 would have to contend with the 1985 Su-27 which enters the game at 12.7.
Entire fleets of bombers, attackers would be DOA as they would lack their real life support environment that often required CAP from dedicated fighters. The same goes for light fingers, armed trainers such as the numerous F-5 variants developed for and flown by countries who don’t need top of the line equipment.
Historical matches are better left to events.
In game not 1985 version because of ERs, 1991.
Will year of introduction be at least taken into consideration when balancing?
There are some vehicles like cold war tanks with modern ammunition, modern artillery or attackers like A-10 or Su-25, which are much less sensitive to battle rating changes.
A cold war tank with modern ammunition would perform just as good, if not better, fighting T-55As, rather than Tigers and Panthers. Same goes for modern artillery. Attackers like A-10 or Su-25 on the other hand should be judged by their air to ground ordnance, not air to air capabilities, just like bombers.
The A-10A late’s AGM-65Ds didn’t get IOC until 1986, that’s still barley 5 years difference if it’s the weaponry used to balance by date rather than the airframe.
Just how tight would these historical match ups have to be before considered either to wide or too limiting?
Better to balance by both of them - or make changes in naming, like A-10A(1974) and etc
No vehicle performance in game is based on hard data. Not the conspiratorial lunacy you’re sprouting.
They’ve stated before they won’t. The rest is why they use shells and loadouts as a balancing factor.
Recipe for confusion or disaster when some airframe and weapon dates vary considerably. You would just end up with artifical or arbitrary battle match ups in order to balance things…sounds familiar!
But seriously it wouldn’t help types like the A-10 as it simply wasn’t designed to take on first line fighters without a support package that doesn’t exist in the anti-team environment of WT. Each game mode would be extremely restricted as many of the ‘fun’ vehicles would be outclassed because they were born in the wrong year.
They need to add more CAS targets and remove part of bases.
And planes like A-10 will be usefull
But idk, that might not work in RB
The entire idea is problematic requiring so many changes and comprises to make it feasible without slash the number of viable vehicles at each ‘BR’.
It would certainly be a (yet another) nail in the coffin for Naval where it’s so heavily dominated by raw firepower/armour thickness balance in most cases that you currently have WW1 Battleships on a par with WW2 Battlecruisers, Kondor Class Bernau (1972 but transferred to Germany in 1990) at the same BR as USS Candid commissioned on 1942, and many other examples! Currently sensors and advanced weaponry barely make an impact but it would not take much to tip a flawed mode to a truly unplayable mess.
Simulator Battles in question.
You dont care about historical matchmaker, you just want to be OP.
Wow a genuine answer from a forum official.Nice to see ,well done Smin ,more of this
How can it be when much of that data is classified.Silly man.
I fully agree with this sentence as it is correct.
Imho you underestimate the power of a single comma.
If you would play more than 4 games a week / month and spend some time in forum participation you find countless examples of open or hidden nerfs of flight models - the majority of casual players is simply unable to notice them.
Best example is the abysmally bad flight model of Fw 190 Antons. According to primary sources like here:
Spits Mk Vs were clapped at will as their only advantage was a slightly better turn - but as shown above the early models could be outturned.
And now try to dogfight / turnfight a Mk V in a 190 A-1 in WT - no way. Besides crippeld elevator authority and a hidden nerf regarding nose authority the 190s received on top of that a hidden nerf regarding engine overheating.
All can be found in the forum - so imho you might consider doing some research before you spread fact-free opinions.
This looks like an honest self-assessment…
This would not be the solution, each vehicle meets different needs and cannot be compared with other vehicles of the same era.
For example : in this case the Swedish tree will become unplayable because the development of the majority of their tanks started after the second world war. And personally I would not like to face T’54 or M-60 in IKV-72
Similarly, most modern IFVs and light tank in the game (Puma, Namer, …) would find themselves facing vehicles of higher Br while some MBT would go down → The Leclerc was first introduce in service in the 1993 while the Sprut-D was introduce in 2006
I will never understand why people continue to advocate for SBMM when it has never been well-received in casual matches.
11.3 vs 18.0(?), cause they’re both 1990s’ :)