Allow me to complain here about the 12.7-13.0 planes, they are too strong against lower BR planes, too weak against higher BR planes (especially those with fox3), I have skipped them/given up playing them.
But what can be done about that though?
Yes, some decompression can occur, but with the amount of aircraft we have, you could at most increase the BR to about 14.3 or 14.7. Would help sure, but not fix the problem entirely. But that combined with a reduction of MM size to +/-0.7 on top of a 0.3-0.7 BR increase and minor decompress would do quite a bit.
But…
Aircraft like the Gripen A, F-16, F-15A, Su-27, etc should 100% be at the same BR as aircraft like the Sea Harrier FA2 or F-14A.
and more than a few non-fox-3 aircraft at 13.0 would probably move up as well, because they are too strong in a downtier. (fighting F-15A or Su-27s in something like a Phantom sucks)
0.7 MM is definitely one of the best changes gaijin could do. Decompression up to 16.0 would be better, but gaijin completely refuses to do that.
The one downside would be that some vehicles would need to be rebalanced, but the work needed to do that is much less than what decompression needs.
1 Like
You refused to answer my question and just threw out opinions. What can I say? Maybe you enjoy the game now.
Well, let’s imagine an extreme case, a very large decompressed match maker, it has a huge ±13.0, all aircraft can fight in it. Yes, this is a decompressed matchmaker, P26 VS Su30SM, CR42 VS EF2000, I-15 VS F15E, etc. What do you think of this? Isn’t it going in this direction to continue to decompress the matchmaker?
In short, I still think that BR needs to be decompressed and the matchmaker needs to be smaller
1 Like
I am busy, and my argument stands its ground.
Having 4 positions for vehicles in the matchmaker is superior to having 3 positions, and allows for different vehicles to be different BRs more often.
Otherwise you might get situations where IS-3 is the same BR as Tiger 2.
This is what gaijin should do, even if it requires extra work, it is what they must do to improve the gaming experience for players.
Who would’ve guessed he would do something like that xD
I have been discussing AirRB from beginning to end, not Ground RB. You should not give examples of ground units. If you think my solution is not suitable for Ground RB, that’s fine. I at least support the use of smaller matchers in Air RB.
In addition, are you really busy? I noticed that you often appear in Warthunder Forum, debating with a large number of people in a short period of time. I think you are at least energetic.
The same applies to air RB, suddenly F-16C and Typhoon are the same BR under this system cause there isn’t 4 positions of separation to allow for more diverse BR placement.
Right now we can have Tornado F3, JF-17, F-16C, and F-15C/E all being different BRs.
Under this system, two of those would most certainly share BRs.
There is nothing with 10 AMRAAMs either. (unless you are using AMRAAM as a universal term which would be wrong)
AMRAAM is an American missile and the F-15E can only carry 8 of them without any other ordinance.
But also irrelevant to the thread. Look at his amazing code that could benefit the game with some tweaking.
GREAT JOB!!! @COMBINE
1 Like
I don’t understand what you mean by the F16C and Typhoon have the same BR (they are not), they still have a high chance of entering the same lobby, but BR decompression and smaller matchmaker are largely saving the vehicles with the lowest BR in the room. Imagine J11 vs Rafale and J11 vs F4S, it’s a completely one-sided battle, so why don’t we set smaller matchmakers to at least give these marginal aircraft a chance to breathe (BR decompression is essentially the same in purpose). The battle between J11 and F15J is much more interesting and competitive.
1 Like
an AMRAAM is ANY Advanced Medium Range Air to Air Missile.
AIM120, R77, MICA, the Chinese missile, all qualify under the term AMRAAM.
Not sure what you are trying to argue here.
Again, at the current state of the game, having 8-10 AMRAAMS would automatically put them in the highest tier, as it should be.
Perhaps the ideal battle is that the entire lobby is filled with the same BR, imagine J11 vs Rafale, J11 vs F4S, this is a completely one-sided battle. The battle between J11 vs F15J is much more interesting and competitive.
I looked it up and google said that is not true but ok. Maybe google is wrong but it said “No the R-77 is not a AMRAAM” when I searched “Is the R-77 a AMRAAM” I got the same results for the mica and PL-12
This is why I think RB should adopt SBs brackets.
Uptiers become a choice, not random chance
1 Like
I was trying to argue that you should be appreciative of his code instead of some other things.
AMRAAM is Aim-120
MRAAM is generally any BVR missile
At least in most conversations. Technically AMRAAM or even ASRAAM stand for something universal, but have taken on a specific conotation.
Like Aim-9X, Aim-132, IRIS-T could all be considered ASRAAMs, but ASRAAM is widely associated with the British made “Aim-132” (though that isnt used in most contexts and instead its referred to as “ASRAAM”) and the type of weapon is usually referred to as SRAAM (which does get a little confusing with the British again, but heyho)
2 Likes
But you realize that it is not battles playing the game, but players? So you would have to measure time from the player perspective. Because those do the waiting.
Your matches also do not balance out top tier, which is somewhat essential. In that regard, your simulation does not capture current reality.
BR decompression is objectively superior to compressing the BRs in the matchmaker.
J-11 being OP is an issue.
There is no “code” here. It is simply someone putting their opinion forward. I have also put my opinion forward, as this is a forum.
Thanks though.
