I am new to this game, i am at rank 30 and played 100 hours, so i dont know past versions of the game and i dont know what was changed over time, but
The idea of BR and matchmaking is a mess, i mean for newbies without 20k battles, its horror to play the maps. Even with low tier tanks you cant get proper scores because the experienced 20k players know every spot, every weak spot, every enemy tank and so on. Because matchmaking just focusses on BR this doesnt matter for the matchmaking, so basicly as a newbie you are cannon fodder for veterans. In regular PvP games you have a matchmaking that is based on level, skill and tier. Here its obviously just the tier.
Beside that the tier itself is completly unlogic and far away form historical correctness. If someone in an FPS would fight with bow and arrow while the same players from other countries use machine guns, no one would play this FPS. Just in war thunder you fly a ww2 plane and have to fight against planes 20 years ahead. Beside that a lot of the tanks and planes are under or overpowered, far away from their real life counterpart. Sorry but if the ww2 tanks and planes of germany would have been that weak they would have lost the first day in poland and never started a world war. Beside that the russian tanks and planes are overpowerred as hell, armor, guns and ammo, everything far up any counterpart in the other countries. If that would be the case in reality, no one in the actual real live conflicts would use german tanks, they would just use their own super power tanks to stop the super power tanks of the invading forces.
If i reconsider all those experiences the only reason for such must be the frustration of the player as the goal of it. Because a frustrated player will invest money to buy the better tank, to change the tier, to get an advantage and so on. I mean i am fine with a company that earns money, but building a system like that to manipulate players to get frustrated so they invest more, thats not the healthy realationship i prefer for a company-gamer existence.
Dont get me wrong, i really like that game, but it could be much more than it is right now.
Well i dont have a problem to play the vehicles, but for example look at the BMPs they are able to punch through leopard 1 armor easily with the mounted cannon, beside the rockets that are somehow spawned by them.
In every tier i experienced this… in low tier its similiar. Beside that i fly against korean war planes with a ho 229 v3, me 264, he177a-5 and so on…
And well beside the 20k battle players that hit me with a sabot over 1 mile at the weak spot of my tank 1 second after they can see me with 1 shot. Its simply a matchmaking issue. I mean it was obviously fine when the game started because all the players had the same level and chance for growth, but now its so absolutly unbalanced that its not fun for beginners. Beside the matches that you play the first 10 battles or so, because they want you to invest in the game. But then it switches and you are cannon fodder.
Why cant they just reconsider the matchmaking and let the level and hours someone played be part of the algorithm? I mean is that really what the community wants, to play against newbies as a pro?
one of the worst cannons on 8.0, with barely any speed and post pen and wonky missile that can only be fired while stopped. Leo dying to a bmp is almost always a 100% leos own fault, the bmp is a driving trash can.
yes you want to fly a horten against a mustang, I get it, would be fun, but not to the other side. I welcome you to try playing pz II against KV-1 because that is also historical match up. As said, dates mean nth in terms of actual performence.
there is a learning curve, but you are overexaggerating it, all it takes is not to rush upwards but spend your time completeing lineups, trying different trees and learning maps.
Ranked system has its own problems. Huge chunk of long term, experienced players are not tryhards focused on bumping their KD up, and they just want to play low tiers with their friends in casual manner.
or you peaked in very common peaking place with a guy preaimed at this exact location with a good sniper tank. The difference in skill between you and him is likely to be small and you willl be soon in his place if you learn the maps.
More like, “I shouldn’t be facing MiG-15s and Sabres in my Ho 229 or Me-262.” Don’t try and say that is ok, we desperately need decompression and better balance.
Look everything you say is an argument for matchmaking based on skill and level. I mean you tell me with every word that you need experience to be good. Thats exactly what i said, but the skill and experience of players that play this game for 10 years is so overwhelming for beginners that there is no chance to get any good matches.
I mean i understand the company politics behind that, the experienced players want to have kills and they can only get decent amount of kills with cannon fodder avaible. But thats not fun for the cannon fodder and is on long term a good way of letting a game die.
Beside the fact that you cant even relate on historical accuracy. You get a new tank or plane or whatever and you think “wow nice now i have a chance” and all you get are enemies from the future or in prototype tanks that were never build and are overpowered by their billboard specifications that are far away from real life. So i cant even relate on real life experience.
I started playing this game when it was already very popular. I played fair share of Air AB, Tank AB, Tank RB, Air RB, Navy in that very order, and I had good fun in every of those. I learned every mode to the point of what I think is average good to above average good. I didnt need years, all it took was a month or two of getting the basics and then polishing them further. All you need is patience and not to think everybody killing you is a super pro, because they really arent.
another baseless, rhetoric story that has nothing to do with the game
matchmaking is based on skills, except it doesn’t match players with IQ 60 with players with IQ 60, it just creates equal teams, in which a person with IQ 120 lowers the IQ of the entire team. The sum of team A should be very similar to team B. (IQ is a metaphor for the average position in the team)
In practice, most of the rewards in the game are adjusted to a monkey with a rifle who shoots blindly and will get similar rewards to a war veteran. If you check the reports when you earned what, it turns out that the most profitable is to do average and play as long as possible if you are mediocre. Your rewards will not be much different from the rewards of those who did 4x as much as you. They have to play very focused, and you just shoot blindly like that monkey with a rifle. :D
don’t worry, officially they claim that everything is a work of chance and until the law in some country forces them to admit what hidden mechanisms are behind this circus no one will ever admit
There was once such an interesting post on reddit, I don’t know if you can still find it today.
it’s circulating on various discords but it more or less sheds light on what you can only assume
KV, IS 1-2 you kill the same way, the exact same way you kill the T-34. Some odd ones in BR 7 to 8. T62 to T90M / T80BVM you kill the exact same way. Late USSR vehicles relies on ERA for protection, and basically a case of just shoot them where they do not have ERA.
USSR is the only tech tree with a ASRAAM in it to make it competitive. Also holds arguably the worst DL capabilities and AMRAAM in game.
Only thing where you can call “BIAS” is with the SU25 and SU39. They tend to take more missile hits than any other aircraft in game.
BR Balance is a mess and immersion base is quite a bit off. But vehicles should be balanced around generation of technology and not by time-line as a balance by timeline will make it worse for some tech trees.
Lastly, there is such a strong game balance factor at the moment that all nations are about the same, just a difference in playstyle.
Well the post you quoted seems to be related to different topic. I can relate to the problem as i experienced weird things as well, but its often very hard to tell if someone is using so called cheese or if he is just experienced.
do you understand the nonsense of how it currently works? The better you play the dumber team you get. A 4 person team of good players is rewarded with 12 people with the IQ of a vegetable. All this is to stop you from getting too good rewards for the time you spend playing. But your money for a premium account and other premium content doesn’t stink to them. This is the biggest hypocrisy of this Russian game, you pay for faster progress and hidden mechanisms work to prevent you from getting it too quickly.
Why should vehicles be balanced around generation of technology?
That makes no sense, today i faught bmp-2 with a tiger, what is this? The BMP got rockets that can easily penetrate a tiger.
Then i used a jagdpanther and again, killed by a russian tank. You know that when they braught the jagdpanther into the war one of it killed easily 22 enemy tanks. This thing was made to hunt them, not to be hunted by them.
Later today i used a ME 262 A1 and a Spitfire outran me, what is this? The ME was the fastest plane at that time, still a spitfire is faster? Why did they invented rocket engines if a propeller engine is faster?
All this doesnt make any sense, if you level the countries you remove the individual advantage and you bring other advantages into the game. Beside that i recognized that i have to fight uptier ranks, one rank higher then my highest rank. This is far away from fair and balanced.
Countries are being balanced by vehicle performance at the moment. This means that if X vehicle does bad, it goes down in BR and if other vehicle does good, well, it goes up in BR.
Balancing by generation of technology it means the “fairness” stays in-tact while preventing WW2 technology fighting Early CW technology, etc.
Personally, I am against any vehicle balancing, but if that were to be the case certain nations will be unplayable completely and I understand that. So with that in mind, I do not mind that nations are balanced, I mind how it is balanced as I do not enjoy having a 6.7 WW2 lineup going against early Cold War vehicles in an uptier. It is immersion breaking.
I think another major problem is an issue no one thinks about at gaijin. In many contries the specs of the vehicles on paper are not the real specs, i mean there are different reasons for doing so. So if you just use specs you found at old manuals or maybe even some wiki articels, you will not get real life stats. Sometimes armor is thinner, not that realiable, in real life then on paper. That could be a reason why some tanks are so strong in this game and others are not (but they should be).
Beside the fact that steel is not steel, i mean ww2 steel is not comparable to the ones they had 20 or 30 years later, the production, the alloys and so on are much better. Sometimes they had compound materials (for example the aramid nets to prevent HESH damage). If you just compare armor with amour, you will not get the result that is related to real life. Basicly in war thunder a tank could have a 500 mm armor (made out of aluminium) and it would be unbeatable strong. In reality it would be easy to destroy it.
Then the new Lux (Luchs) i saw it a couple of times now in WW2 battles, i mean this thing has a 20mm ok, but the fire rate, the projectiles and so on, are modern times standard. They would do reasonable damage to all ww2 tanks, in reality this vehicle would be a unbeatable tank destroyer, if you put it in the past and let it fight ww2 tank.
There have been many threads about this and I expect this one may be closed and told to use the official thread.
For me it is that the game has due to actual real life complexity, has basically dumbed down vehicles to one criteria, that being combat effectiveness. Many of the vehicles have been buffed so that they are not useless, such as SPAA, armoured cars and a few others, they were never meant to go toe to toe with frontline armoured vehicles they are support vehicles. But the game does not have the depth and complexity to achieve this.
At the same time it is nerfing vehicles that are too effective and were in real life so that they do not become too overpowered, doing this based on results from players is flawed and impacts less skilled players far more than skilled players, it really should be done on an individual skill criteria.
