More yapping about BR compression, but with an actual solution

Game Discussion Realistic Battle
,
1

I know this topic has been beaten into submission by new and highly skilled players alike, however the common problem with most ‘BR compression needs to be fixed’ complaints ive seen historically start with this plane needs to go down, this plane needs to go up, this missile has no place here, this plane is 0.3 different and is superior/inferior significantly or any other recombination of the same words. Bump a few planes/tanks up or down by 0.3 or 0.7 or whatever, it just relocates the same issue to a different BR bracket.

Two solutions to this.

  1. BR bracket shrinkage
    There is absolutely no reason for the BR min/max to be 1.0 once you get above 7.0. This goes for air and ground alike. I can understand a 4.7 F4U-4 going against a 5.0-5.7 BF109, or a 4.0-4.7 yak of any sort, as the technology difference is primarily in engine power and maybe some maneuverability improvements. Once you get up to >7.0 or so, technology shifts massively as the BR gains changes from a few years during WWI/WWII to nearly decades during korean/vietnam/cold war eras. There’s no reason not to change this, since matchmaking takes less than 5 seconds most days, or maybe 20 seconds tops

  2. Significantly increase the BR max (wtf is 12.3 anyways)
    This is probably the biggest change that needs to happen. Gaijin wants you to belive that the shift between an f-86a-5 (12.7mm M3x6, no radar, RWR, countermeasures, missiles, or afterburner) and a f104A (a damn vulcan, plus radar and missiles and unbelievable afterburner performance) is just 1.0, whereas going from a P-51C to a P-51D has a 1.3 BR difference (and this is specifically comparing US planes, i dont want to look at migs anymore than i already have to
    A great way to solve this is to simply increase the br range from RSV/1.0 - 12.3 to something more to the tune of RSV/1.0 - 16.0, or maybe 18.0, or whatever best fits. Back in the day of Sabres being top tier, the climb in BR was steady and readable. However, post-7.0-8.0 BR in all trees, the climb in technology parallel to the climb in BR no longer makes any logical sense. You start comparing technology to BR as a way of scaling effectiveness in combat, and we see content creators explaining how absolutely devastating a change of simply 0.3 would be, either crippling an aircraft or making it unbeatable.
    For some reason, Gaijin is only just inching forwards with BR numbers while introducing significant technological advances to the tune of DECADES of R&D. With the current system, I can see the MIG-35 being 12.7, and SU-57 13.0, making both somehow match up against Mig-29s and F-14Bs, and just imagine how horrifying the matchmaking complaints would be then.
    Since the compression is at its worst around 8.0-10.0, simply stretch these out a little and adjust upwards. Tune what was 8-10 to somewhere like 8-12, tune the previous 10-12 more like 12-14, and make the previous >12 between 14 and 15, with wiggle room for new aircraft beyond our common f16s, mig29s and gripens to fill out the new >15. Then, if we were to get a mig35, or F/A-18, etc, add those further above the current Mig29SMT/F-16C BRs, maybe 1.0 instead of 0.3. Do you really expect us to belive the F-14B and F-16C only differ by 0.3, when the P-47D-22 and P-47D-25 differ by 0.7, Gaijin? (again cross-comparing one country only for the sake of apples-apples)

Feel free to critique, I’m open to alternative numbers and may make P.S. edits for any good points made

3 Likes
2

I could add more comparisons with ground vehicles, but I have somewhat less technological knowledge when it comes to tanks, AA and such, so make your own comparisons where applicable.

3

Ground vehicles are mostly OK. Their BRs aren’t perfect, but once you get to about 3.0, most tanks can kill most top tiers with flank shots at close range. In ground RB, it’s possible to set up those close-range flank ambushes, so the difference in BR is not nearly as important.

In Air RB, a 3.0. isn’t going to even get within range of a 7.0, let alone top tiers.

Ground can tolerate closer BRs, and in many ways it’s realistic. Not everything can frontally penetrate everything else from 1000m IRL, and there is space for lightly-armored vehicles with small cannons on the modern battlefield.

The #1 thing which could help fix BRs would be to divorce Air BRs and Ground BRs. The A-4E (for example) is a beast in Ground RB due to it’s AGM load, but is a bit weak in Air RB (unless it gets downtiers) since none of it’s flight characteristics are competitive with fighters at it’s BR. Other attackers have a similar problem, as do fighter-bombers, etc.

The peaks of aircraft performance also matter a whole lot less in ground RB, even if you’re dogfighting. You start in the air, and the absence of air markers means one or the other will almost always have surprise, so it’s actually possible for a 3.3 prop to catch and kill a 7.0 jet, or the same 3.3 prop can evade the jet and kill tanks. Playing an Aircraft in Ground RB is way more about knowing how to deal with the threats than stat-checking one-another’s performance in dogfights.

It should be totally okay for something like an A-10 to have close to top BR in ground, but be grouped with Vietnam jets in Air RB.

I agree that jets generally need more BR decompression. There is no reason that the top BR shouldn’t be at least 15. Jets are pretty well populated, and jet battles would generally work better with fewer players (around 8) anyway, so queue times should be no concern.

1 Like
4

Everybody knew the solution all along, “actual solution” is not like a new twist. Obviously “decompress, then”, lol And your two suggestions are interchangeable since they are mathematically identical (people suggest both of them frequently)