N1K2 NEEDS to be at a lower BR

[PercussionCap]

@RXDimA

No, there are significant differences and your testing methodology is flawed for not showing that.

The exact same.

Show me exactly where the N1K2-J is winning. Maybe with flaps out, but the Ki-84 can deploy them earlier. And it has worse energy retention too, so you’re likely just getting slow faster than your enemy and they just fly out in front.

@RXDimA

You get to use more energy in a fight, because you can hold greater speeds easier.

It is a whole 9kph faster at sea level. Even if I drag the Ki-43-I above its critical altitude to 6km, it is still not that much slower than the -II (still a mere ~40kph slower even though it has lost quite a bit of power) and it has every other advantage.
Including an extra 40rds of ammo which may come in handy during hard carrying.

@RXDimA

Yet, the -II will be able to hold on to a fight much longer, if the speeds involved become high. You get to use more energy in a fight, because you can hold greater speeds easier.

It has worse energy retention. At EVERY speed.

And before you say it, no it won’t magically have better retention if you turn a little less, because it also just outright turns less (unless you’re above 500kph, which you won’t be for very long).

@RXDimA

But you can! Learning is fun, try conquering the unwieldy controls of the -II. You will be rewarded with a plane that CAN take perfectly good aim (even despite the wobble), and has more performance than the -I

Again, why would I when I can play a similar plane that doesn’t require me to fight it at every step, which offers better turn performance to deal with pesky enemy Ki-43-IIs and -IIIs (and other annoyingly maneuverable planes), retains speed better in turns, and also just straight up looks better?

@RXDimA

Only way you’re going to overheat with that is if you’re going to permanently stick to the ground (you’re not going to do that). Even then, if for some reason you have no option but to hug the ground for such an extended amount of time, knock a couple of % off from your prop pitch and you’re good to go.

So you’re above your critical altitude all the time and you’re making even less power than the paltry 1100hp its engine makes.

@RXDimA

Kinda fast for such draggy planes, innit?

It won’t make a difference.

@RXDimA

You’re part of the players that turn unnecessarily hard when you don’t need to, aren’t you? Try gentle turns, like how you need to fly the Sabre to keep your speed up.

The slower you are, the harder you have to turn to dodge effectively. The Ki-100 is quite fast in comparison, it can easily dodge most enemies in just one move.

@RXDimA

The Ki-43-III will keep up just fine with a Ki-100 (if not outright beat it at MER) if the Ki-43 is limited to the turn circle of a Ki-100.

The Ki-100 will enter those fights already at a higher speed, though. Which you will need to catch up to people who don’t just deliver themselves on a platter for you to kill them.

It is fighting 109s, Yaks, Las, the sort, which it easily outturns while not being limited to a quite light armament and ammo load nor a very low IAS limit, and it compresses less at high speed. It also runs much colder, has effectively infinite WEP, people can’t just dive away from you…
In short, it is an actual 4.0 fighter and not a 3.3 or 3.7 that was once good years ago and then got nerfed extremely hard.

Back to the N1K2-J: Ki-84 has identical maneuverability. Ki-84 has flaps than can be deployed at much higher speeds. Ki-84 is faster. The N1K2-J has better guns.
N1K1-J is slower, but more maneuverable. It has the same guns, just with less ammo. It has better performance at altitude.
Both of these are 5.3, but the N1K2-J which is even with them, gets to be 6.0.

[RXDimA]

Okay, maybe I had major skill issue before, so I’ll take out the Ki-84 for some battles to reevaluate it.
In your turning tests, how do you perform the turns? Just mouse movement, pitch key, or with the instructor disabled?

@PercussionCap

It won’t make a difference.

Why do I climb at 24 m/s at 240 KMH IAS, unlike your graph, which states 19m/s@240kmh? At which alt was the test done?

@PercussionCap

The Ki-100 will enter those fights already at a higher speed, though.

I believe the Ki-43 generates energy at a higher rate, so not really.

It almost feels like we live in different universes. How can there be so many discrepancies between us?

[Mahrs]

At the suggestion of someone here on the forum, I downloaded WTRTI - if you need logging/data from U.S. props for comparison, let me know… if I have it, I’m happy to contribute.

While I don’t fly Japanese props (in general), the A7M1 is my most flown plane (with a whole 75 fly outs)… and I don’t even know how I got it. It does spark interest - it’s my comfort plane. I fly that out when I get tired of being shit on in U.S. props ;-).

[侍KAMIKAZE侍]

Lets be real everything japanese is overtiered. Zeros, Ki-61s etc. especially tanks tbf.
Cuz its " japanese difficulty mode"

Playing Japan ww2 stuff is only for hardest of man.

[Bruce_R1]

Weird how given all the disadvantages mentioned, the N1K2s are the #1 and #2 6.0 planes in terms of K/D right now, and have both been in the top 3 planes at that BR since Feb (stats from Statshark)

[Normandy_Corsair]

What do you think the explanation is

[Bruce_R1]

No idea :) I’m an AB player, not my place to say.

I just think threads on how vehicle BRs should change should reference the data on how it’s actually doing at some point. And it really is odd how often the higher scoring vehicles are also the ones people say should be lower in BR here… there’s been several threads like that lately. Maybe those arguments just go on for longer because there’s more to argue about when the demand to make the super plane even better seem counter-intuitive?

It does show how hard it is to make these determinations and how hard it can be to settle this kind of argument when you don’t have the data, as we didn’t before this year and Statshark.

[Normandy_Corsair]

Are you aware of complications regarding the meta of this data such as the skill level of the playerbases referenced? Or the classic theory vs application

[Bruce_R1]

Do you think it’s generally likely to be a good idea for balance for the #1 and #2-ranked vehicles at a given BR to be taken down in BR, as OP has proposed? The players who are making them the top vehicles aren’t using any theory to make those kind of stats. I’d say they’re applying the crap out of all the other planes already :)

Or put it another way. Both planes now completely statistically outmatch the Ki-94-II at the same BR (along with most other countries’ 6.0 planes). So if the two best Japanese 6.0s were to go down, how much lower than that should the 94 go? Same playerbase (Japanese mains).

[Normandy_Corsair]

@Bruce_R1

Do you think it’s generally likely to be a good idea for balance for the #1 and #2-ranked vehicles at a given BR to be taken down in BR, as OP has proposed?

I think it’s a compression problem.

@Bruce_R1

The players who are making them the top vehicles aren’t using any theory to make those kind of stats.

You didn’t understand. The Japanese planes are terrible in theory but good in practice because people don’t know how to play the game and just turn in circles after your superior turning in circles plane.

[RunaDacino]

@Bruce_R1

Do you think it’s generally likely to be a good idea for balance for the #1 and #2-ranked vehicles at a given BR to be taken down in BR, as OP has proposed?

I think vehicles should be balanced against a minimum baseline expected performance rather than the entire population.

As a self-deprecating Air SB example: If you looked at my stats in the Spitfires while fighting Bf109s, you’d arrive at the conclusion that Bf109s are overpowered and the spitfire is an awful plane. Why? Because I lack sufficient practice in it to be able to effectively use it and employ the appropriate tactics. My stats as such, and people like me, should be eliminated from all calculations involving spitfires in ASB (either kills vs or kills by) because it’s not representative of the aircraft and its peers’ true power.

Japanese planes get inflated stats because their peers are badly used more often than not, especially american aircraft.

@Bruce_R1

Ki-94-II

It’s a market vehicle and that makes its balancing according to stats absurd and weird. In AB and SB alike it’s also 5.7 while N1K2 remains 6.0. Idk why in RB it stays at 6.0, presumably a similar issue as italian aircraft being overtiered (too few people use it and those who do skew the stats)

[xXkevinlordXx]

the data is bs… you could have used another plane at 5.0 or maybe even 4.3 to kill these players(if the mentioned br plane is good). if some players just cant fly the aircraft the other aircrafts shouldnt be punished for it…
and I wouldnt say they are japanese mains who play those aircrafts, bc most of the players who play overtiered planes do have more than one nation´s toptier…

[Bruce_R1]

@RunaDacino

Japanese planes get inflated stats because their peers are badly used more often than not, especially american aircraft.

It’s a perennial debate, which has been around in some form as long as I’ve played War Thunder, whether balancing by real world performance rather than how people use a thing in game is possible or even a thing worth pursuing.

I think it’s interesting to note that OP was not saying “balance all Japanese turnfighters down because they’re not that good really”, which is the position some are taking and is always a fun discussion about how to baseline performance as I said; they’re saying “balance this specific Japanese turnfighter down below the next Japanese turnfighter two BRs below it” (the A7M, which is itself the #2 plane statistically at BR 5.3, skipping over the “definitely not just a turnfighter” J2M, which is itself currently the #1 plane at 5.7). So really you could read the OP’s point as just an A7M vs N1K comparison, and does the N1K deserve to be two BR steps higher or not, comparing just those two fighters, too. That isn’t the point most seem to be engaging on though.

I definitely think there’s an aspect of whether Gaijin mechanics reward BnZ and energy over turnfighting as well (as an AB player I AM qualified to talk about that). All the turnfighters have increased in BR this last couple years. You can’t say that’s “American fighters don’t know how to play” or “people have forgotten how to BnZ” and I wouldn’t say you’re wrong, really. Or it could also be if the conditions you engage in WT (co-altitude or close to it, 15 minutes or less, no formations) are ever the conditions where the US-type fighters that triumphed historically would have fought or could ever really do well, performance in terms of pure flight envelope notwithstanding. Maybe it’s just a game optimized for the turnfighters.

(Tom McGuire, the US #2 ace, died trying to turnfight a Ki-43 in a P-38, so it’s not just the newbs who make that mistake either :) )

[xXkevinlordXx]

pls put the wyvern down in br… would be nice…

[xXkevinlordXx]

most played vehicles do underperform… so please put them down in br so they perform good, and I cant wait to see a me262 at 5.0 bc the 50mm version is not very good in air rb

[PercussionCap]

@RXDimA

At which alt was the test done?

500m or lower, don’t know exactly.

@RXDimA

I believe the Ki-43 generates energy at a higher rate, so not really.

Maybe it does, but it’ll throw it away very fast. The Ki-100 can stay fast, the Ki-43-III has never done the same.

@Mahrs

I fly that out when I get tired of being shit on in U.S. props ;-).

USA air teams are just awful. Playing the P-38L in the USA tree was like pulling teeth, but the same plane in the China tree was amazingly easy.

@Bruce_R1

Weird how given all the disadvantages mentioned, the N1K2s are the #1 and #2 6.0 planes in terms of K/D right now

Unsurprising lol, check 6.7.

Despite the BI being INCREDIBLY overpowered, the J6K isn’t far behind and even beats it in kills per spawn. The Mk24 is better in every relevant way yet it’s beaten by the J6K in every single metric (that is normalized for usage rates).

Now sure, it’s a marketplace premium from an old event. But it’s usage rates aren’t that low either - ~1.3M total games played in the last few months (Statshark hasn’t been around for very long), the tech tree Yak-15 and 17 together have about as many games. And it’s played far more than the BI which isn’t rare to find if you’re playing anywhere close to 6.7.

---

If we look at other BRs it’s a similar story:

6.0 ARB:

Hornet MkIII beaten by the straight-downgrade Ki-83, the J7W (lol), and even the… Re 2005! A plane that matches about equally with the 4.3 Spitfire Mk9.
The ta 152 H isn’t doing so hot either despite being very strong, right between two N1K2s.

5.7 ARB, where the largest amount of top notch metamobiles reside:

Yak-3U getting absolutely MOGGED by J2Ms and the flying brick J5N. Yak-3 VK107 and the permanently-available LF Mk9s don’t even make the top row. At the bottom of the list, the miserable Ki-87 is still beating the F4U-4B and israeli premium LF Mk9.

One final BR to look, I decided to check 3.0 since it’s one of my favorites:

A german plane and an american plane, in japanese hands, are beating everything else. That 109 E-7 is topping the charts in winrate, AND kills per spawn, AND kills per death.
The Ki-44-II Otsu only shows up in the second row, same with the GERMAN Yak-1B and event 109 E-7/U2.

@Bruce_R1

(Tom McGuire, the US #2 ace, died trying to turnfight a Ki-43 in a P-38, so it’s not just the newbs who make that mistake either :) )

Not exactly how it happened but close enough.

[Mahrs]

I would be curious to see how much harder they would club at a lower BR to be honest. I am not sure it would make much difference - they’re killing the same caliber/type of pilot.

Gaijin definitely MUST take performance of the player base into account… but it shouldn’t simply be the lowest common denominator… and therein lies the rub.

I don’t have a good answer… BR stratification might help.

@PercussionCap - want a fun comparison? Compare the P-47D (German premium) to the P-47D25 in the tech tree.

It’s the same damn plane as near as makes no difference… and the P-47D has a better W/R, better everything… gee, I wonder why…

[PercussionCap]

@Mahrs

@PercussionCap - want a fun comparison? Compare the P-47D (German premium) to the P-47D25 in the tech tree.

It’s the same damn plane as near as makes no difference… and the P-47D has a better W/R, better everything… gee, I wonder why…

Unsurprising. The premiums generally tend to do better than the tech tree ones, if for nothing else than people just sticking with that one plane more and gradually learning how to use it better.

But when there’s a HUGE difference between them, that’s where you’ll see good vs bad players show up.

Also, funnily enough that german P-47D is using the image from the old, now removed german “P-47D” instead of the GE premium P-47D-16-RE.

[Mahrs]

I assumed the P-47D there was correctly shown (and at 4.3 BR I still believe it to be) - the current premium is listed as well. I just looked at that one because I own it from the Dora Pack of 5 years ago or so. I was curious as to how it was doing.

My other favorite example:

The point of all that being that you really shouldn’t balance a game around the sort of pilots flying the P-51C-10 to a 43% WR with fewer down planes than bird strikes and engine failures.

[PercussionCap]

@Mahrs

I assumed the P-47D there was correctly shown (and at 4.3 BR I still believe it to be) - the current premium is listed as well. I just looked at that one because I own it from the Dora Pack of 5 years ago or so. I was curious as to how it was doing.

Huh, that’s weird. It does show both, but the old one has way more games played despite being removed for YEARS now? I don’t think I’ve EVER seen one in a real match.

Even filtering just for the last few months still gives it a lot of players.