New br system basing on the weapon/ammunition selected

We all know there are lots of vehicles with ammunition that are too strong on their BR.
Such as su25k, lots of planes at the same time don’t even have any countermeasures.
Why can’t we change the BR system which gives su25k a base BR at 9.3, when you choose the r60m upgrade, it goes to 10.3 or 10.7.
We could give players more choices that they choose better ammunition to face stronger enemies or just use the basic weapon to fight with those planes they should fight with ( has familiar performance)

While for the ground battle, we also have some vehicles using much more powerful weapons or ammunition than those at the same BR.
Like 2S38, it should go to 11.3 if you want to bring the APDSFS, or just use APHE to stay at 10.0.

I do think this could be a solution that could solve lots of problems on balance or restore the truth of history.

6 Likes

Yep, variable BRs based on ordnance is one of the game’s most-needed balance and quality of life improvements.

Equipping (or unequipping) the weapon modules would change its BR, allowing a given vehicle to be used at multiple different BRs and thus different lineups, improving the stock grind, and wouldn’t meaningfully affect ability to balance as it’s effectively just “more vehicles” to feed into the balance algorithm.

5 Likes

That would get abused a lot

Obj. 292 players demounting every upgrade and only using HE so they can be 8.7 (It still one shots everything)

3 Likes

This system is necessary

for example:
F4E
which has:
AIM-9B/E/J/N/P/L/M
AIM-7E/E-2/F
AGM65A/B/D
GBU-8/15(EO)/15(IR)
PAVEWAY I/II/III
TISEO/PAVE SPIKE/PAVE TACK

A F4E with only AIM-9B and iron bomb would not higher than 10.3 in GRB.But A F4E with pave tack pod and 4 AGM-65D and 2 AIM-9M is definitely a CAS in 12.0. Gaijin won’t build dozen planes to cover all loadout options.

BR system based on loadout is the best option for planes like F-4E which has lots options of weapons

2 Likes

Fixed it for you.
The idea however, is eh.
Variable BRs is a bad idea and would ruin War Thunder.
It’d completely imbalance the game and force the playerbase to leave to better pastures like World of Tanks.

How would it? It could make balance better, since vehicles would be better balanced for their Brs. It would need to have limits on what affects the BR and what doesn’t.

1 Like

It would triple the labor hours needed to balance vehicles.
It’d halt all decompression.
It’d forbid changing loadouts in-match.

There’s zero reason to have it.
It’d make the game more expensive to run far more than the 0.7 matchmaker idea.

A game should be reducing man hours of development not increasing them.

Changing a whole game to sort out a few issues at top tier? Time this game got cut in two.Top tier as a separate entity.Should have it’s own game and forum.

It truly is impressive how many bizarre takes one person can have…

 

Putting aside the random and arbitrary “triple” value, it would not. The majority of balance in this sense is automated based on performance stats, and thus it would have a minimal increase on actual human time required (entirely offset by its benefits anyway).

 

…this isn’t even a coherent thought.

 

It wouldn’t forbid anything that isn’t already forbidden, meaning using stuff that’s higher BR than you currently are. If you want access to all your weapons you equip them all and play at your max BR, exactly the same as now. If you unequip something and are now at a lower BR, yeah, you can’t use that weapon anymore. That’s no different than if it were a separate vehicle which lacks that weapon as an option (but instead better for the user experience, grind, less work for the devs, etc).

 

Your inability to read the half a dozen posts right above yours explaining its many multiple benefits does not make them go away.

Ima gonna bring this here:
Mig29:
R60M+R27R:12.3
R60M+R27ER:12.7
R73+R27R:13.0
R73+R27ER:13.3

It’s literally a T-80 without ERA and has the best penetrating kinetic round in the game, and also the fastest kinetic round in the game.

Yes, it’s like an M10 Wolverine or PTZ87.

The people who say it’s bad are more than likely the people who need a 4-5s reload to make a tank useable. By literally just not holding W, the 292 is scary good

Well… you can’t unless you for over money. 292 was an event vehicle.

Also another reason why I’ll always oppose this suggestion:
image
DCS allows mission makers to restrict loadouts.
And Enlisted allows rewards in custom matches.

Both of these are vastly superior suggestions that don’t exist in the BR system.
War Thunder could have cold war rooms built by players.


Not sure why this was false-flagged.

You dont need to do much more work. We only need a base BR, which depends on the tank/plane itself. And the additional BR for those which is too overpowered on it base BR. HE/APDSFS for modern MBT wont be removable.

The BR system is basic in the game, it`s not working at all.
Why F4C is at 10.7 without any countermeasure?
Why su25t/su39/su25sm need to fight with Supersonic airplanes?
Why does IL28 need to fight with aim9b and it can hardly defend itself at all?

BR is a gathering of both airplanes itself and the weapons they carry.
So players could have a choice that give up bringing OP weapons to face the enemy they should face.

They need to redesign this system due to they have earned thousands of dollars from me, and much more from every player.

1 Like

It’d forbid changing loadouts in-match.

I must say that it`s easy to make because they could just make those upgrades a selectable upgrade, which is already in the game.

A game should be reducing man-hours of development not increasing them.

Idk what are you thinking, but I don`t think a developer would agree that Gaijin is facing a problem in that they have tons of systems that need to develop

Im a game player and a game developer, I dont think what I suggest has such more work to do.

Just as I say

We only need a base BR, which depends on the tank/plane itself.

And how to evaluate it?
For the tank/plane itself:
We should develop an evaluation system based on speed/defense/sensor.
Such as a t80-based tank should not be lower than 10.0

For selectable weapons on the ground:
We could develop a baseline that

  1. a standard 10.0 ammo should have a penetration not lower than 300mm and not higher than 450mm ( for APDS or APDSFS)
  2. a standard 10.0 HE should have only a 30% chance of killing the same BR`s vehicle.

For those in the sky:

  1. for first-generation missiles like aim9b, it shouldn`t be lower than 8.7
  2. for missile like r60/aim9e, it shouldn`t be lower than 10.0
  3. for missile like r60m/aim9j/aim9g, it shouldn`t be lower than 11.0

I know we need more time to make it more reasonable.
But I do think it`s a good direction of development

No redesign is required.
F-4C has speed to avoid the subsonic all-aspect carriers.
IL-28 has an air spawn to avoid 9Bs.