I mean the gripen has the least amount of effect on the battle by far. Its the top tier plane with the least amount of missiles
WWII vehicles fighting abrams? Like what? I only see that stuff when people are trolling.
I don’t think I saw anyone else post this. But Zen makes a good point here.
Gaijin not sharing the data they use to adjust vehicle BRs leaves players in a “just trust us, bro” position. The 2S38 really highlights the issue @Smin1080p_WT response to @Necronomica question was more of a deflection than an explaination, as a BR increase for that vehicle has been requested since its implementation. The Strf 90C has a much higher efficiency than the 2S38 but then they arent increasing either’s BR? Could they both be increased? When it comes to increasing or decreasing a particular vehicle’s BR, is it player statistics or vehicle efficiency and why don’t we see more explainations if the data can’t be shared.
4 Likes
Neither its radar nor its missiles work. Ngl it actually can be hard to hit a stationary helicopter with it rn. Gaijin did not cook with this one; they forgot to even put it in the oven…
so if an enemy tank has a better round, your round suddenly starts dealing no damage?
you can kill every tank ingame with the 120mm dm23. the only difficult target are the 2A7s and B+, but its not like a better round would help against those.
the pt-16 is the quickest mbt ingame also tied with the fastest reload, even if it died to 50cal it still would be 11.3 worthy.
just look at the vt-5, arguably a worse tank, is going up to 11.3 (which is deserved imo)
Hey. As we detailed last year, vehicle efficiency is calculated using statistics. They are not two separate things, but both part of the outcome: Responding To Your Feedback On Separate Battle Ratings
While we’re here, we’d like to give some additional context behind Battle Ratings and how they’re decided. Battle Ratings are decided based on how much a vehicle earns, but this is not purely economical. We use this metric because it’s all encompassing and considers every action a player makes with their vehicle, so this considers frags, assists, caps, and effectively every useful action a vehicle can perform all bundled into one universal metric.
This is the “Efficiency” of each vehicle and gives us a very well rounded perspective on all of its abilities and how it’s actually being used.
If a vehicle has high efficiency, it’s outperforming its contemporaries in multiple ways the majority of times it spawns on the map, and as a result may have to be increased in Battle Rating. Whereas a vehicle with low efficiency is not performing well across the board against what it fights, and may be moved down. However this is not purely a data driven process, we often consider additional factors such as the volume of players using a certain vehicle, its lineup, new features that may be altering performance in different ways etc — and this often leads us to delay a change we otherwise would have made to gather more information. Even though we do primarily go by this efficiency metric, we aren’t bound by it, and spend a lot of time each Battle Rating cycle to look over feedback for different perspectives and elements we may not have initially considered.
Ultimately, it’s very hard to balance a vehicle in a vacuum. On paper an aircraft might have incredible speed, or a tank might have great penetration for its Battle Rating, but this is cold data, in the sense that just because a vehicle on the surface has a very impressive asset, it doesn’t mean that asset guarantees high performance. It’s more about how a vehicle is actually functioning in the game, rather than weighing up its assets in isolation. So efficiency is good data to be informed by as it considers everything and everyone.
3 Likes
In its current state, it should go down if anything. If Gaijin fixes its radar, then absolutely push it up. Furthermore, K/D is not a good indicator of effectiveness for an AA; instead, look at average air frags per number of battles. Most SPAA that do not have guns like the Spyder will avoid direct combat, thus boosting their K/D despite being terrible vehicles.
yeah but now F-16C and A MLU with AMRAAMs will face Su-27, J-11 and Su-33 with only fox-1s (and with the exception of the 33, SPO-15 RWR)
This is gonna be super unfair gameplay and the 29SMT is not at the level of the 16C
What happens if a vehicle isnt played enough? Can that vehicle have very high or low efficiency for a longer time before something changes? Im thinking of old top tier planes such as Hunter F1 and Venom FB.4 for example.
They were once top dogs but dont really fit into that role anymore.
Shouldnt a very low “battles played” number indicate that not many people see this vehicle as a worthy research and therefore you (gaijin) would do it justice by lowering it?
3 Likes
What is the other thing that is used? Because the only way I can see any justification to have French autoloading tanks firing solid shot at the same BR as real tanks that are stabilised and have HEAT-FS and APDS is well French players were good so they are here now.
I look at the 2S38 and wonder why that keeps getting away with having a low BR and the reason can’t be the vehicle, it’s fast, has amazing fire power, great optics decimates tanks, aircraft and can sometimes take a hit. If we aren’t balancing vehicles on soft stats well that’s why we end up with some of the huge imbalances we have in game.
3 Likes
Well that’s the fatal flaw in the system, and to be fair Gaijin have tried to make the vehicles more accessible by reducing repair costs. Yes French 7.0 lineup would cost 90K if you played it and died with 3 tanks! So no one would play it, too high a skill ceiling but players that did play it were good so Gaijin saw that and pushed them all up to 8.0.
Another problem is majority of players will jump to the flavour of the week, making a new vehicle popular but with a mixed bag of stats prevents it from being balanced correctly. And the other side of the spectrum is tanks that are poor or need help don’t see play Gaijin have no stats and don’t touch them.
CR2 is a good example of this a tank that no one plays, when compared to the Leopard 2s, T-80s and M1s
1 Like
Very big issue I think. Because if a plane isnt played enough to even get statistics in the first place, how can it ever go down in battle rating? Think of the time when a group of very skilled players took the CL13 mk4 out for a few weeks. They played it a lot, played it very well and managed to scew the efficiency statistics so bad that a plane that wasnt very good managed to go up in battle rating… This is a very good example of what happens when a “bad” vehicle doesnt get the attention it deserves.
1 Like
Have yet to explain how 2 identical vehicles have 2 different effeciencies and therefore deserve 2 different battle ratings
7 Likes
CL13 Mk4 back in the day was THE best Jet in game. But things change and missiles and being jammed in lower and lower down makes these aircraft unplayable.
So many vehicles that just need some love and decompression. Sadly to these vehicles detriment Gaijin just put out a vehicle and then it’s on to the next update. They do make incremental changes but not enough and that to me is indicative of a very stretched development team.
Also @Smin1080p_WT When are we getting this thread?
Somewhere we can actually discuss and give feedback on ground attacker BRs.
Tornados being different BRs is still insane
3 Likes
U are thinking of the mk5. Im talking about the italian one. Its the worst sabre in the game
I am the Mk6 CL 13 was the best
2 Likes
Aaaaaaaaaaand the Tornado IDS ASSTA STILL hasn’t been reduced to 11.3 in Air RB why exactly??? There is ZERO reason for it to be 11.7 just because it has laser guided munitions which are USELESS in air battles. Appart from that it is effectively identical to the WTD61 and MFG…
Excerpt is from the wiki page:
This version is the Tornado Interdiction/Strike or IDS for short, and as such, is almost completely useless in air-to-air combat against fighters of its battle rating.
5 Likes
It’s also stupid as frick that we can’t use datamine to bug report issues, just because some information isn’t available in the game.
Like, I’m sure that 90% of aircraft cannon shell ballistics are incorrect but unless the round is AP and you can reverse engineer the penetration to velocity at range, it’s incredible difficult to proof something is wrong.
Then a lot of times different shells get the same ballistic coefficent, even though it makes no sense.
For example the 20mm Ho-5s AP-T and HEFI shell have the same coefficent in the files, which makes no sense since the AP-T shell should be more aerodynamic over the tracerless shell with blunt nose.
Same deal with other shells or bullets, where Gaijin doesn’t understand that tracer rounds should have better ballistic coefficents due to the base bleed effect.
How many battles have you played on the PT-16?
That’s not enough to be at 11.0.
- The tank has poor optics.
- TVD is missing
- There is no armor whatsoever
- Smole grenate is missing
How should I protect my tank from FnF weapons?
- And the tank will have weak armor penetration for 11.0
Developers will make a big mistake if they give this tank a combat rating of 11.0.