Can one of you two tell me why both teh F15I and E are still 12.7? for GRB as cas? its absolutely abhorrant that EF2000, rafale, su30 etc all wetn to 13.0 but the F15E/I (CAS) craft did not.
and F-16s.
Thats easy, US mains are bad at the game.
Though
Why didnt the F-16C and especially F-15E/I move up, if anything they are more capable CAS than the Typhoon at the moment
2 Likes
Ive asked a few questions iwth absolutely zero feedback.
Overall these BR changes are not thoughtout, at all.
They have systematically ruined 10.3, 10.7 and ofc 11.7, as now the USA teams have access to not only one but two great cas platforms at 12.7, while most trees at 11.7 dont even have a reliable CAP platform to fight against either of those.
WHile were at it the gripens should also move to 13.0 for CAS as they are insanely good platforms for it, sure they only get 4 missiles, but they are again great platforms.
Statistics are all fine and dandy to use as a metric for changing BRs.
But using EVERY PLAYERS combined statistics for any given vehicle is the wrong way to go about it.
This is why we see minor nations constantly getting vehicles being moved up over and over again. (inb4 we have Lorraine 40t at 12.0)
This makes them even less tempting for newer or just more casual players to play. Creating a loop of above average and dedicated players using them, thus making their statistics look comparatively better.
To balance a vehicle based on statistics, ONLY the top 1000 players for any given vehicle should be taken into consideration. This way we can see how good a vehicle actually is.
Using all players as a metric just leaves some vehicles at too low of a BR (new players, players who have paid their way to move up etc.) and then you see some above average, or amazing players absolutely wreak havoc in them.
1 Like
I agree that the current system has issues, but I disagree with your solution.
I think that the real solution is to consider all data, while adjusting for the average player skill of that vehicle.
If someone consistently earns 20% better than everyone else, then that persons stats should be 20% better in every vehicle. Then this would be done for every player. Another example; the average player of the Char25T preforms 50% better than the average WT player, yet the Char only has stats that indicate it’s 15% better on average. Gaijin might see that it needs to go up, yet the opposite is actually true.
I dunno. I tried to make a pretty fair list
The BT-7A(F32) among others were moved up, but still are rank II
The anti-Russian rhetoric is really showing… time to swap nations I guess.
How is this relevant per vehicle basis? If someone earns 20% more on average across all vehicles, than the casual player, he is then simply better overall. But if the better player has a ~50% WR in one vehicle, that vehicle is balanced. If he has a ~70% WR in another vehicle, there is a discrepancy, and that vehicle is clearly overperforming.
This is a fair point, but the performance of average vs. above average player in X vehicle doesn’t matter if all vehicles are balanced in the same manner, top 1000 players for every vehicle. Then other vehicles get increases in BR to the same level as the Char25T. And after a time, the Char25T might start showing lowered stats. Because better vehicles at lower BRs get moved to it’s level based on top 1000 performance. Thus the Char25T getting moved lower in time.
Some people got so used to ARB they forgot everything except how to blindly sling off ARHs at the closest radar contact, hoping the contact is overwhelmed by the furball.
1 Like
True and while I agree and think just considering the top whatever% or number of players might be a good or at least better approach (assuming the snail doesn’t already do something similar, which none of us knows which statistics or how they take them into consideration -
Which stats would you actually consider for BR balancing (K/D? - i just wrote down m thoughts about the strv103s which then might be complete outliers of the k/d they can achieve but only in very specific spots on the map while being ignored by cas and ppl not caring about their position trying to take them out again and again from the front. but when you also take kills per spawn or winrate into account it doesnt look that fancy anymore.
If you take Winrate into account that might be even worse cause that is influenced heavily by which nation at which br you’re playing, how good the teams at that br are and how good your crew/lineup is. Your vehicle can be craz good, if you play at a br like 9.3 that is ver often sucked into 10.0 and 10.3 premium brs in a nation with not that good players then you will struggle to achieve the same winrate like playing a nation with a very strong lineup (ground,air,spaa) that very good players tend to flock to.
So i think it would be very hard to actually get statistics that really show how strong a vehicle is. Like, compare it to the maus. Its strong yes, but only if clueless enemies continue running into you head on. If you need to win a match in a maus on a 3 cap map, gl tring to cap and hold 2 objectives while running from cas.
Super Etendard 11.0? How I am supposed to fight Pantsirs in this thing? It does not even have an afterburner… Sorry but that’s a joke, no line-up as well again and 2 times uptiered in a row…
1 Like
How to differentiate that vehicles strenght considering winrate from the whole 10 vehicle lineup winrate? Winrate should be mainly influenced by how strong the lineup is, the players playing it and then maybe, at last how good the player is in this one specific vehicle. You could play every match first spawn in a very bad light tank (lets say Luchs) rush, cap and die and then save the match in one of the strongest vehicles of the respective br or not? Shit stats in the first, still good winrate
All are good points. But you fail to take into consideration the changes in BRs, across the board that would start to happen.
Let’s take your 9.3 vs. 10.3 example for starters. Yes, nations have very strong tanks at 10.3, and while i disagree that 9.3 tanks generally struggle against them (9.3 has been my personal favorite BR to play for a long time), you don’t take into account that those very strong 10.3 vehicles would see their BRs start to go up (or less strong 9.3 vehicles start to go down), which would create an even playing field in the long run.
I’ll take the community favorite target of hatred, the 2S38 for reference. It is readily available to players who have just started the game, and is quite an appealing to said audience. Of course ALL of the statistics for it are skewed in favor of keeping it at 10.3 because of this (low skill, no actual lineup etc.) But use whatever % of top performers in it, and it shows the vehicles true capabilities, thus it would most likely move up quite soon.
(I wont participate in discussions that hint that premium vehicles are kept at certain BRs to boost sales. Just saying it now)
My solution, like any solution, wouldn’t instantly fix everything. But after a short while and a few balancing changes, things would start to shift towards a more even playing field.
1 Like
Sorry for the confusion, im using WR % as an example statistic. Of course the final performance evaluation should consider statistics more broadly and precisely. But instead of doing it across the board from all players, do it from the top X% of players using it, in X amount of battles.
If a player averages at a 70% WR in total, then a vehicle he has 60% in another, then the 60% WR is shown to underperform, since the player using it achieves a below average result relative to his skill level.
Similarly if a player averages at 20% WR, a vehicle he has a 40% WR in is overperforming relative to his skill level.
Filtering pure stats through individual player averages is how you can make sure that player skill is not what drives BRs, but rather just pure vehicle performance.
2 Likes
Sorry for the confusion, but in my first post about the possible solution i mentioned that it should be per vehicle basis.
For example:
Of ALL the players using the KPz-70, you take X % of top performers in it. And use their statistics in it, to determine the KPz-70s overall performance (over- or underperforming).
You DO NOT apply their performance to evaluate the overall performance of other vehicles. Unless they are in the X % of top performers in those vehicles.
Balancing single vehicles just by WR is a very bad idea, which is why Gaijin isn’t doing it.
I’ve played some very, very mid vehicles and had really good WRs in them, because they are in a pretty good lineup and not because they’re so strong.
2 Likes
Guys, there would not be such a big balance problem if Gaijin actually played the game themselves instead of just looking at excel sheets
Gaijin balances primarily based on vehicle earnings, which plays a huge part in the efficiency metric. Winrate is also a bad way to balance, especially in ground RB where there are many factors that affect it.
The top 1000 perform badly different in different types of tanks compared to the average player. They excel in mobile an fast tanks, while a worse player will do better with more armour. I also don’t think it will give a good idea on how balanced something actually is if you only take into account a fraction of a percent of the player base. There’s also issues with what even a top 1000 player is defined as.
Another thing I’d like to add is that the top 1000 players in certain sleal clubbing vehicles have a near 100% (or 100%) winrate and a huge KD. The players who sweat in squads are not the ones you want to balance the game.
3 Likes
This is such an old argument, and frankly people dont seem to realize the scale of the game. The amount of vehicles in the game, and the absolutely monumental amount of time the devs should have to dedicate to each vehicle. On top of all the other work they have to do.