Responding to Feedback on the Planned Battle Rating Changes April 2025

[_Poul]

@TheAnnoyingFinn

Of course vehicle duplicates in different nations should have the same BR anyways.

But this example shows that you can’t trust such stats. They depend from so many different factors, it’s impossible to control them.

This is why the devs decided to use efficiency (which is based on the economy, it’s actually action SL/RP per battle/spawn).

This is also the only sensible way to balance different type of vehicles. Because you can say to use for example K:D to balance vehicles. But then how will you balance e.g. bombers? They need something that can be compared between different vehicle types, and that’s why they use efficiency.

Is efficiency a perfect solution? Of course it’s not, there are definitely issues with it. But there is no perfect solution.
Manual balancing is out of question, especially vehicles can perform differently in hands of different players. There are vehicles my friend loves and he can do wonder with them, but I can’t play them well and vice versa. Even on the forum you can see some good players arguing should some vehicle go up or down. They have opposite opinions, because their playstyle is completely different (even if they are good and experienced players).
Doing community votes about BR changes is a laughable idea - most players don’t play all vehicles, but they love to talk about balancing (this Pz.IV can kill my poor and totally underpowered KV-1! I must vote to move KV-1 down and Pz.IV up, obviously).

I’m not saying that I completely agree with how the devs balance vehicles (I often disagree with some specific vehicles going up/down in BR). I’m just saying that I understand why they do what they do.

[TheAnnoyingFinn]

Lmao i think we’re arguing about nothing here mate.
I never meant that only WR% should be used to balance, i clarified that later on.
I also don’t argue about which statistics are used for balancing.

I was simply saying that instead of using ALL players in a certain vehicle to balance it. They should use the X% of top performers in Y vehicle to balance THAT vehicle only.

Then use that method across the board, per vehicle basis.

[flat_Lander1]

Imagine combining the graphs and actual experience of team (not a 1 person) dedicated solely to balancing which they would discuss after combining all the factors, i think it would be overall net positive to the game, no?
Obviously broken vehicles? IDK maybe something like German KV-1B or T-55AM1/Fuji stomping and ruining every match in downtier.
Not saying they should only balance this way but it should be another factor taken into consideration

[TheAnnoyingFinn]

Your examples come from personal experience? I have noticed little to no trouble dealing with those vehicles myself.
See how that is instantly skewed because of different experiences?

@flat_Lander1

Not saying they should only balance this way but it should be another factor taken into consideration

Im not saying that im against it, just that it’s not as easily achieved as people generally think.

We have some agreement in the overlap here, but further it feels like we’re gonna just continue going in circles with this argument, so im not gonna discuss this further. But i do appreciate your point of view.

[flat_Lander1]

Same, have a good day/night

[_Poul]

@TheAnnoyingFinn

I was simply saying that instead of using ALL players in a certain vehicle to balance it. They should use the X% of top performers in Y vehicle to balance THAT vehicle only.

Then use that method across the board, per vehicle basis.

This was already explained by Ion_Protogen. It won’t work if you use e.g. top 1000, because there are players who play for stats and also some vehicles are much more popular than other vehicles. I can even see some vehicles that won’t be played by 1000 players in specific period of time.

If you take specific % of players, you again deal with the fact that some players play for stats. And the BR of some specific vehicles that are barely used could be decided by literally just a few players. At the same time, the % sample of very popular vehicles will still give you data from way too many players. This data can’t be accurately compared to data from unpopular vehicles. Imagine taking e.g. top 5% data from 200000 players that played a very popular vehicle and 1000 players that played unpopular vehicle in specific time period and then balance both vehicles based on the efficiency result.

This will only create chaos, especially with unpopular vehicles BRs that will be decided by a very small number of players. That’s why the devs take whole the sample (from 200000 players and 1000 players), which is still problematic, but not as much as mentioned 5% of top players (that will give crazy efficiency results with unpopular vehicles).

[MrBombastic8]

they shouldnt really balance vehicle base on statistics alone at the first place

[An_Pigeon]

You can’t see how that is a bad idea?

You take a vehicle, say for example the chieftain MK5. It’s not a bad 8.7, not great, it is balanced where it is., then look at the stats of the top say 1000 people for talking sake?

That tanks BR is gonna be 9.3 by the end of the week, know what happens then? it goes into a dead zone, where no one bar the absolute most die hards would playit, and show its still doing fine at that BR, if not performing well, and move up again

The Char 25T is a perfect example of this, that even with it being balanced off of economy its sitting at 8.0 when it is objectively worse than every other light tank at the BR.

The issue is there isn’t a clear cut way to balance these tanks / vehicles across the board.
Technically they should be balanced on their statistical commonalities, e.g T64B firing 3bm42 with decent mobility / HP/PT , armour and profile should not be sitting lower than the tanks like amx40.

but because most people play larger trees first aka the big three, the stats / efficiency for smaller trees is skewed Hence why once again we got these wild af BR changes.

If however we balanced on the tanks overall capabilities not the players performance with it then it could work better.
Ofc if its all balanced this way and properly we shouldn’t see tanks extremely over performing for their BRs.

But to balance off of the top X amount of players per specific vehicle, then whatever other additional nonsense is gonna skew each vehicle massively.

@TheAnnoyingFinn

They should use the X% of top performers in Y vehicle to balance THAT vehicle only.

yes you dont seem to grasp that everyone is telling you that wont work as the top percentile of that vehicle will be extremely good with it.

That doesn’t show that the tank is OP it shows that a person is extremely good with it.

[An_Pigeon]

They should balance it off of the tanks active capabilities with its stats, then move it up and down based on performance, e.g efficiency, rn they just balance solely on efficiency and a whim.

[MrBombastic8]

Gaijin: nah it takes too much effort and time

[maguumo]

@Morvran

You do know the radar doesn’t work on the typhoon right?
It’s a buggy broken mess that doesn’t see targets and when it does,.it’s a chore to get the radar to track.

GRB is almost entirely WVR. Having to baby your radar to get a FOX-3 off is a nuisance but not much of a disadvantage there. Heck, in the Rafale I have the radar off most of the time since I don’t want it to light up my opponents RWR.

@Morvran

Because ground isn’t the only gamemode. There are air modes too and don’t really give a crap about ground. I want my aircraft to not be nerfed for air modes, but tanks take priority annoyingly

But we were talking about this in the context of GRB.

@Morvran

Spawn in, fire 6x kh38 and get 6 kills Vs fly low, find 1 target at a time, soma Brimstones at it, repeat a dozen times.

Yes this seems identical

One is obviously far easier. Should vehicles be judged and balanced by what is easier to use? That’s how the Type 81 ended up at a higher BR than the Tor.

[Tjeck]

Why have you moved Merkava Mk2D to 10.0? In 90%+ cases it has no advantage over other Mk2’s as heat ammunition is very rare at this BR. At the same time it lacks mobility of stuff like AMX-40 or Leo2 PT, lacks protection of tanks like T-64B and has mediocre firepower for its BR.

Also why have you moved Baltimore-class cruisers to 5.7? That thing is far to powerful and now shares BR with far weaker New Orleans-class. Naval players has been mostly asking for decompression and you keep compressing stuff…

[Morvran]

@maguumo

GRB is almost entirely WVR. Having to baby your radar to get a FOX-3 off is a nuisance but not much of a disadvantage there. Heck, in the Rafale I have the radar off most of the time since I don’t want it to light up my opponents RWR.

Then the Typhoon has the weakest of all the WVR IR Missiles. Aim-9M is pretty poor in anything other than nice clean rear-aspect shots

@maguumo

But we were talking about this in the context of GRB.

Except I wasnt.

Typhoon is nerfed.

There isnt a single aspect of it that isn’t. From its radar and FM, to its CMs and finally to its A2G loadout.

And just because GRB is the main gamemode where half decent AGMs would be use, its not the only gamemode where they are relevant.

@maguumo

One is obviously far easier. Should vehicles be judged and balanced by what is easier to use? That’s how the Type 81 ended up at a higher BR than the Tor.

To be honest, yes.

Because if a weapon system can destroy half the enemy team in the hands of even the worst player, then clearly it is OP beyond measure. If the other requires a lot of skill and practice to employ even half as well. Then clearly its underperforming.

Just because I’ve beaten Mig-29s in the Tornado GR1 in a gunfight doesnt mean the Tornado GR1 is equal to the Mig-29. Same logic applies here. Just because the Typhoon can get kills with Brimstones, doesnt mean they are even slightly equal to a Su-30 firing off KH-38MTs. Ive seen people do extremely well with the Tornado ASSTA1 does that mean the Tornado ASSTA1 is equal to the Su-30SM?

[Hudler]

This is pretty much all this forum summed up.

[MotorolaCRO]

@Morvran

Then the Typhoon has the weakest of all the WVR IR Missiles. Aim-9M is pretty poor in anything other than nice clean rear-aspect shots

9M in GRB is really good due to no markings and it’s lack of smoke.

[Morvran]

and perhaps if they ever fix its lock ranges it will be of more use. But my experience with them is that by the time you’ve got tone, you might as well just use canon to down the target.

Compared to the other 2 main IR missile, they are extremely poor in short range WVR combat.

[UniqueScorpions-live]

Can confirm the Kv-1E at 4.3 is near useless in any slight uptier

[maguumo]

@Morvran

Then the Typhoon has the weakest of all the WVR IR Missiles. Aim-9M is pretty poor in anything other than nice clean rear-aspect shots

The 9M is the weakest IR missile if you see it coming. Which is pretty hard on a smokeless missile in a mode that doesn’t show a missile diamond.

@Morvran

Because if a weapon system can destroy half the enemy team in the hands of even the worst player, then clearly it is OP beyond measure. If the other requires a lot of skill and practice to employ even half as well. Then clearly its underperforming.

But you find doing that wrong for the Type 81. That’s the disconnect I’m pointing out.

@Morvran

Just because I’ve beaten Mig-29s in the Tornado GR1 in a gunfight doesnt mean the Tornado GR1 is equal to the Mig-29. Same logic applies here. Just because the Typhoon can get kills with Brimstones, doesnt mean they are even slightly equal to a Su-30 firing off KH-38MTs. Ive seen people do extremely well with the Tornado ASSTA1 does that mean the Tornado ASSTA1 is equal to the Su-30SM?

That is not a valid comparison. The MiG 29 should win that engagment every time if both pilots are equally capable. The Typhoon with Brimstones is picked over the Su-30SM3 in a mode that chases meta hard and matches you against skilled players, because it provides better results there.

[Mobius_Einherjar]

@AlvisWisla

The AMX-40 is slightly more mobile than the Leopard 2A4, fires a similar round, has a similar thermal solution… the difference is the AMX-40 has “no turret armor”.
Yet they are 1 BR apart.

The 2A4 also has significantly better sights, gun handling and reload which makes a significant difference.

@AlvisWisla

The fact AMX-40 has dodged getting uptiered for so long is outright impressive, it shouldn’t be the same BR as the no-thermal Leopard 2K.

The 2K also has a sight and gun handling advantage as well as an autocannon that can handle air targets much better. AMX-40 might’ve thermals, but being limited to a 10x fixed sight is painful.

And none of this addresses what I said about the TURMS and UD. I don’t think the 2K should be only 0.3 lower than those either.

[Morvran]

@maguumo

But you find doing that wrong for the Type 81. That’s the disconnect I’m pointing out.

Except, the point is, the Type 81 is only half good in a very specific use case.

At 10.7 sure it would be very strong, but its not that good when compared to most other top tier SPAA, certainly not the ones at 12.0.

Quite frankly, the ADATS and Type 81 are hardly worthy of being much higher than the 11.3 when compared to SPAA like the FlakRad and defiently should be more than 0.3 BR away from the Pantsir.

Heck the Chinese SPAA are 11.0 and 11.3 respectively and Id consider both stronger than the ADATS and Type 81 which are 11.7 now. Just seems insane to me.