Responding To Your Feedback On Separate Battle Ratings

[Horizonwalker]

Is there any reason why Su-27 goes down to 12.3 while J-11 remains at 12.7? Is this another “mistake” or perhaps J-11 is going to receive fox-3 in the next patch?

[themadseventeen]

“Player statistics” my friend.

[Apollo_1641]

The A-6 can carry up to 4x AIM-9L which most aircraft under BR 10.0 have no countermeasures against.

The max G overload of the Lima is high, so it is extremely difficult to defeat with maneuver alone.

[Swordoros]

Yes of course, we can see the attackers are too effective in grinding, we’d better nerf their effectiveness and make the fighters looks more effective. In next stage we get a reason to nerf the effectiveness of fighters cause it’s much higher than the attackers. Less effective in grinding means we can sell more premium vehicle, Gaijin always wins😀
By the way, nerfing the benefits of bases seems much easier than set up the ‘Research Bonuses for new nations’

[tj8m23le]

You can stop beating around the bush when it comes to reducing player income.LOL

[ADFX10F]

R2Y2’s getting Ignored YET AGAIN!

[天才刀使いの燕結芽]

The Q5L has 18 more rounds of interference, which equals a BR of 10.3, very humorous bro

[AlvisWisla]

@Zyszhao @Horizonwalker
Probably cause it wasn’t in the feedback post with Su-27.
Oversight on poster’s part, and oversight on Gaijin’s part.

@天才刀使いの燕結芽
The Q-5L is a Jaguar GR1A with a thermal pod instead of a normal targeting pod.
It deserved 10.3 from the start, but was shafted due to the air RB performance.

[OwaArtin]

will these changes Effect the Squadron Battles ?
if yes , how ?

[eqS729gYidXuT2BN]

@Stona_WT

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.

How are design decisions supposedly not made on “cold data,” yet the “cold data” of player stats are considered more important than the actual capabilities of the vehicle?

[MommyDommyEnjyr]

@Stona_WT

Su-25/Su-25K — we’ve seen your questions about why these aircraft don’t receive Battle Rating increases in Ground Battles. This is because according to current game data, these aircraft are already at their ideal Battle Ratings. They don’t carry “fire and forget” weapons to hit ground targets and don’t have a targeting pod with good zoom or guidance angles that allow them to fly away from combat while guiding weapons. When using their primary weapons, they’re forced to not fly away from the target, but instead to fly straight at it. In order to effectively destroy ground targets, they constantly need to operate in anti-aircraft defence areas and fly almost in a straight line which explains the efficiency for them.

Are you seriously expecting us to believe your “data” doesnt have Su25s clapping cheeks multiple games back to back… the fact I can still reliably kill ground targets in my Su25BM using a “non guided loadout” thanks to absurdly broken dumb rockets says it all… hich is a higher BR and faces greater threats, these should be going up in BR in GRB period. they have no place facing 10.0 in GRB, stop using “data” as the ONLY metric, look at how many of they actually exist in that BR and how often they are used and you will find out its probs the #1 spammed Jet in that BR for GRB but whatever floats your boat.

@Stona_WT

Aircraft with All-Aspect IR Missiles at 10.0-10.3 Battle Ratings

For this one, we’re primarily talking about the A-10A, A-10A Late, Su-25, Su-25K and A-6E TRAM, which populate these Battle Ratings in Air Battles and have all-aspect missiles. The flight performance characteristics of these aircraft after expending air-to-air missiles does not allow them to fight equally with aircraft that have higher speeds and thrust-to-weight ratios, which is why these aircraft can only effectively fight with aircraft that have similar characteristics.

The effectiveness of these aircraft, even at their Battle Rating, is lower than expected or equal to that. Increasing their Battle Rating can lead to encounters with even more difficult opponents, which will further reduce their effectiveness. The AMX on the other hand has good performance characteristics and a fairly high efficiency, so in a future planned changes to Battle Ratings, its Battle Rating in Air Battles may be increased.

Here is an idea, remove the missiles… you pulled this stunt with the Harrier GR1 and claimed it got SRAAMs because “it wouldnt be competitive” expecting it to fight in an air to air style when its primarily a strike aircraft. just remove the missiles. you need to actually start balancing stuff now by removing weapons.

Same applies to the god awful decision behind the Kh38s that got added… whoever decided to add a TV guided munition that exceeds all current ranges of SAMs needs to be taken of the developement/balancing team.

START BALANCING BY REMOVING WEAPONS

[Bonrath]

@Stona_WT

A-6E TRAM — at its current Battle Rating, this aircraft has a large selection of guided weapons that can effectively engage enemy ground targets. However, at its new Battle Rating, this aircraft will, among other threats, encounter longer-range air defences. We’re also considering expanding this aircraft’s arsenal, and in a future major update we’re planning to add the AGM-123 Skipper II, which can be used to combat air defence systems and hit targets from distances greater than regular free-fall bombs. Please note that the AGM-65 Maverick was not used on this variant of this aircraft.

Oh REALLY.
One of your bigger CAS cash makers, with an insane performance lowered only because of the majority that is still learning the game, getting even more cracked? Imagine if we actually got something like that for the tech tree at that BR for US. Like mav F on A-7E? or an A-6E SWIP???.

@Stona_WT

Aircraft with All-Aspect IR Missiles at 10.0-10.3 Battle Ratings

For this one, we’re primarily talking about the A-10A, A-10A Late, Su-25, Su-25K and A-6E TRAM, which populate these Battle Ratings in Air Battles and have all-aspect missiles. The flight performance characteristics of these aircraft after expending air-to-air missiles does not allow them to fight equally with aircraft that have higher speeds and thrust-to-weight ratios, which is why these aircraft can only effectively fight with aircraft that have similar characteristics.

Brah just give them air spawns and move them up. Has that not been considered yet? maybe make ground strike rewards have bigger bonuses for actual strike aircraft, across the table? It’ll deincentivize base bombing in multirole aircraft and have them focus on air to air combat instead of the strikers which will actually then be able to do strikes? Consider that ples.

[Downtown1]

Whenevery a vehicle, tank or plane is added, make sure to add its IRL weapons ASAP. Giving the Etendard its AS-30L now? Q-5L countermeasures now? Q-5 are missing their missiles still, when will true, proper, IRL loadouts be added.

[HoluhovskyCZ]

A-10 and Su-25 not going up, why??
https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/689059611948613681/1218579161426300958/togif.gif?ex=66569e88&is=66554d08&hm=ba9ba93cd6ca4727c9fb5d9e6bd57baf84b2c532c587789c9c1f54200bf27be4&

[Ion_Protogen]

Well these changes are mildly better, it still doesn’t solve the issue of all aspect missile slingers being way too low in ARB.

@Stona_WT

The effectiveness of these aircraft, even at their Battle Rating, is lower than expected or equal to that. Increasing their Battle Rating can lead to encounters with even more difficult opponents, which will further reduce their effectiveness.

So they get to ruin the entire 9.0-10.3 BR bracket? What kind of reasoning is that?

Please just do better and listen to the community. If people cannot see that all aspect missiles facing flare-less planes is an issue, whoever makes these genuinely does not play the game.

Alternatively, you can remove the all aspect missiles and give them Aim-9J equivalents.

[Armen_Lozone]

@Stona_WT
I’ve seen the Su-17/22M3 go from 10.7 to 10.3, but the next aircraft of the list, Su-17/22M4 are still at 11.0?
They struggle in Ground RB and unless the following arent changed… i dont think they should stay at 11.0 in Ground RB:

• Change BR of the Pantsir from 11.7 to 12.0-12.3
• Adjust spawn point cost of 2 x Kh-29T from nearly 900 to around 700 because 6 x mavericks cost around 900… unequal in my eyes
• Make the target tracking lock on such TV seekers usable because rn they arent reliable

[天才刀使いの燕結芽]

My point is simple, an attacker without an AAM can be unreasonable at BR 10.3, the Jaguar GR1A has two AAMs at the very least, and I don’t think that a single jamming measure can be upgraded to a BR of 10.3

[asd072]

Why no changes for at least F-1?(T-2 would be nice too tho) It has no place in GRB because of it’s BR and CAS capabilities not worth ruining 9.7 lineup

[Barlowi]

Aircraft with All-Aspect IR Missiles at 10.0-10.3 Battle Ratings

These aircraft will always be difficult to balance because they are dedicated CAS and Air RB simply doesn’t favour this role, but on the flipside especially with separated BRs these aircraft can now shine in Ground RB.

While I commend the attempt to make a vehicles viable in every mode, this simply isn’t reasonable in this case because the all aspect missiles are completely useless as defence against anything with flares but completely unfair against those without them.

As a result a lot of flareless fighers keep getting downtiered, not because they can’t compete with other fighters but because they keep getting bullied by CAS planes.

Something like the J-35D, F-104J and F-1 has become almost unplayable. They cannot be effectively used as a fighter in Air RB because they have to avoid the CAS planes until they use their missiles.
At the same time downtiering these vehicles (as seen in the case of the F-104A) only causes problems at lower BRs because suddenly they severely outperfom every other fighter.

By giving these 5 CAS planes a fighting chance you are ruining an entire br range (at this point the effect reaches as far as 7.0).

If you insist on keeping these planes viable in Air RB, without fundamentally changing the game mode, the only reasonable approach I can see is giving them only rear aspect missiles.

[르끌레르]

@Stona_WT

Therefore in the summer, we’re planning to give more clarification and bring this issue up for discussion — whether or not we should reduce the rewards for bases in order to reduce the Battle Rating of aircraft that mainly bomb bases, or leave everything as it is now. Please follow the news for more details on this.

It’s right to increase Air To Air kill rewards, not reduce Base Bombing rewards.

It’s not related to this topic, but the Ground Battle is the same.

I can’t understand why Gaijin is always trying to reduce rewards.

Think again about the situation that happened last year after Nerfing with an Economic Patch.