Responding To Your Feedback On Separate Battle Ratings

[Pheonix_RX01]

Cool that they have decided to not give the Aj/AJS their rb75T’s that would make them somewhat competitive strike fighters considering they are some of the if not the worst striker fighters for their br in ground RB

[Acid_Burn9]

@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.

Absolutely ridiculous. All of these planes NEED to go up in br in air rb. They are not supposed to perform well in aerial combat against the planes they face. They are ground attack planes. Instead they should be balanced by putting them into the battle-rating where the planes that they face will not automatically die by just entering into the missile range of those ground attackers. Anything short of that is unacceptable.

P.S. J-7E(one of the best dogfighters in the game) at 10.3 facing 9.3-9.7 aircraft lmao what are you smoking???

[D_DroiD]

@Stona_WT

However, on the economy side of things, the Battle Rating of bomb carriers — which are discussed in many topics — are optimal or even underestimated. This means that their weak capabilities for air combat doesn’t prevent them from receiving on average a good or even great reward. As noted above, the average reward is one of the main factors in determining the Battle Rating of a vehicle. Therefore in order for us to be able to reduce the Battle Rating of these aircraft while maintaining healthy economic progression, the rewards for damaging and destroying bases would need to be reduced so that the average reward (the effectiveness) of bombers and fighters is equalized.

So instead of making a game mode where all kinds of aircraft have a place and can perform better, just nerf the income… Classic move as always.
Who the hell cares that bomb carriers can earn good rewards by destroying bases? You already slashed the possible rewards when you increased the respawn time for bases, now again you want to screw those players again. Cant have nice things in this game can we?

Also how does this work together?

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 super Etendard going to 10.7 where it will have no lineup in any way since everything is either 1.0 br above or below it…

[fumiga_de_metal]

what a mess

[Phantom2hel]

ok now the US A4s have 2 tanks to make a line up… actually one tank… and one aa…
the same time…
soviet airplanes like SU25 that dominates the matches… is on full over powered over all line up…
the americans A4 should not go higher than 9.0 where ALL the american line up is…
that the Su25 should not be at 11 at least with the ornaments that carry … and that is unkillable… even in 11.0 and the same time the A4 … at 8.7 is a frigile slow plane that even 1 missile pull the plane out of balance and cant escape even a meteor. from 7.7 even a su9 from 7.0… (yes i killed with the su9 some A4 planes… when i got uptier before the change on the mig15… that replace it) …
how a light aircraft carrier attacker that have many limits is better than dedicated bigger and stronger attackers… like su 25… and A 10 … is amazing…

and one more thing… when the Gepard will take the real capacity of only 40 shells of Dm23 that use in real life … and not full belt of it…

[RayND18]

And WHY you lowered a4’s without “feedback”, its op at 8.7 and IT WILL at 9.3 too

[BleedingUranium]

@Stona_WT

We’d like to reiterate that the separation of Battle Ratings for lower ranked vehicles

And for Naval. Naval needs a BR split far more than Ground does, as top-BR in that mode is effectively capped at ~7.0 until missile-armed jets (etc) can be moved up significantly, creating massive compression for battleships.

I get that the top-tier (specifically) Ground (specifically) RB (specifically) community is rather vocal, but it continues to be disappointing how much that narrow slice of the game is catered to. We need the BR split across all Ground/Naval, across AB/RB/SB, and across all BRs.

[Butane9000]

@Stona_WT

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.

My only issue with this is it doesn’t recognize how some vehicles are an an innate disadvantage due to the lack of mechanics such as flares etc.

@Stona_WT

A-10A/A-10A Late — these aircraft have “fire and forget” weapons, which gives them an advantage in both defeating ground targets and duelling situations when going up against air defence systems. They’re quite effective in Ground Battles.

I sincerely disagree. If you air spawn almost every other SPAA you will go up against can hit you within seconds of spawning. Especially the Pantsir and Tunguska. Secondly the Mavericks on them are wildly inconsistent detonating shortly after launch or when they lose LoS on their target. Even with the launch range the TV lock aspect is so poor at range you often have to get even closer to even see a target well enough to lock onto it.

@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.

I picked up the premium A-10 as a TT grinder and I have to say while I generally enjoy the aircraft it’s extreme lack of speed to almost every contemporary aircraft at this BR coupled with hinders it drastically. It’s AIM-9s have a tendency to disengage from hostile targets to hit allies. It’s so slow even if you gave it an attack air spawn most of your team will take off and pass you before you even see an enemy.

Worse, this doesn’t address the massive issues that were created in the 7.0-9.7 BR range with the BR changes there a month or so back. It’s good that your listening to the players but I feel like your reasoning is flawed. Stop looking at economy performance as a first line metric and start looking hard data points first.

Speed, mechanics (guided munitions & range), flares/chaff/IRST (which at times feel like they don’t interfere with incoming missiles), maneuverability, radar should all come first when deciding a BR range before economic performance. Once a vehicle is put in a BR where it performs well rather then move it up and down in BR you can tweak the reward modifier for it to bring it economically in line with other options at that BR.

In regards to the bombing of bases that’s a more challenging question. I’m rapidly moving through the air TTs and base destruction is far more common at 3.7-5.0 then it is at higher BRs. One issue is reaching the bombers as it currently feels like with the height they spawn enemies simply can’t reach them before they get to at least one base. An experienced bomber will know how many bombs of their payload it takes but more often will only get 1 or 2 bases before having to return to base. The downside is actively RTB if the enemy team has succeeded against the rest of your team.

The only other challenge is that bases respawn in Air RB. One thing you could do to incentivize targeting non-bases is setup the ticket system where bases are a flat percentage of the tickers and they don’t respawn or that they take more to kill. Incentivize players to go after the ground/naval AI targets.

[thefoxiscunning]

@Stona_WT

We’d like to note that when balancing aircraft before the introduction of separate Battle Ratings by mode, in the vast majority of cases the Battle Rating was set according to the performance for Air Battles, and not Ground Battles.

@Stona_WT

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.

@Stona_WT

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.

I want to see the spreadsheet which shows a Lancaster as more efficient than a Wyvern the majority of times it spawns on a map.

[MastuhWaffles]

The German event tornado should go down to 10.0 then because it only carries 2 aim 9Ls and after that its kinda useless.

It can’t turn and really has nothing else going for it other than straight line speed and even then an F104 can catch it.

[_ShadowFang]

@Stona_WT

whether or not we should reduce the rewards for bases in order to reduce the Battle Rating of aircraft that mainly bomb bases

Or… make it so ground kills are worth the effort in Air battles? After that major reduction of rewards for ground kills, most people only see base bombing as profitable. Since bases are near useless in terms of an objective (and quite limited due to how often they are bombed), y’all need to provide other opportunities for attack aircraft to grind. Reducing rewards without raising somewhere else is going to be disastrous. Do not hurt the goodwill that was regained.

[OctopusDaddy]

Moving the Q-5L to 10.3 Ground RB instead of 10.7 makes no difference since there are no vehicles in the China Ground tech tree at 10.3. The only time a Q-5L would be used is with the existing 10.7 lineup.

There’s also no mention of including AA missiles with the Q-5L. Why not just include the AA missiles and leave it at 10.7 Ground RB while also increasing Air RB to 10.0 like the A-5C. It’s a waste of a vehicle to have both the Q-5A and Q-5L perform the same in Air RB and with the same BR of 9.3.

[Laurier_Dragon]

My goodness you actually listened every single thing I’ve mentioned on my reply, nice work.
Also, maybe consider lower the ground RB br for Mirage 2000C? I know it’s non-relevant cuz French does not have line up from 10.0 to 11.3, but just a thought, the M2KC carries nothing but small unguided bomb

[Bajtárs]

GG skill issue tank users wins.Because so noobs to use AA.

[KhorneFlakez1337]

Since you seem so against moving the BRs of pure bombers and strike aircraft with little to no offensive capabilities down, how about you give them a way to actually have some impact in ARB matches?

Bases take ages to respawn, to the point that matches usually end before even a single base respawns and ground pounding is very inefficient when you are limited to bombs and makes you an easy target most of the time.

• Let us destroy the airfields in higher tiers, like we can in low tier. Destroying an airfield doesn’t even have to be an instant victory either, it could just limit the enemies ability to rearm and refuel
• Turn the forward airfields into an additional bomb target with an increased amount of “health”
• Add minor bases at the backlines that do not respawn, so there are enough targets for everyone
• Increase the ticket impact of bases or reduce the respawn delay

Spoiler

Also, strategic bombers when?

[CREELAST]

I agree

[themadseventeen]

@KhorneFlakez1337

how about you give them a way to actually have some impact in ARB matches?

In a world where Gaijin employs game designers all planes would have a place in AIR realistic battles.

Shameless plug, check out our idea. While we focued on top tier here, some things are applicable to low tiers

[Laurier_Dragon]

Exactly what I am thinking, not even changing the reward but increase the impact of tickets will make a huge difference in game. The problem of things like tornado is never the reward, it’s the inability to impact the game.

[Morvran]

All 5 are identical in air modes. In fact the Gr1 has worse engines.

The only difference is in GRB where 3 have guided weapons and 2 dont.

[The_UwU_Frog]

@Stona_WT

he 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.

these planes are STRIKE aircraft. they don’t need to be good against planes. they’re not supposed to be good against aircraft. they have 9Ls, and everyone agrees that they shouldn’t fight flareless planes. if you think they don’t need a BR increase, you’re delusional. these planes need to go up in BR in Air RB. it’s one of the main reasons we wanted split BRs in the first place. so these could go up in ARB. the fact they’re still below 11.0 is downright criminal. 9Ls and R60Ms don’t belong below that BR on any plane. i don’t care if it’s a B-17 with 9Ls, you can’t have them below 11.0. it’s not fair. dealing with them in anything without flares is just unfun and kills the BR. you can either make the A-10 and Su-25 unfun to play, or the ENTIRE 9.0-10.3 BR bracket unfun to play. the correct choice seems pretty obvious, and picking the A-10 and Su-25 to be the ones that don’t suffer instead of well over 100 planes is moronic