Yep, this is what makes so little sense to me. Last time I ran tornado Gr1 in ARB I got 0 base kills. There were none left by the time I got there and was rapidly killed shortly afterwards
4 Likes
More of these types of posts please!
they are a GREAT insight into why decisions are made they way they are.
We players might not always agree with those decisions but an explanation as to why is LEAGUES better than silence!
Question @Stona_WT :
This here, Do you account for the vehicles being used above their BR?
say for example the CV9040C/BILL being the end of the line for Swedish autocannon light tanks and thus WAY more likely to be brought into higher BR battles. Do you only count efficiency in the vehicles respective BR’s matches or is it a complete set that includes all matches ever?
Because if a vehicle is at BR 10 and gets brought to BR 11.7 matches by almost all players then that efficiency number get VERY skewed in relation to its BR placement.
How is that calculated?
I Also wonder about the AJ37/AJS37 efficiency, it seams weird to me that those would be performing on par with their BR counterparts in Air battles.
Edit: that goes for AJ37/AJS37 GRB as well as those were the top attack choice for Sweden for a long time.
2 Likes
Me trying to bring the Buccaneers out in ARB lol
Yeah, they are even more defenceless
Who even bothers using the AJS and AJ 37 for ground they are dogshit and basically cant defend themselves if they bring groundstrike equipment.
The AMX has a lot of flyouts because that’s all they have!
Italy won’t have anything at 10.3 and will not have to uptier itself to a range that it could see 11.7s now or be forced to use flareless inferior CAS.
Removing the changes for the A-4s is just crazy as well. These were the changes I actually agreed with the most.
2 Likes
exactly.
I wonder if other aircraft will get buffed A2G payloads as well. Plenty of options out there. Like Martels on the Gr1
2 Likes
It moves down, it loses the All-Aspect missiles.
Or do you want more compression?
the F-16ADF has no ordnance whatsoever, why is it now the same BR as the F-16As with ordnance in Ground RB?
1 Like
I’m rarely active on the forums, but this one I really have to disagree with. Let’s take the A-10s for example, their flight performance might rival that of the F2G’s (which is 6.0), but they have more countermeasures and better IR missiles than an F-14A (which is 11.7). This by itself wouldn’t really be much of a problem. What IS a problem, is that a large portion of the 9.0-10.7 aircraft has either no countermeasures, or very few of them. So let’s do some basic math:
Most matches with A-10s in them have 4 on the same team. Each one has at least 2 missiles that some aircraft simply can not avoid once it’s launched. That’s potentially 8 people dead the instant they spot the A-10 (because 9 times out of 10, if you are the one to spot the A-10 in a flareless plane, you won’t have the time to turn away before they get within 3km of you, and at that point they can launch their 9L if you do turn around). HOWEVER, what if it’s an A-10 Late? Well, we can double that 8 kills to 16 and… oh that’s the entire enemy team. As you might have guessed, this might lead to some problems…
Now you might be asking, why don’t your statistics really show this problem? Because nobody wants to be on the receiveing end of that all-aspect missile without flares, unless it’s in a plane that would be severely overperforming without the all-aspects holding them back (for example: early F-104s and Mig-19s). These planes are comparable to some 10.3-10.7 planes, so why are they at 9.3? Because they are flareless jets that used to be 10.0. They’ve been pushed down by the all-aspect missiles anyway, and thanks to that we’ve had our last round of br changes. Korean war era jets have been sitting at around 8.7 for ages, so I wonder why they were suddenly underperforming at the exact same br they’ve been at for years?
14 Likes
It is a GROUND ATTACKER and absolutely should NOT be a META air superiority fighter. The flight performance does not matter when you can get the 2 or even 4 freest kills ever just because someone entered the 4km death bubble around you. The A-10 also having something like 450 flares and SU-25 having around 200 makes it much harder to kill them by catching them off guard, because they often just turn on periodic and become immune to IR missiles.
Stats in these vehicles often end up being skewed towards the lower end because they are $60 packs that timmy’s mom bought for him.
Seeing the overwhelming support for moving these vehicles up in BR, something NEEDS to be done before this chain reaction of overperforming aircraft moving down makes it to props.
In short, these attackers just invalidate everything down to 9.0 because they have OVERPERFORMING weapons. OVERPERFORMING means MOVE IT UP IN BR!!!
16 Likes
Other couple of thoughts that me and my buddy discussed on our free time:
1.Since now you’ve decoupled the BR for ground and air, it would be really nice to decompress the air RB drastically - by a few br, that does not only benefit the epicentre of br compression from 11.0 to 12.0, it will also benefit lower br such as the mig or saber, or the Me262 in that regards.
- Changing the BR of something then give it a buff/nerf or new payload/ammunition is never ever a good idea. Sometimes player will prefer to have the same vehicle with different payload in a different br. Couple of example:
- F4E, some people prefer to play the E because it’s the most maneuverable phantom, maybe we can have a version with only Aim7E and drop it down to lower tier. Same goes for F104s.
- Mirage 3 is by 1961, Mirage F1 is by 1973; While magic 1 is by 1968 and MM2 is by 1986. It will be entirely valid to have Mirage 3 with only Aim9B and Mirage F1 with only Magic 1, on a lower BR of course. It is realistic and it brings more options. Same goes for Mirage 2KCS1 which at the time only fires S530F.
- We also really really need a mig29 that fires R73 and R27R, not the R27ER. This is again, time wise realistic and makes an unique gameplay. Same goes for Su27 variant.
- And for this change, the Super Etendard, French is just gonna lose their 10.0 lineup.
- AGS, do I even need to say anything…
Of course these are just examples, putting these 2 thoughts together I really feel that you guys should “condense” the game a bit, expand the BR and stuff the middle with things that have been missing.
If you guys remembered the War Thunder in its early stage you remember that this is exactly what gives this game an edge over the competitors, e.g. different types of panzer 4s instead of making them a single one vehicle and call panzer 4 H the only panzer four. This idea goes for the current high tier jets and vehicles as well, we could have sub types with different capabilities and br, for the choice and for the fun.
Anyway I am pleased once again with the change you guys made in this post, my first post was on May last year for obvious reason and you did not disappoint me since, it shows that you guys would listen, so please let that happen again.
Other couple of none relevant suggestions to this topic:
- We need bigger map for both ground and air, no small crampy map, especially not the trimmed one.
- We need you to keep working on the mechanism, currently the ground RB lacks a ton of mechanisms on real vehicles, air RB is better but not by a lot.
- We need long range SAM and SEAD weaponry, for both air RB and ground RB. In air RB, SAMs should plays vital role and gives good reward upon destroyed, this way attackers and their guided munitions in air RB will matter more and be rewarded more, both economically and game-play wise.
1 Like
This makes no sense to me though as the Tornado MFG and the Tornado ASSTA1 use the same 1000lb bombs for base bombing. If you say base bombing justifies the BR then why are planes with the same base bombing capabilities not at the same BR?
Using bombs is currently a malus anyway because other planes with rockets,. including many fighters like the J35XS, can do it a lot better, the rocket pods are lighter which lets them fly faster and they can fire them from a range which means they can sometimes destroy a base before you even when they’re flying behind you. If you think too many bases are being destroyed, then make rockets not viable for base destruction, the amount of TNT they have is small anyway and it feels very “gamey” that they are currently the best option against strategic targets.
5 Likes
I wholy, wholy disagree with the decision to keep the 10.0-10.3 ground attack (e.g. A-10, A-10 late, Su-25, Su-25K, A6E TRAM) at their current battle rating, on the ground of the aircraft performance not being up to standard for the higher BR’s suggested for them. We cannot compare their air to air performance without their missiles as it’s not a genuine representation of what it’s like to play these aircraft. The missiles alone necessitate them being moved up to higher battle ratings because it gives them an unfair advantage. The previous comparison also assumes that these jets should be air to air competent when they are from the get-go designed to take down ground units. That is to say, their offensive capabilities are there for defensive purposes. If the aforementioned mode of comparison is what we are going to go by, then I suggest we move down the Mig-29 SMT because without its missiles its air to air performance is greatly lacking - of course I say this sarcastically not with the intention to offend but with the intention to bring to light how severely flawed tiering aircraft in this way can be.
Please gaijin, do the right thing, move these ground attack aircraft with all aspect missiles up in Battle ratings so that the planes below it can finally stop being squeezed into Battle ratings that they shouldn’t be in.
1 Like
Not every aircraft of X type was built to the same standard. Mirage III/F1 used these weapons in French service as the R-550 was designed to be compatible with them. Also this whole statement contradicts the above statement in your post:
1 Like
For subsonic ground attack plane like the A10 or Su25, you honestly got one simple and effective option that we actually had before, get them up in BR, give them air spawn 20 or maybe 30km ahead of the airfield, 10km or so for smaller map.
2 Likes
As a player, bombers may have the potential to earn great rewards… if this was a single-player game.
- Base respawn was all but removed, so…
- There are only 4 bases to bomb
- Teams will have 6+ players with rocket/bomb loads
- Teammates will teamkill to secure bases
- Bomb carriers get intercepted by supersonic planes and face all-aspect missiles
- Many bomb-carriers got their air spawn removed
So maybe, in a vacuum, bomb carriers can earn great rewards. Or maybe 1 player from all the players in a match can earn good rewards. But understand for each great match there are a dozen bad matches.
It’s very easy to compare numbers and draw conclusions, so I invite everyone at Gaijin to install the game, unlock the F-111, take a full bomb load, and queue up for a couple of ARB matches on the live servers. I’m using the F-111 as an example, but feel free to also try the Su7, Vautour, or any other strike-bomber.
If we want to make this a zero-sum game, how about we double the amount of bases (4->8) and halve the reward for bombing (100%->50%)? So it would require more bombs to earn the current amount of rewards.
I think core improvements to the ARB game mode are required, shifting planes BR’s by 0.3 here and there won’t fix anything.
But for now, I look forward to the 2nd round of GRB BR changes and hope all of this ultimately makes the game more enjoyable to play. I dont care about the SL, I want to have fun.
3 Likes
What I was trying to say is that it’s all about options. That means to not remove any of the current vehicle, but make addition for it. Realistically let’s say the Mirage F1 have to carry MM1 for a considerable amount of time before MM2 became available. Giving players an historic option that is also fun to play should always be at the heart of WT.
Stock grind lol