Sabers are great jets that give you nothing but rage to play because constant uptiers

Game Discussion Realistic Battle
81

The same people responsible for the problems we have with balance and compression now? Sure.

Nothing’s permanent considering that this is a live service game. Even with larger scale decompression, things will keep changing.

No the requests have to come here in the forums and they need to be many more than what they are now. When the roadmaps were released very few followed through on decompression and focused more on the economy and some QoL changes (which were needed, yes).

If you believe this why do you think gaijin will worry about 7 - 9 decompression as much as 7.7 to 12.7 decompression?

You’d just be creating a new set of whiners like those two other braindead clowns. Then gaijin will have to placate them bringing back the original set and on and on.

Where exactly are they doing this? All they’ve done is move and buff the Sabre and MiG-15.

82

Oh wait I just realized something. thread OP is the guy who complained about J-7D but when I look at his statcard the first thing that perched on his profile is literally F-5C. don’t take this thread too seriously.

1 Like
83

Yeah I agree. I’d love for it to be reduced to +/- 0.7 too. It’s a simpler solution compared to decompression. But considering that gaijin hasn’t changed it for years and players have been complaining about it even longer than compression, I don’t know how realistic it’d be

1 Like
84

We can always, again send a bottle of JP-4 and zippo gas match to their shareholder office.

1 Like
85

A bottle timed to “accidentally” develop a crack at a certain point in time?

86

nah, just a sealed bottle and match. they can figure it out.

87

Gaijin claim it’s an algorithm. Either approach requires dropping that and hiring someone who knows anything about statistical normalization in their place.

Large corporations are allergic to large changes. That’s why even getting to the roadmap required the greatest act of unity we’ve ever seen out of War Thunder’s community. Changes are a risk. Large changes are a large risk. Small changes are easier for them to stomach.

Gaijin doesn’t care about the forums any more than anywhere else, especially the American ones. The only place that they’ve shown any amount of care for are the reviews.

Because decompressing that requires moving a handful of vehicles up to positions they already occupied under a year ago. They don’t have to render them useless, or try to balance vehicles that cannot be properly balanced in game (F-104s are a prime example). Just move planes that perform better than their contemporaries across the board up. It’s not even decompression. It’s balance.

Gaijin doesn’t care about people who whine on the forums. They only care two things, the almighty algorithm they are entirely beholden to when it comes to BR balance, and overall community dissent. If we can get enough dissent focused on a specific, small problem, they’re much more likely to do something, at least when compared to getting the community to all agree on a vague, contentious topic.

They move vehicles around all the time. Hell, in this newly proposed batch they’re doing a long suggested step of decompressing 8.7 ground by moving the T-55AM-1/AMD up.

It’s not nearly enough, and those tanks are seriously going to suffer in thier new BRs. But better for two tanks to suffer than an entire bracket to suffer from those two tanks. That’s the crux of my argument.

88

That’s why it has to be in structured roadmap. There’s no guarantee gaijin will decompress 7 to 9 or 7.7 to 12.7 without one. If they’re going to go for 7 to 9 we might as well push them to do it for 7.7 to 12.7.

I wouldn’t say that. Suggestions for vehicles are passed to devs routinely. There just isn’t enough traction anywhere for proper changes.

But they were moved down precisely because of whatever problems were happening at their old BR. Moving them up would bring them back.

It’s not vague. 7.7 to 12.7 needing decompression is pretty clear. It can be done in stages and will take longer than 7 to 9 but it’s better to improve the game as a whole instead of having gaijin agree to something that’s too small and then having to fight tooth and nail or wait for years to take care of the rest. Meanwhile they may add new vehicles or add or modify features that will throw the balance out of whack all over again necessitating a start from scratch.

Just my theory but I feel like this has less to do with balancing and is more to push sales of the Object 140 over the T-55AM-1 in preparation to remove the latter from the store and bring it back in future as an overpriced FOMO premium.

89

Passed to the developer is one thing, actually implemented is another entirely. I had an idea that was passed to the developer, and in the years since that happened there has been zero evidence anyone at Gaijin even looked at it. They only accept vehicle suggestions because that’s their primary way of monetizing the game, and suggestions are just players doing Gaijin’s research for them.

But it is too vague. Look at it this way, the entire community can agree that we need decompression. But how will that decompression work?

Do we just restrict the MM spread? Some people suggest that, others think it merely hides the problem.

Ok, maybe we increase the maximum BR instead? But to what number? Some say a few is enough, and I’ve seen suggestions that advocate to ~20.0.

Alright, we’ve somehow managed to get everyone on board with a number. Now where do we put the planes? And here we have the biggest argument. The collective might be able to agree on the broad strokes, but wherever you put any vehicle, you’re going to have a group of players upset with where it’s landed.

If a plane has a high skill floor and a high skill ceiling, less skilled players would want it pushed down while more skilled players want it pushed up (Like most American props). The inverse will be true for the opposite (like Vampires). Niche and hard to balance planes can either be put at a tier where they are a interesting but not very good, or where their niche strength is so overwhelming that they dominate (F-104), and wherever they land a group of players is going to be upset.

The problem continues. Do we balanced attackers by their ability to ground attack, a role which has no value in the game, or by their ability as fighters, something they were never designed for and aren’t good at? What about bombers?

I could go on, but I think you get the point. You’re pushing for your perfect vision of the game, but on making it you’ll find endless disagreements from large swaths of the community who have a different vision. That’s why I push for small changes, because (outside your self-defeating opposition) it’s easier to get people onboard.

If that’s the intent, they wouldn’t have moved it to a tier where it’s going to be victimized so consistently. They’d have just removed it.

91

F8U has 18G missiles facing flareless planes.

Ariete is…

(sim, but still)

Horten can face sabres and mig-15 bis.

Me 262 can face sabres and mig-15 bis

Meteors can face sabres and mig-15 bis.

Venoms/Vampires can face sabres/mig-15 bis.

Prop brs aren’t the best, but across USSR/US/ITA/JAP/GER/GB, you can uptier and downtier and have fun except for a few toxic enemy planes and the ju-288 ruining 6.0+

Gunfighter Jets are painful. And they’re painful because they’re awfully compressed thanks to missilethunder making it impossible to spread them out better.

3 Likes
92

I think you’re the only biased person here. EVERY SINGLE F-86 and MiG-15/17 are UNDERTIERED (except F-86F-40 and F-5)
They aren’t even bad to play against supersonics. The aircraft itself is more than adequate even in an uptier.

2 Likes