Should the BR Spread be reduced to 0.7 Maximum

It is not the same and not all the story. Players should not complain in “absolutes” as it makes credibility an issue.
There are subsonics at higher than 9.3, which i assume can easily compete in 9.3. Being subsonic is NOT a decisive factor, namely as early supersonic planes lose speed easily. I dont play high tier aircraft, but i doubt F100s can be much better than F86s. Not to mention Harriers that are subsonic and use modern weapons…

I admit i am not an expert in planes…but the same absolutes in tanks (like WW2 has no chance vs modern) are usually exaggerations with lots of exceptions. It is much more credible to present specific situations…

1 Like

Oh yeah, not to mention Rear-Aspect caged missiles facing radar, and All-Aspects, as well as AIM-9G’s and AIM-9L’s. As for the rest, no, being supersonic gives you a massive advantage, you can outrun everything, especially in a downteir. You can try and launch a missile on them, but high chance, they are going to well outmaneuver or outrun it.

OK so you think Hunter FGA.9 should have same BR with F-104s and MiG-21s that is much far better in any points?

What the hell bruh

BTW, You have never played ARB match smh

1 Like

Bad idea. You create seven meta BRs (in effect one per rank). The first and the penultimate BR ranges of every rank would be perma-uptiered, and no one would want to play them.

We don’t really need to look for complicated solutions, because the solution itself is super easy, raise the higher BR.

A hypothetical example. Even if they added just two steps (so going to 12.7 to match air), they could then set a performance parameter to measure against every vehicle in the game, and:

If the vehicle is overperforming, it goes up by 0.7, matching the overall upward movement of the whole system.

If the vehicle is doing well but they’re unsure about how it would do if it was higher, it goes up by 0.3. Which means it’s a net downshift in BR since its stronger opponents will be moving up by 0.7.

If the vehicle is underperforming, it stays where it is.

Gaijin doesn’t need help finding a technical solution, they’d know how to do it if they wanted to. They just have other priorities that currently override or at least reframe the decompression stuff from their POV.

1 Like

What about using both rank and BR?
It still makes meta BR, but if the BRs of the various vehicles are properly aligned, you can still fight with a vehicle with a lower BR against a meta vehicle such as Meteor Mk.8 vs 9.0BR Sabres.

And if the vehicle characteristics (e.g. rank 5 is subsonic before missiles, rank 6 is early supersonic and late subsonic with missiles) are detailed by rank, it can be more easily balanced.

Unfortunately, there are many aircraft in this game that are far more difficult to balance even when decompression happens such as Sea Vixen and Hunters, J32B etc.

Rank is a red herring when it comes to these discussions, imho. Rank only exists in the game as a research mechanic, nothing more. Gaijin moves vehicles into ranks based on economic/player progression considerations. The Pz IV J is Rank II, but its command version is Rank III, for example…

Could we repurpose ranks to do something else? Yes. But there are too few of them to facilitate decompression.

Would Gaijin consider doing it? No. So in conclusion, there’s no point bothering with ranks at all.

Let’s talk about what actually matters: performance.

I’ll stick to ground examples because I’ve only dipped my toes in air, but… the problem is that the average player doesn’t want to play against the odds, or feel like they’re overcoming the challenge of facing a meta vehicle. The average player would like to be in the meta vehicle.

You can see this by looking at any competitive MMO… whenever there is one side that is clearly stronger than the other, people flock to it and don’t bother to play anything else. It’s what is creating so many problems for Enlisted on certain maps/campaigns, for example, and it’s also what nuked the last season of World War, when everyone wanted to play the German side for obvious reasons.

Nobody likes to get punched in the face.

As such, the method of balancing by performance is very sound, and doesn’t really need anything else. In a perfect world, every vehicle in WT would have exactly a 50% win rate, and while we obviously can’t achieve perfection, balance by performance can get us close to those numbers.

But…

When there are BR issues, it’s not because the chosen method (performance) is wrong. It’s because of implementation issues. For example there being too few BRs to allow you to spread out vehicles properly. And there is another issue, which is the one you correctly identify, some vehicles are difficult to balance.

The reason they’re difficult to balance, is because think about it for a second - when we say we’re balancing by performance, that is performance in what?

We have 2000 vehicles in the game, but an extremely limited amount of mission types. As always with MMO and game design, Gaijin is striving for a “universal formula” of map and mission type that satisfies the vast majority of players, rather than go with variety and have people complain. But when you lack variety of objectives and maps, you are inherently creating meta vs non meta vehicles. Some vehicles will be really good in very specific ways and really bad in other ways, which will make it super difficult to find them a home in a “one size fit all” kind of competitive environment.

These are all issues Gaijin could solve if they wanted to, technically speaking they’re pretty easy to figure out, but they just don’t want to unless they’re completely sure it will not harm their other priorities.

I rarely play ground battles, so I have no idea about that, but in ARB it can do a decent job of rebalancing, especially in jet RB.

Take Hawker Hunter F.1, for example, which was a bit controversial when it was implemented in the game, but was fairly balanced even it turns like brick. Jet RBs at that time had no AAM and there was no way for a low-speed aircraft to compete with a faster aircraft except by dogfighting and other things so, If you play Hunter F.1, only things you needed was keep your speed. It was on equal footing against F-2 Sabre, MiG-17, CL-13A Mk.5, and F-40 Sabre, which were the meta-aircrafts of other countries at the time until the AAM was implemented in the game.

However, when AAM and supersonic jets were implemented, the Hunter F.1’s only advantage of superior top speed was nullified, which combined with BR compression made it unplayable. Other aircraft with similar issues to the Hunter F.1 are the Hunter FGA.9, J32B, and F-104A/F-104C, except for the F-104s it is quite painful to play the current Jet RB, and even if they got move down to lower BRs like the F-104s, the same BR or lower aircraft would be completely untouchable.

It is impossible to fix this problem no matter how much the BR is decompressed, and the only way to fix it is to have a counterpart in the same BR and doesn’t face against far better aircrafts. In fact, when BR 9.0 was the top tier, there were a number of 8.0 BR aircraft such as the Me 262 C-2b, Meteor Mk.8, Me 163B/Ki-200, etc. that could compete well against the top BR aircrafts. The top speed difference was not as great as it is today, and the balance of it was fairly decent, as even the 8.0 aircraft had a few things that threatened the 9.0BR aircraft in terms of performance.

All aircraft that were BR9.0 before the “supersonic” update, and those that were implemented after that update but are unlikely to break the balance of the JetRB at the time, such as the F-84F, Swift F.1, and Mystere IVA, thrown into Rank 5.

Some aircraft need to lose their AAMs even on AIM-9B such as Japanese F-40 Sabre, but if that balances things out properly, it won’t be such a big issues.

If you ever decide to play a 9.3 Subsonic you’ll immediately know how bad you have it. You don’t have the option to pick your fights 90% of the time. Take a fight between a F-86A-5 (8.3) and an F-104A (9.3) for example. While YES, the F-86 will beat the F-104 in a turnfight, the F-104A has the option to completely avoid any dogfighting and will elect to just make passes at the F-86 until it eventually gets blown out of the sky. The disadvantage between the subsonic and the supersonic is drastic. It’s like forcing a Chihuahua to fight a raging Pitbull named Princess. The Pitbull wins.

Now imagine being the F-86 fighting an F-5C. You have no chance.

He doesn’t even play ARB game…
You can see his stats…

I said it above…i no longer play planes…but THIS topic is way more open than that…

My point is that players often create “arbitrary” lines like “subsonic should never fight supersonic” or “Modern should never fight WW2” or “Destroyers should never fight Battleships”. Most are generalizations that don’t really apply and come from a personal bias. And the problem is that this creates problems identifying the real issues.

I played props planes up to mid WW2 and on occasion i got into matches with much faster planes…even a few jets. Usually the faster plane SHOULD not turn and could keep the advantage…BUT in the real world it OFTEN made mistakes, lost the speed advantage and then the slower but better on something else planes could kill it. I was on both sides of the equation…and just because a plane is FASTER does NOT make it automatically better.
I ASSUME it is the same on subsonic vs supersonic…and the discussion above seems to confirm it…no real reason why a 50mph advantage should be so decisive…

SOME PLANES should not fight another…there are some mismatches on occasion…but arbitrary lines would probably create “hard limits” where some vehicles would become much stronger as they would not have nothing above. In this case, the best subsonic planes would be masters of the sky and the less adequate subsonics would become pointless, as they would “always” be prey to the top subsonics that could only be matched downwards…
Not to mention that very modern subsonics like Harriers would be very hard to match…

AS IT IS NOW, good subsonics can be matched vs early supersonics…and i fail to see the problem in that. Early jets often die to props, and prop monoplanes often die to biplanes…seems same thing, different level.
If some specific plane is too high or too low BR, then fix THAT…dont ask to break the system so some specific class you like (in this case top subsonics) becomes dominant.

BTW…reducing BR spread to 0.7 seems a good idea to me…at least should be tested :)

1 Like

There are plenty of fast but turns like brick subsonic jets in the game, but unless the missiles you have are great ones, they can’t stand up to supersonic jets all together. J32B and Hunter are the best examples, with early supersonic aircraft able to attempt a permanent BnZ until they die at a much faster top speed against them, or in some cases even dogfight like the MiG-19s.

That is not personal bias or anything, it is a fact in Jet RB. You may not know that because you have never played…

I’m sorry but how did you face against jets if your highest BR aircrafts is Bf 109 F-4 or Fw 190 A-4 except trolling squads?


Then let’s match each other since Sea Fury killed MiG-15 in Korea or somewhere.
Also, A-1H killed MiG-17F that has afterburner in Vietnam so, they should face eath other?
I don’t think so because it is online game NOT real life.

It is not.
To take a little old story as an example, when we didn’t yet have a Hunter F.1 or MiG-17, let alone a supersonic or AAM, the German CL-13A Mk.5 was broken overpowered because it was fastest jet in the game and nobody can’t catch it even its top speed difference was tiny from F-86F Sabre.

It was one of the reasons that unbalanced matchmakers made it overpowered, but since the Hunter F.1 and MiG-17 were implemented, other countries had counterparts to the CL-13, and their performance was not that different from the existing aircraft, so they were still able to compete with them with only a small difference in skill.

Even a difference of only 50 km/h or less can make a particular aircraft untouchable.
And the gap became even worse after the supersonic aircraft came into the game.

So how do you balance an aircraft that is subsonic but turns like a brick and can turn and lose even against some supersonic jets like Hunters?

That cannot be fixed by a 0.7 spread or by huge decompression in Jet RB match.

Most of them can’t lower their BR because If Gaijin do that, it makes it waaaaay overpowered.
You can see what happend to F-104A/F-104C.

To begin with, since you don’t even have a jet, you shouldn’t even be involved in the discussion about Jet BR decompression.

Dont be…fair question. I tried a few custom battles in the past…i even played biplanes vs EARLY jets. I recall several battles over Pearl Harbour on some game that was always running at the time. I shot down a few He162s (i think) with early monoplanes and one with a biplane (i was happy at the time, so i remember). But i admit it was in Arcade…not RB.
My more frequent experience would be biplanes vs monoplanes, but the scenario where there is a slower but more manoeuvrable plane versus a faster BnZ is almost permanent from BR1 (and i assume up to supersonic jets), and i faced this scenario (from both perspectives) LOTS of times.

Still dont agree…BnZ players were not always winners…there were SOME PLANES that were better for this…but not all the faster planes. BUT as you point out…i have minimal personal experience, so i may be generalizing on one case where the issue is different.

This i can agree…so i will leave this PART of the discussion…consider this my parting comment :)

Still support 0.7BR and still against hard separations…in general. :)

If one of the previous threads for this issue hit 6K votes and didn’t cause a rethink, it’s probably because it isn’t effective or takes up way too much time for such little result. Not to mention, people voting don’t even know the outcome as a result of their voting which as has been discussed, takes a lot of time to work out.

You can’t simply demand things change and expect it. You don’t design the game and aren’t qualified to say if something needs to be done. From first-hand experience, no part of Game Development is easy.

They should make BR steps by 0.2 that would result in a 0.8 BR spread. This gives extra space to move stuff around. Also, this would especially be useful in Naval where facing +1.0 BR ships can be a nightmare atm. They will be adding ships such as Yamato that will probably sit at close to 8.0 BR. That’s a jet bomber territory…

Thank you very much man.

1 Like

Votes won’t make a difference. Sadly.

You think something like the Ariete (a 9.3 with no missiles, flares, is subsonic and only has a 30mm with 240 bullets) should be able to fight against mig21’s and f5’s? that’s funny.

This is the easiest and fastest solution to fix the matchmaker. Decompression without actual work for Gaijin.

2 Likes

Even if this is the case … no reason to be so rude.

@Apex47209
Good to know you think everyone in the WT communty supports compression…

Decompression is what’s needed.
The 0.7 is a convoluted idea that would make things worse.