Climb rate to agility ratio, engine heat management, speed, and armament.
Climb rate to agility ratio seems to be the most important for props, which is why the [allegedly over-performing] Spitfire LF Mk9 is a king of the air space.
The Zero is among the most agile fighters, and the A6M5 Ko will climb at 20 meters per second around 2000 meters, and 17 around 4000 meters. Which is pretty good for one of the most agile aircraft. All without burning its engine.
And because air RB cares less about 1v1 performance, that’s a rather decent platform for the game mode at 5.3.
This isn’t a comprehensive list of things of course, just some of what I consider.
These characteristics are how I can say that the P51H5NA is the most powerful 6.3 in the game, and even 7.3 jets will struggle to deal with it in matches.
It’s not compressed either, because if it went to 6.7 as is, there’s not many 7.7s that could
If your engine burns itself up by using WEP to long, that’s a factor.
P51H5NA is a chronic 9 - 12 minute aircraft because of its methanol injection, after that’s out it’s RTB unless you really want to have an aircraft that actually performs like a 6.0.
Climb rate matters for positioning over an opposing team.
Agility matters for dodging and winning engagements.
Speed matters for interception and escape.
Armament matters for lethality.
They aren’t super specific, they are among the important factors for what makes a successful gunfighting aircraft.
Hi! Nice seeing you around :D hope you’re doing well!
I think in this particular instance, you are thinking like a player and not like a developer. From a player’s perspective, this is fantastic. From a development/business perspective, the issue is much more complicated. For example:
And changing the entire matchmaking to +0.7/-0.7 will massively impact the rate of RP/SL accumulation. This is especially glaring for premium heavies which are often purchased and used to club in full downtiers. These premiums not being able to terrorise lower BRs (say, the Tiger II Sla with 5.7s or the T29 with 6.0s) would be an improvement for the players but would also lessen the value (real or perceived) of those premiums. These are just two examples. Now, you are (hypothetically) asking a for-profit company to implement these changes in a way that will affect every single vehicle in WT…
I understand what your issue is. You are seeing as compression being vehicles of equal capabilities beeing in different BRs (hence why you think that as long all 5.0 BR vehicles have the same capabilities there is no compression at that BR), but the actual issue is the vehicles of different BRs that you can face in a downtier or uptier. Even if all 4.0 aircraft have the same capabilties, and all 5.0 also share the same capabilities, it doesn’t matter at all because these two BRs can face each other in a match and there will be a huge disparity between technologies and performance; this is compression, not what you believe it is.
That is just one example. Yeah of course that G91YS at the same BR as F104, F100, F106 and many others is a clear case of compression. However, it is more concerning that the flareless G91YS is facing MiG 21MF with missiles it probably can’t evade.
Changing the spread to 0.7 won’t fix the 9.3 issue but will fix the uptiers. The G91YS will never stop seeing the supersonics at 9.3 even if they lowered its BR to 9.0, so the spread change is a much better QoL change for it.
I believe it’s you the one that can’t grasp what everyone associaties compression with, hence nobody ever agreed with your statement, and I understand exactly where is the mismatch so I am pointing out this fact, nothing else.
That’s the thing though, if Mig-19S is moved up, so is everything above it. That’s decompression.
G91YS wouldn’t face Mig-21MF anymore because of the impact Mig-19S’s move causes.
Changing the spread to 0.7 to copy World of Tank’s match maker would only harm variety of similar vehicles that aren’t the same capabilities.
It’s easier and faster to decompress than to radically harm the matchmaker itself.
This is why I view 0.7 as a band-aid fix. It will help a lot with uptiers/downtiers, but major and thorough BR decompression would be a much more positive change. BR decompression also will solve the uptier/downtier issues.
In air RB we can go to 16.0 with not a lot of effort, and 14.0 is easily achievable in ground RB.
And when they do move everything above it up, they just move the compression to some other location. When they decompressed the 6.7-7.7 area, they badly compressed 8.0-9.3 to the point where many 8.0s will never be facing things that don’t massively outclass them.
What you are saying doesn’t make sense, when Gaijin increases the BR of a vehicle, they do it for just that specific vehicle, not everything above it. If they had to push all vehicles up for balance, then they would end up increasing max BR by like 5 or more, creating many more different queues than the 0.7 spread change would create and separating the playerbase much more, which is strictly against their philosophy.
I would consieder either option as a valid decompression method because both aim to lower the amount of unique vehicles eligible for a specific match. However, I just believe that this has a more perceivable impact and is more future proof since even if they increase the max BR to 16, it would still not be enough to impact all BRs, including top tier when new vehicles and loadouts come out without a max BR increase.
Not to mention, a higher max BR equals to more spreaded queues and playerbase, while the spread change shouldn’t have the same impact.
When you decompress, you move everything up from the compressed BR that’s over-performing the same-BR’d vehicles.
That’s decompression.
Also there is not enough compression in War Thunder to cause 5 BR increases. People can barely math out 0.7, and 1.3 is the most I’ve seen with decent math behind it.
War Thunder is already the most decompressed vehicle game on the market, which is partly why it’s popular.
Every time I see these things I am reminded of “Final Destination No Items” because that is genuine opinions and perspectives shared in this over-arching topic.
“My IS-2 should never face Maus. It’s unfair.”
Said IS-2 having 220mm of pen, which is more than enough to pen on a flank.
“My T26E5 can’t face IS-4M and Maus!”
As their only ammo is M82 instead of being in practice with APCR and not only ammo racking both 7.7s form the side, but also dictating the fight as Maus can be crippled by proper M26 & T26E5 play.
They are obviously different capabilities, but they are similar enough that it offers variety and entertainment.
I do not want to face unchallenging tanks. I do not want to be bored out of my mind lol-penning Tiger 2s all day.
I want the challenge of my placement being bad and me unintentionally coming across a T-10A where I have to play carefully and lean on my team a bit in this team based game.
I love the variety of tanks I see in matches.
I love when I go to prop BRs I see a huge variety of aircraft.
If I wanted to play same vehicles as everyone else I’d just play squadron battles again.
This is objectively untrue. In air, 15.0 is easily achievable by just decompressing 13.0+, and bringing it to 16.0 would be not be hard to reach if we rebalanced the whole game above 7.0.
In ground RB, you could probably bring the max to 12.7 by just decompressing 11.7/12.0.
15.0 is 0.7 increase.
You get to 14.7 by rebalancing 7.0 - 10.3
0.3 BR change has far, far more impact than you think. 0.3 is the difference between Me-262 facing Mig-15s to not only that fixed, but A-4Es no longer facing Mig-21S’s and Ayits, and J32A no longer facing Mig-21MFs.
However, until 9.3 is decompressed by 0.3, there is no evidence of compression after that… until the decompression occurs and we can analyze the BR range again.
12.0 ground is already decompressed. It’s so decompressed that M1A1 HC and M1A2 SEP are different BRs despite being functionally the same.
With how under-BR’d American tanks are compared to everyone else, I haven’t ran a 12.0 American lineup since last year.
Why would I use the SEPs when their equals are at 11.7? And those 11.7s’ equals in other tech trees are 12.0…
I think you should stop analyzing tech trees and start analyzing how you do in planes
and yet you come to the forums to say nothing but nonsense, believing that you know a minimum of how compressed air is in general and the game itself, because takes like these
@Leinadmix9_ツ
Oh wow, I did poor in planes from 2013 throughout 2021! The horror!
I also intentionally did poorly in my AU-1 hunting bombers because of dailies! The horror!
I play non-competitive aircraft as well.
War Thunder is a game first and foremost.
I got good with fighters only a few years ago, until then I was average at best.
Bombers and strike aircraft? Bombers I did okay in, strike aircraft I was horrific in for a long time.
I have no desire to become a fighter main, let alone be as good as people better than I. It’s not what I want in War Thunder, I already cause enough damage to other players as is.
Oh, and if you’re using monthly stats, I haven’t played much of air RB in the last month because I have the ten tech trees completed where I want them and am correctly focusing on my China grind.
If being for decompression is bad to you, then so be it. I’ll keep pushing for decompression regardless of how much you insult people.
@Leinadmix9_ツ
Someone telling you their opinions and stances is not “gaslighting”. Words have specific meanings.
Since I get much of my information from the many experts in the WT community, you’re just insulting the dozens of if not well over 100 people I get my information from.
It’s Statshark, one of the strongest tools ever devised.
I love it.
You can check estimated flight performance using its FM calculator, check your stats and see how they compare to the general population, and check vehicle stats to where you can see the most popular vehicles to play.
