Thoughts on player skill vs BR

[ron_23]

that is 13.7 / 14.0 where it goes up

[AlvisWisla]

@Real_K_Soze
You don’t change BRs based on players being good or not.

You only change BRs based on if that vehicle gets players more results than other vehicles; and you check this on a player-player basis as per the scientific method to mostly eliminate the skill disparity variable.

@Leinadmix9_ツ When a BR is so decompressed that similar or same-performing aircraft can be different BRs… that’s just an evidence of that BR’s health.

I see Creastroy is telling others to lie… wild.

[MapleVII-live]

This graph is accurate as past 10.0 ground is just 1.0 with more modern vehicles in terms of playstyle. (Save for CAS and SPAA)

[Real_K_Soze]

@AlvisWisla

@Real_K_Soze
You don’t change BRs based on players being good or not.

You only change BRs based on if that vehicle gets players more results than other vehicles; and you check this on a player-player basis as per the scientific method to mostly eliminate the skill disparity variable.

Mate! Respect! As usual your posts are pure gold! You should really consider a career as stand-up comedian - always a pleasure to read your posts 😂👍

Just re-read this official statement regarding the setting of BRs:

Responding To Your Feedback On Separate Battle Ratings

…entirely and you might see that gaijin itself states that the average performance (= generating player income = SLs/RPs) is major steering factor in the BR determination process - the comparison with similar aircraft plays a role too - but is a secondary factor.

A few examples:

@Stona_WT

Battle Ratings are decided based on how much a vehicle earns, but this is not purely economical. We use this metric because it’s all encompassing and considers every action a player makes with their vehicle, so this considers frags, assists, caps, and effectively every useful action a vehicle can perform all bundled into one universal metric.

@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.

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.

The translation of this is obvious:

1. Gaijin has a clear goal about the SL/RP gains for their vehicles. These goals may differ across branches (air, ground, naval) or game modes (AB/RB/SB) but these efficiency goals are a major driver for the BR.

2. If a vehicle performs on average too well - the BR will be increased - too low we see a decrease of the BR.

That’s why any discussions about BRs in this forum circle around the different understanding of efficiency.

• Players talk usually about their experiences (usually / at least often based on extensive experiences with a certain vehicle) whilst gaijin needs a cheap and easy tool to steer player income (SL/RP) which fulfills also the role of steering the game & research progress.

That’s why the expression skill (in the title of this thread) is actually rather misleading - skill is already included in the results - or “efficiency” like gaijin calls it.

So we are back at square one:

@tensilaspider

While a decent system, There are situations where a majority of players that don’t know how to play a vehicle will get it lowered in br while vehicles played by good/great players have a higher br. (Look at copy/paste vehicles)

@AlvisWisla

Gaijin does not use aggregate blind data and hasn’t since the CL13 incident, which is why CL13 has never been repeated.

Seriously???

I refresh your memory: One of the biggest seal clubber aircraft at prop BRs (the JP Bf-109 E-7) at 3.0 was for ages downtiered to 2.3 because one of their interns classified the plane as an E-3 (BR 2.3) Instead of having almost identical performance with the far superior German E-4/E-7.

@AlvisWisla

When a BR is so decompressed that similar or same-performing aircraft can be different BRs… that’s just an evidence of that BR’s health.

Seriously (Part 2)???

1. Technical performance (speed/climb/turn/firepower) in the example of @Leinadmix9_ツ prove just one thing: The JPpremium F4U-1 performed too well (SL/RP) even for a premium and received a higher BR. The US F4U-1 versions have all different SL/RP multipliers.

2. Your current example with 109s and Hurricanes BR diversity just shows different efficiencies based on different armaments and different flight characteristics…

3. My initial example with the 3 P-51 Cs ( US/CHN/JP) prove that the last two benefit from being a premium - so despite they perform way better at rank III they keep the objectively too low BRs - whilst the poor US players have the same plane just at Rank II…

Let’s get back to the topic: How can BRs be adjusted in order to avoid severely undertiered vehicles?

[Leinadmix9_ツ]

@AlvisWisla

@Leinadmix9_ツ When a BR is so decompressed that similar or same-performing aircraft can be different BRs… that’s just an evidence of that BR’s health.

That’s just an evidence of how negligent Gaijin is when it comes to BRs changes.

[tensilaspider]

@Real K Soze@live

That’s why the expression skill (in the title of this thread) is actually rather misleading - skill is already included in the results - or “efficiency” like gaijin calls it.

What would be a better name you think? Thoughts on vehicle efficiency vs br?

[Real_K_Soze]

@tensilaspider

What would be a better name you think? Thoughts on vehicle efficiency vs br?

Very good question! Especially if you want to stay neutral.

Long:

• Thoughts on Gaijin’s BR setting & review process - shall BRs be determined by average efficiency of all players (now) or can an adjustment based on top performing players help to avoid severely under- or over-BRd vehicles and increase fairness for player interactions?

Short:

• Thoughts on BR setting & review process - BR determination based on plain average efficiency vs setting based on efficiency of experienced players?

Edit:

From my pov gaijin and players have the same goals: They want a fair assessment of BRs - they have just different understandings about fairness.

1. Whilst gaijin wants to have a more or less reliable and easy to monitor tool for their thousands of vehicles and see fairness achieved by looking at the whole player base and their average efficiency (which is comprehensible) - you see in this forum often guys with hundreds or thousands of battles in a single vehicle bringing up valid points why certain vehicles are over- or under BRdl. But i see this input rarely considered.

2. As written in my first post players have severe issues if they face vehicles in the same vehicle class at the same BR played by an enemy with an almost identical applicable skill level - and he feel helpless as his opponent uses a vehicle preferred by rookies (which dragged the BR too low) whilst he is sitting in a vehicle used primarily by veterans (which dragged the BR too high).

3. So a critical review of the current process makes sense - the efforts for gaijin are imho either low: All they have to do is to adjust and shift their BR change trigger event goal (“efficiency”) to the right in the SL/RP distribution curve. Players would face way less undertiered vehicles which strengthens their overall commitment - and might have way more fun (=fun increases willingness to spend money) than today.

The current adjustment pattern used by gaijin (change of efficiency triggers BR change) is in some cases actually counterproductive.

Examples

Three prominent examples: A6M Zero, Re 2005 & eary Merlin Spitfires:

The A6Ms have way too high BRs as gaijin refuses to implement their severe control stiffening (compression) at higher speeds and allows way too high (deadly) g-limits of 12 G in turns. With these two features they are a pain to fight and got subsequently uptiered /up-BRd.

The Re 2005 was years ago implemented in wt with insane engine and turn performance, went up from 5.3 tp 6.0 - got nerfed and made it back to 6.0.

What gaijin fails to understand is that the current playerbase has way less experience than years before - and increasing the BR of a turnfighter is actually stupid when their opponents become faster and better armed, but way less maneuverable. So their turn advantage increases with a BR increase and help them to get even more kills.

If you look at early Merlin Spitfires around BR 3.7 - they excel in uptiers but severely struggle in (full) downtiers vs dedicated turnfighters like I-153P, I-16s or the B-239s.

[AlvisWisla]

@Real_K_Soze
BRs are not adjusted by average efficiency of all players currently.

See this post:

Responding To Your Feedback On Separate Battle Ratings

[Roadmap_1] Hey everyone, we’ve taken a look at your feedback on our proposed separate Battle Ratings for different modes and are presenting you with the updated table of changes and some explanations for specific vehicles and for Battle Ratings in general. Battle Ratings While we’re here, we’d like to give some additional context behind Battle Ratings and how they’re decided. Battle Ratings are decided based on how much a vehicle earns, but this is not purely economical. We use this metric b…

It is likely that BRs are currently adjusted based on a factor each player produces based on their average performance.
Players’ individual raw performance does not matter. They can be 0.2:1 or they can be 10:1, those results will not impact BRs.
What will impact BRs is the factor of those results in comparison to other like-vehicles those players play. This eliminates the issue CL13 had where good players impacted its BR because Gaijin didn’t check the other vehicles the players used to compare to.

For example, when M4A2 was 3.7 I used it as well did ten-thousands of others. Its factor quickly became above the average of my and others’ medium tanks and was flagged in the system. The tank then moved up to 4.0 after determining it was indeed OP at 3.7 [it was].

If they used purely raw data on M4A2 it wouldn’t have been made 4.0. It would’ve either stayed 3.7 or have moved to 4.3 due to event data.

Also the Japanese F-4U is the same exact BR as the other F-4Us.
There’s only 1 out of the 4 F-4Us that’s a lower BR.

P-51Cs are at 3.7 because players perform identically in them as they do in their other fighters.
If I check players at random that result will likely not change as a rule. 4x 12.7s on a 20 meter per second energy fighter is not as good as people think. BF-109F-4 is 4.0, I doubt that’s under-BR’d.

[SpectreXXI]

10.3-12.3 should be as low as 14.0

There’s too many zombers in that BR that way worse than 14.0 tbh.

[Real_K_Soze]

@AlvisWisla

BRs are…

…determined like described here:

Responding To Your Feedback On Separate Battle Ratings

There is no need for your speculations.

@AlvisWisla

P-51C in my hands…

Finally i can use this:

You are far away from being representative. You are special 😎

[_Poul]

@Real K Soze@live

The translation of this is obvious:

1. Gaijin has a clear goal about the SL/RP gains for their vehicles. These goals may differ across branches (air, ground, naval) or game modes (AB/RB/SB) but these efficiency goals are a major driver for the BR.
2. If a vehicle performs on average too well - the BR will be increased - too low we see a decrease of the BR.

Yes, exactly. I would just change “if a vehicle performs on average too well” to “if a vehicle’s efficiency (average SL/RP rewards) is too high”.

I would also add this interesting part to your quotes:

@Stona_WT

We’re aware that many of you think that the Battle Rating of bomb carriers in Air Realistic Battles is too high, comparing them with fighters solely in terms of air combat capabilities.

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.

Which clearly explains how efficiency (average SL/RP gains) affects a vehicle’s BR. To lower the BR of bombers, the devs had to reduce their SL/RP gains. It doesn’t make the vehicle perform any differently, it only lowers its efficiency (rewards), and that alone is enough to move it down in BR.

BTW, I also suggest ignoring obvious trolls along with their wild theories.

[Real_K_Soze]

@_Poul_

BTW, I also suggest ignoring obvious trolls along with their wild theories.

I love wild theories 😂

Have a good one!

[AlvisWisla]

@Real_K_Soze
Glad you found that post that refutes your posts’ previous claims.
It’s now cited in the post you replied to as it’s evidence for my posts.