This is a gross understatement of what GR.4 has compared to WTD-61.
Tornado WTD61
- 2x Aim-9L
- 12x Mk83
- 56 flares
- 600 large calibre chaff
Tornado GR4
- 2x Aim-9M (with HMD which is minimal aid)
- 12x Mk13
- 268 flares (with MAWS which barely works on most aircraft and Im assuming MAWS is rear aspect only)
- 300 large claibre chaff (though I think I saw it was standard calibre chaff so 600 standard calibre chaff if that is the case)
The only thing that is affecting the BR significantly is the TERMA and HMD. (I already consider 11.7 the correct BR for the Tornado to get 2x Aim-9Li to justify that one BR increase) Its insane to think that an 11.3 is going to be at 12.7 in Sim because it has AAMs that it will rarely if ever employ and CMs that if its using will mean its dead anyway to the Mig-29 unloading cannon rounds into it (flares and chaff dont defend against cannon rounds btw)
3 Likes
i think 12. 0 for gr4 is fine
to be fair the WTD61 being 11.3 in ARB while the IDS’s are 11.7 is still baffling. Care to share light on that particular game balance decision?
Like no disrespect I genuinely want to understand why gaijin feels guided bombs warrant a BR difference in ARB
HMD is a massive benefit for IR missiles too. Particularly on an airframe like Tornado.
As I mentioned above, as with any aircraft, it’s BR can change if it performs poorly. However there are more things than just some of the oversimplified comparisons you gave made above that result in its current BR.
We addressed this at the start of summer regarding Tornado BRs: Responding To Your Feedback On Separate Battle Ratings
Well… Heres the warning for it. Like the GR1, ASSTA1 and A200A which are over-BRed at 11.7 as it is, the Tornado Gr4 at 12.3 would struggle greatly even at 12.0. 12.3 it will be one of the worst performing aircraft at that BR range and will either need massive buffs like BOL, or a BR drop rapidly.
But you don’t understand, Britain players have a higher success rate with Tornado so obviously it should be 12.7 but they’re being nice and introducing it at 12.3.
This tornado’s an utter joke with what they’ve done to Brimstones. Thing might as well be 11.7.
It wasnt though. The Anwser was
Tornado GR1, ASSTA1 and A200A have higher effeciency than the WTD61 and MFG (and now A200) therefore they get a higher BR.
They were given 0 explanation of how or what about them gives them higher effeciency
At the moment, most aircraft that primarily bomb bases in Air Battles are as effective, if not more, than fighters of the same Battle Rating, although they often have much weaker weapons and air combat capabilities than fighters.
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.
So no explanation on how the 3x at 11.3 gain less reward than the 3x at 11.7. They have 100% identical potential to kill bases, in fact with the 3x at 11.3 being a lower BR, i’d actually guess they have the greater effeciency as they likely make it to 1 or more bases every game. Those at 11.7 if nothing else, encounter aircraft like the F-4S that steal bases all the time.
We fully realise that a change like this will not receive any support from players who are asking for a reduction in Battle Ratings at the current average reward values.
Therefore in the summer, we’re planning to give more clarification and bring this issue up for discussion — whether or not we should reduce the rewards for bases in order to reduce the Battle Rating of aircraft that mainly bomb bases, or leave everything as it is now. Please follow the news for more details on this.
This was never done. We never got this post
Based on what we’ve written above, as of now we are going to leave the strike variants of the Tornado at their current Battle Ratings in Air Realistic Battles. The Battle Rating of the Tornado IDS ASSTA1 (Germany), Tornado GR.1 (Britain), and Tornado IDS (1995) (Italy) will not be lowered, and the Battle Rating of the Tornado IDS MFG (Germany) and Tornado IDS WTD61 (Germany) will not be increased to that of the other Tornadoes mentioned above.
Those 6 Tornado IDS are 100% identical (except the GR1 which has weaker engines) Therefore they have 100% identical performance. Also never did give more calirification on this issue, it was forgotten
6 Likes
Statistically that is not the case with their efficiency which is what decides their BRs.
So because WTD61 is flown by bad players that skipped the tree to buy a Premium meant it got a lower BR. Despite being 100% identical to those at 11.7?
9 Likes
statistically, is a (respectfully speaking) stupid way to balance in ARB. Given ARB is almost always mixed battles it doesn’t have the excuse GRB did of “well they dont fight the same vehicles”
These vehicles are identical, no duh the WTD61 is statistically inferior, because it’s a premium. The A-200 is the same BR purely due to the fact if it was 11.7 it’d put the WTD61s BR into further question.
6 Likes
Deleting comments that fairly criticise your decisions ain’t a way to look all that flash.
Why does your balance team fail to account for survivorship bias? It is a valid question.
2 Likes
Comments are removed when they break forum rules and contain insults to the Devs.
It’s more than possible to make a post without them and refrain from rule breaks.
Being critical is fine. Insults are not.
1 Like
They were completely valid questions. Are you sure that your balance department has the training needed to account for the data they are handling? Because the outcomes are incredibly unfavourable to that conclusion based on their actions. If the outcomes weren’t so unfavourable, I would not be questioning this but every step of the way there’s incredibly questionable decisions claimed to be “based on statistics”.
3 Likes
Implication =/= statement.
Your post =/= you.
So no one rewrote anyone’s statement.
Stating that a post implies something IS NOT and has NEVER been stating the person OR post stated something.
So as I said in the first sentence: Implication is not a synonym of statement.
@Flogger_cbs
You mean my what seems to be a 2:1 KDR:
I’ve used it as a fighter and bomber in air RB, and obviously its ground use was fragging at least 2 dozen players.
If you want to know how many times I spawned it in ground battles, here’s the tank I got 1 - 10 weeks after putting the Mirage 2000DR1 in my lineup.
can brimstones get something like the gps guide,i mean very correct iog.
the brimstones can do this in reality
They do not have this in SAL mode.
too many aircraft have radically different BRs to identical versions, It is becoming a concern.
Like the B-26, AMX, Hunters and Tornado IDS are all examples of this
8 Likes
You have two planes in the game: the F-111F and the F-111C. Am I correct in understanding that these planes have the same effectiveness in ARB and ASB, and that’s why they are at the same BR?