The “real data” is irrelevant
if the real data is 47-53% win rates for everything, then you’d get the real data.
if the real data was anything other than that, then them giving it to you would be calling themselves liars, so they would give you fake data, which would show 47-53% win rates
In both scenarios, you get 47-53% win rates.
I’m starting to think you literally don’t know what lying means.
Players make suggestions for what they feel they want. It’s a developers job to decide what feedback to accept and what to disregard. In the end the game is theirs, if they want their playerbase to make suggestions without real data then that’s their choice. I would argue it would be more beneficial if they made the data available so players can make informed suggestions.
and, but
I mean, i like to state the obvious.
How in the world is one supposed to judge that without player performance data?
Balancing roughly on vehicle characteristics is the sort of thing you do if you add a vehicle with minimal or no playtesting. And we know how much of a miss that can be. And long term its unworkable.
“Historical placement” Can be the most arbitrary thing in the world if one wants it to be.
Yes, and the correct answers are:
Accept: everything that uses the data logically to push closer to 50% win rates. However, this is already the exact answer their algorithm give them, so they gained nothing.
Reject: literally anything else. Which they already don’t get from their algorithm, so they again gained nothing.
if they want their playerbase to make suggestions without real data then that’s their choice.
They don’t need their players to make ANY suggestions on BR balance. Players’ opinions on this topic are redundant and unnecessary. There’s one objectively correct way to do it, and it’s a simple math equation. Giving players the tools to simply say “Yes I agree with that equation” is pointless. And any other answer is just players trying to give themselves unfair advantages. By definition.
Both should be effected mostly the same as both use spall liners
Uh okay, well nevermind all that part then, I guess I agree with you IF that’s true. Everyone else in the thread though other than you seemed to believe this would be a big advantage to some nations and not others. I don’t know who of you is correct.
If a tank is faster, has better armor, and has better firepower than a vehicle, then it likely should be a higher BR.
You want vehicles to face eachother based on historical reality so there is justification for some asymmetrical balance.
“how” through effort and taking the time to compare vehicles’ performance
AND the same or better drivers. Mandatory information.
If it has 2x worse drivers, but only 1.5x better armor, speed, firepower, then it will perform worse overall and thus MUST actually go DOWN in BR.
Otherwise the game will necessarily be full of more unbalanced and lopsided curbstomps, and people find curbstomp games not fun. Un fun games go out of business. Gaijin failed if so.
This ignores that some players will be less skilled than others.
Player skill is asymmetrical and there is no SBMM (skill based match making) present in the game. All Gaijin has to work with for win rate is raw data, ignoring player experience / personal skill. This does not create a truly balanced scenario as certain tanks will be played better by certain players than others.
CV 90105 has a 5 second autoloader, average mobility, average firepower ignoring the reload, and gen 3 thermals. Do you take the win rate of this premium vehicle which any player of any skill level can access at face value or do you try to account for player skill?
But why would you even bother to take that time and spend hundreds of hours poring over the numbers and racking your brain trying to compare… when instead you can literally just MEASURE which tanks do best in the game? Getting a way more accurate result, for way less effort?
You just enjoy doing pointless work for worse results for fun, or…?
No, because the math equation uses “real life match outcomes” as one of its inputs, and skill went into that already, so the math equation is accounting for that.
there is no SBMM (skill based match making) present in the game.
Of course there is, at the nation level. It’s called BR, lol. The nation’s average SKILL (S) feeds into the BR algorithm by way of altering outcomes, and is thus used as a BASIS (B) for MATCHMAKING (MM)
(S) (B) (MM)
Because you love your game
because you love your game?
Loving your game explains putting in more efforts.
But it does not explain accepting the less accurate result you get than by measuring empirically. Your less accurate result hurts your game. So no, you seem to actually hate your game if you’re intentionally subjecting it to less accurate guesswork for no reason, versus highly accurate measurements.
And how do you judge this?
You give a guess after some playtesting and then use player performance data to balance it long term.
Well no i don’t. But i assume thats just a typo.
If im going by “historical reality”, we would have T-80BVM and Leopard 2A6 facing BMP-1 and T-55 when in an uptier.
I do not consider that at all viable for a game like this, and i don’t understand how anyone could.
So in other words, you don’t know how. “I will stare at the vehicle and do my best” without any player performance statistics is what lead to the VIDAR to be at 7.7 and the Sturmorser at 6.3.
And its not exactly a method to do anything.
The most ridiculous one of all I think was actually the M15 SPAA having been originally released at I believe 3.7, that was their best guess, lmao
Balance can not be historical reality alone. Actual vehicle performance is necessary for balancing. Player performance is made irrelevant in War Thunder by numerous factors. In games where player performance is used for balancing it is not taken from total data but instead through highly skilled play as that is the only time you can obtain actual information.
War Thunder does not sort battles based on any form of experience / actual skill. The match maker only sorts based on BR and in GRB depending on available players it will try to restrict duplicate nation engagements.
The Vidar has a laser range finder and gen 2 thermals alongside mobility outclassing most vehicles of its BR range. There was no justification for its initial BR placement outside of Gaijin possibly and this is with extreme generosity assuming that since other HE slingers do poorly over all this vehicle being the same. This if true would be a perfect example as to why player performance is completely useless for balancing in War Thunder, but that is conjecture not reality.
The reality of the game is vehicles will be played by bad and good players. Win rate as a statistic should not be used as a main function for balancing. It is pointless and ignores real vehicle performance offering a worse experience overall.
War Thunder does not sort battles based on any form of experience / actual skill.
You already agreed earlier that they say they balance off of match outcomes. So you are therefore now claiming that “experience / actual skill” has NO EFFECT on match outcomes…?
You uh, sure about that, dude?
I’m saying it has a negative effect on the game overall.
Please answer the actual question. Does players’ skill affect match outcomes or does it not?
Player skill effects outcomes of matches. War Thunder’s vehicle balancing is asymmetric. If I play 7.7 it is still possible for me to kill tanks of a higher BR if my personal skill outmatches there despite them having better guns / armor / mobility.
Tank balance should not be based on player skill.