Yes, and, Gaijin still needed to make things seem fair to the Strela players (even though the Strela is just a Type 81C with more armor that doesn’t have to face Su-25s and has slightly shorter range).
I guess my point here is more it is stupid because the Type 81 and the Strela are very close in capability and yet sit 1.0 BR apart. which is stupid.
Strela was 9.3 even not that long ago even after they added the Type 81 at 10.0… when Japan has no 10.0 vehicles so it was 11.0 to begin with … which is why it was inevitable it was going to go up even more because nothing changed, it was an idiotic attempt at balance.
Even if it does carry good IR missiles they are only IR missiles and those can only get you so far, this being 0.4 BR lower than the Pantsir without a TWS Radar and any form of defensive weapons (guns) is absolutely criminal.
Moving this vehicle up is absolutely ridiculous and inexcusable, Japanese mains have been waiting a damn while for a decent SPAA and Gaijin simply doesn’t care as it seems.
This would be an incredibly stupid decision for them to make since there’s already an improved vehicle meant to replace the Type 81 (Type 11 Tan-SAM II) that could be added without deliberatedly ruining the only usable SPAA for Japan in the 11.0 lineup.
An early type 81C with IR at 11.0 and a type 81 C with ARH at 11.3 would be nice
I’d very much like to see this as a sign for new missiles or other fixes next update, but I’m sceptical.
Why change it now it it isn’t improved now?
Maybe that’s because Chinese players are just too stupid to keep the KD up. Not the tanks fault 🤷
Realistically I’d say being a more popular nation more less experienced players play the PGZ04A. It also has cannons, so I’d assume players might be a bit less cautious around ground vehicles than they are with the Type 81 (C), which generally doesn’t help K/D
Which is also why I’d say the pure vehicle stat balancing doesn’t work, but would be an easy fix for Gaijin.
Simply put, instead of taking pure vehicle stats of each player, then comparing them to get the average performance of the vehicle, Gaijin should put it in relation to player skill.
Let’s take K/D for example:
One player has 0.5 K/D in the a tank. Currently Gaijin would see this as a vehicle performing poorly. Now this very player on average achieves 0.3 K/D in his vehicles, so the tank, despite what Gaijin is shown performs above average. However by current balancing a tank like this is moved down in BR.
Now lets take the same tank, but with a K/D of 4. This is a good K/D and Gaijin might see this as overperforrming. But the player has an average K/D of 6 between all vehicles, so it is actually a more difficult and less effective tank in this players hands. Regardless, this tank would be moved up in BR.
My suggestion for the new system would be to take not the pure stat (in this case K/D), but the specific stat of the vehicle, divided by the average stat of the player.
This way the first example tank would be:
0.5 / 0.3 = 1.67
The second example tank would be:
4 / 6 = 0.67
More accurately representing vehicle performance and negating the “minor/major nation” effects.
I’m familiar with another kind of statistical normalization from my World of Tanks day, win rate curves. Basically, for any given vehicle, you plot players overall winrate versus their winrate in that specific vehicle. Here’s an example I found on Google:
The resulting curve tells you a decent amount about the vehicle. If it’s a perfectly diagonal line (The dotted reference line above), the vehicle is perfectly balanced. If lower win rate players do better than normal, it’s got a low skill floor. If they do worse than normal, high skill floor. Same goes for high win rate players. Most vehicles end up with one similar to the one above.
A vehicle only needs addressing if either A) The entire curve is above player’s average win rates, or B) one section is exceedingly higher than normal. Otherwise, deviation is fine, especially on the lower end of winrates. Not every vehicle is going to be equally good in all hands.
I bring this up because the Type 81 is the ideal example of a low skill floor vehicle. It’s very easy to use, simply lock the target and fire the missile. If it doesn’t hit a wall, that aircraft is almost certainly dead. Doesn’t require any skill to lead the missile to it’s target like other SAMs.
However, it’s also a low skill ceiling vehicle. There’s nothing good players can do to improve the aspects of it. At best, a more aware player is marginally harder to sneak up on. Otherwise, they’re as limited by the seeker head as everyone else. This also means it’s trivial to counter if you know one’s around, especially for helicopters.
Accordingly, as lesser skill players are a greater proportion of any group of players, you’re going to see overall win rates increase for this (And countless others, Zeros, Vampires, etc). Thus, Gaijin (For whom the concept of statistical normalization is a foreign concept, apparently), just moves it up.
Thats rich coming from someone who doesnt have any top tier vehicles aside from Chinese ones.
Also your performance on those tanks are quite average, if i was you i wouldnt use general performance level as a flexing material.
How about we don’t throw stones at all and instead discuss the issue at hand
Everyone here seems to agree that Gaijins way of figuring out vehicle BR placement is flawed and skewed in the way that it does not account for individual player skill, leading to overestimated BRs for less popular, and underestimated BRs for more popular nations and vehicles.
Yet this has somehow devolved into players fighting each other over a petty problems and strawman arguments.
No, it is not. It is excellent against aircraft within range in clear weather conditions spotted by the player rather than a radar. If you do get a lock it is very much difficult to evade, but missile performance is the sole thing the Type 81 (C) has. It has no radar to spot, you can’t fire without lock and you can’t lock targets within 50m of the ground.
This last point is what the comment showed, the inability to counter low flying helicopters outside of the (very much limited) range of the backup IR seeker. Not that it can’t lock, but that it struggles in a very much common situation.
It is certainly not bad, but it doesn’t deserve to move up further. Take a moment to compare all of its capabilities to SPAA around it and you’ll see that the missiles don’t carry it any further than 11.0, where it can already face many foes outranging and thus completely negating it, but also targets it can comfortably engage.
You are obviously free to disagree and discuss the issue further, but be civil about it.
I have been. Frankly not sure why you added that bit.
Understandable, truly. But the vehicle was undoubtedly performing very well for its BR, and it was moved up. Now, honestly - as someone who hates CAS, I don’t mind it being BR 11.0. In my eyes, almost every SPAA should realistically go down, even.
The problem is that it was statistically performing extremely well. So they moved it up. The players were clearly getting more kills and performing better than other SPAA (and not just SPAA from big 3 nations, but minor nations similarly full of more experienced players - one of the main arguments the Japanese players have against this BR change).
If you feel that the Type 81(C) is performing poorly, then you should perform poorly in it. Alternatively, if you believe other SPAA perform better, you’re welcome to play them and get far superior statistics and move them up.
Although - I personally believe SPAA should be as powerful as possible. So it’s not like I expressly agree with the BR change. I just understand it.
It certainly was by Gaijins standpoint, however it is performing well in a very limited role, far more limited than any other SPAA.
The main issue with this type of vehicle is that it’s hit or miss, or rather lock or no lock. If you get a lock chances are the missile kills, however just as many vehicles can engage it from out of range.
The Type 81 (C) forces you to use it only in the role it is optimized for, even only allowing the launch of missiles under ideal conditions. There is no way to engage ground targets or even attempt launches under anything but perfect launch conditions. The vehicle is large, unarmored and cannot fire on the move. Most players will be quick to understand to just hide from any ground threat, or even out of range air threats, as there simply is no way to counter them. It’s pure kill or be killed, with the deciding factor always being the enemy player.
The Type 81 (C) is incredibly limited, yet near infallible at the one thing it does do.
Gaijins balancing meanwhile focuses on pure vehicle stats, no regard for individual players average skill and especially no regard for specific cases as seen with the Type 81 (C). This also applies to other IR SAM obviously, though apart from the Strela those are kept at their respective BRs due to usually poor missile performance.
I understand it too, I just don’t agree with Gaijins form of balancing as a whole that has lead to this change. Additionally I don’t agree with the fact it was kept out of the initial feedback list, then added as a set in stone change afterwards, despite not being asked for by players. It is a change that very well could’ve been discussed and reasoned with hadn’t Gaijin snuck it in this late.
It seems like they knew it would upset people, and purposefully kept it low profile, which (if true) would just add insult to injury.
I’ve said it already but this is pretty obviously to protect the premium Su-25K, the average person who buys it isn’t exactly smart when it comes to CAS tactics and the Type 81 is perfect for swatting down a plane that itself has almost no precision capabilities. Any other plane around that BR like the A-10, A-6 or Viggen would have no issues either outranging the Type 81 or at least having the advantage of being able to attack first.
I don’t have much difficulty in dealing with them even with the 9.3 PGZ04A with far inferior missiles - so I don’t think they were thinking about the premium K variant specifically. There’s plenty of AA from 9.0-11.0 that can deal with the Su-25K easily.
Give the Type 81 some guns so it can do stupid things like Pantsir users and suddenly the performance drops despite objectively becoming a better vehicle, without it the Type 81 just sits around doing nothing but squint at the sky looking for a pixel because they have no radar.
I have never seen a Pantsir player ever push to use it as a tank destroyer.
It’s a truck chassis. I have no idea why people even think this somehow affects stats.
Very few players are going to actually try pushing with it. It’s not a 2S6 where it’s certainly more common.
This is also backed up by the fact that the Pantsir’s global stats only have a 0.01 K/D against ground targets. While a 2S6 has a 0.07/0.08 K/D. It’s quite obvious that the Pantsir having guns is not affecting its stats in any way - because people are not pushing with it.
I personally haven’t seen anyone try to use the Pantsir as a gun meme SPAA, but even if you have - it’s obviously non-relevant in terms of statistics.
Similarly - the PGZ04A, where I personally constantly push with my guns (and have my stats ruined because of it, but it’s worth it), has a global 0.18 K/D against ground targets. Almost 0.2. The Pantsir is at 0.01. I can kindly inform you that the guns “situation” that you appear to be fixated on, and which you believe affects stats, is naught but an illusion.
I have never seen a Pantsir player ever push to use it as a tank destroyer.
It’s a truck chassis. I have no idea why people even think this somehow affects stats.
You think a vehicle that is a capable of engaging ground targets and gives players a way to defend themselves opposed to a vehicle with that ability is going to have zero impact on the way these vehicles are played?
This is also backed up by the fact that the Pantsir’s global stats only have a 0.01 K/D against ground targets. While a 2S6 has a 0.07/0.08 K/D. It’s quite obvious that the Pantsir having guns is not affecting its stats in any way - because people are not pushing with it.
It doesn’t back it up, it could also suggest they’re not doing it successfully.
Similarly - the PGZ04A, where I personally constantly push with my guns (and have my stats ruined because of it, but it’s worth it), has a global 0.18 K/D against ground targets. Almost 0.2. The Pantsir is at 0.01. I can kindly inform you that the guns “situation” that you appear to be fixated on, and which you believe affects stats, is naught but an illusion.
The PGZ04A, an SPAA at 9.3 has more success than a Pantsir with similar weaponry but more than 2 BRs lower, where there is an abundance of lightly armored vehicles?
It’s clearly going to be a factor, if you are given a way to defend yourself you will be more confident moving around, hoping for a kill, trying to capture a zone… in a Type 81 the idea does not exist.
It’s the only thing, the lack of radar on the Type 81 also means it’s not going to be detected the way the Pantsir does, so unsurprisingly is not targeted as often as active radar would be.
Anything with the VT-1 missiles can also defend itself. The Stormer can also defend itself in theory. Yet they don’t. I don’t understand how you have difficulties with the fact that the Pantsir is a literal truck. You’re severely underestimating human intelligence.
The Pantsir/2S6 guns are also far superior to the PGZ04A’s 25mm guns in theory. With much more damage and a higher RPM. Not to mention that:
I use the PGZ04A at 10.0 and up exclusively (I don’t use it at 9.3 as I don’t play 9.3), and I have a ~0.4 K/D against ground vehicles in it. Almost every single Chinese player does the same, as China is missing many of its domestic SPAA at that BR. It’s literally 9.3 - 11.7, and the TOR sucks.
The abundance of targets you can penetrate is the same at both BRs. Gameplay between 10.0 and 11.7 is barely different regardless, and the vehicles aren’t any more protected against smaller caliber guns.
So, again - not only do statistics make it clear, but your implications are outright lies. I kindly ask of you to concede this argument which wasn’t in your favor from the start.
