Battleratings, One "Small" Change to make all the difference

Suggestions
32

Having 3 separate queues just means there’s no reason to use BR 1, 3 and 5 equipment because it will always be the underdog counterpart.

This means that, effectively, this tiering system of 6, effectively only has 3, because the aforementioned tiers do not meet anything lower.

For example, something like a G41 will never fight bolt-action rifles. But on the other hand, it will always fight against “better” semi-auto weapons. Likewise, something as bad as ~50rpm bolt-action rifles will face 10rd ~60rpm bolt-action rifles.

How you categorized these tiers are also an issue. “High capacity SMGs” being at tiers 3 and 4 would just mean it’s nothing but drum mags dominating that BR bracket.

I’m also generally against categorizing vehicles by their relative placement to War Thunder brackets. This is an infantry game first and foremost, so not only is the ability to fight infantry a factor, it is also an integral one, and should not be dismissed in favor of a tank’s capability to fight other tanks.

This means that, with your tiering system, not only will rapid-fire HE-slinging tanks that can reload a 75mm shell every 3 seconds prominent, but the tools intended to deal with their are limited.

Notwithstanding that, among other things, you make no specific mention of where tank destroyers will be placed, and campaigns with an evidently clear gap in terms of armor role, such as the western allies, have been shoehorned into a higher tier.

For reference, a 76mm-equipped Sherman has very similar penetration and post-penetration performance as a pak/kwk40-equipped vehicle. It has no business being the “equivalent” tank to panthers and tigers before pershings are introduced.

Overall, I do not like your idea of how to fix the battle ratings. Nor are they “small”.

33

Powercreeper mind set.
And it’s not like that meta stuff will not exist either way.

1 Like
34

The entire point of adding matchmaking brackets is to give an opportunity to club or be clubbed. That’s why they go up and down.

In here, it’s just being clubbed if you aren’t using the top equipment for said bracket.

35

As opposed to BR 3 dominating BR 1 and 2, And BR 5 dominating BR 4 and 3 as proposed? By that logic it’s still better than current proposal whether you like it or not.

We will leave it at that, because the rest of your post is based on where you think gear positions are in those ratings, which isn’t the point of decompression via another queue. More Queues are better for decompression, that’s just how it is.

If you look at the proposed objectively, “nearly” every AT weapon, tank cannon, and infantry weapon has an even chance to do their job against what they will see (certainly much better than the last test server), without the Random nature of “Will I get MM clubbed or do the clubbing”

1 Like
36

Yeah, because difference between BR 2 and BR 3 is the same as difference between Kar98k and federov (BR 1, BR 5).

Your “perfectionist” arguments sounds reasonable on paper, but sucks in reality. This game will never be balanced. And this suggestions is way better than the stuff currently presented to us.
In which you can molest pzII with KV1 and so.

1 Like
37

I am against the proposed system, as well. Similar to you, I have my own idea on how it should be “fixed”, as do dozens who chime in with suggestions on how they can fix it.

But this one isn’t it, and the rationale isn’t enough to convince me.

See above.

If you want to criticize my own take as for how I’d balance things, here’s my thread.

“Better than what the devs have done” is a stupidly low bar, and I’m sure the reply count on the BR change announcement, as well as the aforementioned number of people posting their own ideas to “fix” the matchmaking problems, speak for themselves.

38

The reason for proposing 3 queues, is we aren’t likely to get any more (especially for starters). They appear to want as few queues as possible.

Otherwise, I would be right up there with your suggestion. But it isn’t going to happen while they are prioritizing minimal MM queues.

I am only proposing damage control. (the bare minimum to be somewhat functional)

This isn’t my first choice as I made clear in my opening sentiments, this is the only compromise I see them even ever so likely to budge on (and even then its not likely)

I would LOVE to be wrong about that too by the way

1 Like
39

We currently have 2 queues even tho 3 queues were suggested for many times before.

Your suggestions is based on at least 5 queues if I understand it correctly. I really don’t think that’s realistic.

2 Likes
40

I had a suggestion where queues were for tiers 1-2-3, 3-4-5, and 5-6-7. That way every tier would have a reason to be used other than 1 and 6

41

With the number of guns we have in-game, excluding duplicates, in the ballpark range of 200-300, with their own little nuances, I see it as a necessity.

What we have ranges from BB guns to Destroyer of Worlds, metaphorically speaking.

These either need to have more uniform stats (which would require finangling with every gun to make them extremely similar in performance), or the introduction of more matchmaking brackets.

While I understand that everyone is eager to stem the tide of a bleeding playerbase precisely because of the absence of a matchmaking system that people somehow put up with for 3 years now, without access to a player count (like when you queue in war thunder, as well as the number of those online at any given moment), I can’t definitely say we don’t have enough players.

Especially when console players can turn off crossplay at will, which further divides and skews any numbers of players you can actually queue with.

42

I really don’t think so, since there always be meta weapons for certain tiers and others are just filler for progression/grind and for fun/larp plays.

2 Likes
43

I’m all up for even more decompression. You are only suggesting the same thing I am, But just way more decompressed. I’m expressing the bare minimum.

But Id say its at odds with some of their main priorities. Low queue time, and more players in games.

And as a Longtime war thunder player, compression has always been rampant and very slowly acted on.

44

I call it the 2-silver price wall of shame.

45

That’s curse of basically every multiplier game, especially ones based on grindy progression with f2p concept. Huge variety of content, but majority of playerbase aims for only specific meta stuff. Because they’re trying to compensate lack of skill with more powerful equipment.

4 Likes
46

it was already criticized cause you have too many queues that playerbase cant support. if the goal was for your proposal to be bot farm then it is successful.

cause BA with ROF of 50 is extremely different from BA with ROF of 51 so they need their own tier. certainly there are differences between weapons and their performance, but you dont need to nitpick so much between e.g. BA with slight difference in ROF or 2 low rof low dmg smg.

iirc you get 8-12k concurrent players in 6 servers playing the game(datamined stats). now divide that by server/campaign and you get average of 222-333 players playing at any given time per server/campaign. if you further divide this by average match of 20 minutes you get that every minute you have on average 11-17 players queuing per campaign per server.

now average is bad indicator cause crossplay on servers have more players than crossplay off servers. some campaigns have double or triple number of players than other campaigns. also you need to take into account playerbase disparity so you can have 2:1 split between sides.

i will probably do analysis on concurrent player count when i find some time.

3 Likes
47

That was their mistake and OP trying to fix that, now Moscow will have both low and mid BR matches, top tier BR don’t really need smgs since they will get replaced by powerful ARs and LMGS with large mag size and auto rifles

50mm cannons can pen and kill t-34, same with AT crafted by the engineer

Sure that would be for the best but devs got extremely lazy after almost a year of waiting and created stupid map based BR

1 Like
48

I still consider both ppsh / kiraly as high tier that has no place against low tier

Havent really lately checked the “last” BR list but Mkb probably is somewhere BR4 ? atleast ?
id choose the kiraly over it any given day so in that sense it do have place & need in higher tiers.

Which it does rather ineffectively due to lack of APHE.
At certain ranges it can indeed pen frontally but getting OHK its entirely relied on RNG which rarely favors APC rounds.

Pretty much, the BR map locks just doesnt make any sense.

49

Again they won’t fight against low tier only mid tier. Looks like you haven’t read his post at all.

Are we talking about OP’s new BR system or DF’s awful BR system with 5 BR stages? Mkb should be in BR5 in Myrm1don BR since it’s AR, but BR4 in DF’s BR since it’s much weaker weapon than STG44

1 Like
50

Well if semi-autos are what is considered as “Mid tier” I find it quite low tier to fight against ppsh / kiraly.

What comes to Mkb its better in BR4 as DF put it out.
Kiraly / PPSh at minimum at BR4, definitely not any lower, preferably in 5.

51

Talking about the OP

BR = What you can use and What your oponent can use.
Map = only the map pool “within” that bracket

Br 1-2 Moscow is a different match than Br 3-4 Moscow (they are never mixed together)

Kiraly & PPSh are High Capacity SMGS

That puts them in BR 4, you will be matched against people that have them too. (or at least another good smg)
image

In the Proposed BR 1 and 2 Moscow will never see BR 3 and 4 Moscow

Same applies for t-34 and Panzer IV F2…they are in BR 3 and 4

BR 1 and 2 Panzer II – Panzer IV Short 75mm Moscow “will never” see BR 3 and 4 T-34, Kv-1, Panzer IV F2 Moscow.

Unless you purposefully uptier youself, thats your choice.

you dont have to choose between them.

Kiraly is in BR 3-4 bracket (no Assualt Rifles)
MKB is in BR 5-6 bracket

If you still want to use Kiralys in High BR, you can . You just uptier yourself by using another BR 5-6 piece like a King Tiger