Ok people need to forget balancing focused guns in the battle they existed should come before anything. then if you really need br which given you can still wipe a squad at 40 with noob gun they give all troops. BR is worthless if the guns are not in the battles, they should be in.
That has been thrown out the window.
Power balance takes priority over HA now. BR is based on Power
have to go with the flow
This new proposed BR system from this thread is exactly what we need. However, I think that DF wants to keep only two queue or else it might not reduce the overall number of distinct queues induced by the campaign system.
But I entirely agree with your proposition.
I also really like this one. Either proposition is still better than having BR 3 being matched with everyone else.
2 Likes
Which is quite funny honestly. They could always change dispersion/recoil and reload time to artificially nerf/buff pretty much any weapon to suit itās historical āBAā.
Itās not like weapons in Enlisted behaves extremely realistically anyway, but whateverā¦
1 Like
if the moscow maps are ālow brā and maps are for some odd reason ālockedā to certain BRās.
I dont really see anyway to implement kiraly / PPSh & T34 / F2 there.
Both Kiraly & PPSh are top tier smgās and definitely do not belong in low BR games.
Tanks even less, the F2 in current moscow is last unlock for axis and arguably only tank that can reliably go against t-34 the pzIII and quadrubblethrilliontenhundred of its variants doesnt have any chance against t-34 which would create the exact same situation weāre in right now.
Rather just remove the BR lock from maps and let ppl with any gear play what ever they want
( As long as its balanced obviously )
Agree, how ever majority of matches is just about slaying bots.
Quite hard to imagine casuals enjoying CS / Pubg style recoil patterns just to slay some bots.
1 Like
even if thats of the clif for Gijins war thunder two money mill plan
Dark flow no longer there its gijin deves only
HA is useless if guns that shouldnt be there are in those battles.
2 Likes
Like I said, Iām just working with the direction they are headed.
1 Like
I know, I wasnāt opposing you.
1 Like
FYI I would have preferred gun balancing towards historical too. Reload speeds are jacked, amongst other stats
2 Likes
Having 3 separate queues just means thereās 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 ābetterā 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. āHigh capacity SMGsā being at tiers 3 and 4 would just mean itās nothing but drum mags dominating that BR bracket.
Iām 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 tankās 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 āequivalentā 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 āsmallā.
Powercreeper mind set.
And itās not like that meta stuff will not exist either way.
1 Like
The entire point of adding matchmaking brackets is to give an opportunity to club or be clubbed. Thatās why they go up and down.
In here, itās just being clubbed if you arenāt using the top equipment for said bracket.
As opposed to BR 3 dominating BR 1 and 2, And BR 5 dominating BR 4 and 3 as proposed? By that logic itās 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 isnāt the point of decompression via another queue. More Queues are better for decompression, thatās just how it is.
If you look at the proposed objectively, ānearlyā 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 āWill I get MM clubbed or do the clubbingā
1 Like
Yeah, because difference between BR 2 and BR 3 is the same as difference between Kar98k and federov (BR 1, BR 5).
Your āperfectionistā 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
I am against the proposed system, as well. Similar to you, I have my own idea on how it should be āfixedā, as do dozens who chime in with suggestions on how they can fix it.
But this one isnāt it, and the rationale isnāt enough to convince me.
See above.
If you want to criticize my own take as for how Iād balance things, hereās my thread.
āBetter than what the devs have doneā is a stupidly low bar, and Iām sure the reply count on the BR change announcement, as well as the aforementioned number of people posting their own ideas to āfixā the matchmaking problems, speak for themselves.
The reason for proposing 3 queues, is we arenāt 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 isnāt going to happen while they are prioritizing minimal MM queues.
I am only proposing damage control. (the bare minimum to be somewhat functional)
This isnāt 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
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 donāt think thatās realistic.
2 Likes
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