Recently I played ten Japanese BR1 games, trying to verify what they said : BR1 player will not always meet BR3, but it turned out that there was only one game without BR3, and the other battles were still full of rifle grenades, M1 garand and even 105 Sherman.I still won nine of them, writing this post because of my first loss in BR1.
If this is what newbies have to face entering the game, then I am very disappointed, because many games are won in very difficult situations, and newbie BR1 players need to have a strong will to endure not playing AA tanking, sniper camping and avoid losing.
This may not actually solve the problem, but it can show your determination to balance MM. If implemented, I believe most players will agree that the game balance is on the way to improvement.
It should be a healthy mix of I-III on both sides. If there are BR III tanks and AT Weapons on the American side, the same should be true on the Jap side. If those BR III players choose not to play well or don’t take what they need to win, well that’s on them and not the MM
Crossing 3BR is unhealthy enougth. If warthunder tank BR is mapped to enlisted, it will be ±0.5BR at most, such as 1-2, 2-3, 3-4
The game does not guarantee that both teams have BR3, nor does it guarantee the composition ratio of BR on both sides.So currently it’s definitely MM issue.
Tank balance is not the end all be all. BR I Infantry can do perfectly fine against BR III if they’re skilled enough. That challenge helps them grow and adapt and become skilled enough to fight them
Hence “it should be a healthy mix.” There should be a little bit of all 3 BR’s on both teams in both Low and High Tier, although preferably III is the least amount in both tiers with maybe some matches that are predominantly III with a little of I-II or IV-V sprinkled in, or both. I’m ok with that. Shoot I’d be ecstatic if there were BR III matches with a little bit of I-V in them as well. That would be absolutely perfect to me
That would be too boring for BR1 and BR2 players, better still keep BR3 as gambling BR but only let them play vs BR2-3 and BR3-4. It will take half of BR2 players from BR1 matches into BR3 matches but prevent BR3 to play vs BR1. BR5 should be completely separated they are superior to BR3 and BR4 in every single way (minus the launchers)
The United States does not have level 3 anti-tank grenade rifles
The regular version has a very low threat due to official intentional bugs.
In principle, Garand and 105 have a ground confrontation plan when they are at level 2 in Japan.
Considering their aircraft and line speed
Shouldn’t be too bad?
Japan is a strong camp in the later stage (except for tanks and individual anti-tank capabilities)
But I agree that there are a bunch of negative monkeys in the current environment
They can always make you lose
I would actually agree on BR 1 being isolated as for the most part is all new players anyway, so, let them stumble around and learn together before they advance to playing people with superior weapons.
The premise is that a capable BR1 player meets a stupid BR3 player. This in itself is an abnormal assumption.
You try to use the “BR1 can still beat BR3” defense, which is based on unbalanced player skills, so there is an equally large possibility of good BR3 players completely dominating BR1 newbies, resulting in a bad game
Let a novice encounter a stronger opponent while learning how to play? This is not a good way to guide human learning and progress.
You will like this experience because you are a good player and want to enjoy the sense of accomplishment of overcoming difficulties and winning the game with low BR. The same is true for me, but on the opposite side, there is also high BR player enter a boring ez game and low BR player suffer in the game that is impossible to win.
I agree that there is no obvious advantage or disadvantage between the two styles of mixed BR and ±0BR in terms of gameplay and fun.
But from a game management perspective, ±0BR is obviously easier to get started and bring in new players. And It is well known that the game currently lacks new players, so a fair game experience is imperative.
Yeah, but at the same time I didn’t approve of their efforts at “MM always tries to gather similar BR”, their results were just dismal, if I mixed BR1-3 haphazardly, I might as well get a BR1 -2 match.
If most players are deserting, it only proves that everyone thinks the balance is very bad. All I ask is that the hidden bad reality be exposed on the table.
well i would like more BR queues for better balance, but devs dont want to enable it cause it would lead bots populating matches.
BR doesnt mean anything. most veterans now play on BR2 and will be 10 times more skilled than some newbie at BR3. but what will newbie on BR1 do when he sees 8 BR2 veteran players in his team vs 10 newbie BR3 players in enemy team?
same thing happened with ranks where people deserted when they saw that enemy team was full of gold ranks and their team was full of silvers, even though many of those people didnt deserve those ranks cause they were carried by veterans cause they played stacked side (e.g. current japan)
Except ±0 BR kills Enlisted. It will be dead like Anakin Skywalker, and in its place will be War Thunder: Infantry Edition. Why in the world do all of you people want that so much?
I once asked a friend to play with me.
All he told me was why he had to use Bolt Action Rifles to fight semi-automatic weapons and submachine guns.
And his tanks are useless at all.
I explained to him that you have to spend money and play every day for two months.
You will never be slaughtered again.
but after he tried it twice, he never came online again.
