I wonder where the 44% WR for the USSR actually is?

Mess Room
1

I think Gaijin is manipulating the stats( 56/44% WR for Germany). I play USSR only, because I see no reason why to boost tryhard, blatantly OP nation even more.

At this moment my winrate is about 25%. I am not the best FPS player and still I am nearly always on the top of the score board. This is saying one thing - all decent players are playing completely disbalanced faction and are stacking Germnay. USSR has full team in 1/3 of the matches. Something has to be done about this in the future. Fighting better guns, better vehicles, better players and higher numbers is really not entertaining.

As the gameplay is very arcadish I see no reason why there is no balancing whatsoever. I also think that number of tanks spawns should be reduced and assault squads should have less men. There is simply no reason why to use anything else like 2 assault squads and heavy machine gunners. We can see how brutaly overpowered MP41 is.

edit: I can see that USSR is more popular on the RU servers (I am playing on EU) and there could be different results. On EU it is just a disgusting German dominance.

4 Likes
2

What’s why me and Grand master Chuk always pay a visit to our dear EU friends=D. Most thing you say is a real

1 Like
3

It’s probably all on the Eastern Europe server during central Russia prime time. Things aren’t particularly good for USSR even there, but it’s distinctly better than anywhere else.

Maybe they should consider forcing “play on any side” function during closed beta to make sure the testing isn’t horribly skewed. But then again, the ones dominating are going to protest and that’s the majority for you. They wouldn’t have been dominating nearly as hard if they weren’t.

3 Likes
4

And have every German main leave every match until they get Germany, until they get fed up and just quit the game?

2 Likes
5

i strongly disagree.

especially because no one will play a game where if you get the luck of playing the faction over and over, you will get a punch in the face just because you will end up playing the other faction, having no equipment at all.

as i would like to play with one faction, or another, forcing as we already saw during enlisted " life time " brings no good things at all.

since the germans got weapons nerfed, we still lost a couple of people. surely the USSR gained a few of those few ( while the other few, entirely left the game )

i do understand that the current situation which it’s also making people leave.

the problem is it’s in numbers.
we do not have enough people to play both sides.
ending up having more people on one side, and others to the other.

but personally speaking
i still have to understand where those complain comes from. like, define blatantly op nation.
i don’t see any evidence of germans weapons being superior. just because they do the job?
you played only ussr as you stated. and here is your initial problem. you don’t know anything about the axis. as makin an opinion not knowing both sides. it’s a bit lazy. i’ll just say that.
and speaking for the axis side,
they have better win rate because there are more people playing the german side. and those people, actually co-operate each other.

while in the USSR as i can speak for them, since i managed to reach a good campaign level with them and played with them on others versions, there are bots rather than people in the first place. and those players prefer camping making tons of kill insthead of thinking for the objective.

enjoying a game is that reallya tryharding thing?

it really depends which balance are we talking about.

because if you want to make the germans a nail shooter reducing even more their weapons ( from their already 20% nerf from previous alphas to make it 40%) it ain’t gonna change a damn thing. you are just gonna reverse the problem.

sorry to sound a bit childish, but this is preatty much debatable.

undenayable truth here.
and i do think indeed that this weapon should have at least more recoil in each bursts. in order to balance it.

it might be dued to the lack of other nations present in the game.

we still have to see result from normandy. but i can tell things were quite balanced when many of us tested as battles were not just filled with bots…

although, the moscow campaign was almost empty as some people claimed.

unfortunally. i wasn’t there, and i only tested normandy in my game period as i’m usually quite busy.

but i don’t know. maybe it’s just me.

2 Likes
6

Is it better to have every Soviet main quit the game instead? Just because they are in the minority doesn’t mean the game won’t become unplayable without them (at least while we only have one campaign with only 2 factions). It’s supposed to be closed beta, we are supposed to be testing. Even without that argument, it can hardly be considered a playable state when one faction not only barely wins but also barely has players.

I do understand the reasons why it may not be a good idea to force everyone into playing as both factions, though. That’s why I used the word “maybe” in front of the whole section.

1 Like
7

Personally for me a guaranteed win isn’t “sporting” so there’s no enjoyment in a game that requires no effort on your part. I’ll never understand the people who only enjoy a game when they can’t lose if they tried.

Actually a good point, nothing of value is really lost with German mains quitting because they queued Russia once. Without a Russian playerbase the game is guaranteed to die.

8

If players are forced to play a faction, then progression should happen for both sides. We won’t get the chance to test majority of the equipment otherwise.

1 Like
9

It’s a tough situation. Perhaps it would be best for developers to search for other solutions. Either way a solution is needed. This problem may persist even after launch (even with tons of players in the queue) and players are going to be a lot less forgiving at that point.

10

i would agree.

and i certainly do, but if you win, you get more experience…

i personally don’t mind, because believe me or not, even if lose in enlisted, every moment it’s pure fun for me. i know that sounds strange.

but you have to realize and give credits when you lose against the other team. they played better, and there is no shame in that. although, as i said, it’s what makes this game " good ". the settings, the opportunities, the bots, the massive squads, where everything can happen.

for the rest, i don’t mind loosing as i’m there to play a game and disconnect for a few hours from reality.

that’s what i think, and what i ment.
games should be more for fun, rather than getting competitive. and you can’t force someone on how they should play a game.

1 Like
11

The winrate is usually grabbed globally. That being said, I’ve noticed that there seems to be an increase in USSR wins on EU. It most likely has to do with the fact that more and more people are getting better gear for their respective factions, and as the hard stats (on guns & gear, not your own skill) are currently in favour for the Soviets, I’m expecting them to start winning the majority sooner or later.

12

You dont get an increased winrate by forcing people to play Soviets.
People will play if it is fun.
Forcing someone to do something is not fun.
Soviets are simply not fun enough for the majority of players so they stop playing them.
This is a fault of the developers, not the players.

13

There’s plenty of ways to break up one-sided playerbases.

The long term is to eventually implement a War Thunder mutli-nation matchmaking system.

The short term apart from forcing “queue both sides” is to go the war thunder route again with mixed-nation battles. Except of course something would need to be done to unify uniforms.

Actually now that I think of it, why not unify progression until there’s a better solution?
German mains wouldn’t quit if, when they’re forced to play Russia, they would have the Russian equivalents of everything they have on the German side.

14

I can easily mantain 90% WR with the Germany, but I quit playing them because the wins were more like automatic.

Probably the biggest problem is the quality of the player base. I can agree on that.

If you compare weapons - bolt action are bolt actions and they are weapons where skill determines the outcome. But if you compare SMGs there is MP41 and MP40 on one side and PPD, PPK on the other. The drum on the PPD is very strong and I think it is actually the best weapon for close quarter combat, but MP variants are much more versatile. If your squad is cought on the open space a single MP41 can wipe you easily 100-150m afar. You cannot do anything similar with the USSR smgs.

The second problem I see is the variety of tanks. PZ II is all arround good against infantry and can take out all tanks frontaly. Nothing you can dream of with T-60. Pz III s are much more survivable than the BT and T-26 just because they have 5 crewmembers and are hard to oneshot.

4 Likes
15

This 100%
Progression between the two sides should be 100% shared.

16

I do agree that the MP41 is above curve in terms of power and efficiency and should get a recoil increase, other than that the weapons are mostly balanced.

T-60 can take out all but the Pz2. But in return it is more compact and has double the magazine size.
Just flank with it.

Pz3B is even more trash than the T-26. Both are bad to the point they should never be used.
Pz3E is somewhat more survivable, sure, but goes nowhere near as fast as the BT-7, and the BT-7’s HE is quite literally over 10x as powerful than that of the Pz3.

The tanks are honestly balanced quite well. The progression is simply flipped, as the Pz2 and T-60 are more difficult to use than Pz3s etc, and are more obnoxious when pitted against each other. Pz3B needs to be replaced by the Pz38t as the 3B was never used in moscow, while the 38t was pretty common during the time and would be balanced when put across the T-26 in unlocks. The only other change I would ever see happening here is the change of the Pz2 to the earlier variant with the slightly thinner frontal armor plates, but that one does not exist in war thunder rn.

Knowing gaijin they will reduce XP gain for your faction by 50% to give that 50% to the faction you do not play. So you lose 50% of your progression speed for the faction you are interested in. We’ve had this discussion before. Sharing XP will only make things worse for your main faction unless you actually want to play both.

17

That’s the problem. The Panzer II just spawnkills everything hull-down and there isn’t a thing that can be done to counter it unless you can fight your way across the enemy team and multiple killzones to come at it from the opposite spawn.

The panzer II doesn’t have to flank. it’s unacceptable that it can get away with putting in half the effort of Soviet tankers for greater effect.

1 Like
18

That’s outright wrong lmao. You can angle it for one and be more or less immune to the T-60. And you’ve got the dual MG34s which are better than the T-60s 20mm at killing infantry because the reload for them isn’t positively glacial. Slav coax MGs are almost completely worthless with the low firerate to say the least. The 37 also positively slaps tanks even if the HE is still dogshit.
And I’ll be honest, I thought the PzIIIB was going to be a useless turdbox on par with the T-26 until I got it myself and crunch skulls with it left and right. It’s an amazing tank for AT and anti-infantry.

It’s funny because it’s still absolutely dogshit unless you’re lobbing it into a room over and over and over.

:joy:
Only for a certain side.

1 Like
19

Not greater effect, as you have half the magazine size.
A well positioned Pz2 will do less damage than a well positioned T-60.

Besides, if you get spawncamped, with the exception of a few maps, it is often a result of your team being uncapable of pushing. That stuff just happens and unless you get a KV-1 or something stupidly OP like that, you won’t be able to anything about it.

20

Half the mag size but also nearly half the reload downtime. Nevermind the MG34 coax that is just as effective as the 20mm at killing infantry.