Answers from the developers
Dear players,
We have another round of questions and answers for you, with War Thunder producer Vyacheslav Bulannikov!
Aviation
Q. When the “Starfighters” update was released, the Mach 2 F-104A/C models regularly faced non-supersonic aircraft as they were BR 9.7. In the most recent BR update, you fixed this by moving them to 10.0, but at the same time lowered the equally powerful Lightning F.6 down to 9.7 so it now is able to face exclusively 8.7-9.7 aircraft and outclass them with ease. What was the reason for this change? Could you please reconsider this and move it back to 10.0 so that all Mach 2 supersonics are above the 9.7 cutoff?
The reason is in both cases the same - the statistics and efficiency of the aircraft in game. In the case of F-104, it was over the maximum and in case of Lightning it was depressingly low. The ability to reach Mach 2 (which is usually at high altitudes and isn’t useful in the battles in War Thunder) will not guarantee a certain level of BR. It is just one of many characteristics of the aircraft.
Q. Ground Forces were recently extended to 10.7 BR, can you tell us when we can expect to see this for aircraft too? As it would help to spread out many of the jets with countermeasures from those that don't as well as early supersonics from later ones.
In short: when it becomes necessary and possible. More detailed: we have said many times that we are always very cautious about expanding the BR range and it will be made based on the statistics because in addition, an unobvious “benefit” in terms of balance there are many risks in the form of less interesting battles due to more homogeneous compositions and increased waiting times for obvious reasons.
Q. Air defense on airfields in the top ranks. It was a good suggestion to add 1-2 points with surface to air missiles. At the moment, a supersonic jet approaching at kph 800+, is able to vulture aircraft on the airfield and escape, taking minimal damage. It won’t be good to increase airfield AA’s damage and accuracy, so AA missiles look decisive, making enemy aircraft maneuver and dodge, thus granting some chance of survival for landed aircraft.
This is a difficult question. AI has a rather specific game task in the game: in the first place, not to shoot down (especially with a one-shot), but to warn about entering the restricted area. Only after an enemy aircraft stays in this area for some time, will the AA inflict critical damage and shoot them down as a result. In some aspects, missiles do have advantages over artillery in this task, but they also have disadvantages. However, I suppose that over time, the growth of the capabilities of jet aircraft in the game will force the introduction of missile weapons for the AI, so we will discuss this issue, but so far without terms and guarantees.
Ground Forces
Q. Is the position of ammunition unlocks being reconsidered? Examples of unequal distribution would be the Leclerc and Type 90. These tanks have to unlock their more powerful APFSDS ammunition, which is placed in tier 4, using the recently adjusted DM12 shell. Comparable tanks unlock their APFSDS ammunition in lower tiers or are provided with APFSDS ammunition in stock configuration.
Yes, it is possible and planned for it to happen for vehicles of rank VI-VII which has the default HEAT shell.
Q. Are there any considerations underway for M833 ammo for the M1/IPM1 and L26 for Challenger 1 Mk 3 / L27 for Challenger 2 respectively?
We plan to add the M833 shell for IPM1. The British Challenger 1 Mk.3 and Challenger 2 don’t need a new shell yet as the statistics show.
Ground SB
Q. Can you tell us if you plan to improve the quality of composition of Ground Battle lineups in Simulator to remove the issue of the same vehicles facing each other?
Technically it is impossible to make the ground vehicles of one nation fighting on two teams at once. Currently there is a mechanic that allows you to query the location of an ally and so allows you to determine if you have an ally or enemy in front of you. In addition the vehicles of different nations have different camouflages and in the case of Italian tanks also additional identification marks which also helps to determine the ownership of the vehicle. We don’t plan to remove similar vehicles from the setups because players who are researching specific game nation trees will simply lose the opportunity to play in SB mode.
Q. When will old SB mode be back and when will the RP test be over?
New RP system works fine. This mode has become more popular, and we’ll keep it. The test is over indeed, but we are still working on the win rate adjustments for every vehicle setup.
Q. Why was the RP mode implemented for SB mixed battles? - having vehicle setups obviously unbalanced
The balance of setups is constantly a work in progress and can only be completed if the addition of new vehicles and new weapons for old vehicles stops. Each major update introduces new tanks and aircraft that have an impact on the win rate. The system of RP respawns is aimed at improving the "balance" not only from the statistical point of view, but also for gameplay, because after the loss of a certain type of vehicle, it allows you to take another, more suitable for the situation. At the same time, by changing the cost of the respawn, you can reduce the influence on the victory rate of some vehicles.
Q. Why is the test going on for all SB setups?
The RP system has been implemented for all setups in order to receive win rate change data as soon as possible, and allowing us to react on these changes quickly. Besides, by simultaneously enabling the RP system for all setups we have an opportunity to get precise data for analysis of changes between old and new SB modes.
Q. Why did you implement the new system without any changes from the last testing session, and without taking into consideration previous feedback?
When developing the current system, not only the feedback from the previous player testing was used, but also the statistics and online data, which showed the audience's interest in this format. The number of battles are now slightly higher than under the old respawn system.
In previous tests, the mode was based not only on the respawns for the RP, but also on the allied markers on the minimap. This innovation drew the most criticism from the players, who perceived it as a way to deal with team killers, and not as a team interaction. At the same time, we believe that this is one of the weak points of the mode, because when re-spawning, the player can no longer understand where the battle is taking place, what tactics need to be applied and in what areas he will be more useful. Adding markers to the minimap does not make it easier and faster to identify enemy vehicles, but it allows you to be more useful for your team.
Q. Why in some top-tier setups, the heavy tank costs are designated medium, and some SPGs (like Ferdinand) as heavies?
In top setups, the cost of heavy tanks respawns was equated to medium tanks and MBT, because they no longer provide the same protection against any type of shell as at medium tiers. This is true for 8_2_2 and 9_2 setups. For the 8_2 setup, we returned the respawn cost to 450 HP to improve the winrate.
At the same time, some vehicles might have an increased cost of respawn, for example, Ferdinand is equated to heavy tanks, because despite the lack of a turret, it has good armor and is protected from most tanks at its rank, as well as Jumbo, which had the highest efficiency in his setup and brought an imbalance in battles.
Q. Why can’t you change mounted weapons on an aircraft or helicopter on an airfield without losing the RP?
Changing the type of mounted weapon without losing RP would allow a player to respawn infinitely, ruining gameplay for others. Leaving the vehicle is now equal to losing it. Now every player has an equal amount of RP before the battle starts, allowing players to estimate and plan how many times they will be able to face the enemy.
Helicopters
Q. Can you tell us the status of the Longbow Hellfires on the Apache aircraft? These would appear to be a good counter to other more advanced helicopter weaponry already in game such as PARS 3 which already features "fire and forget", so such a system is not impossible to replicate.
At the moment we are not working on Longbow Hellfire missiles for the AH-64D. In comparison to the statistical inequality of the Tiger UHT, which required reworking of the PARS3, existing statistics of the AH-64D looks fine. Also, we’re always cautious to add ‘fire-and-forget’ equipment designed to destroy ground units. It has to be considered, that unlike PARS3, which use a thermal seeker from which you can hide the tank with special multispectral smoke, the AGM114L will be able to see the target through such smoke, plus it has a slightly longer launch range, and the helicopter itself can carry up to 16 ATGMs, unlike the Tiger UHT. All this seems to us to make such missiles too unbalanced to add at this stage.
Q. Can you share your thoughts on the proposed Swedish Helicopter tree from the community? Do you think it's viable to create a whole tree based on these examples of armed helicopters and it's something you would consider?
The author of the topic has done a good job but so far we can not comment on the implementation and even more about the timing of the Swedish helicopter tree. However as we have repeatedly said in terms of content we strive to give all game nations complete vehicle setups.
Q. In simulator ground battles, you can spawn into a helicopter twice with ATGMs right from the start of the battle. Could you please review this and change the system to something more appropriate like what was done with RB Ground Forces limiting Helicopters from overpowering ground battles with ATGMs at the start?
At the moment the statistics of the efficiency of the helicopters in SB is at an acceptable level, so we don’t plan to limit the respawns yet. It should be remembered that conditions in SB are different from those in RB: control type which will be used where the aircraft can respawn directly in the air.
Naval
Q. With the arrival of the Italian Fleet, we saw the first guided missile boat in the form of the Saetta P-494. Can we expect to see comparable ships for other nations soon?
At the moment we are investigating this issue. This type of the anti-ship missile with relatively short range and beam guide is quite rare and hasn’t been widely used, so there may be problems with adding it for all nations.
Q. Lots of maps with smaller ships seem to have very shallow areas around the spawns that hydrofoil ships such as PG.02, PGH-2 and now the Sparviero can get stuck on or beach themselves. Do you plan to add their historical functionality to allow them to fold up the hydrofoils for shallow waters? Or perhaps adjust the maps?
Yes, we have some plans for this issue. As they will be in a high degree of readiness, we will talk about them in more detail.
Misc
Q. Update “Regia Marina” included a lot of bug fixes and improvements with a smaller focus on content. It was great to see lots of attention being given solely to improvements and fixes! Can we expect to see more of such updates in between the larger content focused major updates?
Yes. In general it is our standard to release “minor” updates (when the third digit inside the version is changed) with a significant number of bug fixes between big content patches.
Q. The “Quarantine Maneuvers” event was very popular as it allowed people to try out vehicles in battles they wouldn't normally have and enjoy new gameplay experiences. Have you considered such an option perhaps to promote Helicopters EC and Naval Forces EC? For example perhaps a test event where anyone with Rank V unlocked can join special battles with Helicopter Lineups or Larger capital ship Lineups?
Yes, we are not excluding it.
The War Thunder Team
Comments (274)
first answer is a complete slap in the face, we balance vehicles such as the Lightning F.6 based on player performance, you the other peasants have fun suffering in your subsonic jets
exactly. Its not fair to balanced things based on stats exclusively. Stats don't tell the whole story behind the vehicle and result in some unfun situations like lightnings fight subsonics. they should balance vehicles based on a combination of community feedback, stats, and personal experience
All answers (1)_m0on, stats are a terrible way of balancing vehicles, it relies on the assumption that everyone who plays a vehicle is equally skilled, which is clearly not the case. Premiums will generally have a lot more weaker players using them meaning they get way lower br's than they deserve. Its basic statistics that the devs dont seem to understand.
According to Thunder Skill the Lightning (Since it was dropped to 9.7) is the worst performing 9.7 aircraft in K/D. The FGA.9 is literally 4 times more effective.
All answers (2)Conte_Baracca, My takeaway from the Lightning so far is that is needs just the right amount of aggressiveness and passiveness to succeed at 9.7 which in all fairness most players do not have the experience to provide,same with the "weird" gun mountage and the supersonic flight character that is absent at that BR prior. The Hunter FGA.9 on the other hand is one of the best and easiest jets to play, nose mounted 30s, plenty of ammo, Aim9Es,very sturdy and hard to rip structure,very fast, turns okay-ish/decently
Can we actually get an exposure of some kind with the statistics that the devs used to balance things out? I mean they always talked about it when there's a question about certain vehicles so at the very least we, the one that is affected by that specific vehicle can know what's going on with it, whether its overperforms or underperforms so we get a clarity and not too biased comparing it to our own experience with the vehicle.
A lot of reasons to be extremely careful with stats. But in general, yeah, would like to see SOMETHING from Gaijin. What stats do they use? How do they weight them? What formulas? Maybe even some sanitized numbers as examples.
Conte_Baracca, I think they use purely basic stats, and they wont tell us, if they will tell us, they will think of a math behind it to show how "hard" it is, or something like that. Realistically, not sure if they have programmed it, but I doubt, that they get stats for how often a tank is hit in certain location, and how often it is breached, details like that. What they do instead, is probably gathering W/L ratio, specific tank W/L and K/D numbers, which is affected by luck, player, and map, not vehicle.
At the very least post the vehicle's statistics (like the win rate, popularity or kill ratio) when they actually change the vehicle's in some way, that way we get a moment of clarity on how bad or how good it is outside of our experiences with it to the point that the devs said "Yeah, this needs to change.".
All answers (2)Knightmare49, I guess that showing their stats would be make them quite a laughing stock. Just looking at my own stats on this site gives me quite a picture - according to Gaijoob, I have spent some five hours and thirty minutes playing some bomber in RB. Now the funny thing - I do not fly bombers at all.
bro please STOP WW2 FROM SEEING MODERN ERA STUFF PLEASE
Some WW2 vehicles can take on post-war ones, and military vehicles were never designed to be balanced and offer a fair fight in the first place. If you remove some issues of the time hard to integrate in the game (reliability, fuel, production numbers, logistics...) and lock them in a time box, some vehicles / nations would completely crush opposition... and kill the matchmaking in this area. We can't have 800 players trying to join with the exact same "WW2 god tier" vehicle, and nobody to fight them because they're going to get crushed.
All answers (8)Ouiche, Ah, like the T29 taking on the Centauro? Or the Object 120 shooting Tiger IIs for target practice?
No. That would ridiculous overpower those with heavy late war vehicles like Germany.
All answers (7)TinyTinkerTank, Or Russia. Seriously, why do people keep bringing this up?
Most problems in this game are due to "the statistics show it is performing well/badly/okay." Unfortunately the devs dont play this game enough to know that 2 terrible players and one amazing player in an OP plane or tank gives it average statistics. This is why premium tanks and planes always seem to have lower br than they should, because all the low ranked players who buy it bring its statistics down covering the actual abilities of the vehicle
A prime example of premiums being at the wrong BR is the T29. The T29 is a tank with decent player stats due to how powerful it is. But the "stats" don't show just how potent it is in the hands of great player. I don't even bother playing the T32 due to it having a higher BR while also being wildly inferior to the T29. I mean, I have a KD that's nearly 11 in that tank. Point is that the ban and average players level out the tanks stats. Is it a 7.0? Not at all. It is DEFINITELY a 7.3.
All answers (1)CanadianSamurai, So it can fight 8.3s? You people whining about one vehicle instead of the BR up tiers are real smart..........
Exactly! The "statistics" they have are majorly dependent not from how a VEHICLE actually performs, what shells it is being hit by, where it is being hit, what vehicles it kills, etc., but their "statistics" are coming from how a player performs, W/L, K/D of specific vehicle, but not the details of it, the details only either an AI can tell, or them playing the game to see it for themselves. The whole issue is the fact that they base everything on statistics, and it's a bad practice.
So, as we can see, 10 Ka-50 and 52 killing at least 6 tanks per helicopter in Ground SB is totally acceptable. What a joke!
Russian Bias at its finest and yet they won't add the Longbow Hellfire to counter them... What a joke.
Same story in RB, Apache can just rinse the battlefield with 16 hellfire 2's from 8km away and there's nothing you can do to avoid it except hide behind a building and hope it goes away...
All answers (2)Aenonar, It's not really THAT hard to avoid those, I have done it multiple times if I have noticed Cobra or Apache using those. The trick is of course being in cover, but those are not fire and forget missiles, meaning that they have to have the lock on status, meaning that you have to pop smokes to kill the laser targeting on you. Those missiles then will land in your last location, or approximate last location known to him, since he can still guide it I assume, so he's blind firing it.
"The British Challenger 1 Mk.3 and Challenger 2 don’t need a new shell yet as the statistics show." Whatever your statistics are, they are wrong. The challenger tanks are among the worst (if not the worst) tanks at top tier. You get less people playing them, less bad players playing them, and most often their teams consist mainly of other nations. How many times does this need to be explained? It should be pretty obvious I would have thought.
With the movement of top tier to 10.7 I have been running 9.7 British. They have three tanks at that BR and I can categorically say they are competitive as hell with their stock ammo. Let alone their Tier IV upgrade to L23A1. I buy the stats. I haven't played the Chally 2 much.
Conte_Baracca, Chally 2 is not good, same as ever. CR1 is alright, but its turret armour is broken (380 mm frontally for a large portion). I would accept a move to br 10.0 if they fix the turret armour and give cr1 mk 3 l26. But it's clear their statistics are complete bogus. They fed us the same line for chieftain mk 5 being 8.7 for ages, look how that turned out. If they'd even actually say what these "statistics" were it would be nice.
Can you at least answer when we can expect a fix for CR1 turret armour after you broke it a couple months ago?
Q: Do you plan to ever put any serious amount of effort into improving naval and also heli EC?
I hope so.
Its sad how much you have to struggle to get into anything competitive in heli EC. US is the only nation that gets anything fun to play in the helicopter game mode from the start, but also has nothing else to offer until the Apache or Viper... I was going to list more issues here but i looked at the character limit and realized it won't fit. Maybe i should make a forum post instead.
All answers (1)PineCone227, These things have to go on Forum, that might be the only place where it is being heard more than here, because we have no idea if they even read comments that much, or they do, but they choose to ignore or not to reply.