90 replies to this topic

[Anjian]

The difference between WoT and War Thunder is that WoT virtually puts all of the tank variants into one or two tier entrants. Thus if you start with the tank, you may start with it woefully underpowered and by the time you progressed through the modules, it may also be by then, woefully overpowered (e.g. like the old KV-1s).

War Thunder keeps tank variants separate and spread out across tiers. For example, the first Panzer IVs start at BR 2.3 and the last ends up at BR 4.7. This is much more accurate in their chronological matching. The Panzer IV E and F1 gets to meet early 1940 tanks, and actually overpower them thank to a HEAT shell. And what's wrong with the Panzer IV (by then J and H models) meeting T-34-85s and KV-2s? That's what they really did meet in the war. KV-2s in War Thunder themselves don't have it easy, as they face Tigers and Panthers, and T-34-85s can face King Tigers and M26 Pershings. Which by the way are also proper contemporary.

If we take the way WoT used its KV-1S at Tier 6 as a single upgradable tank, in War Thunder, that is spread out in three versions. The standard KV-1S with the 76mm gun at BR 4.3, which is the stock KV-1S in WoT, the KV-85 with the 85mm gun at BR 5.3, equivalent to the middle upgrades of the KV-1S, and the KV-122 with the 122mm gun which is a premium at BR 6.0. That is quite a wide spread. WoT has split the KV-1S into two tanks, but the second tank, which is KV-85, still has a 100mm and a 122mm at Tier 6 while defaulting with an 85mm.

Furthermore, the BRs do change unlike WoT where tiers are much more static. The T-34-85 was originally at 5.7, suffered from that, went down to 5.3, was overpowering at that Tier, then as of this February BR changes, back to 5.7. Latest change also puts down the Tiger E and Porsche Tiger premium from 6.0 to 5.7.

The flexibility of the BR (Battle Rating) system also means vehicles can have different BRs at Arcade vs. Realistic/Simulation mode. Essentially Battle Rating combines the vehicles static attributes (specs and so on) to the server performance (KDR, W/L rates, damage rates). That is something I might actually like to see in MWO, though it differs from the BV or Battle Value which is based only on static attributes.

In my view War Thunder should have tightened the match spread from 1.0 to 0.7. At 1.0, the T-34-85 at 5.7 meets the Panzer IVH at 4.7 to seal club, and the King Tiger at 6.7 to get seal clubbed. At a 0.7 spread, the T-34-85 will only meet up to the the Panther F or M26 Pershing at 6.3, and down to 5.0 tanks like M4A2 with the 76mm long barrel. However, this reduces the queue size the matchmaker will deal with and would create longer match times, allegedly. A BR 0.7 spread appears to be the equivalent of WoT's 1.0 tier, and so a BR 1.0 spread is like WoT 1.3 to 1.5 versus WoT's 2 tier spread.

The oscillating seal clubbing/getting seal clubbed isn't exactly the best gaming experience but exploiting unfairness is actually a feature in both games, as it keeps the games dynamic and interesting. Or at least, not boring. Furthermore, they have a true historical lore to live up to, better to be a bit unfair and keep (some) of the authentic nature of the tanks than manipulate the numbers to an extent the tanks are nothing more than skins to arcade items. While Battletech is all fictional and works only with the lore tabletop baggage, not with historical baggage.

The seal clubber/seal clubbed position also means you have to vary your tactics. If you are in the seal clubber position, you need to take responsibility, lead and be aggressive (just not fool hardy). You have to dominate the game. If you are in the seal clubbed position, you have to play support to your team's seal clubbers, which can be decisive at the crucial moment.

Edited by Anjian, 17 February 2017 - 06:51 PM.

[Anjian]

Here is another way to explain a hierarchy or multi tier system vs. a single flat tier system like MWO uses. There are many games that use both these tier models.

Let's take a theoretical game with 50 vehicles. In a multi tier system, the 50 vehicles are divided into five factions with 10 tiers, with five tech trees. In a single tier system, all 50 vehicles are fitted in a single tier.

There are pro and cons on each model. The multi tiered system will have to accept some fundamental imbalance to make it work and even make that imbalance a feature point.

The single tiered system does not come off from this easily, it also has glaring flaws in balancing.

In the multi tier system, a vehicle is only balanced only against 4 other vehicles.

In a single tier system, a vehicle has to be balanced against 49 other vehicles. That takes enormous work, and this has the potential to trap resources that would otherwise be used with content creation. The other catch with this system is the ability for one vehicle to be distinguished from the others. With only four other vehicles, that seems easier to create a flavor. But with 49 other vehicles, the vehicle can be drowned out among others. This leads to gimmicking and quirking each new vehicle to make them 'special' from the rest, but such gimmicks and quirks on their own also pose a potential balancing issue, which leads to more balancing work, which draws more resources to the task.

As more and more vehicles add to the set, the burden becomes enormous. If we expand the set to 300 vehicles, 300 vehicles in a single tier is just a crazy mess, compared to an organized hierarchy and structure that brings (attempts to at least) order to 300 vehicles.