The main problem that is and will keep US tree garbage, is that missiles are too easily notched. I don’t know if that is realistic but because of it, outranging the enemy doesn’t mean much.
Maybe newer missiles will have better seekers, but if they don’t, the F-22 won’t save US tree because it has a small loadout of aim-120 variants that will have very poor HOBS performance. The stealthy jets will probably be easily detected by aesa radars at 30km range anyway, so that also won’t make much of a difference.
2 Likes
The F-22 experience will probably be similar to the F-14 introduction, where no one can contest you at BVR in the early match, and most people will just chill and wait for the missiles to come at low altitude while flying to the side and notch. Then the F-22s will still have a good positional advantage at high altitude but with a limited loadout it won’t carry them that well.
A jet that does this right now quite well minus the stealth part is the typhoon aesa, but with a loadout that can actually put pressure.
2 Likes
In terms of kills per match the f14s are all 21st best or above out of 114 planes so uhhh not quite the worst
?
Why is how the vehicle performs irrelevant to a conversation about how the vehicle performs?
Statistics are not irrelevant.
1 Like
The Aim-120A/B and C urgently need better manoeuvrability. Manoeuvrability is particularly important at ranges of less than 15 km
Because it doesn’t say anything about the perfomance of said vehicle in a vacuum. Instead of using stats as a copout pray tell, what makes the f14b good.
Stop embarrassing yourself
Stop complaining — you simply have a skill issue with the F-14. And besides, this is about the AIM-120, not the AIM-54
when did you last play f14s lmao, also you got a 35% winrate in it i doubt you have much ground to stand on
So what? The last time I played it, it was still top tier — that was over two years ago…
He’s not entirely wrong. But he is also simplifying it a bit to much.
Battle Ratings
While we’re here, we’d like to give some additional context behind Battle Ratings and how they’re decided. Battle Ratings are decided based on how much a vehicle earns, but this is not purely economical. We use this metric because it’s all encompassing and considers every action a player makes with their vehicle, so this considers frags, assists, caps, and effectively every useful action a vehicle can perform all bundled into one universal metric.
This is the “Efficiency” of each vehicle and gives us a very well rounded perspective on all of its abilities and how it’s actually being used.
If a vehicle has high efficiency, it’s outperforming its contemporaries in multiple ways the majority of times it spawns on the map, and as a result may have to be increased in Battle Rating. Whereas a vehicle with low efficiency is not performing well across the board against what it fights, and may be moved down. However this is not purely a data driven process, we often consider additional factors such as the volume of players using a certain vehicle, its lineup, new features that may be altering performance in different ways etc — and this often leads us to delay a change we otherwise would have made to gather more information. Even though we do primarily go by this efficiency metric, we aren’t bound by it, and spend a lot of time each Battle Rating cycle to look over feedback for different perspectives and elements we may not have initially considered.
Ultimately, it’s very hard to balance a vehicle in a vacuum. On paper an aircraft might have incredible speed, or a tank might have great penetration for its Battle Rating, but this is cold data, in the sense that just because a vehicle on the surface has a very impressive asset, it doesn’t mean that asset guarantees high performance. It’s more about how a vehicle is actually functioning in the game, rather than weighing up its assets in isolation. So efficiency is good data to be informed by as it considers everything and everyone.
We’d like to note that when balancing aircraft before the introduction of separate Battle Ratings by mode, in the vast majority of cases the Battle Rating was set according to the performance for Air Battles, and not Ground Battles. We understand that many of you wanted a Battle Rating reduction for strike aircraft in Air Battles, so we have some additional answers for you on this below.
Yeah, that’s true.
I simplified it a bit too much
i know is not wrong insofar as how gaijin works, but that is not a good way to judge an aircraft’s capabilities.
You might think so, and you are free to that opinion, but his statement was in regards to how Gaijin does it and not how you think it should be done.
But how are they supposed to do that then?
in context of the rest of the thread its fair to say it isnt
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
He explicitly stated “Gaijin is […]” .
This is of topic now though, you can both go to this thread for balance discussions: ( [Discussion] Balance, Bias, Matchmaking and Battle Ratings )