Aim120C a thread that proves; gajin dont cares that shes too weak

[Zannafrancy]

Stats are irrelevant

[Circleati]

?

Why is how the vehicle performs irrelevant to a conversation about how the vehicle performs?

[Yak_Norris1]

@Zannafrancy

irrelevant

Statistics are not irrelevant.
Gaijin is making changes based on vehicle statistics

[Yak_Norris1]

The Aim-120A/B and C urgently need better manoeuvrability. Manoeuvrability is particularly important at ranges of less than 15 km

[Zannafrancy]

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.

[Zannafrancy]

Stop embarrassing yourself

[Yak_Norris1]

Stop complaining — you simply have a skill issue with the F-14. And besides, this is about the AIM-120, not the AIM-54

[Zannafrancy]

when did you last play f14s lmao, also you got a 35% winrate in it i doubt you have much ground to stand on

[Yak_Norris1]

So what? The last time I played it, it was still top tier — that was over two years ago…

[Necronomica]

He’s not entirely wrong. But he is also simplifying it a bit to much.

@Stona_WT

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.

[Yak_Norris1]

Yeah, that’s true.

I simplified it a bit too much

[Zannafrancy]

@Necronomica

@Stona_WT

Battle Ratings

i know is not wrong insofar as how gaijin works, but that is not a good way to judge an aircraft’s capabilities.

[Necronomica]

@Zannafrancy

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.

[Yak_Norris1]

But how are they supposed to do that then?
And on top of that, you’re contradicting yourself.

[Zannafrancy]

@Necronomica

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.

in context of the rest of the thread its fair to say it isnt

[Zannafrancy]

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

[Necronomica]

@Zannafrancy

its fair to say it isnt

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 )

[tripod2008]

Also another ejector launch video, I’d have to run the numbers to see what the maximum is achieved by the fins.

- YouTube

[kizvy]

damn it takes forever for it to start turning after being ejector launched compared to r-77-1, looks like it actually has to go 80m from the aircraft before it starts turning.
meanwhile other ejector launched missiles start turning while still underneath the aircraft
seems like aim 120 is forever going to be abysmal in turning

r771 example

[kizvy]

motor ignition at 366:840

you can see it visibly start turning around 367:719, so its fins probably start pulling around 0.1-3 seconds before this which roughly lines up with the fin delay expected from the tornado manual (0.6s)