no thats just not true, in that thread there are no sources that would give us an idea of how amraams would pull off the rails or shortly after.
which is what we wouldve need to proove that the amraam was overperfoming or right now underperfoming, there are no numbers that would support the nerf that gaijin did, nor are there numbers that would support it pulling as hard as it does, we know the amraam can achieve a max overload of roughly 30/35 gs, anything other than that was arbitrary on gaijin’s part, which wouldnt be an issue if they actually came out with the math or the reasoning, right now we’re left with the least agile top tier missile by far and its absolutely terrible.
there isnt much to argue anymore we can try to find sources but we really shouldnt need to at this point, when there is a lack of information this large balance should take the forefront.
Also operating on a basis that C5 would at a bare minimum continue to match the base A/B performance in all regards unless a source states otherwise, so C5 would probably exceed the first 2 reports, but if its based upon a percentage upgrade over the A/B then buffing the A/B would in turn buff the C5
It’s from the Tornado F.3 manual so is either AIM-120B or AIM-120C-5. I believe it is likely written about AIM-120B as the AIM-120C-5 seems to be an afterthought for that section.
quite literally there artificially nerfed there only 13.0 cause the aim54 cause people complained alot who dont know how to notch its like one chaff basically and dont fly in straight line the only buff theyve gotten is a slight seeker buff
still dont perform anywhere close to IRL while misslies like R27ER over perform seeker wise but ya know america is op or something
They were improved from 15 G to 17 G; the timing was probably when the Iranian F-14 was introduced. I’m not aware of the AIM-54 seeker being improved.
It’s obvious why the F-14B sits at 13.0, since it’s significantly better than the F-14A. You don’t have to use the AIM-54 anyway — you can also use the AIM-7.
Unfortunately, the good times for the F-14 are over, and that’s something you just have to accept. I only played the F-14B, and that was a long time ago. Back then, the AIM-54s were quite strong if you knew how to use them properly
its stats are good because good players play it thats the only reason everyone whos average will probably just skip it since its foldered now
stats balacning is flawed cause ive seen vehicles like SU33 because noobs play them they get a lowered br even though ive seen people with a near 6.8KD ratio in them cause 8 R27ERs and 4 R73s are OP at 13.0
why you think The M48A2C sat at 7.3 for a decade while the american one was 7.7
mind you there are many vehicles that have ABSURD KDs and dont get raised
many 13.0s are way better than it its closer to a 12.7 in performance also consider what it faces which is mostly F18 wallet monkeys who fly in straight line and die
mind you F14B still has same load out as 12.3 with a worse Radar by a country mile
but anything can be strong in right hands like what ?
so if a bunch of experinced players play the HE-51 and get 3.0 kds should it be raised in br ? and when a new player plays it and doesnt do aswell should it be dropped ?
stat balancing is flawed fundamentally
F14B has a higher KD RATIO than the F15A, SU33, SU27, F2A ADTW so should we drop all these planes in BR ?
balancing based on the vehicles actual performance is how it should be done otherwise you get vehicles that baloon in br that arent worthy of those brs
for example 6.7 T44 being one
the SU33 wouldn’t be 13.0 if it wasn’t a squadron SU27 is just as op honestly
and the AIM-54 does not justify the BR increase F14B could easily Be a 12.7 without being absurd you can carry same amount of sparrows as the F/A-18A and carry same amount of 9Ls while having a worse radar and flight model
