The S4 still sees amraams at 12.3 what are you talking about?? It’s literally the difference between seeing planes that carry like 4 amraams as opposed to 8 or something like on the F-15. These are two basically identical planes being treated more differently than they should when theres other examples in game that don’t do that
I know you have issues with like, message permanence and all. But you like, had this huge cry over them seeing ARH missiles if it went to 12.7
My bad for thinking you could put the 2 together.
Notice how he says nothing about the rest of the post? Curious.
Anyways, this isnt worth talking about with you anymore.
You like to move the goal post, or adhoc rationalization. So, no one is ever gonna “win” this topic against you.
Are we talking about the aircraft or are we talking about me? Because you don’t have good reasons for your balancing other than “your argument sucks” even though I’m showing you why the S4 and S5 being treated differently doesn’t make sense.
Look man. I dont think in this entire chat have you provided a real reason why the S4 and S5 shouldnt be 12.7, or why they should be 12.3.
I mean, you had some at the start when you were arguing with Ron. At this point youre not really providing any real information other than “i think it should be”. Youre rejecting all data, moving goal post, and not really acknowledging information that proves many of your points wrong.
How can you say this, but reject that the S4 is over performing on average at 12.3, while the S5 isnt? Theyre identical in performance outside like, chaff or something.
Dude. This statement implies the statistical numbers or “combat effectiveness” is what matters to you here, or for accurate balancing.
and then complain when the numbers dont support you. Which is just moving the goal post.
Then when called out on it,
You shift the argument into something thats well past.
And then, completely ignore this part of the reply.
Look.
Im happy you express your opinion even when faced with the truth.
Theres no way you think 1.25 KDR and a 55% WR is “overperforming”. Thats a joke
Notice how he ignored everything else in the post.
Do I need to when you think slightly above average is over performing?
like i said he is only deflecting so that he dosent have to engage in a proper argument
1 Like
oh man the mirage can get one kill and maybe have a quarter of a chance of getting another kill in a match, its over performing!!!
so when did anyone, BESIDES YOU, say that it is overperforming?
show me
He’ll point it to me. Technically i did, but it isnt wrong.
but the f15a suffered so much against 14.0 planes with all their fox3 missiles
so ofc it needed to move down /s
man its almost as if moving stuff down in br instead of up is a bad idea
1 Like
I think the worst change they did that I haven’t seen anyone talk about, is the Shenyang F5 moving down to 9.0 because why the fuck not, let’s get more chinese whales to spend their small salaries on another artificially underbr’d bias mobile
oops, used old info on this one, turns out it’s been powercrept for years.
how tf is the shenyang f-5 going to 9.0 bad lol. That thing is literally just a mig 17 pf but with 9b rip offs, it is not even close to being on the same level as something like a mig-19pt and has been over br’d since forever
My bad, I used old vids of the shenyang to check out its performance before I found more recent info on it, it used to be excellent but now it’s downright sad to fly, I know that the lim 5p is already pretty good so I guess the shenyang will be the better lim5p then.
1 Like
Here is a rare one I don’t think many players remember:
MiG-17AS 9.0 - > 8.7: It’s the same as the current TT MiG-17 with the only difference being that it can carry a pair of reverse engineered AIM-9Bs which shouldn’t warrant it being the same BR as the Demon and being able to face the F-4C, F-1, the French F-8E, Mirages and the Draaken in a full uptier.
This idea was also made with the assumption that the 9.0+ bracket doesn’t get decompress, also does gaijin even remember that the MiG-17AS exists? because it was 9.0 when I got it waaay back in 2019
P-47D-25: 4.0 → 4.3
In addition to the change of BR, I also propose increasing its boost pressure from 56 inches of Hg to 64 inches of Hg. Currently, both D-22 and D-25 are producing the same horsepower at WEP with the 56" boost. However, the D-25 is considered to have a marginally worse flight performance than the D-22 due to the larger fuel capacity.
It would be nice to adjust the P-47D-25’s engine settings to better differentiate it from the P-47D-22 in terms of engine performance. That means the D-22 would remain at 56" boost with a power rating of 2,300 bhp at WEP, while the D-25 would use at 64" boost, producing 2,535 bhp. The D-28 in-game uses a 70" boost. Having all three variants modeled with their different boost settings would produce a nice and clear progression in performance between them.
It had been bug-reported to increase the D-25’s boost power, but, while it was accepted, the developers think 64" is a lot and will change the aircraft’s performance quite significantly, so they will deny it for now. Hence, I am writing the proposed change here for now until the next BR changes feedback thread is open, and I will copy and paste this proposal over there.
Now its 9.0…
Identical performance, but the F-5 keeps the 37 so its cool.
Another tech tree jet becomes pointless to play?