There’s a source stating the MICA EM has a seeker of 7 degrees width which got implemented, nothing necessarily to do with it being better than other fox 3 seekers which lack necessary info.
There’s a reason why no one was complaining about the MICA being broken when it was only found on the Mirage 2000-5F in the beginning. M2K-5F with MICA was still regarded as a strong vehicle but not necessarily the best compared to Gripen and F-15E before the addition of Rafale/Eurofighter.
Because when the MICA EM was only found on the Mirage 2000-5F, it had an identical seeker to everyone else. It was buffed end of Feb this year (after the Rafale was added) making it hard to notch.
Your own comment for the rough date of this change:
This is why the MICA-EM is hated when its on the Rafale and wasnt quite so hated on the Mirage (though it has always been one of the strongest in game). Especially annoying when Aim-120C5 has been denied this upgrade as well.
Also cant dismiss the fact the Rafale also has the best radar in game and the second best FM these days (was the best before it finally got nerfed)
No, the real difference is that with m2k 5f you are forced to go defensive everytime a missile go for you but with rafale you actually have a flight model that allows to maneuver fully and keep decent speed overall.
If you lose against a mirage 2k with any 14.0 plane “because mica” the problem is how you are playing.
This plane is mostly good because it has 2 extra fake missiles which it shouldn’t otherwise playing it is not in anyway nice.
If another plane with a powerful radar its close to the target the missile change the objetive to it
To do this without making ARB commit suicide you’d need to implement some massive changes to the mode.
Maybe stealth? (This is a suggestion because im stupid and dont know what else to say)
Good points made. However I think instead of completely removing it outright is a bad move. It should instead be reduced again. This time around I hope for at least a reduction down to between 10 - 20 meters above ground, MAYBE 5 - 10 but even that’s a bit much given the different terrain types across most maps.
As for map sizes… Gaijin recently introduced the Falklands map which is 130 x 130 km. A bit over the usual max of 128 x 128 km, so it was nice to see something different. However as I understand it current game engine (on top of other considerations such as whether or not it’s playable across all platforms, not just PC or next generation PS5 and Xbox Series consoles) constraints and (through the eyes of Gaijin) drastically bigger maps simply aren’t needed at the moment so getting bigger (>130 x 130 km) maps are unlikely.
The best option would be setting it to an IRL level on a missile by missile basis (if data can be found).
So for example. I think AMRAAM is 40m and Skyflash I think is 33m (though technically thats not due to MP, but prox fuse related issues)
Though 60% of that map is completely wasted due to bad design.
So its actually not really that much bigger than any other map, in fact its probably smaller than a few.
So furballs would just move to the bodies of water as that’s the only area where you would be able to reliably MP if it was set to 10-20m.
On maps without water MP would be pretty much unachievable.
If MP was set any lower it would be nearly impossible to MP high topdown aspect launches as even the smallest yield fox3 would proxy you from exploding below. The difference between the r27ER and r77 is noticeable, but if set to 10-20m that gap would close.
It would probably be the end of the furball and whatever team can take control of high alt wins.
And? What’s the problem? It seems like that would be a small thing for the average player to improve upon. It isn’t rocket science to simply turn 90 degrees, drop 2-3 chaff and turn away while changing course/altitude to defeat radar missile(s). Multipath should never be anyone’s first line of defence against radar missiles as it is unreliable even if you do it right. You can’t tell me you haven’t had scenarios where you’re well below the current multipath height and you still get hit either directly or by splash damage. This is exactly why learning to properly defend against missiles will help you more than relying on just one unreliable “technique”.
As for the maps… it’s all about strategy and even if what I suggested came to be, it would be a lot harder to MP even above water as missiles (or rather, the splash damage from said missiles) would hit you with higher efficiency ie it would happen more often than not. So really, your only defence against all radar missiles is to notch, chaff and change course/altitude.
Notching one missile just to headbutt another feels great.
I’m pretty sure many Air players would love that.
“just notch” is my favourite advice when you face 16 enemy planes that can carry up to 12 missiles each lol
you forget 4th gens such as the F-18 fighting 3rd gens like the F-4E, or F-14 vs MiG-23
Just notch 2-3 missiles fired at you from different angles at the same time.
Removing MP or reducing it to useless levels would be a suicide for ARB in this state of the game.
I want to know what exact scenarios you run into where this is even possible… are you intentionally flying into the chaos?
No, I’m keeping my cool and going around, trying to find a way to catch people off guard.
Only problem is, by the time I come around, it’s already 5v1 or 1v5 and the game is pretty much over.
Furballs are a thing for a reason.
You say its like a bad thing.
We didn’t pretend it balance… Gaijin did.
