all i ask.
Give T10 the same loadouts as GR.7 for a 12.3 preset. theres times ill want to play 11.3 but there is literally zero reason to hold aircraft back from access to weapons anymore
3 Likes
This is great! With this we can even make as small events reward modications. This will give a a bigger br range without the need to grind a hole new vehicle.
Example: An event that gives the F6F-5 Hellcat a sparrow modification. What br would that be? I have no idea. But I shure want it!
2 Likes
Got a couple questions. This primarily relates to tornado F.3 and F.3 late but im sure theres several more examples that this question will affect.
Aircraft variants where theres an “early” and “late” variant of in game despite having no changes other than weapons or gadgets (countermeasure pods, targeting pods, ARMs and other), will one be removed with the remaining inheriting its weapon loadouts?
For aircraft where the difference is just software to integrate different weapons, will that become a modification that can be unlocked and then toggled on/off for certain BRs?
Wowie. Thank you, Gaijin.
1 Like
They pretty much say it if someone reads it.
The planes will come with a basic BR that you can’t go below and it is the BR they have as stock and maybe up to a point.
For example, F-5A can carry AIM-9B/E/J/P/P-4 and some of them even 9L. Now you get the plane at 10.7 and it gets even 9Ps without BR variation. But since the plane can carry 9P-4 (commonly) , they can add 9P-4 and rate it as 11.0 modification.
In comparison you have F-5E. It starts with 9J/P at 11.0. Add 9P-4 or 9L and play 11.3.
F-15E basic is 14.3. Commonly at that BR you may have 120A/Bs , 9Ms. But they can add 120D and 9X and get it 15.0 (for example).
That system as they describe it it’s not to…downtier vehicles just to find a way to “equalize” BRs especially since vehicles nowdays may be decades old operationally with minor upgrades (that the game doesn’t have to picture 1:1 in detail yet) , but can carry more modern armament that they "didn’t want to give them " because they’d had to uptier them a lot and that would be by basis.
On the other hand, you have vehicles like the Pakistani F-6C that practically have uptiered themselves because of the given option in armament, AIM-9P. Now it should be possible to downtier it to the other MiG 19 levels without the missiles (or with just 9B) and uptier it with 9Ps. In that case they will change the basis and link the “current” 9.7 (or whatever they want) to 9P.
They said it will be a basic BR . But in the end, let’s say it’s possible to downtier the F-15E to 13.0 , with Sparrows and 9L, do you really believe it is more dangerous than a F-14D in the same configuration? Or an F-16C or A in the same config?
Because if you are in a 12.0 F-4J for example and you have it against you , you’re pretty much in the same position.
1 Like
I have a serious question/ suggestion that I would like to pose…
Given that BRs are often adjusted by economic earnings, could this mean planes with unreasonably high BRs due to base rushing earnings such as the F-104S TAF or the A-5C could play a lower BR by opting out of napalm bombs? and instead have their BRs set to a more appropriate lvl for their air to air capabilities?
I was doing a break down on the issue for the A-5C when the BR change thread was locked:
Spoiler
It is clear that this is a decision based of the game economy, not the actual performance of the aircraft itself:
Spoiler
As we can see from last months stats the A-5C has significantly lower K/D and K/S then the J-7D, it additionally has a negative K/D against ground targets. Despite this the A-5C has a significantly higher SL/RP earnings then other premiums at it’s BR which is the cause of the BR increase.
So how dose the A-5C earn so much more then it’s counterparts? Base bombing. The A-5C carries enough ordnance to destroy 2 bases and is capable of transonic flight while doing so.
Now here is the root case of the issue, it’s not the A-5C itself that is over preforming, it’s the Chinese incendiary bombs!
The 250-2 incendiary bomb contains 60kg of napalm-B
The USAs MK 77 mod.4 contains 207kg of napalm-B
Now how dose their damage compare to bases?
As we can see the 250-2s do identical damage to bombs almost 3.5x bigger!
This over performance means that 2x napalm bombs plus 8x Type 130 rockets will destroy a base.
Therefore rather then increasing the A-5Cs BR I propose that the 250-2 napalm bombs have their base damage reduced by 50%, this would require it to drop all 4 napalm bombs and some rockets on each base to destroy it, halving the number of bases it can destroy per flyout and reducing it’s earnings without up tiering it.
would it be possible to have multirole aircraft have separate “air to ground” and “air to air” modes balanced independently, rather then being balance of the highest posable economic earnings?
1 Like
Please give me mig25 without r40rd at like 10.3
Isn’t it the TDs that are the main issue?
I thought the r40rd was worse to fight because it is such a strong SARH.
Though probably not as strong compared to current buffed aim7s as the old ones.
It is, but you either need to be up high, or the Mig-25 needs to come down low (where it’s extremely vunrable) to trigger the MTI radar mode and you get a RWR warning.
The TD is like
2 Likes
Lol. That is true
1 Like
A mig-25 with only R-60s at 10.3/10.0 would be the ultimate B&Zer from hell though… you would die as much from ripping your wings off as to enemy fire… I love the idea! +1 from me!
1 Like
Just came here to say that this is a terrible idea and will backfire, and be a hell to balance.
It would’ve just been better to give aircraft rudimentary parts as stock rather than doing this.
It’s presets with access to more weapons, so they can balance each like they do any vehicle.
If it overperforms, the preset can go up in BR, which removes the issue that assigning fixed BR modifiers to weapon types would. And there is no issue with people bringing insanely powerful aircraft too low in BR, because in these cases there will very likely not be a preset to allow that.
I think for most fighters the lowest / basepreset will be current BR anyways, and this will just be used to add some more advanced weapons at a higher BR. Lower BR presets seem like they would mostly affect CAS platforms, which can then have their lowest preset also matched to flight performance.
The more I think abou this, the less I see this as actually an issue.
It’s their daily business already to balance a gazillion aircraft based on their capabilities, so they have a pretty good idea how BR’s are determined in their matchmaking system.
It will be more work of course, but they’re not “heading into the unknown” with that.
2 Likes
Or they could’ve just reduced the already awful stock grind and added necessary parts as stock. This is a ridiculously complicated way to get around the problem.
Ofc doing it the normal way would undercut profits, and that’s too much to ask. Good gameplay can’t actually come first.
Which doesn’t solve the issue of CAS aircraft that can’t be at an appropriate BR for their flight performance (mainly in GRB now since that was split), or aircraft like the F-5TH or F-16s that could often carry very advanced missiles like Python 4, IRIS-T, AIM-9X, but couldn’t be added at their current BRs and would require a fully new aircraft to be researched otherwise.
This feature is basically that, it’s taking what would currently be two (or more) separate aircraft that differ only in loadouts and making them a preset selection in the modification screen rather than forcing a player to do another full research.
It also opens up new vehicle types, like many COIN aircraft that were held back by having a poor balance between flight performance and advanced weaponry. Now they can be limited by default, and optionally have a mich higher BR preset allowing more advanced weapons that can be brought to higher BRs.
1 Like
You act as if Gaijin will take the F-15EX and let you go down to 12.7 with it only carrying sparrows or something…
1 Like
Exactly.
They never said “do whatever you want with it”, but clearly stated only authentic loadouts would be possible.
Also, the constantly thrown in “allows to seal-club” argument: No, the balancing will obviously be done in a way that the limited loadouts will result in an airframe so it’s not to able to seal-club with the resulting lowered BR, or it would not be lowered to such an extent. I mean why would they painstakingly balance everything out for 14 years (often with a lot of controversy and heat from the community, some deserved, a lot not) and then go “ok, fine, here, we throw it all to the winds…”
2 Likes
People genuinely forget that Gaijin is extremely conservative with their BR adjustments, I saw people literally complain how the Bison going to 13.3 with the R-77s is a joke – yet we have people whining that they’ll put people too low at the same time. Same goes for that wackass “min-maxing” argument, as if people don’t perma-queue the Rafale and SM2 already and exclusively play these vehicles to pad their stats.
4 Likes