At least the Community Manager (thanks again @Smin1080p_WT ) gives a response with details about the problem and what is needed to fix it, not like the “Bug Reporting Manager” who apparently prefers to ban than seriously respond to player problem requests xD.
And what’s more, all my current bug tickets have been closed with the same message…
but hey we like them gaijin, but sometimes I wonder what’s the point of wanting to get involved in the game
uh
What does it cost them to admit that they don’t want to add 2 more MICA for game balancing xD
They gave the Rafale an HMD it shouldnt have and its about 300kph too fast on the deck atm. You should stop complaining so much.
Edit: looks like the deck speed was fixed, my bad
It has nothing to do with balancing, posting random pictures doesn’t prove a capability that was officially added with a later standard.
Do the thing please
Satire?
Edit : my bad, another ETF player
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
tbf they could’ve simply went with export config to give it 2 extra pylons
You’ll note, they don’t acknowledge the fact that EFT is outperforming Rafale in ways it really oughtn’t to. After all, it’s only Rafale receiving favouritism in the form of a HMD it trialed.
This doesn’t work as an excuse anymore theres already been plenty of vehicles that have come to the game using munitions they’ve received from a certain year and then get retroactively given newer weapons from a more recent year like the Gripen the initial production Gripen C from the 90s couldn’t use the SDB/GBU-39 yet it was given these glide bombs which would make the aircraft a later standard from the late 2000s
There should be no issue giving the rafale a few extra missiles
Gripen C is not held to the MS standards. They would essentially have had to have added 4 or so different Gripen Cs. Instead, it is assumed to be able to receive the ordnance of the latest standard, if the weapon is in game.
Rafale F3R dictates the standard it is representative of.
EFT instantaneous turn rate is overperforming, ingame it can reach as high as 36 degrees per second.
The highest figure that I’ve seen anywhere for the Rafale is 35 degrees per second for ITR.
The EFT is well-established to perform worse than the Rafale in ITR.
Then change the name besides we still have vehicles in game whose designation doesn’t fit what munitions they carry
Change the name of Gripen C? It is still a Gripen C even if it receives the capability from the latest standards.
Nah, you don’t understand. Rafale’s the one receiving favouritsm, EFT is accurate without flaw.
your reading comprehension is subpar
So I really shouldn’t need to explain how discourse generally goes where “it” is usually used to refer to the most prevalent item of discussion. Which in this case was the differences in what you assumed to be a Gripen C of an early standard, and the standard we have in game. But I’m sure one of such sub par eloquence must know this, heaven forbid you sledge someone whilst maintaining inadequate grasp of English conversation patterns :p
Regardless, changing the name of F3R to F4 would not fix the issue. We’d still have a lot of work to do to bring it up to that standard. We are closer to F3R, and F3R is what they chose to give us.
Hey. Just to clarify, the Eurofighters loadout changes were regarding it’s stock air-to-air and subsequent air-to-air modification unlocks. As the unlock of new IR missiles prevented BVR missiles from being loaded stock. It had nothing to do with air-to-ground.
We’re still screwed by the pylon decision regardless. Notably more so than EFT on account of those pylons being the only ones capable of carrying air to ground, which EFT is not hindered by. It would be in the interest of fairness to resolve this.
EFT Showing Stock Payload not Eating any Air to Ground Pylons
Rafale Showing Stock Payload Eating All Air to Ground Pylons*
*Except GBU 24, but that’s not exactly comparable.
