If you don’t care about performance at all, then you’re simply not in a position to make balance assessments, simple as.
I bet you were on the same noisy crowd that said the F-15A was fine at 13.0.
I simply care about learning about the planes and their weaponry. I simply don’t care about killing 100 and dying 1 or dying 100 and killing 1.
And by the way, you’re wrong. I think the F-15 A at 12.7 makes sense.
That’s a good point, but for example, I think the AIM-9M is more lethal in some situations and the R-73 in others, and even between the AIM-120 C-5 and R-77-1, it also depends on the situation, but I think they are very similar. I think the airframe of the Su-30s is easier to handle than that of the F-16 or F-15.
I refer to what I just said previously:
F18F>f16 block 52 lol
1 Like
Of course the situation will effect what is more effective but that still means one will be worse because its harder to use in that situation.
It’s funny how the US gets a months-late solution (120D) over mediocre vehicles (F/A-18E) that, in the end, turns them better than the upcoming new stuff (16C PoBIT) lmao.
2 Likes
Yes, but the thing is, saying that one is more lethal than the other ends up oversimplifying the top tier, which causes problems in these situations, and in that sense, I also take responsibility for that.and I say this because I just did it, but now that I see it, I can’t really describe the missile’s capacity.
For me, it’s very true, but the F-16 is for those who prefer the F-16 airframe, who don’t care about the number of missiles and who make the most of the six they have.
Perfectly balanced! lol don’t worry, surely the dev team is proactive and not severely reactive! Also, let’s not bring any new weapons to the table that would give an advantage in game
1 Like
The weapon will be the AIM-120Ds. If they are different from the previous ones, we will have to wait until Monday to find out.
I know, and there is yet to be any evidence that real numbers will be used to model these missiles, just as the ones before them. So it could be totally OP in the dev, and be 100 percent reverted in live, just like the SEPv2 arat 2 was, the 120 c5 and b, multiple dev servers with the mavericks, we could keep going
Also, if it’s too much, it’s a good idea to nerf it, but let’s see.
I wish that same logic was used for everything in game, but sadly certain things get no nerfs, or no explanation. And BR changes are not nerfs
1 Like
problem is like if gaijin see any slight reaction of things being op on dev they will nerf it
dev C-5 shown that it is better than B, guess what? Now its a side grade with worse manuverability but better range(which isnt even a lot)
the D would probably end up the same, it would absolutely be the best ARH, but somehow on live it would be like a slightly better C-5, being slightly better in range and slightly more manuverability, but nothing change
2 Likes
There a number of other nations that fly Block 50/52 F-16C that are presented in game.
Will said nations be receiving an F-16C-Block52 as per 7:58 of the end of 2025 Dev QnA?
Can’t wait to play it.
Hilariously better than Mirage 2000 5F and F-16I.
@Aisbitt034-psn
The Q&A doesn’t address this matter at all.
1 Like
Yet another US top tier with pitiful air-to-ground weapons, where are the GBU-53 and JAGM-F?
3 Likes
we need to find different approach to this as top tier will be just about the same vehicles. We need folder approach with it. Each upgrade should cost less than origin one and each upgrade should have at least half of the modules or mainly ordnance that has been researched and bought. It makes no sense to get again AIM-9Ls and Ms and 120s