hellooooo eurofighter forum here
1 Like
Rafale in-game is F.3R, not F.3, the AESA is correct.
4 Likes
Censored already.
I would say this most peoples views of Tanks comes from games and media. T-90M and T-72B3 are currently having a rough time in a certain place. They are being outclassed by older “less advanced” NATO tanks. Ask anyone who knows nothing about tanks and they will tell you despite seeing 1000s of T-72 variants destroyed it is a superior tank to a Challenger 2 or maybe even an M1 tank.
Gaijin propagate this by making nothing Russia have at top tier rubbish. They gloss over T series tanks weaknesses, they add systems like LMUR and Kh-38 and they deny other nations of similar systems. They restrict the ammo NATO tanks can have and ground attack weapons and use the excuse balance.
And the reason for all this is partly yes Russia is a huge player base. But so is the US and Germany in terms of nations played in game. But looking at the companies dealings out with the sphere of content creators it looks like they are being financially incentivised to try and reduce the reputational damage the Russian armed forces has suffered in recent years. To reinforce the Russia strong ideal and to make anyone who plays this game online think that Russian tanks aren’t a generation behind NATO tanks but are their superiors and equals.
2 Likes
Nah i think youre overthinking this way too hard. Going for full realism would mean that either USSR players get wiped everytime or theyre excluded from the top BRs. Both would be bad for a big part of the playerbase and therefore Gaijins bottom line.
1 Like
So it’s all just for balance, you think teams of Mi 28s with LMURS and Kh-38 is for balance?
Gaijin’s bottom line is why they are doing it but not for the players enjoyment.
I would say look into it, look into who they sponsor.
Unironically yes, because i bet USSR teams will still barely clear 50% winrate even with broken CAS
which is exactly how they balance the game
“deny other nations similar systems” , “so is the US” uh they literally got 16x jagmrs + their own invincible force field ?.
Not even 50 xD
Looking at the Data Project they are between 40% and 50% xD
Zusammenfassung
What happened to sweden there at 1.0-2.0? xD
Seriously, balancing should be independent of the respective player base and only account for the vehicles + equipment and their performance itself. Otherwise you create vehicles with which the gross of the playerbase gets “avergasized” while good and very good players excell with them. You just don’t tune vehicles for their playerbase, that’s a rookie mistake.
1 Like
Well that kind of answers one question. When the usual suspects appear to tell us how ‘bad’ the Soviet TT vehicles are (even the broken ones) I think I know where their perceptions are coming from.
It would appear that the average RU TT player does indeed press W and roll their face across the keyboard…
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/9vdQvep471a1
Surely one day an Mod Sees it and says, hes right (pray)
@naruto24k @Metaltank1990 @Dontkev-psn
ofc im right, broken CAS can only do so much for mid tanks and an even more mid playerbase.
I agree but it is quite hard to objectively measure vehicle performance with such a diverse playerbase skillwise. My problem is much more that Gaijin refuses to use BR properly. Why artificially gimp western equipment when you can just up it in BR. Like make Eurofighters into the beasts they should be and put them into 15.0 with the Rafale. Im sure people here would rather have a proper EF in a higher BR than a gimped one at the same level as the SU30
But then russia has no top tier anymore and that’s a big no no
yeah i know. On one hand i understand that Gaijin doesnt want to exclude USSR players from top tier but on the other hand i think it heavily damages the games claim to be realistic
100% agreed and always have done. This is precisely why we need BR variance with ordinance/mods too. Have one vehicle, fully matched to its real life capability, and adjust its BR based on the resulting statistics. The vehicle’s performance should never be the balancing tool. If we can have 80s vehicles in the 4.0 region for the sake of keeping them capable, there’s no harm in having a 2010s russian vehicle fighting a 1990s blufor vehicle, provided they’re both matching their irl performance.
This issue is as you said especially prominent with the EF/Rafale which are both exceptionally capable aircraft limited heavily in game. They should be improved to realistic performance irrelevant of what the “balance” effect would be, because balance can be compensated for by pushing them up in BR.
And you may be thinking - “What if the balanced BR is so high that it can only fight itself?”
In that case, we should really be asking: “Should it be in the game yet?”
2 Likes
I think the main problem is that they’re trying to put the EF and Rafale at the Su-30 level while it should be the Su-35 and MiG-35 at least as the respective counterpart. The EF and Rafale were introduced too early and now they have problems to up the game of the other nations to keep up, so they have to “slow them down”.
And the real concern is what happens when gaijin adds the “next big thing” and the EF/Rafale are forgotten and never updated to meet the standards they should be able to because they weren’t at that standard on addition?