That is not why people are mad, the existence of the bug fixes in general is good, because fixing bugs is good. People are mad, because the plane thats already leagues better than the rest gets more and faster fixes versus the planes that objectively need them more.
And this imbalance in the fixes together with the MICA and the dominance leads to the perception of bias
It would be better to show in-game datamine rather than a screenshot I can’t make any sense of. I see a streak in the sky of a missile, but that doesn’t show the distance or who fired it, and you having a soft lock on a Sukhoi, but that’s all.
That is a MICA, mid burn as launched from a rafale not that far to my left.
IIRC the Rafale and every other new jet that was missing a HUD UV filter was reported on dev server and fixed by release. Apart from the Eurofighter, which got an attempt at a fix (still not properly working) 8 months after release.
I agree with this.
I would understand a non-forum user coming to that conclusion. Forum users should know though that Smin has stated many times for example, that game bugs are prioritized over vehicle suggestion reports, or that an aircraft or equipment is not due for a rework due to low number of reports open, or that dev-server issues/reports are prioritized more than reports made during the live server. All of these statements (which I will link to below) are evidence that a bug report prioritization system exists.
Note these are just statements made by Smin relatively recently in the past few months, these same statements are reiterated almost every major patch/dev-server for the past few years.
stats are only an accumulation of “worthless personnal experience” - in the end it just adds up depending on the skill issue the community have.
if we had an AIM-120C capable of 20g turn after 60km of flight at low altitude, every non-users of AIM-120C would have given an “OP” statement aswell - but as it would have been added to nearly every nations (Russia and France are excluded there) - nobody would have said anything.
yet, using your stats, and sorting all rank8 aircraft per KD:
Tornado F.3 is the second on the list - this month - is it OP?
F-5TH TCU is third- all the time stats - is it OP?
onto the all the time stats of Rank 8 sorted by KD - the first UK Typhoon FGR.4 is 20th and Rafale 2nd,…
EF-2000 is bested in results by aircrafts like JAS-39C / J-10A / F-15J(M) / J-8F / Mirage 2000C S4 and 2000C S5 (being 1st right now) / several F-14’s / UK F-18A (being 6th)
even the “Flying Brick” with AIM-9L/7F of F-4EJ Kai (actually 12.3 - same as F/A-18A’s) are besting the UK Typhoon FGR.4 KD wise.
so from what i heard today,… every of those aircrafts, besting the FGR.4 are OP?
i don’t think so,…
in order to make some, informations:
F-2A is 30th
Su-30SM is 28th (despite having access to 12 Air-Air missiles, ten of which are Fox-3’s)
USA F-18A is 25th (what is so different than UK one, which is 6th?)
to me the problem come from EF-2000 players trying to copy-paste Rafale gameplay,… when they are 2 similar but different aircrafts, and this is true for the whole community.
Can’t explain how 3 Typhoons on 3 different nations are getting such a Diverse Statistical results, all being 9 month in-game:
Typhoon FGR.4 is 20th - 1.22KD (2.78millions Spawn)
F-2000A is 38th - 1.10 KD (1.85millions Spawn)
German EF-2000 is 57th - 1.00 KD (11.14 millions Spawn)
to me, this exemple demonstrate that it still does make no sense to use in-game results for balance decisions (MICA-EM being hard capped at 50km is already a Balance Decision)
Agreed, but the problem is not that, it’s consistency (lack thereof)
Gaijin claims to use statistics for balancing decisions, but if rafale is being buffed while holding a 70% winrate that means this is a blatant lie.
The correct thing would be to use actual numerical comparisons of the aircraft. A worse playerbase should not benefit from a better airframe because “stats”, however gaijin doesn’t seem to use stats or comparisons and just kinda guesses.
Every ARH missile apart from MICA-EM (and Derby) uses one of these two:
smoke_rocket_tail_long_big
smoke_rocket_tail_superlong_huge
MICA-EM (and Derby) uses:
smoke_rocket_tail_medlength_med
So yes it is reduced smoke compared to every other ARH missile (apart from Derby). And as we know from videos that MICA is pretty damn smokey compared to other “reduced smoke” missiles that level of smoke is probably the best you can hope for.
Oh derby got it? sick hold on ima take a look.
edit: In fact it did, wow.
Thanks for atleast using datamine. Now here’s a question, is there a reason why I shouldn’t believe that the current smoke configuration is the developers reconfiguring smoke to be based on the caliber of the missile? I looked at other missiles of similar caliber and they have the same smoke configuration as the MICA.
It makes sense that the Derby and MICA have the same smoke configuration while other ARHs do not, and that is the Derby and MICA are similar in terms of caliber size while being different from other ARHs in caliber size.
Stats are not perfect especially if you use them without proper interpretation like you did comparing planes from vastly different BRs for example or with vastly different playrates.
Sure skill issue plays a role but the Rafale is consistently outperforming its peers even if the playrate doubles in some months which indicates that its performance is not as dependant on an expert playerbase which for example explains the statistical difference between the German EF and the british EF.
Additionally to that the Rafale is not just statistically better but everyone who flies it and a comparison plane can attest to its superiority and even if you look at it from a purely objective comparison between stuff like Flightmodel, missiles, radar etc its just plain better than its competitors.
I’m not even sure where to start with this statement. It is true that Gaijin has claimed to use statistics for balancing decisions, i.e. refusing to give a tank a shell because it is currently in a BR/rank where it performs in a line-up and Gaijin wants to keep it within that BR lineup, or that it is doing statistically well at a certain BR.
But it can also be true that statistics is one factor where multiple other factors exist, and statistics happened to win out in that balancing decision.
Gaijin stating to use statistics (as one of its factors) for balancing decisions while buffing the Rafale isn’t inconsistent in of itself, other factors may have won out (greater # of reports, or the vehicle being a new addition for example).
For other vehicles where the # of reports are low, statistics as a factor may outweigh the other factors and in those cases the statement of using statistics to make balancing decisions in those specific cases is not wrong.
Wasnt really an attempt at a fix. Its a known fact the 3D model cockpit is different from the actual cockpit view, so they just havent even bothered trying to actually fixing the actual cockpit UV filter yet…
I didn’t see this until Mythic quoted you, but I mean we can all point to examples of “bias” or whatever, I know the Mirage 2000 did not get fixes for certain things even though other aircrafts had gotten it a year earlier. You just don’t hear any of us complain, instead we just go on and make more reports.
Here’s a more recent example. I made a report that the RDY radar should get unlimited roll stabilization. One day later, you made a report that the Blue Vixen radar should get unlimited roll stabilization. Your report then got fixed a month later while my report still remains open.
Blue Vixen & PS-05/A - Should have unlimited roll stabilisation // Gaijin.net // Issues
RDY radar should have unlimited roll stabilization // Gaijin.net // Issues
How long should I wait until I claim anti-french bias? ;))
I think you’re comparing a specific group of one community to a specific different group of another community, because I sure as hell have heard many, many complaints, even from Rafale players as of current
Some people still have the nerve to claim France suffers lol.
It is WILD to see you actually typed that out and thought it was a good idea to post when you are the author of not one, but two very high profile cry-threads about the best missile in-game needing a buff because its underpowered and that the incoming additions would make the best jet in-game “obsolete”, and garnered massive support from the french community for doing so as well
Normally I don’t look too closely at many of the statements from the minorities of either communities but a lot of who I consider as more informed individuals on the EFT community have been making rather ridiculous statements.
I don’t place making dev-server threads which pushes developers to accurately model the MICA in the same box as say, badgering Smin or whining every week in this thread. Mind you, the AIM-120C on the dev-server did offer reduced beamwidth making it viable in BVR and I knew its kinetic performance being inferior to the AIM-120A in every scenario was a placeholder.
I don’t think it is unreasonable for me to once in a while request Gaijin to fix the MICA now that the R-77-1 and AIM-120C are here. Or are you going to say we should wait for R-77M and AIM-120D to be added first?
And if you say that the AIM-120C should get fixed first before the MICA gets fixed, I’m not going to hold my breath on Gaijin doing anything with the AIM-120C when there’s a possibility they may end up doing nothing at all for the AIM-120C.
The British Eurofighter outperforming the German one is mainly due to the matchmaker preset using putting Britain and France on the same side. I don’t think there was a single time in Air RB games where I had to fight Britain when I was spamming the Rafale in Air RB.
You made two threads as soon as either missile was announced and advocated for buffs that would make the MICA better than every missile in the game even at the maximum ranges. You also did this without even testing them on the dev server and attempted to lobby me and my channel to support the change because of the perception that I was overly concerned about nerfing the Eurofighter and that I would immediately jump to the same conclusions that you did.