Is this intentionally ignoring the reply I wrote you with statshark data that directly contradicts your opinion on AAM-4 vs AIM-120 or did you just not see it?
1 Like
Bringing up player performance in a discussion about vehicle capabilities is a red herring fallacy.
There’s no reason to bring up player performance in a discussion about vehicles.
idk, ask gaijin why their “standards” only apply half the time
@AlvisWisla
Use this quote to jump to the reply I’m talking about, idk if you’re just an S+ tier ragebaiter or if you misunderstood what I meant by statshark data… Statshark lists global vehicle performance stats, not just individual player stats.
3 Likes
Um… global vehicle performance stats are players… XD
It explicitly says this on the website.
Citing Statshark is citing player performance. This has always been the case.
F-15J players are performing better than F-15A players.
Su-27 players are performing better than F-15A players.
Go listen to a Stats course…
Okay so it’s just ragebait. I get it. Debating with any intellectual integrity would require you to admit you’re wrong sometimes.
Global vehicle performance statistics is the data Gaijin uses to set BRs. This is not a secret. Vehicles don’t fly without a player at the keyboard. The aggregate data from every single match played in the plane by every player provides an objective view of how a vehicle fits into the meta and interacts with other vehicles, which are also piloted by the exact same aggregate of people, which means in a statistically significant sample size (say for example, hundreds of thousands of matches per vehicle per month) the vehicle’s objective capability is determined.
Firstly this doesn’t account for the massive difference between AAM-3 and AIM-9M, which are mandatory to bring 4x on the 15A and J due to no BVRAAMs on wing pylons. This is the source of the same discrepancy.
Read the breakdown I gave on winrate and how the 15C lags behind the average winrate for US 13.7 whereas the 15J doesn’t for the Japan winrate. This accounts for playerbase skill difference.
The SU-27 has always been INSANELY better than the F-15A as a vehicle. Period. Not up for debate. 4x sparrow + 4x 9M could never even compare to 6x R27ER on it’s own, much less when you still have 4x R-73 in the back.
How can we prove this? Once again comparing the relative winrates of the vehicle and the nation’s overall average winrate at that BR.
US average winrate at 13.0 (Month of September 2025) - 49.6%
F-15A:
46.7% WR
0.61KPS
0.72KD
RU average winrate at 13.0 (Month of September 2025) - 48.8%
SU-27:
50.2% WR
0.95KPS
1.14KD
Quite frankly, this is the first time I’ve looked at this data and even already knowing how OP the SU-27 is I’m surprised the global average is overperforming by this much.
Now we can double down and verify this phenomenon by checking the F-15A Baz and J-11.
Israel average winrate at 13.0 (Month of September 2025) - 55.7% (WOW! This high of a winrate does indicate the playerbase might actually be significantly better)
Baz:
53.5% WR
0.74KPS
0.91KD
China average winrate at 13.0 (Month of September 2025) 53.1%
J-11:
52.7% WR
0.97KPS
1.19KD
Surprisingly, the J-11 does slightly underperform the average WR for Chinese players. However, clearly the massively higher average winrate of Israel players on average at 13.0 means Israel players are more skilled and therefore we should see the Baz outperform the J-11 right? Nope. While the winrate is slightly higher, it is lagging the average winrate by 2% and thus means it is a net negative for the teams it’s on, being carried by some other vehicles. Note the massive KPS and KD disparity less than the J-11 despite Israel clearly having better pilots on average.
Sorry man, your views just aren’t supported by what is actually happening in the game at all.
7 Likes
@WolfTangoFoxtrot
Well, thanks for warning me that you’re just here to bait us.
You’re out here claiming that Stats professors are wrong… wild take.
No they don’t. They do not use Statshark to determine BRs.
They have a proprietary system that includes cross-analysis of vehicles, and reduces to eliminates player performance. They had to after the CL-13 incident.
Gaijin primarily uses economic data, and after economic data they have other things they use. They do not use global PVP performance data.
Win rate is never used. This is no secret.
F-15J economic data BTW is almost the same as F-15A’s economic data.
F-15JM’s is notably higher, which suggests they’re using napalm then fighting enemy players more effectively.
Revisited this topic, and saw that reports about new missile racks are accepted.
I am very confused about this problem atm
1- Are we going to create Frankenstein F-15C, or will extra missile racks be 100% historical addition?
(If it is 100% historical with no debatable points, I won’t mind)
2- If we are creating Frankenstein F-15C in the name of F-15C Golden Eagle, are we doing it because it will be DOA?
if it’s merely a radar upgrade at 14.3, it will 100% be purely DOA
8 Likes
It honestly doesn’t need the missiles if it gets other changes. Mainly the FM buff and BOL. (And maybe the EPAWSS but that’s not a huge need.)
1 Like
If making F-15C(GE) viable in 14.3 can only be achieved by creating a Frankenstein.
I think sending F-15C(GE) down to 14.0 is a better idea.
But seems that [The Dice is Cast] already.
So the entire problem here is the fact they didn’t call it the
F-15C Golden Eagle(Early)
Is there any plan to name it properly then as it is implicitly the early version?
If it isn’t specified that it is the early version, then everything on the F-15C GE line should be available on it.
Case in point:
A-10A (early) vs A-10 (late)
F/A-18C (early) vs F/A-18C (late)
There’s already precedence on the USA air tree that this allows differentiation between versions.
1 Like
even at 14.0 you’d likely be better served with the F-15E anyway
1 Like
There is no such thing as F15C Golden Eagle (Early), it is only Golden Eagle, which is the latest F15C (2017) , gaijin is just lazy, by not adding the BoL pods, that they literally kept away from every F15 in game.
3 Likes
The snail disagrees with you
This thing has no business being 14.3 as is. “But muh c5’s, muh AESA”, lets see:
Is it on par with…
EF? Miles worse FM, same-ish AAM kit, no fancy stuff like actually working MAW. Better radar? Ok theres that. Still - pass.
Su-30? Absolutely not.
Rafale? LOL.
Someone has to be the worst I guess…?
On the other hand, is it on par with… 15E? Well, kind of? Seems like a fair sidegrade. And what BR is that? Oh, yeah…
1 Like
My guy we aren’t getting another F15C GE, this will be the latest version we are going to get, there is no reason to go with early or late for the F15C GE. Gaijin just neex to add the already missing equipment on the F15C GE that was bug reported.
8 Likes
The Game doesn’t need a early or late version of the F15C GE, the best option is giving the latest weaponary and equipment like Bol pods, Maws or IRIST pod (later it planned to be added, as you said in your other comment).We don’t need to grind for another 400k F15C GE, just for that those episodes/modules to be added after another 400k RP grind.
If they do add one, it should just be foldered into the F-15C GE.
I do sound, that I am complaining, but the reality is that gaijin can’t just give a halve baked plane at 14.3 and call it a day. Then they should be move it to 14.0 if they don’t fix the FM, bol pods, or EPAWSS, MRLS and fixing AIM120C-5.
The plane is no where near equivalent to 14.3, just because it has a AESA radar.
5 Likes
The F-15C does not have MAWS.
1 Like
Pretty sure they’re talking about the EPAWSS, which iirc, it was tested on 2 different golden eagles.
1 Like