Again, none of these is actually artificially nerfing or buffing vehicles after they’re introduced into the game. Omission of weapons or specific equipments isn’t artificially nerfing it. How can something be nerfed if it came into the game as such?
What Moyo proposed is buffing the F-4F ICE artificially and then nerfing it after, something that has never been done @actualsize123
The a10’s pen was cut down 11mm for balancing reasons but sure there could be some document supporting that.
The f15a didn’t receive flares until the msip upgrade, which the one we have in game doesn’t have, it only has the flares from the upgrade nothing else.
Optical rangefinders are huge and obvious you would be able to see it on the front of the tank.
Gaijin literally stated in the f100f dev blog that they wouldn’t give it its aim9p’s cause it would raise the br.
I never did much research on the Japanese autoloaders but they definitely change reloads around for balancing, they did it recently on the lecleres because they were performing poorly.
They did this with the mig29, buffed it so it compete and then nerfed it when they added the smt and it wasn’t the top dog anymore.
Devs stated it was due to sources, not “balance”
Dev stated they wouldn’t add rank 6 and up premiums
1 Like
The pen was reduced because it was originally incorrect. Had nothing to do with balancing.
You mean this rangefinder the Germans used during WW2? Especially for siege weapons.
Thanks for admitting F-100F isn’t artificially nerfed. In-fact, it’s buffed without those 9Ps.
Mig-29 wasn’t artificially changed at all either.
Not giving the f100f its missiles is the nerf, keeping it at 9.3 is the reason. Not sure you know what a nerf is.
fine dude, i am sure a phantom with the current phantom performance would be a blast against Su27sm, gripens C, and F16s and F15Cs
just be cause it hasn’t ben done before doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done, who would’ve know they’d add rank 8 premiums, or extremely modern aircrafts, or compress the BRs this much, unhistroical match maker, extreme copy and paste,subtrees. all were never possible yet happened.
The seeker was developed jointly by China and Russia. China gave priority to using it on the PL-12, and in 2009 Russia used it on the R-77-1. If you don’t understand it, I suggest you go and study it again.
1 Like
Why even bother calling any reload realistic if Gaijin has stated time and time again they are a balancing factor.
The Type 90 has a minimum recorded reload speed of 2.4s, and a normal reload of 3.4s. This is because it reloads quicker if the next round is ready, while it takes a second longer if it still has to cycle in.
The Type 10 has a maximum recorded reload speed of 1.2s for a ready round, and also takes a short while longer to cycle the next round.
While every vehicle can reload slower than their theoretical minimum reload, making it technically realistsic, I wouldn’t say a vehicle limited to not work to the best of its abilities is represented correctly.
As long as reload is not dependent on conditions such as speed and uneven terrain throwing off the loader, and maintenance is nothing to worry about, the realistic speed is the theoretical minimum, as there is no reason for those vehicles to reload any slower in the game.
And this is perfectly fine as a balancing tool, since they stated it is just that. What I don’t think is fine is pretending this is realistic when it isn’t, as that is, especially for more obscure and unknown vehicles, dangerous misinformation that might spread to people that simply don’t know any better.
6 Likes
Hooray! More powercreep!
1 Like
German MiG-29 never received R-27 in it’s life
so maybe another Gaijin moment will happens?
Difference between R27 and R77 is one of them can be fired from Mig29G model while other one cant.
N019 radar doesnt support R-77 while it can guide all types of R-27’s in game.
2 Likes
Thank you
They had R-27R, just not R-27T, ER or ET.
3 Likes
Be my guest, go found Technical document that proves you right then post it in Bug-report platform.
Be my guest, go found Technical document that proves you right then post it in Bug-report platform.
Be my guest, go found Technical document that proves you right then post it in Bug-report platform.
Be my guest, go found Technical document that proves you right then post it in Bug-report platform, for suggestion purposes.
Be my guest, go found Technical document that proves you right then post it in Bug-report platform.
Be my guest, go found Technical document that proves you right then post it in Bug-report platform.
If you have trouble with how Vehicules are modelized in game:
Be my guest, go found Technical document that proves you right then post it in Bug-report platform.
Because trying here on the forum is by no mean a way to get what you want, and being a Karen about it won’t change facts.
EDIT: i don’t know what is so hard understand.
I invite people to Use Gaijin ways to bug reports instead of complainning relentlessly since millenium ages.
I agree!
1 Like
That’s the most misleading thing I ever seen
After you find technical document that proves you are right gaijin tells you to get classified data and even if you managed to pass that they bring “we assume it’s different based on our russian sources about western vehicles”
1 Like