Contact a Technical Moderator for those types of things, you can find them listed here: (Who is who and Reporting Procedure)
I have contacted two separately no response from either within 48~20 hours now.
What even is a fair expectation for the response time?
I kind of want to have this dealt with before a cyclone (Alfred) arrives. Sorry if I’m being pushy.
I mean then balance it accordingly??
It’s already a top tier premium so why not just admit that and not screw about?
And preferably do that for non premiums as well.
I’ve been begging for a historically accurate A-7E for years now and quite frankly do not care about it’s BR, just raise or lower it accordingly. How come that idea still hasn’t gone thru?
It would fit right in at 13.0 with AIM-9Ms
This clearly isn’t like with the AMI-9X that most top tiers should technically have, the AIM-9M is a perfectly balance-able missile
2 Likes
Better to remake new ones with all the additional new information and context all in the OP.
What upgrade has Gaijin chose that locks the F/A-18A at 1988. Or is that just a date thrown at a board?
I could understand if you would have just said "For Balancing purpose. But I guess that wouldn’t work with the C early being the same BR. But to just put a date on something without anything pointing to the dates is madness.
2 Likes
Currently there are a higher than normal amount of reports to process due to the dev server. So moderators will be additionally dealing with those on top of regular processing. Naturally response times on all fronts go up during this.
Ok, Ill get on that.
Do you mind if I link back to this post in the report to prove that I was directed to do not, and it’s not just a duplicate?
It’s mostly already written anyway.
Yes I agree…it has to be used in the right moment in a 16v16…NOT when you have 2 or 3 enemies in all directions moving in!
It is balanced accordingly for the weaponary it has.
Well, looks like with the new dev update, the F/A-18A may end up as the best Hornet to play…
You lose two Sparrows (on the wing tank hardpoints), but in exchange are now at 12.3 (and that’s still with 6x Sidewinders and 2x Sparrows, for a total of 8x missiles)
Some of this could have been reduced by this:
1 Like
That was the thing, they are about changes that we’re made to the dev server.
Well (aircraft that were missed) by a change that was made.
Are you saying it can’t be balanced with AIM-9Ms though, because I though historical accuracy came first and only if that couldn’t be balanced would changes be made to that effort?
Yes you can include a link. As long as all the content is also correctly present in the newer report and it’s not just a report that says “here’s a link to the old report, all the info is there” as that wont get accepted.
All listed moderators (except Community managers IIRC) are non-paid Volunteers with normal lives/jobs/families/hobbies. We also get quite a lot of messages to go through so It might take a while to get a response though we generally try to respond within a few days. A tip in general when contacting any of the volunteer teams and you don’t get a response within a day or two is to add one or two more people from the list to the same original message sent to the first person, that preserves the date the messages was sent and doesn’t make it look like a completely new request just sent 5 minutes ago.
Wepaonary has always been down to balancing decisions. This is not something just starting with the F/A-18C early. It’s always been the case. It’s no exception to the norm here.
Pending clarification and how stringent proofing requirements are you may want to hold onto the AAS-38A as it may improve the radar’s notch widths.
1 Like