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.
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:
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.
But then what dictates the BR it should be balanced for?
Just C+P ARH logic from other ARH missile
Literally, even I can made it. So i don’t think its difficult for developers
The radar of the lavi that maked into the early sufa is being worked on by olivia
Efficiency, i.e. how much RP and SL is gained per flyout on average (with some modifiers like BR of opponent and things like that taken into account). So for example if a vehicle is performing poorly the DEV’s can add new munitions/ordinance to try to boost its efficiency, if it performs really poorly it can get lowered in BR if the munition it can get for a boost is to op it might get some extra things on top (that are subject to balance) and get moved up in BR.
They explained it a while back, I’ll see if i can find it again and link it.
Any info on the jump from .29 to .30???
I get it it’s just that things are somewhat time sensitive as it relates to changes made on the dev server
I also feel somewhat questionable to throw “info requested” requested flags on a report and then close it to comment immediately which then required me to go via PM or risk a “duplicate report” flag and no action, as the original report had already been actioned by the moderator and slow rolling things decreases the likelihood that changes get implemented.
Instead of being able to reformat and swap out the source at issue.
As to their response(s).
It just makes no sense, as that is the issue with the report. Not the content of the provided sources. It doesn’t help that their proclamation is categorically incorrect and demonstrably false.
While yes the specific table originally provided isn’t definitively present in the referenced document, but it’s the substantively similar to the table provided on PDF page -83 of said report, in fact if I had to bet it’s the original that the reproduction in “Outsider’s view” is a partial scan of. (shown below), due to various scanning artifacts being duplicated in both images.
Additionally I’m not entirely sure as to what originating document actually is as it’s claimed to be an excerpt / scan of another document entirely, and as such is the most accurate attribution I could make unless I procure a copy of the book and I can track down a further reference (presuming that it exists), which is exhaustive effort unneeded since what I have should do is provide any attributable version (and prove declassification), since each source should stand on it’s own merit, and as per Gaijin’s Primary / Secondary Source definitions the Technical report takes precedence.
And it still references a IR / TV sensor, Which I’ve highlighted in the red square for clarity The only aux sensors used by the F-14 was the (IR / IRSTS)ALR-23, (TV / TCS )AXX-1 and (IRST)AAS-42 pending configuration.
