It really wouldn’t fix balance issues. Hell it would probably create even more.
You’ll likely see more planes getting questionable BR moves like the F-16A.
2 Likes
If MP was set to realistic heights for missiles. Then Tornado F3 vs F-16A would probably be reasonably fair. The issue at the moment is that the F-16 can easily get within range to destroy an F3 thanks to MP.
2 Likes
That would be incorrect simply because MP exists as is BECAUSE there are problems to be fixed first.
And removing it right now would not fix them, period. Just make it more painful for the player.
The incentive would be to eventually solve a critical balance issue that you yourself pointed a couple messages ago; somebody is fundamentally screwed by its presence, be it the shitty avionics people or the SARH buses.
what is a realistic height for multipathing?
Depends on the missile. AMRAAM i’ve heard 40m. But Skyflash didnt have a min alt dictated by MP, but instead issues with its prox fuse and that height was 33m.
You would likely also have to move planes like the Netz and Belgian F-16A down.
Then you would have another problem because technically they shouldn’t be the same BR as the US one, but with no MP they also shouldn’t be above 12.3.
my issue with removing multipathing altogether is that the SARH 13.0s are gonna be completely screwed
That’s for their proxy fuse.
Basically nothing, and either setting it on a per missile basis for their proximity fuse systems, or just actually modeling a minimum height for PF on a per missile basis and disabling multipathing.
It already works far more reliably and over more terrain than it should.
and the same can be said with the FGR2 already being the same BR as the F-4S despite the F-4S having Agile eagle.
BRs are a mess with or without MP. The question is, is it worth fixing with MP only to then fix them again after MP?
1 Like
How so? It’s a missile that every fighter jet can dodge just by pulling G.
Irony.
The answer is NOTHING. (besides that F-104 which we all know should be much lower in BR to the point it’s a complete outlier)
An this is exactly the problem I was talking about before. Planes that have the BVR advantage they’re supposed to have don’t have it due to multipathing. It fundamentally breaks plane balance and makes the need for unnecessary additions instead of fixing this 1 problem.
3 Likes
There is never going to be an easy solution. But at the moment, there is an argument to be made that the Sea Harrier FA2 should be a lower BR than the Gripen A because of MP.
Its altogether a messy problem with no clear solution, but I think MP isnt the answer
1 Like
I mean the sea harrier FA 2 is pretty much the worst 13.0, its abysmal to the point 12.7 seems fair despite AMRAAM
But would it be if AMRAAM were actually a meaningful threat?
(among other fixes it depserately needs)
1 Like
Yeah tbf the Belgian F-16A is already a pain to play even with multipathing. However currently it can at least get somewhat close to the enemies. without multipathing it would likely spend most of the game notching/dodging longer range missiles without even a chance to fight back.
with removing multipathing, I still don’t think people’s playstyles are gonna change. Slower planes with less countermeasures are pretty much completely done for
Oh boo-hoo, it only has one of the best FMs in the game to do it. Such a shame it has to play with more braincells than just running straight at people.
1 Like
you’ve got to get into IR missile range while being forced to defend, with no means of fighting back. It’s not fair on that plane
The thing is, those planes are, in general, the ones most reliant on systems that are completely negated by high multipath.
1 Like
Yeah, it may happen, there is never going to be an easy or obvious solution.
But id start by reducing MP height in Air Sim to 40m. Leave ARB at 60m for now, but begin actively working on addressing some of the core issues surrounding SARH/ARH balance.
Such as:
- Stock Chaff
- BOL performance / More things with BOL / More CM pods
- Lack of ECM
- adjust tree height a bit
- Adding multiple AFs to spawn at
- Making maps bigger
- Making maps better (more terrain and such)
- Adjusting BRs and Decompressing further
- Reducing team sizes
and probably way more. But I think the ultimate outcome must be the removal of one MP height for all and that height being kinda crazy high. Some of these things could be easier than others, some of these will certainly be more painful than others. But leaving MP at 60m (or worse, increasing it back to 100m that Ive seen some suggest) is just not a possible solution imo. It causes more headaches in the long run than fixing it does.
(And quite frankly. We have planes not tanks, if you want to be low to the ground all the time, play GRB :P)
2 Likes