MICA-EM missile should get its realistic modeling

[FeetPics]

@Macron-Spokesman

Difference is that now:

• We have competitive platforms now with much better flight models than predecessors
• We have competing platforms now with much better radars than predecessors
• We have competitive platforms featuring much better missile quantities than their predecessors.
• We have competitive platforms featuring better quality missiles or providing situational advantage missiles than their predecessors.

And does it matter how many times I suggest it? If 5th gens and AIM-260/R-77M are here later on and I ask for fixed micas for the 6th time, are you opposed to the changes just because I asked 5 times before previously?

Other nations have finally reached parity with a platform and overall capabilities that French players have enjoyed for over a year.

Here is what you are asking for amounts to.

1. In order to meet 30G requirement…the MICA will have a time to impact advantage of 4-5 seconds when compared to the next closest missile when in a 50km launch condition.

2. It will have the fastest time to impact at ranges shorter than 50km by even a wider margin due to acceleration buff as well.

3. The 100 degrees per second turn rate buff also causes the weapon employment zone to shrink to basically nothing.

So MICA goes from being the worst long range missile, the best medium range missile, and the 2nd best short range missile…to just being the best at everything very wide margins.

All because everyone else is finally starting to get reasonable counters to a plane that has had the best average performance for over a year? The justification for this is that average performance doesn’t matter because YouTubers can cherry pick good games in worse planes?

Orange is simulated improved MICA with changes needed to make it reach 30G bug report.

[Macron-Spokesman]

@Ion_492

This isn’t true for me.

The problem is, you stated earlier that your goal post was that worse missiles (presumably AIM-120C/D) should be buffed before the MICA gets touched.

24 hours later Gaijin coincidentally buffs the AIM-120C and 120D. Maybe Gaijin was reading this thread and thought they’d do the funny and see if people switched up.

You then proceeded to change the goalpost and said all other missiles should get mica’s seeker before mica gets buffed, so why wouldn’t it be true of you from my perspective?

[FeetPics]

@Macron-Spokesman

The problem is, you stated earlier that your goal post was that worse missiles (presumably AIM-120C/D) should be buffed before the MICA gets touched.

24 hours later Gaijin coincidentally buffs the AIM-120C and 120D. Maybe Gaijin was reading this thread and thought they’d do the funny and see if people switched up.

You then proceeded to change the goalpost and said all other missiles should get mica’s seeker before mica gets buffed, so why wouldn’t it be true of you from my perspective?

His position was never that just because AMRAAM receives a minor buff that MICA should have consumate major buff to compensate. You are misrepresenting his position.

[Mr_Kiryu]

If the MICA is to be fixed, then I expect missiles such as the AIM-120C-5 and Derby to have their issues solved as well or the developers provide a suitable option to keep the game balanced.

Even as it is today, the MICA is WAYYYYYY too strong compared to other missiles.

[Flanker_Thunder]

give Rafales higher rip speed at sea lvl and i will for sure multipath to sling short-range Fox-3s to poor Flankers.

[Benji_Big_Yahu]

Im sorry, but this is such a strawman argument. the AIM-120 went from being worst HOBS to still being worst HOBS missile and you want a MICA Buff? I don’t think so. If the range (which is useless because almost no one dies of BVR (20km+) anymore) of the aim-120 is considered a strength and lack of HOBS considered a con, then I’m sure the MICA having the best HOBS capability as its strength and bad range as its weakness is more then acceptable. I’m sorry, but every time another missile gets a buff(I wouldn’t even call this aim-120 buff that, its still garbage) of any sort you French mains start asking for MICA buffs. its enough, the MICA is insane and its mounted on one of if not the best airframe in the game. the new F-16C blk52 gets 6 AIM-120D’S and all of a sudden you want a mica buff, even though the F-16 will be DOA with the worst AESA in game and 6!!! only 6 of the most useless missiles in the current meta.

[Benji_Big_Yahu]

also, I would not call what Gaijin did to the aim-120C/D a few hours ago a “buff”, please just be serious for once.you already have the best airframe, is the best missile not enough? 8 is plenty.

[FeetPics]

Sorry but it is impossible to understand how much France is suffering at top tier right now.

The Rafale only had the 2nd highest kills per battle and kills per deaths in Air Realistic in the month of January. The British Eurofighter AESA performed around 11% better than the Rafale.

In November which was the last month before Su-30SM2 and Eurofighter AESA was added the Rafale had the highest kill to death ratio and performed 54% better on average when compared to British Eurofighter.

The Rafale is truly suffering and needs to be buffed because it was out-performed by another plane for the first time in 14 months. And it’s average kills per game is no longer 150% that of it’s nearest competition.

[Morvran]

And that’s pretty much only because the FGR4 doesn’t face the Rafale most matches. Only logical explanation for the stats, either that or LWR is OP in ARB and Brit mains are way better than most

[Panocek]

Clearly brits are dodging Kh38ML/SBU 54 deepmeta while responding in kind with 18 Brimstonks.

@Macron-Spokesman

Somehow AIM-120C is a nothingburger even though pro players such as Bad_Karma and Migan do take them.

[Gunjob]

I do face Rafale almost every 4th game these days. Ever since the BR increase it’s fairly regular now. And it’s still to of my list to kill first.

Rafale, SU-30s, Typhoons and then everything else. If SU-30 had less missiles I’d place it lower in the kill chain but it can just keep shooting so I place it higher. Maybe if/when we have ECM in game I can discount some of that missile spam with better defenses but for now having alot of missiles is a quality of its own.

[Morvran]

I don’t seem to face them that often in ARB, though yeah, if i see one, I tend to prioritise

[Macron-Spokesman]

@FeetPics

You are misrepresenting his position.

@Benji_Big_Yahu

Im sorry, but this is such a strawman argument. the AIM-120 went from being worst HOBS to still being worst HOBS missile

It is not the case, and it’s not even about whether or not the buff made the AMRAAM better than any other missile. It is about the fact that within 24 hours, he had still changed his position/goalpost after an AMRAAM change, going from a relatively reasonable position “MICA shouldn’t be buffed until worse missiles are buffed” to “MICA shouldn’t get buffed until (all) other missiles get the same seeker as MICA” which is unreasonable and essentially means MICA should never be buffed.

@Ion_492

MICAs should be buffed, but not until other underperforming missiles are buffed as well.

@Ion_492

No, and I want seeker buffs for other missiles more than any flight performance ones.

Anyone who knows how the bugreporting process works understands that it is near impossible for Gaijin to give other missiles the same seeker as MICA unless those other missiles are bug-reported, MICA got its seeker after being bug-reported. Only the AIM-120 is bug-reported to get the lower fov and thus has a chance. Changing your position to that of an impossible request is essentially saying that you are denying the opportunity for MICA to ever get buffed.

Which is why I came to this conclusion:

@Macron-Spokesman

The real answer if you were honest, is never.

[FeetPics]

@Macron-Spokesman

It is not the case, and it’s not even about whether or not the buff made the AMRAAM better than any other missile. It is about the fact that within 24 hours, he had still changed his position/goalpost after an AMRAAM change, going from a relatively reasonable position “MICA shouldn’t be buffed until worse missiles are buffed” to “MICA shouldn’t get buffed until (all) other missiles get the same seeker as MICA” which is unreasonable and essentially means MICA should never be buffed.

This was his original position.

@Ion_492

No, not until every other ARH has an equivalent missile seeker. Even then, I think the Aim-120Cs should be buffed first.

I don’t know how you are conflating a later clarification of his position. (I.e that he would prefer everything is fixed at the same time but if things have to be acted on in a sequence then the missiles that most poorly fit the game meta should be fixed first.)

You are the one trying to shift goal posts by conflating “minor HOBS buff” is justification to make the MICA the best at everything missile in the game.

[The_EnforceR]

OK… My view on the things

1. I can’t talk much about rb, but Sim has the Iron Dome issue so tbh a better mica wouldn’t change much in this Meta.

2. Can we focus on everything else concerning the Rafale/Mirage except the missiles?

We have a cool state in the game (aircraft wise) with 3 different top tier planes that all have strengths and weaknesses (hopefully the J15T will also perform really well and get some additional CMs).

The Rafale is still incredibly good due to its performance and the MICA suiting the aggressive playstyle really well.

M2K is also really fun to play, as it’s basically a mini rafale (that locks up a lot).

If we get the MICA buffed, no matter if accurate or not, we get another situation like last year where we just have 1 plane dominate everything.

My fav planes are the M2K and the Rafale, and I would love for the MICA to be realistic and great and all.

But I much prefer flying the plane and not feeling like I’m playing the game on easy mode at any situation. Cause it just makes me bored and the enemy team just quit the game.

I understand wanting to have an accurate representation of the missile in game, but if everyone else doesn’t get that, why should the MICA get it before everyone else?

We have a dev server with MFD and HMD stuff going on. So why no thread for the Rafale HMD to get IFF, the M2K to get an actual HMD or the MFDs to be updated with NCTR or smt?

Radars got changes, so how about buffing the scan speed of the Rafale (if we want a buff that makes sense without breaking the game)?

120D doesn’t seem like the insane step it was supposed to be, either due to Gaijin or lack of documentation.
Yet for some reason, @Macron-Spokesman, you make a thread about buffing the MICA out of all the other stuff that could be done.
I appreciate a lot the work you’ve done with all the reports and the sources. And I agree, the mica should get buffed. But not if it’s gonna ruin the balance of the game. Because it is a game first and foremost. Accuracy we hopefully get with the DCS implementation.

[Macron-Spokesman]

@FeetPics

This was his original position.

You are correct, I rechecked the time of the posts and the original post asked for the simultaneously seeker buff (unrealistic expectation), and AIM-120C-5 buff as well (he still maintains the position that it is not buffed enough, even though he never specifies what else exactly he is expecting to get buffed on the C-5).

In the end however, he is placing unrealistic expectations that needs to be met before he considers that the MICA can get any buffs.

@FeetPics

You are the one trying to shift goal posts by conflating “minor HOBS buff” is justification to make the MICA the best at everything missile in the game.

Fixes are fixes, if users such as Morvran and Pyro state that the weakest missiles should get buffed before MICA can be considered, and they did, then their requirements literally were met regardless if you think whether or not those buffs qualify.

The overall point of my message though is that it is very unrealistic to expect that all other seekers should get buffed to MICA’s before the MICA can be considered, and I have yet to see anyone address this point. Other missiles besides the AIM-120s do not have open and accepted reports on their seeker fov. Expecting Gaijin to make changes based on no sources or no open reports is like finding a needle in a haystack. Ion’s position is also the case that even if other missile additions more competitive than the MICA is added, MICA is still not qualified for any fixes so long as it has a better seeker than other/worse missiles.

[Macron-Spokesman]

@The_EnforceR

We have a dev server with MFD and HMD stuff going on.

Rafale did get an MFD update this dev-server so if you ask for more MFD stuff you’ll just get told you just got an MFD update, and the HMD IFF report is less than 6 months old (3 months) so it isn’t realistic to push for more fixes in those areas, and we just got a new HMD in the December patch. So realistically there’s less focus on the Rafale in those areas and more for everyone else.

@The_EnforceR

Radars got changes, so how about buffing the scan speed of the Rafale (if we want a buff that makes sense without breaking the game)?

There’s no open report on the Rafale’s scan speed, there’s also no realistic sources on the Rafale’s scan speed that can be reasonably used. We have one source, but it is iffy on whether that can be used.

@The_EnforceR

I understand wanting to have an accurate representation of the missile in game, but if everyone else doesn’t get that, why should the MICA get it before everyone else?

This is a common misconception. It’s not that I believe that MICA should get accurate representation “before everyone else”. It’s that other’s problems should not stop the MICA from having its accurate representation. For instance, just because some missiles are suffering due to lack of sources and lack of bug reports should not mean that MICA fixes are delayed beyond 2 years and more.

Similarly, AIM-120A/B has open reports that have been waiting for a few years. Developers may decide not to implement buffs on those missiles because they like where some lower-tiered aircraft are sitting when it comes to battle-rating with those missiles, and instead choose to buff the AIM-120C-5/D that are sitting in a more fluid battle-rating at the top BR (which they just did).

This was in fact a topic I touched on last month.

Long story short, whatever balance considerations is going on with AIM-120A/B or lack of sources/bug reports on certain missiles should not prevent implementation of MICA fixes.

I would prefer all missiles to get their reasonable fixes (accepted open reports).

[FeetPics]

A very long winded way of saying that MICA + Rafale should seal club everything for another year.

Why not just add Rafale to everyone else’s tech tree in the same way RU and USA planes are via export models?

[warthogboy09]

@Macron-Spokesman

seeker buff (unrealistic expectation)

Why is a seeker buff an unrealistic expectation?

It’s one of the known improvements amongst AMRAAM generations, and yet remains currently identical from A-D models

[Macron-Spokesman]

@warthogboy09

Why is a seeker buff an unrealistic expectation?

It’s one of the known improvements amongst AMRAAM generations

I’m sincerely glad you asked. It’s an unrealistic expectation for multiple reasons and I’ve had a long time to think about it.

1. It’s an unrealistic expectation to expect seeker buffs in the form of reduced seeker fov similar to what MICA currently has for non-AMRAAM missiles since there are no open reports on it for them. Expecting that developers make changes to missiles without any form of historical basis or game-bug reasoning is like pulling teeth, they just won’t do it.

2. When it comes to battle-ratings outside of “top tier” for example, there’s strong balance considerations when missiles are being used on platforms that Gaijin considers to be in a nice spot of battle-rating and do not want to raise the battle-ratings for reasons. In fact, at battle-ratings outside of top-tier, missile changes are historically used moreso as a way to buff vehicles if their performance at the desired battle-rating is not up to par. AIM-120A was proliferated to many lower tier vehicles, premiums, and other vehicles that Gaijin is not keen to raise their battle-ratings. And the AIM-120A is the only AMRAAM variant that had received a report for its seeker. If there were reports for AIM-120C and AIM-120D, then it is my personal belief that Gaijin would buff them since top-tier battle-ratings is more fluid and more open to changes or consideration for changes, Gaijin did recently just buff the AIM-120C.

3. Expecting seeker buffs to come for non-top tier missiles like R-77 or Derby before MICA gets any buffs is unrealistic since the R-77 and Derby may be considered to be “fine” for vehicles that equip them at their battle-ratings and are expected to stay at their battle-ratings in Gaijin’s plans. MICA is different in that the Rafale and MICA are at top-tier competing with R-77-1/AIM-120D/PL-12A and will continue to go up in battle-ratings due to its statistical performance which further opens up the opportunities for more changes and fixes. Planes with the R-77/Derby/AIM-120A as their top missiles do not have to compete at the same battle-rating as planes with R-77-1/AIM-120D/PL-12A while MICA does.