Same here I know this is from chatgpt but why the hell not at this point lol.
ChatGPT view on 90,000 Average player base
A game with 90,000 average players can generally be considered quite successful, depending on various factors such as the game’s genre, platform, and goals. Here are some aspects to consider when evaluating whether 90,000 average players is good:
1. Game Genre and Expectations
- MMOs, Battle Royales, or MOBAs: Games in these categories often see larger player bases. For example, games like Fortnite, League of Legends, or World of Warcraft have millions of players. In this context, 90,000 could be considered modest compared to the biggest titles but still respectable.
- Indie Games or Niche Genres: If the game is an indie or a niche game, 90,000 average players is excellent. Many successful indie games see player bases of tens of thousands, and sustaining 90,000 can indicate a strong, dedicated community.
2. Platform
- PC/Console: On these platforms, a game averaging 90,000 players is usually in a good position, especially if it’s been around for a while and maintains consistent engagement.
- Mobile Games: Mobile games can sometimes see much larger player bases, so 90,000 might be smaller relative to the scale of other mobile games, but it’s still impressive for an ongoing, active player count.
3. Active Engagement
- Are the 90,000 players active and regularly playing? A high active player count is often more valuable than just a high total number. If players are consistently engaging with the game (logins, play sessions, or active involvement in community events), that’s a good sign.
4. Monetization and Profitability
- Revenue Generation: A game with 90,000 players can still be very profitable if it has a good monetization strategy (microtransactions, battle passes, DLC, etc.).
- Player Retention: If those 90,000 players are loyal and stick around over time, this is a sign of a healthy game. Good player retention is critical for long-term profitability.
5. Competition and Market
- If the game is in a highly competitive market (like battle royale or FPS games), 90,000 average players can be considered quite successful, as many games in these categories struggle to maintain long-term player retention.
- If the game is in a less crowded genre, 90,000 could be seen as modest or average.
6. Community and Support
- A game that supports 90,000 average players might have an active community, social features, tournaments, or events. A strong player base often indicates a healthy ecosystem, with enough players for multiplayer modes, content creators, or fan-driven events.
7. Historical Context
- How does this compare to when the game launched? If the game started with 10,000 players and grew to 90,000, that suggests positive momentum. However, if the game peaked at 90,000 and is now declining, it might indicate a loss of interest or player retention problems.
Summary
Overall, 90,000 average players is typically a good number, especially for games that aren’t massive AAA titles. It suggests a solid player base, community engagement, and potential for profitability. The context of genre, platform, player retention, and competition all matter when assessing the success of a game.
When do we think they’re going to add next gen IR missiles to the game, the Python 4 has been in the files a while now, and I believe they’ve considered adding it once before?
Gonna be very interesting to see how they handle this, given Python 4 is much better than what we have now, but still beneath most other countries ‘next gen’ IR missiles.
I feel like immediately after adding Python 4, you’re going to see uproar asking for 9X / ASRAAM / IRIS-T etc, which will cause ISR players to ask for Python 5 which is the true counterpart of those. And before you know it, top tier is unplayable because everyone has game ruining IR’s lol.
1 Like
I feel like for the next gen of IR missiles they’re going to have to artificially nerf the seeker strength, make them easier to flare than they are IRL because otherwise like you said top tier will become unplayable, like having those missiles with effectively an AIM-9M or R-73 level seeker right now might not be too bad, and that allows us to enjoy the advance missile flight performances without the isnta-kill death bubble around every aircraft.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying they should come this next patch, just that it may be the only way to introduce them without killing the gameplay
I’d imagine we would get some upgrades to the top missiles already in-game when Python 4 is added. Sort of like 4.5 gen missiles
I believe there is a version of the AIM-9M with the seeker from a Stinger, there’s also the R-73M which should be fine, PL-8B, Magic 2 could get another buff, and even the AAM-3 is underperforming iirc, that should pretty much cover everyone, though of course I don’t think any of them are as good as the Python 4 could be so we’ll have to wait and see.
This is not to say that kfir is very cool. I personally liked the J-7D a lot more. Now it’s advantageous to play a fighter rather than a bomber, and kfir is much more focused on hitting the ground.
J-7 is cool, but nothing is as satisfying as killing someone with those DEFAs, maybe not the best gun but certainly one of the most satisfying, so many kills end in the other guy just exploding it’s great
Guns are great, but I’d like some good rockets, at least two. 9G is disgusting
1 Like
Although he earns experience really well. A half week later, I almost took rank 8. I’m thinking about a couple more days. I don’t want to rush the F-15I, to be honest, baz meshupar and Barak 2 are much more interesting to me. I think it’s better first of all.
I’ve always liked the Israeli F-16s, I’m really looking forward to eventually having a Sufa with Python 5s though that’s still a long way away. It’s definitely worth playing the Ayit if you’re grinding the Israeli tree, and the F-16s are all quite good though the Netz is at a bad BR at the moment, constant uptiers to 13.7, I’m hoping for some BR decompression again soon to fix that
Which is better first? I really want the F-15C, to be honest, even though I understand that the F-15I is superior in everything. Although the F-16C is also very interesting to me.
F-15 is more meta but the F-16’s are still very good, very different flight model, the only real downside to the F-16 is 2 less missiles but it’s a much better dogfighter and I find it a bit more survivable, but that might be my own playstyle, I’ve never been great with the F-15, I much prefer good turn fighters like the F-16 or J-10
F-15 have bad maneuverability?
I prefer the F-15 for the climb rate and radar as I like going high and slinging AIM-120s at the start of the game.
That’s not to say F-16 is bad at this, but F-15 is definitely superior in this regard. The extra missiles on the F-15 also help as well.
In general, I’m biased towards heavy fighters :p
1 Like
It’s still a good dogfighter, just feels more focused on energy retention to me, better at going high and fast and staying like that
F-15A have very good dogfight agility, F-15C/F-15E/I are notably heavier and don’t do nearly as well.
its like a top fuel dragster vs an F1 car, each is very good in its own right
1 Like
I want the QA/EX so I can do funny fly-by-wire assisted high-AOA maneuvers while still carrying 10+ AIM-120s.
1 Like
I think the F-16 is more suitable for me, i have mirage 2000,j-10, although I have no experience with the F-15 and I’m definitely interested in it. My friend plays the Jas-39, so I think I’ll take the F-16 first to play with him in tandem.