Well that is going to cause some friction. Anyhow, I hope you had a good holiday.
Magic 2 corrections are not linked to other missiles.
Right? and?
So is there a specific reason why the Aim-9Ms still have woeful lock ranges?
Magic IIs have gotten 2 notable buffs recently and MICA have also gotten quite a major buff recently. But 9Ms still have massively nerfed lock ranges.
And I was clarifying for you as you seemed to be under the assumption than when a missile in game has a report resolved, it is somehow connected or leads to another entirely separate missile and issue also being resolved. Which is not the case and has no connection or correlation.
I assumed all missiles and their related reports weren’t necessarily being actioned for the sake of maintaining the tenative balance we had at top tier.
Like how all ARH seekers were identical. That then change when MICA got a buffed seeker.
I’ve assumed that reports such as the Aim-9M improved lock ranges werent being actioned for the sake of game balance, but this is the second time now Magic II, which id argue was already stronger missile in a lot of situations, has gotten further buffs. ergo, clearly my originally guess that missile performance was being used as a soft balancing feature isnt actually the case.
Even at lower BRs, I assume the fact SRAAM still have 800m range instead of 2km range was entirely to do with game balance rather than anything else.
So I wonder why 2-3 year old bug reports have been forgotten for a number of missiles.
4 Likes
This would be an incorrect assumption.
This would also be incorrect. They are two entirely different missiles, with no connections to each other. Changes to one, do not lead to or mean anything for the other one.
Then can you nudge these 2-3 year old bug reports which have massive impact on their respective missiles performance then please.
The number of times i’ve had a target not just within range according to the radar, but well and truly inside the LSZ and not even the slighest whiff of a lock with the Aim-9M is frustrating as hell.
When we should be able to lock onto a reheat target in front aspect at 14.45km but can barely get a lock half the time at 3km is just kinda stupid.
3 Likes
Both have been nudged.
2 Likes
Thank you.
2 Likes
Would it be possible if you could nudge the AGM65 bug report, It would give AGM65s a much-needed buff considering how dominant kh38s are. AGM-65 Maverick likely incorrect flight performance // Gaijin.net // Issues
Or they should just remove paper weapons like KH-38MT and nerf AASM down to IRL performance and then AGM-65 would actually be pretty well balanced. Though AGM-65 being a little more consistant would be nice
1 Like
They could, but honestly, I don’t see them removing the fake weapon that KH38mts are. I do see them nerfing AASM though.
Yeah… unfortunately
Its a panzer 4, yeah, definitely panzer 4
tbh I think the only way to balance all this is to remove cas from ground battles, then only tanks won’t suffer from op cas and planes will be as op as they can be in ground attack but against bots
Ground battles cas should be bots like air battles tanks are bots
Has it truly been worked out that they’re paper though?
All I’ve seen in that thread is a bunch of going left and right and “other nations have it bad” type of thing.
As of now, no proof of a working missile was found.
Fair. So people calling it fake without actual solid proof might need to wait a little longer it seems.
( They cope about CAS without the knowledge of how to play against it or abuse it themselves, even if they remove the kh38 nothing will change lol)
1 Like
It is fake until proven otherwise.
Uts existence needs to be proven. Until then the missle just doesnr exist.
And its not like the topic isnonly a few days old now
1 Like
goes for literally most modern weaponry, that’s also the reason why im so against the devs pushing in more and more modern stuff into the game.
but hell, what do i know