I love this literally, those who support TT F-14 say there are people using bots, and those who don’t support it say they’re using bots, but I think that at the end of the day, the problem is that these 1,000 people think they represent the ‘Community’ or the majority, without even knowing the opinion of 95% of the community.
2 Likes
Bro… a lot of people have already told you about your “objective” survey, well, really, it’s not good to produce clones in the tech tree, just because for movie lovers top gan f14d is something special
Don’t worry, I’m just noticing.
Bots are just a part of the problem.
Let me quote myself.
I had a genuine laugh when I found this.
Usernames are wt_jk, wt_fk and wt_lm.
All voted at the same time, all created on the same day…
Some people are certainly invested in this thread, which is why it got more than 1k votes with only 50ish unique users posting. So many voters are either literal bots or accounts that just happen to hop on the forum for the first time in months (with ridiculously low read times), cast their vote there and then disappear into thin air again, probably until a similar poll arises in the future. Definitely not compelled voters being used.
Not to mention the biased nature of said poll and inherent problems with polls on this forum in general.
6 Likes
That is exactly the issue. The current implementation may be CW-like because it lacks visible distance / distGate, but that does not mean CW-only behavior is historically correct. The AIM-54C documentation specifically states range discrimination and improved beam-aspect capability. Doppler discrimination and range discrimination are not the same thing, so adding a range-gate mechanic would be correcting the missing documented behavior. I believe stating PD as a ‘distance’ modifier might be seen as a fallacy considering the state of bug reports.
8 Likes
I did not buy it, but I think the AIM-54C+(?) should at least receive those seeker and other buffs that were mentioned by other players previously. Just stating that they have different cooling and are a functionally identic copy paste is not cool.
7 Likes
As well as the 54C+ receiving a much newer Transmitter adapted from the Aim-120, It should be able to take full advantage of newer LFM techniques to Range Discriminate, which is what this distance / distGate is trying to mimic but obviously having a much weaker distance / distGate function than modern ARHs
9 Likes
It is on the work as a report.
1 Like
Exactly but we won’t use that as a primary argument as it is ambiguous. We have direct proof of range discrimination instead.
Edit: Because devs might just close the report instantly saying it doesn’t prove anything :(
1 Like
They did the exact same thing to a multipage report for the abrams m1a3s armor.
1 Like
It’s impossible to say, but I’d bet it won’t be included for the purposes of balance and maintenance in BR
Yeah, the problem is that if a SINGLE source is not perfectly on point, the whole report can get dismissed, which is a bit silly. The M1A3 report was rejected for lacking exact information, but exact information is basically impossible to obtain for most modern vehicles.
So what is the expected standard here? Should we use educated guesses and conservative approximations based on available evidence, or should we just do nothing and watch the Leclerc get nerfed again?
5 Likes
The problem is that the reports don’t want ‘conversational changes’ I’ve seen things like LFP with 2000mm .)
Most of these fixes would only be minor buffs. From what I saw, there are three possible improvements to the missile, or four if you count the motor, though that one would be more indirect. It would not really increase max range directly, but it could improve lofting behavior so maybe indirectly improve the range indirectly.
Individually, these changes are small, but together they could make the missile noticeably better. Still, I don’t think that would justify a BR increase, because the F-14D is definitely not on the same level as the premium Su-30s.
4 Likes
The problem is F-4s against Fox-3 missiles with Pulse-Doppler seekers :=
1 Like
Even if it were true, I doubt it would be accepted. The mods themselves said there isn’t enough information, and then it hits you with the : “InCrEAsE wHAt? tO hwAT dEgReE? ThiS dOeSN’t MEaN ANytHIng.”
The issue is bigger than individual bug reports being flawed. It is Gaijin’s reluctance to use educated guesses or conservative approximations when exact data is unavailable even though they said THEY WOULD and admitted you CANNOT get exact numbers. Even if a report contains some exaggerated claims, that should not automatically invalidate the sources themselves. They could still extract the useful parts and use them as a basis for a more reasonable model.
The real problem is that Gaijin often seems to add vehicles with major mistakes, strange bugs, and inconsistent armor values, and then players are expected to fix the interpretation afterward through bug reports. It would be much better if the vehicles started from a reasonable baseline instead of requiring the community to correct everything after release.
In a perfect world, which this clearly isn’t, they would extract every useful primary source from a report, send it to someone qualified to interpret it properly, and then pass that information to the developers.
Instead, they leave players to do most of the research, documentation, testing, and correction work themselves. Then the same players have to fix lazy mistakes and bad estimations that should have been avoided before the vehicle was even added and ask for the moon to correct it.
At this point, players are not only keeping the game alive economically; they are also helping keep its mechanics and historical modeling functional.
3 Likes
I shred a tear every night for the state of the F-4 BR situation but this is a sacrifice I am willing to make.
2 Likes
To add to that, a lot of War Thunder’s direction seems to come from a Russian-centered perspective, which can indirectly explain part of the Russian bias.
People often act like this is some impossible idea, but it really is not. Look at how many Leopard players claim that the Leopard is “the best tank in the world,” with the best gun, the best armor, and the best everything, even when some of those claims are simply wrong. The reality is that “best tank” depends heavily on doctrine, logistics, terrain, crew training, ammunition, support, and the army using it.
Most people do not care about tanks or planes in a fully neutral way. They care about their nation’s tanks, their nation’s aircraft, and their nation’s weapons. The developers and the people involved in implementation are probably not completely different. They are more familiar with Russian vehicles, they care more about their details, and they are more likely to notice when something Russian is missing or underperforming.
So Russian vehicles may end up being modeled more carefully, or receive specific mechanics earlier, while other nations are left with rougher approximations until players push hard enough through bug reports. That does not require a grand conspiracy. It can simply come from national familiarity, selective attention, and the fact that they know their own equipment better than everyone else’s.
2 Likes
As predicted haha It does indeed have PD, it’s just labelled as CW for some reason.
Edit: I think it should be changed for PD visually but it might be linked to the ’ range ’ setting if it make sense. The 54C do not have this, at least not yet.
4 Likes