Hes right you know, the grass isnt always greener on the otherside like you might think.
Flying other aircraft at the br you can finally take the rose tinted glasses off and realise x aircraft isnt as great as you might think.l from an outside perspective.
Yeah everything suffers in uptiers but before making any br changes you need to ask is this really the ‘worst’ at the br. And how does it compare with the br you want it placed.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
not reading, keep trolling.
C&P slop argument again
report for spam and move on, all we can do at this point
This is literally proving @Beeschurger’s point
You have no idea what you’re talking about.
The Su-33 has no ARH missiles
AIM-54’s are worse than AIM-7s in everything besides range.
Range doesn’t mean much as long as the missile is capable of hitting within 10km.
You have limited experience at top tier, and as a result lack a very critical understanding of what makes X thing good or bad and how it compares to everything else.
You focus on the AIM-54 like it’s this insanely op doomslayer missile when all it does is filter out who has a brain and who does not.
You claim vehicles have features that they do not (Su-33)
Since Beeschurger is at work, I will post this for him:
Pointing out that somebody lacks sufficient knowledge to speak authoritatively on a topic is not automatically an ad hominem fallacy. An ad hominem is dismissing an argument purely by attacking the person instead of addressing the substance of the claim. What happened here is different: your own factual mistakes directly demonstrate a lack of familiarity with the subject you are arguing about.
For example, you confidently claimed that the Su-33 sits at BR 13.0 with ARH missiles. That is objectively false and immediately obvious to anyone who has actually unlocked the aircraft, viewed its loadouts in the hangar, or played it in battles. That is not a matter of opinion or interpretation — it is simply incorrect information.
When somebody repeatedly makes verifiable factual errors about the mechanics, loadouts, or matchmaking environment they are discussing, questioning their level of experience is completely reasonable. Expertise matters because experience reduces the likelihood of exactly these kinds of mistakes.
You are trying to frame criticism of your knowledge as “gatekeeping,” but there is a difference between dismissing someone for being new and pointing out that their argument relies on incorrect premises. If someone incorrectly states objective game data, then their credibility on the topic naturally becomes relevant.
Ironically, the actual fallacy here is closer to the opposite: treating your argument as equally authoritative regardless of whether the underlying information is accurate. Facts do not become true simply because someone states them confidently.
And frankly, the refusal to acknowledge obvious factual mistakes after they are pointed out comes across as immature. Nobody knows everything about War Thunder, and there is nothing wrong with lacking experience in a particular area of the game. The childish part is pretending that experience and familiarity with the subject are irrelevant while simultaneously making elementary factual errors about aircraft loadouts and BR placement.
If you want to argue balance seriously, the discussion has to start from accurate information. Otherwise the entire conclusion becomes unreliable from the outset.