how is that relevant to a rule about HMD?
heres an example of how bad this logic is
I can make up a rule about planes with MICA not being allowed to have HMD
and if you say thats fake ill just reply with bug report it
The rule doesn’t exist. It’s entirely at the developers discretion. Let’s consider the implications of devs actually not implementing the following.
F-5C without flares just becomes worlds most obnoxious 9.3 premium aircraft. Or just a free kill to any relatively potent missile.
Yak-141 gets deleted from the game or just has no ordinance.
Rafale doesn’t get 8 MICAs. Oh no…it only gets as many missiles as the F-16C while being better in every possible way upon introduction. It doesn’t get HMD? Oh no it would still have the best radar for the past year and still the best flight performance and best HOBS radar missile.
Where is the AMRAAM on the F-15A if this policy exists? Why is the F-15A outfitted with a mixture of early weaponry and late countermeasures?
Where is the Grom 1? Why was that trialed but then removed from the game before it could ever become live?
It’s because it’s not a firm policy. It’s at the discretion of the developers. And the developers bought the line that the Rafale needed HMD + 8 MICA before even a patch cycle because the French community cried bloody murder that the plane would be a DOA side grade to Mirage 2000 if it didn’t.
2 Likes
gaijin added aim 120 A,B,C but not enought competitive vs mica I don’t understand why no nerf it or add same value missile for other nations french mains come with mica is bad in long range why other fox3 missile no? is esay to evade from long range…
gaijin added aim 120 a/b and it was competitive with mica
so they artificially nerfed the aim 120 but have yet to nerf the mica
1 Like
so you’re only accepting things that are relevant now? but those are relevant, as they used the SAME argumentation than what it have been used for both HMD and additional MICA’s
you’re saying that we lie about a “rule” that Community Managers talked about, regularly:
So saying that this “rule” doesn’t exist is a blatant lie you’ve achieved.
and because you don’t know how the game work about adding new stuff:
meaning that if you want those HMD you talked about for F-15/F-14, you have to do a Bug-report!
Now,… that you know that Rule exist, and how to make it for other stuff,… go on,…
but all those informations were accessible before you were lying about the rule.
You have yet to answer my question on either of those vehicles. The rule can still stand if none of those vehicles were actually reported.
you literally just disproved your point
all of these are saying that it CAN be added if it was used experimentally or is possible
but you are trying to claim that they are saying it MUST be added which is blatantly false
and again none of these are about HMD
the rule cant stand because it doesnt exist
if it did both of those would have been added with HMD
because it was discussed and well known on the forums that both of them tested HMD well before they were added
The rule still stands if you don’t have proof that the developers are aware of it existing and that they then denied it. Anything else is an excuse, and no, discussions on forums don’t amount to anything.
I dont think you understand reality
that “rule” never existed
its just something you made up to buff your plane
I dont care if you somehow convinced yourself that its the truth but it has never been an actual rule dictating additions to the game
2 Likes
I prefer having an historical MICA compared to fake additional missiles. Having a missile with a bit more energy compared to 2 more of them when the meta favors short range would have been a straight nerf though.
Taking things out of context is nice and all, but at the time :
- the seeker was the same as other missiles
- Rafale was strong, but had not all the FM buffs it now has under its belt, and we did not now it would be as OP as it was brand new
Were it for me, we would have gone with a F2 variant with fixed MICA (shorter boost and not the Cx of a washing machine) and i was myself undecided on the HMD
Twist it how you want, what i said at the time and considering the context was quite reasonable and i stand by it. Less endurance for Rafale, for a moderate range buff, with an airframe that wasn’t as busted as it is now
EDIT : wait that’s even worse, you didn’t even read the date properly… Rafale was not even in the dev server at the time X)
And in the following messages, a lot of “french mains” are discussing the amount of missiles it can carry. Some are more reasonable than others, but not everyone agrees on the amount it should get. No room for @FeetPics argument about “secret agreement in the french community”’
Yeah, we’d prefer that too for the AMRAAM, Aim-9M and Brimstones
Nah, I can be and have been wrong in the past, difference is I dont go around lying about it knowingly
I was and still am not lying, as i was clearly not in favor of having 8 missiles. I stand by what i said in that very post considering the context of the time.
Rafale was also just a leak when the post was written, so accusing me of defending it for being OP while it was not in game is… interesting, to say the least
And for the proof :
Screenshot taken by wrecking during the dev server, notice anything with the date ?
When did i mention a “vast majority”, i said people were split on the matter. I won’t go into name calling, but calling me a liar continuously while twisting my words left, right and centre is getting quite tiring.
you’re saying that we SHOULD see HMD for F-15A or F-14A/B but there is nothing that allow such implementation in Community Bug Reporting System so there can’t be any implementation of those,…
you’re trying to put words in my mouth too,… i told your lies are lies, because the rule exists and have been used for Rafale, as it have been in the past for way too many things to count.
but if you’re feeling the need to be bratty about it,… maybe you’ll have enough energy to create the bug-report/suggestions of HMD for F-15A & F-14A/B, and therefore being YOURSELF a user of the said rule.
now,… i have other things to do than baby-sitting,…
M8, you gotta do a better job keeping track of your lies, this is getting embarassing…
You “knew it would be OP” the moment it was added, but somehow didnt know it would be “as OP as it was” and felt fine still advocating for buffs despite knowing it would be OP already? So you’re admitting to openly supporting overbuffing it despite “already knowing it would be OP”, or are you still just making stuff up to appear more reasonable now that the Rafale mains image has been comprehensively destroyed by your collective unreasonableness and more details coming out over time of your collective lies and bad faith arguments over the last year?
We knew it would be OP or badly modelled, read the whole sentence please
Considering the track record on french stuff one year ago, i genuinely thought it would be the second option.
1 Like
Note: sidegrade to the current 2nd best plane in the game (stat-wise).
Not too bad, if you ask me.
Otherwise completely agreed.
Ah yes, cuz the M2K5F was just an absolute suffer bus, as was the M2KCS4/5 🙄
Any reasonable person would take a “wait and see” approach before requesting pre-emptive buffs if their opinion was that itd be either OP or badly modelled, but thats not really y’alls M.O in hindsight
Either I misspoke or misquoted you, sorry about that mistake.