Last time they broke all the AESA radar at the start of Hornet update and the way they fixed them was to decrease their scanning speed.
What they’re doing is just restoring the old version performance.
What is this aesa hmd buff you guys all speak of? What changed?
It’s always the best to check WT update logs man.
The one that reduced the timeframes for the locks, they should feel more instantaneous now, same goes for the ACM box.
I lowkey forgot the even did this lol
worse flight model
has massively increased wing loading for a very small increase in empty thrust to weight
2 Likes
Basically what im reading is either cope or buy arma reforger and forget WT exists.
Ah yeah, my mistake on that part, ty for the correction
1 Like
You’ve already been caught admitting you argue in bad faith to keep the Rafale on top in game, so nobody should take anything you say seriously, but I’ll humour you for a sec.
We dont know if a Rafale with 6 micas and no HMD would be able to compete or not with all the stated jets. As a matter of fact, its very likely it would still do fine, seeing as it would not change the fact that the MICA is vastly superior to all other missiles in-game, which is the primary (though not the only) factor for its utter dominance of the meta in WT.
Theres also no reason to take your opinion on how well the Rafale would perform vs new additions with any level of credibility if we give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you arent arguing in bad faith (for once), since you are the author of the 2 major cry posts about the addition of the R-77-1 and AIM-120C-5, pretending each of those missiles additions would make the Rafale “obsolete” and requiring emergency pre-emptive buffs, so you clearly have a terrible sense of actual game balance in the first place if you arent/werent arguing in bad faith.
ie: You’re either arguing in bad faith, or have the literal worst sense of game balance, either way your statements on Rafale-related game balance hold literally 0 credibility at this point, since you spent the last year comprehensively destroying any credibility you had with anyone but Rafale fanboys.
It is entirely fair. If the 8x MICA + HMD Rafale cannot be matched by any 4th gens in-game, there is quite literally no reason for it to be in-game without 5th gens being added. It also makes it all the worse that gaijin has non-stop buffed it over the year since its addition.
Its vastly more reasonable and fair towards general game balance to nerf the F3R to historical french service standards than it is to just keep it as is and pretending its not an issue or that potential upcoming jets might close the performance gap enough to make it balanced, since keep in mind, the jets I noted for compairison arent even garanteed to all be coming next update, or any update soon for that matter.
5 Likes
I never thought the day would come that you would state the Rafale F4 shouldn’t come into the game unless 5th gens would accompany the addition, let alone two people agreeing with this take.
3 Likes
okay to be fair there are probably fourth gen counterparts, just that they aren’t in game yet (cough j-10c). Anything we have in game currently aren’t.
Fun fact the rafale f3r had its first flight in the end of 2018 so let’s say it entered service in 2019.
Meanwhile the EF T2 we have is from around 2009.
The F15c GE we will get is from around 2010.
The Su-30SM is from around 2012.
(you could argue that it is from the early 2000s since it is more or less the same as the Su30mki, dosent really matter tho)
The J-10A is from around 2008.
The F-2A is from the 2010s as well.
Interesting how the rafale ingame is a decade younger than most of the other nations top tier/ end of the line jets
2 Likes
We will need at least 8th gen for mica ng to be matched !!!
1 Like
Like I already stated, I doubt the J-10C will be a counterpart in WT, as its HOBS capbilities are degraded to gain the improvements to the FM and 2 extra missiles. Seems more like a sidegrade to me unless there are major changes to ARH’s that make BVR combat viable.
Maybe Mica could be nerfed to be less opressive. Or map design and AIM-120 could be changed in a way long range shots would actually matter more.
Or just ajust the other seeker to the level of the Mica, simple as it is.
1 Like
The annoying part regarding the seeker situation (atleast in the MICA vs AMRAAM case) is that the MICA seeker is modelled according to sources via a bug report (atleast iirc), while the AMRAAM was not.
The AMRAAM seeker beamwidth had been reported and accepted for a very long time and this point, with the devs showing 0 interest in modelling it accurately.
Even then though, I’m not sure how much of an impact improving the AMRAAM to historical seeker beamwidth would actually have on gameplay. It would definitely improve the AMRAAM’s resistance to chaff during notches, but I’m not sure by how much exactly.
I think theres a lot of major issues with missiles as currently modelled in-game, with bigger ones such as radars preferring to lock missiles than jets, likely incorrect control surface moment arms, and probably also speed/range/angle gates for missile seekers making them too susceptible to being decoyed, but the seeker beamwidth is the most simple and obvious issue on which the MICA gets preferential treatment, so its what everyone focuses on atm, which is fair to tbh, since if gaijin cant be trusted to fix such a layup of an issue, theres no reason to trust them on fixing anything more complex…
4 Likes
Water doesn’t 100% absorb any explosion happening nearby. And I’ve never had a MICA splash someone hard over water. Fakour, Phoenix, R-77 all worked but not MICA.
Radars dont work good enough.for 10km ceiling .
Radars are basically RNG and what about lower tiers?
Early jets that face runaway supersonic jets was already borderline ganebreaking. Now they can actually hide…
These decisions need more thought as 10 km might improve ganeplay for a very few certain type of players while the rest suffer
it’s actually nerfed - not on par with IRL stats
And so are the other fox-3’s, but those don’t get special seeker treatment.