The Su-27SM getting the dual mounts was already sketchy enough, if we gave every vehicle the same amount of treatment the US and Russia get for fictional loadouts and buffs you’d find a lot less complaining as things might be slightly more balanced.
Seriously the images used to give the dual mounts is hilarious because it’s not even really that clear and the devs actively remove posts talking about them.
Also I wouldn’t make fun of your post if you put actual effort into giving more valid options for the post to begin with. You’re only options are leave it undertiered or buff it and move it to where it should have been.
Your post in general is balanced towards buffing the Su-30 prems regardless of their current performance which in and of itself is a joke especially given how blatantly hand held they are at their respective BRs.
I was originally just asking a question because I was curious about the aircraft’s capabilities, so there was no need to come in here acting like a smug Redditor. The post wasn’t even that serious to begin with. I’m doing some research into the Su-30’s capabilities and simply wanted to find out whether it can use those pylons.
Let’s not forget the Gripen D at 13.7 with worse agility, worse overall fuel (not too big of a deal), no gun, and missiles that don’t allow you to use the agility you do have all while still keeping the 4x fox 3 missiles at 13.7 is considered superior to the Su-30 premiums
Or as MiGoon pointed out the OCU f16 with only 45cms and no radar HMS at 13.7
You didn’t just ask a question though, you asked the question of if it can get dual mounts then proceeded to only give two options both of which buff the Su-30 while they simultaneously are the best performing 13.3s
If you hadn’t bothered making a poll that was biased in favor of buffing the Su-30 either way and actually gave people a valid option to select I wouldn’t have to make such a big deal but you didn’t think about that.
You’re the one making a big deal out of this. I want the aircraft to move up either way. I was curious about the dual pylon and wanted to find out if it can use it. So that might’ve struck a nerve, which is why you used insults. Calm down.
Specifically you don’t say that in your post which means that view only came after you saw people didn’t like your post, don’t try to twist this like you didn’t explicitly only state that it should be 13.7 only with it getting buffed because these are the only times you mentioned it moving to 13.7 in your post and you specifically state with the extra missiles
Again you didn’t ever state in your post that it should move up without any buffs
Buff or no buff, it should move up either way. I was thinking about this in a way that wouldn’t upset people who already bought the aircraft, and I also wanted to find out if it can carry that pylon, because seeing that in game would be really cool. I feel like you’re looking at this through a really malicious lens when that simply isn’t the case here. I want players to get something worth buying, and I thought that if it gets moved up, the two extra missiles would be nice ,but that can’t be added if it isn’t historical. I want the aircraft to move up in battle rating too, which is why I added the poll at the bottom. If it doesn’t get the extra missiles, it still needs to move up in battle rating. And next time, you shouldn’t come crashing into forums like that when someone is asking a simple question and checking if the addition would be historically accurate.
Why should people get compensation for buying a blatantly undertiered vehicle? Let’s not play dumb it’s like the Sav going up for example I’m not gonna request it get buffed unless the vehicle somehow became unplayable which isn’t gonna happen at 4.0.
How about the BMPT do the players who saw how good it was on the dev need compensation for having the most undertiered vehicle in history because it was placed too low?
Same for other blatantly undertiered vehicles that’s part of the reason people buy them to begin with is to abuse their low BR status, hell the Harrier GR1 was 9.0 on launch and within 3 hours was bumped up to 9.3 and then 9.7, or the Swedish MI-28A going up from 9.7 to 10.7 lmao they didn’t get buffs they got balanced
Believe it or not it’s a marketing strategy to get more money by releasing an undertiered vehicle and milking it to kingdom come. Once the money slows they eventually decide to balance the vehicle to make way for the next money maker.
I kind of understand what you’re saying, but again, it feels like you think I’m trying to abuse the system when I’m not. A better example, so we’re on the same page, is similar to what you said with the SAV. I’d approach it from a logical standpoint: I’d want it to move up, but with a condition, could something be added to it that would balance at that new battle rating so it can compete with the best of the best in a complete uptier? For example, better gun depression, faster reverse, or an extra crew member. If I can’t find sources for that, even with help from the community or on my own, then it can’t be added, and it would have to be moved up without any positive changes.
That’s what I’m trying to present here: if the Su-30MK2 goes up in battle rating, could it also receive the extra missiles like the Su-27sm, especially since compression in the game is really bad right now? If there’s no historical evidence for it, then it can’t happen. You’re using very extreme examples such as the BMPT and SAV which are extremely good, hell BROKEN.
With how emotional you were acting, I’m going to conclude that you’re in the group that wants the aircraft to move up in battle rating, but with possible nerfs. Some people on the forum seem to be allergic to civil discussions.
