Apologies but that just reads as bias does it not?
“Here’s a new SPAA system implemented in within the last few years with brand new modern missiles but we cannot add the AGM-88 (1979), AGM-84E (1991), or the SCALP (1994/2003) because they’re too advance.” By the time they’re added, they won’t be relevant or useful.
Thats either an admission of bias (on behalf of Gaijin, not you specifically) or a community manager admitting a sort of “Look, Russian tech isnt as good as US/Western tech so we have to pull more modern vehicles to ensure balance in our game”. Its one of those two.
Between the BMPT curbstomping since implementation, KH-38 having no equal, and now a second top tier SPAA (glossing over the very real fact that the last time a Pantsir was added, it dominated the SPAA game for like two years), there’s very little room to interpret a better, more modern Pantsir beyond just pure bias without Gaijin showing the data that the BUK is under performing. What is available to us as players shows its doing fine.
I want to say someone on Gaijin’s behalf has mention that balancing doesn’t just look at the vehicle in and of itself/in a vacuum but also how it fits into a line-up but that could just be wishful thinking. The fact is that Russia players will have two very powerful SPAA options as free vehicles, coupled with the best performing A2G missile while being protected by nearly invincible BMPTs, how else should players interpret that?
You guys are going to add it regardless so feedback-wise, I guess don’t? Or give us HARMs.
We’ve never added vehicles or technology purely on the basis of what year they came from. So its not clear what comparison you are trying to draw here.
Simply because two vehicles came out in the same year, does not mean their technical capabilities are the same from a game / gameplay perspective.
When we add the Leopard 2PL in 2021, it had been in service not even a full year. That didn’t mean every other nation got a 2020/21 tank at the same time as a result. So the same applies here.
SCALP for example is a 250km + Cruise Missile with a complex seeker and warhead. It has nothing to do with the age of the weapon or vehicle. But the capabilities they have.
Similarly Anti-Radiation missiles have nothing to do with that time period they were from. They are an entirely new type of weaponry that is not present in game yet. This is simply a new SPAA platform.
This has nothing to do with “bias”. We have had periods of the game where multiple different nations have had the most “modern” vehicle at the time in terms of age. I don’t recall you speaking up then in those cases. But suddenly now its Russian bias.
Multiple nations have effective top tier SAMs and SPAAs. This new one coming to Russia does not suddenly change the entirely landscape and require HARMS yesterday as a result. Vehicles from different ages have always been featured at top tier. Thats not exclusive or unique to Russia.
As ive already mentioned to you, we have already said anti-radiation missiles are within our plans for consideration in the future. BVV mentioned this within the Q&A. However they are not coming this update. This SPAA is not drastically different from those already featured in game in terms of performance, and does not directly mean Anti-radiation missiles are required exactly at the same time it joins the game. They were never conditional on being added with a single SAM system. Such a comparison is entirely out of proportion. They are an entirely new system and feature.
Hello, yes the bug report was initially passed to the devs but later changed to not a bug. While exact numbers won’t be possible for an in service weapon the documents I posted here mention that it has improved Hobs capability over the charlie model.
I posted to bring attention to this fact as the moderators commented in the bug report that 120c and d have same aerodynamics characteristics
@Smin1080p_WT Anything on whether the F15E will receive the AESA radar and GBU 53 as there is ample evidence that it has those? Or even possibly the AGM 187 of which there’s pictures of the plane with that missile on it. GBU 53 based on its capabilities could act in game exactly as the spice 250 and AGM 187 could act exactly like a brimstone. Thank you.
I’m sorry for bringing this report up again, but, since we are in the more direct communication phase with the devs… is there a way to have them even acknowledge the existence of this issue?
After 5 long years and several reports, I just don’t know what else we can possibly do to have this fixed.
I wouldn’t insist so much if it weren’t because it’s been such a long time… it’s so long overdue!
It really is a quite simple issue to fix, which even YouTubers have already done just to showcase it; therefore it is beginning to appear as if it was an intentional manipulation of the vehicle’s performance for whatever reason. It is difficult to believe such an issue would go unnoticed or remain unsolved for so many years and after so many reports.
Smin, can we pls never launch a Dev on a Monday again?
As most of the Mods who forward the report are at work or busy with other stuff, it looks like barely any reports are getting forwarded compared to a normal Dev Server on a weekend
this causes the launcher to be elevated above the aim point to loft the missile on launch, with the Type 81(c) however the seeker is still centered within the gimbal which means that to acquire a target you have to aim lower which just results in the same launcher elevation as if the seeker was centered in both the gimbal and on the crosshair, but harder to aim because the seeker doesn’t go where you thing it should, it also often results in lose of lock as you have to manually lift the launcher above the target once the seeker is on it to avoid hitting the ground, on fainter heat signatures this can cause the seeker to jump of the target, especially if they are near the sun:
As you can see the explanation that “is is done specifically to prevent rockets from hitting the ground.” simply doesn’t bear out in reality and to do that the seeker should be set up like on the Type 93.
Could we please have a review of the decision to ignore this bug and at the very least have the seeker centered on the crosshair so it’s on screen when zoomed, or preferably fixed to be like the Type 93 to actually loft the missile like the bug report manager claims it should be doing?
Adding the turret basket to the Type 10 and especially the Leclerc (which is mid as hell) while the BMPTs still haven’t gotten theirs (not to mention the fact that they should’ve been there in the first place) while it’s literally breaking the game is just… Infuriating and frankly despicable. No other words.
Did the same hull armor changes get applied to the T-26E? They share the same hull, as mentioned in the report, but it’s not clarified here if it was applied to it as well.
