It’s clearly on par with a 2A7.
1 Like
I asked to have a Q&A with the devs once a month where they spend 10 minutes on answering some collected questions here on the forum, but I was told they were too busy with developing the game that they could not spare 10 minutes a month to engage with the community they develop the game for.
9 Likes
You moved the sea harrier FRS1 down in ARB but apparently consider it 100% equal in performance to be the mig 23MLD in Sim
Also, the hunter F6 (France) moved up to 9.3 in ARB, but stayed at 9.0 in sim. Meanwhile the Hunter FGA9 is still 9.7 in sim.
F4J(UK) is worse than the FGR2/FG1 but is 0.7 BRs higher than them in sim with no justification at all.
I could go on
If nothing else, you guys clearly only scan read suggestions and skipped over multiple…some of these issues are reported time and time again and never addressed. Able to comment on the above then?
Why the sea harrier FRS1 did not move down in sim, but the MLD, the strongest aircraft at 11.7 in sim, moved down to 11.3? Why the French Hunter F6 is considered equal to the hunter F1 in sim? And the FGA9 is considered so OP? And why the F4JUNK is so over BRed?
8 Likes
Wild when so much of the changes recently have been mostly copy and paste and just adding a lot of out-of-bounds sections to maps in order to bandaid spawn camping instead of just fixing/editing the map.
8 Likes
The drivers right arm and left leg are gonna be so swoll
2 Likes
It has been answered previously, an i assume the same answer still stands so there really wouldn’t be a need to repeat it.
(how i feel about the vehicle and its BR isn’t relevant here, i just wanted to point out that it has indeed been answered)
In fairness. What they said was basically
“We know the community wants it to move up, but instead, we are going to try to address some of the issues with it by trying out new internal modules instead, so we’ll add those to it first and see what happens”
But 6? Months on and the community opinion hasnt changed it seemed, if anything it’s gotten stronger with the infinite ammo thing
6 Likes
Thats from april.
Thats not even relevant anymore.
Quite some time passed since the addition of the new internals and the 2s38 even got a buff with it as well.
Even then compared with puma s1 , kf41 namer ifv etc.
People still believe it should be raised becsuse its performance is so strong even after the changes. Nothing has been explained by the devs. Its performance is still steong
6 Likes
“Mom, can we get good community engagement?”
“We have community engagement at home.”
The community engagement:
https://youtu.be/liSstdLqjRM?si=wFOYwom4o1Ge4eGx
(I apparently don’t know how to share links :P)
9 Likes
One more round of totally pointless BR changes if you even dare to think about playing naval.
How long is it going to take them until they start giving ships BRs based on their performance and not put all same class ships to same BRs.
We have WW2 Era battleships at same BR as WW1 Dreadnought’s.
We have US destroyers with actual armor and superior firepower at same BR as other nations DDs that lack many cases firepower and armor. We have Japanese destroyers that have BRs only based on fact that “In theory they can kill any ship if they land torpedo”, but in reality they get their ass handed to them by pretty much every other destroyer.
4 Likes
Even if that is the case, it isn’t “ignoring” it.
An answer you do not like is still an answer.
That is a fair point.
But i also think that with the new modules the don’t just need to reevaluate the 2s38 but basically all light vehicles, and since many of them got their internals later i am assuming that they are looking at the efficiency off all of those vehicles before making bigger changes to any single one of them.
Sure, it has been a while and changes has been made since that comment, but they have not “ignored” it as it has been looked at and increased in BR together with several other light vehicles around that BR.
1 Like
runs sale on A5C
sale ends
immediately moved to a BR where it now faces more than 2x the amount of newer generation SARHs
And why is this justified? Because of two short range, rear aspect missiles.
J35XS, F5C, now the F1C, same treatment. Always tends to come directly after a sale too.
7 Likes
Following up with a “Hey, we know this is still a point of contention for many of you. We want to assure you that we are still monitoring the performance of this vehicle following the changes we have implemented. Should we see anything change, we will communicate that with you. We ask that you continue to be patient” costs the devs and CMs nothing.
7 Likes
AHAHAHHAAHHAHAHA they could’ve just told you to f off, and it would’ve been more honest
4 Likes
That assumes a level of competence on Gaijin’s part that I think no longer exists >.>
3 Likes
In any case. If 200+ liked suggestions don’t even get commented on then suggestion like mine for the Hunter FGA9 to have the same BR as the French Hunter F6 instead of being 0.7 BRs higher (in sim) stands 0 chance of even being recognised in my opinion with barely 20 likes.
Whilst of course they cant comment on everything and of course they cant adjust everything. Its the really obvious problems, the “apply a small amount of common sense” balancing issues like
F4J(UK) being 12.0 vs the FGR2/FG1 being 11.3 in Sim
Or
Hunter F1 being 9.0, French Hunter F6 being 9.0 and the Hunter FGA9 being 9.7 in Sim (Just drop the FGA9 down to 9.3, bump the F6 up to 9.3 (like they did in ARB) and problem solved)
Heck, even things like the fact the Kfir Canard, Sea Harrier FRS1 and AMX A-1A are the same BR as the Mig-23MLD. That is just kinda insane to me. Aircraft with extreme limitations vs an aircraft that has basically none.
and with things like the F-16s and Su-27/J-11 moving down, you now have to try and fight those with early PD radars and weak SARH like in the Phantom FGR2 except they werent even looked at to maybe move down, not an inch.
(I have DMed a CM before asking about a few of these and the answer was always “we wont comment in DM, ask again in an appropriate thread”, so I do, and It never gets answered. to this day, after a year of asking, I have no idea why something like the F4J(UK) is 0.7 BR higher than the superior TT Phantoms)
8 Likes
Essentially what they did either way
2 Likes
This is redicilous, next time feedback should be empty there is no reason to waste your time since Gajin will do whatever they want.
6 Likes
Also funny how an M163 with a 20mm vulcan, 3000 RPM and IRST is now only .3 away from a WW2 Kugelblitz on a Panzer IV chassis, with 450 RPM a nerfed HVAP belt and a dead BR.
Or .3 away from a Shilka with quad 23mm, 850 RPM and stabilzer,
4 Likes
These changes are hilariously mediocre. Very little that needed to be changed actually changed, and so much feedback was ignored.
15 Likes