Every single time Ive tried to fire a Skyslugs using PDV. It misses without explanation. Well within parameters.
Exact same shot fired when in SRC. Hits with ease.
I need to gather more data ideally. But it’s a jet I hate playing. But something is definetly wrong with Skyslugs guided on PDV and I’ve heard the same from a few Viggen players too
It’s generally so bad, that I just avoid using PDV whenever I play it in SB and just stay high and use SRC
Absolute BS lol. You can not MP r24
R-24s also hit instead of having an internal crisis and doing what it wants
If you are playing sim and notice a MiG-23 to late and don’t have time to notch even in you are several feet of the ground its over.
They’re faster and people use them to bomb
Gaijin balances by “player efficiency” remember
No.
Still slower than F-4J/S with napalm.
Then there is no means for RAF phantoms to keep on the same BR as US Naval Phantoms
unless ‘Phantom drivers from US suck bad compared to us on average’
(No offence, Just an example of efficiency which you bring is wrong)
Also @TIGER_TANK_1 Both FG1 and F-4J are rather equal within Skyflash range, which is where most fights occur at this BR.
Well, FG1 is superior due to its notably better high-speed energy retention, but not by much.
It’s why I said F-4J UK should be moved down, and Tornado F3 moved up.
Make 12.0 the BRs of the AIM-9G PD Phantoms and any similar vehicles.
Come on, Alvis.
He is a mindless base bomber, he claimed that Brit Phatoms are the same BR because of
as reason.
it is completely wrong unless napalm meta goes dead.
Also, In his theory, all three British phantoms needed to have lower BR than F-4J unless major American skill issues occurred.
By the way, seems you submitted the wrong Image maybe?
it shows F-4K and F-4EJ Kai. not F-4K vs F-4J.
I also want to disagree with your claim that the difference between Skyflash and AIM-7F is marginal.
(In the match, not on paper)
but sounds better than ‘bombing caused same BR’
I was grabbing bomber acceleration data.
EJ Kai uses the same exact engines as the F-4J, and that acceleration test omitted the gun.
FG1 with gunpod: 63 seconds to mach 1, top speed 1.06 at 100 seconds. 1 base of bombs [10 540 pound bombs]
F-4J without gunpod: Mach 1 in 74 seconds, top speed 1.04 at 120 seconds. 1 base of napalm.
The FG1 is also faster with a base of bombs equipped.
Well, when I say “player efficiency”, everything is counted, even bombing. Let’s face it, there are reasons why Tornado, late F-104 variants aren’t downtiered, because people bomb with them and thus earn decent SL/RP.
We have the F-5AG with same missile kit as IDS, but at .3 lower BR.
There’s a reason the Q-5L and Yak-28B, with their 0.1X somewhere KB, aren’t downtiered.
It’s got roll Royce engines, the tech tree UK phantoms at least. Wonder how that compare with f 4f (German variant; no radar missile kit)
it completely sucks. Quite much of US planes get led to being downtiered thanks to that silly features.
XP-50 and F-16A is an example.
As a joke, I can’t wait to see F-4S go 11.7 while J(UK)/K/M goes 12.3
Became a blatant lie after the napalm meta came and no one but MiG-23ML reached base first.
THAT IS WHY F-4F IS 11.0 NOT 12.0 FOR CHRIST’S SAKE
Will you stop derailing and terraforming this topic into another base-bombing topic? will ya?
I’m not turning this into another bombing topic, but you can’t deny it is 12.0 only because of “alternative means” of mission score.
Moreover, Gaijin tend to ignore vehicles that don’t have too many players playing, so maybe that’s the answer?
Efficiency is defined as normalize silver lion gain, as per their official post.
Nothing else matters at first pass evaluation - only how it measures to its peer vehicles in obtaining silver lions at a normalized rate.
Why?
Their argument is that SL gain is an indicator of all “useful actions” it performs in a match without bias - bombing, killing, winning etc.
I think they really need to add a filter to this efficiency data based on the origin of said data (ergo: if someone has terrible “efficiency” across the board, weigh their data lass. Same for people with exceptional efficiency.)
Any sources on this? Would like for the original post, so I can send it once in a while. THanks.
Battle Ratings
While we’re here, we’d like to give some additional context behind Battle Ratings and how they’re decided. Battle Ratings are decided based on how much a vehicle earns, but this is not purely economical. We use this metric because it’s all encompassing and considers every action a player makes with their vehicle, so this considers frags, assists, caps, and effectively every useful action a vehicle can perform all bundled into one universal metric.
This is the “Efficiency” of each vehicle and gives us a very well rounded perspective on all of its abilities and how it’s actually being used.
If a vehicle has high efficiency, it’s outperforming its contemporaries in multiple ways the majority of times it spawns on the map, and as a result may have to be increased in Battle Rating. Whereas a vehicle with low efficiency is not performing well across the board against what it fights, and may be moved down. However this is not purely a data driven process, we often consider additional factors such as the volume of players using a certain vehicle, its lineup, new features that may be altering performance in different ways etc — and this often leads us to delay a change we otherwise would have made to gather more information. Even though we do primarily go by this efficiency metric, we aren’t bound by it, and spend a lot of time each Battle Rating cycle to look over feedback for different perspectives and elements we may not have initially considered.
Ultimately, it’s very hard to balance a vehicle in a vacuum. On paper an aircraft might have incredible speed, or a tank might have great penetration for its Battle Rating, but this is cold data, in the sense that just because a vehicle on the surface has a very impressive asset, it doesn’t mean that asset guarantees high performance. It’s more about how a vehicle is actually functioning in the game, rather than weighing up its assets in isolation. So efficiency is good data to be informed by as it considers everything and everyone.
We’d like to note that when balancing aircraft before the introduction of separate Battle Ratings by mode, in the vast majority of cases the Battle Rating was set according to the performance for Air Battles, and not Ground Battles. We understand that many of you wanted a Battle Rating reduction for strike aircraft in Air Battles, so we have some additional answers for you on this below.
and this why the Tornado MFG, A200 and WTD61 have a different BR to the ASSTA1, GR1 and A200A because they have a higher effeciency somehow.
Laughing in Sea Harrier at 11.3 in sim for some reason.
Yeah…
Which is the same as the vark, phantom, MiG-23 MLD, SU-24
And so on lol even before the buffs us harrier players are just built different
