This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
First of all everyone I’ve met that plays this game or at least 99% of them complain when a nation they like gets a gimp feature. Secondly, raising awareness around an issue is also a good way to get changed done if I make a bug report and have the people who have been supporting my point on this forum go and say they have the same issue. It’s more likely to get through and get through faster.
Mate why do you think people are pissed? There are plenty of reports about the these things but either they get refused instantly or are stuck in limbo for months.
5 Likes
honestly, its so fucking hilarious. Ma nation is not dominating, this must be wrong!!
If they get refused thats your issue right? How is that a developer issue, if the source doesnt add up. Thats what i think
Also if it doesnt get implemented, like several nations have not had their bug reports implemented. Its usually not severe to the situation.
In this case tho, it could help amraams kinematics wise the bug report that was accepted.
But even an R-77/ Mica em bug report for more pull or degree performance has been accepted yet not implemented. Those 2 missiles would literally wipe out jets in a notch to notch joust between jets.
So i think its a little dumb (no offense) but getting wild about a game in which such bug reports that are accepted n not implemented can break out further more chaos than what the devs can already handle.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
its a developer issue, because theres no consistency whatsoever regarding the recognition of sources. IF there was even the slightes bit of transparency on why some bug reports stay in limbo for months while others get fixed instantly or why a russian brochure gets treated as source gospel while western brochures regularly get the “not enough info” treatment then at least people could work that tranparency into their bug reports but right now its just complete chaos
6 Likes
Do you think the MICA won’t stay as the best missile in the game? The ef-2000 and Rafale won’t have the best flight models it would serve to make the game more balanced. The devs don’t seem to be able to critical think when it comes to anything NATO most of the top weapons in NATO countries are screwed up in major ways that anyone with a brain could see need fixed but the devs do nothing. Bug reports get sent to the either and even ones that get accepted don’t actually get implemented like the aim-120B/C and aim-54C not having their smokeless motors. The whole system feels bias to the whims of the dev who don’t seem to care about balancing unless there is a riot.
Once again, if you lack enough sources to need to go brochures thats pretty much on the playerbase, its upto devs. Also this is again more to do with bug reporter mods who care about source primarily. So if it isnt a clear cut source with 1 primary and 2 secondary sources its just flat out a fugazi or something just made up.
Yes sometimes theres been denials from devs. But isnt the case all the time, or 80% of the time.
You can always resubmit bug reports or ask another bug reporter mod to check it again and pass it to devs
Yes its upto the devs but like i said thers no consistency regarding which brochures are enough and which arent.
Same story. No consistency, just vibes based bug report moderation.
Denial would be ok but what we have now is a wall of silence for some of the most egregious, unrealistic implementations in top tier. Im not advocating that the devs should listen to player reports all the time, im advocating for consistency and transparency
1 Like
I personally do not care about balance. Ive been playing a single nation wether it was meta in the past as jets or not.
Metas come n go in most games. Expecting balance when this game is a mix of everything such as realism and other aspects. Wether mica remains strong or not, if we are going to implement aim-120 and aim54 bug reports that have been accepted, then we should implement R-77/Mica em bug reports
Maybe its nice to have 120s able to get buffs or not. It wont change anything anyway like you said it cuz mica will remain dominant, so why bother caring about it.
Also im not a french main, you can prolly find that out lol. Im not hard core defending those missiles. I just think if we should raise concerns, it should be equally for all missiles in mind.
Thats the sole reason I am here. Also i am trolling a little but thats cuz im having fun because of the stance we had back last year on how “good” aim-120s were compared to this year. (Even tho for the most part nothing has changed except one semi work around)
4 Likes
Who said I wasn’t in favor of bug reports for the r-77 and MICA but the 120 is in more need atm if they implemented all of them I would be more that happy with that and as for dominance yes the Rafale would remain the best but the 120’s WVR being improved would buff AA performance of all nations where it is the primary ARH missile. I have every top tier airframe and missile in the game so I would like things to be more realistic without sacrificing balance meaning upping the MICAs artificial range limit improving the drag coefficient on the AAM-4 improving WVR for the AMRAAM, and if there is a valid report on anything for the R 77 series. Also, the main reason I cite balance in my arguments is because balance is the reason the aim-120 was nerfed to begin with.
Some of the only valid reports for aim 120a are to
-makes its seekerhead better in terms of half angle sensitivity
-increase its energy retention and range against maneuvering targets
-increase its max range against non maneuvering targets
And other general bug fixes that affects all missiles. So like… it’s definitely underperforming but it’s not anything special
2 Likes
I think speaking to bug reporter mods can help sort this issue out, some of the guys i know have made bug reporters and incase gotten rejected wrongly, have had other bug reporter mods look at it.
I disagree, devs being more vocal will have only more of a negative impact than that of a positive impact.
The changes that have been made favor some and prolly not favor some. Thats just simple meta changes on info most people dont have. Devs have already argued for example the IRST seeker change was help to combat ircm resistance,
or in this case of this thread. 120A performance nerf to combat that insane HOBS 120s had on release whilst being a buff on range wise
So far there is also no better pull performance sources on 120.
Why tho? I dont think anything apart from seeker level would even make it that much better for you to notice. It lacks overload Gs, and that aoa performance to combat anyway.
R-77 w grid fins or mica with tvc were designed for the meta none of these guys saw and were day dreaming about “range”. Love how the community learnt “notching” and made 120s which have best fox3 range wise performance completely useless because the player-base just adapted.
Even R-77-1s dont come close to C-5s at 30km+ engagements.
(I dont really care about range) but the point is, amraams were given more range as an advantage, you’d have to take that away in order to get some other level buff.
Like we saw with the changes a year ago after fox3s release. It was nerfed just for pull and buffed for range.
The devs made the right call for balancing purposes since the missile was insanely over performing in pull department. 50Gs on launch was mad lmao.
How would more transparency be bad? Explaining decisions to the community is a good thing.
Which was a complete and utter lie and is a perfect example why we need transparency
where do you get the idea that it was a “work around” when it was clearly a nerf
they are no longer even able to hit their 35G overload limit
it wasnt a significant buff to range, as if you look they increased both delta V and drag slightly
1 Like
it never pulled 50Gs
I dont know where you are getting that
3 Likes
Lmao where do i get the idea?
You said it youself, there were buffs, do you guys not read the changes? It massively helped in retaining energy when people didnt know how to notch or were trying to drag the missile going cold. Thats just plain ignorance
did you read the changes?
because they actually reduced the maneuver energy retention through increasing drag coefficient and the PID changes causing the missile to pull slightly harder to make corrections (what the derivative term does and that had by far the largest increase)
this is a high altitude launch from 40km
clearly a massive range buff
compared to having 45% more fin AOA and a larger wing area
and you act like its anything other than a nerf