Smin1080p

We don't add aircraft based on their weapons systems.

We added the Swifts for example at the same time we were already introducing supersonic aircraft.

Its not always about adding progressively better meta advancing or top end aircraft, but also progressing through generations and time periods as well as sometimes working back too (like with the Swifts).

So I would recommend you stop judging the introduction of any aircraft, no matter how balanced you see it, by its missile loadout.

Nothing was intentionally changed in the changelog and nothing in that area was altered recently, so it should be considered a bug and treated as one.

We have not had any that are not related to payloads or rocket boosters.

To put into context, for a plane with a "bunch" of things wrong, we have only 1 report open on a missing rocket
booster and another on some extra payloads that's pending.

A lot of people are making claims of things being wrong, or it feeling wrong, but we cant do anything unfortunately with unsubstantiated claims and it just "feeling" wrong.

So if what you claim is correct, we would really apricate proper bug reports rather than more discussion on those claims.

We are too far off the update to be doing anything right now.

Nah its not time for the bunker yet. Just way too much off topic about things with almost 0 confirmation or anything to go on.

DisconnecT83

OrsonES

Ouiche

Scarper

Smin1080p

Stona

TheShaolinMonk

Everywhere. As I said its all of us (CMs) collecting from everywhere.

We can't guarantee any questions here or anywhere else will get answered or featured.

1) We collect questions from all platforms (forum, website, Twitter, Facebook etc)

2) No. It remains a limited time event and will come back from time to time.

3) It's not ruled out.

No news right now.

Run whilst you still can ))

BR questions are a matter for BR feedback topics. We are not going to explain every BR change in a Q&A.

Oh no. Sorry I was referring to the cool things coming next update ))

You have a while to wait for that sort of news.

No?

If we have answered a question conclusively then it's done and dusted and no need to repeat ourselves several times over.

If we have answered something once before that perhaps was not so watertight and left some room for misinterpretation on a spesific vehicle(s), then we can take on a new question if it's asked a lot and relative. Vehicles are generally a case by case basis where as modes / maps / BR are not.

No worries. Indeed it's not.

Given how many times it's been asked recently on all of our platforms, the need for a question in a Q & A also comes down to giving us a definitive line to draw. This is that. The question is concluded and any doubt (as some had about these ships spesifically) removed.

I understand someone as experienced as yourself understood that last time when we answered it more likely, but we have to base these on demand and execution.

Now there is no doubt at all about the developers stance on this.

Again, loosely yes, spesifically no.

All of the other areas in question above were answered directly and spesifically and hence not worth repeating again.

Not really. Until this point we haven't officially given any statements on the Dardo other than "not this patch" or Rank VII aviation at all.

All of those other elements have had detailed answers several times over.

That's one of the many Challenger experimental vehicles. We made no direct mention of any of a promise of any.

Being a prototype has nothing to do with it really. As I explained the key factor is information and as I also explained, if that situation changes then the chances of seeing it also change