devtrackers.gg
I think it's time for me to sleep )))
I think it's time for me to sleep )))
"Short term" is not exactly how you describe a game of 9 years old. Let's not forget, the game has been "dying" since 2013 according to some people. There is and always will be heat or backlash to every decision by someone and or something.
We try to listen to as much of the community as possible as far as possible. But when literally everyone wants different things at different points there has to be decisions we take based on the facts in front of us to please the majority of players possible.
All the work and effort that does go into all the fixes and improvements e
This forum topic is not representative of the whole community.
The last 20 pages or so have also been a lot of the same people going round and round.
Everything has already been explained several times over by now. At this stage, there is nothing more to add.
Thousands already have been over the 9 years and over 1800+ vehicles and we will continue to add more loadouts.
The F-4F is joining the game at a time thats very different than when the FGR.2 and FG.1 joined. They also have 3 things the F-4F does not, Sparrows, A superior radar and countermeasures. They both have expanded weapon options the F-4F does not and unlike the F-4F, both of them have the capability to have their arsenal expanded even more over time.
You are making assumptions on what the developers have decided, when the reality is none of the loadouts suggested have been rejected thus far.
We already have a better variant confirmed to come in a future update. So there is no reason to remove this one from the event.
On top of this, not everyone wants it removed from the event and not everyone agrees with you and those here who disagree with the F-4F.
Because that is how the game survives and moves forward. If nothing new comes, players who are not solely interested in the same things as you loose interest.
New content is what supports the life of the game.
You are more than free to submit suggestions in the same way.
Its not a "new rule" just for Italy. If we wanted to go by experimental weaponry like the Sispre there are tons of US, Soviet, German, British, French, Japanse, Swedish etc there are literally tons we could add.
Its nothing about Zero effort for Italy. Your suggesting an extra experimental weaponry. Those exist for all nations. There are plenty of examples to consider.
If we tried to make everyone happy all the time, nothing would ever be added. We cant please everyone no matter what is done.
Im referring specifically to:
Yet the report itself claims:
So the reason you were asked to provide said evidence, is because the manual did not in fact show Nords at all.
Shells have and always will be a means of balancing tanks. If you want to suggest new ones, again your free to do so via suggestions.
But thats an entirely separate matter.
Because those are things that need to be reviewed by a developer and consultant in due course on top of the literally thousands of other suggestions and reports we receive.
According to this report, thats not correct:
If we applied that same logic to all vehicles current in game. A lot of people would not be happy.
The F-4F is not getting special treatment or an exception to the standard procedure. All nations and all classes benefit from this. If we go the 100% active service only, everyone looses.
Not with the rounds it has in game. Or the fact its even able to fight in combat at all by the same standards.
Because apart from the 6 x AIM-9B and Sparrows it can currently have, it never had any other variants linked to it until the AIM-9L, which we dont have for any aircraft in game yet as its all aspect despite the fact that several carried or could carry it.
In the case of the F-4F early, what its coming with is the very maximum it can have. Thats not the same case for the F-104S series. More lies ahead in the future.
The Maus also wasn't adopted into service with German armed forces. So by the same logic, its imaginary.
Around 50% of tanks in game didn't use or fire the shells they have, so they are also imaginary. Similarly with many aircraft payloads in game.
Oh and the very fact vehicles fight on maps like Sweden is also imaginary.
This can go on and on. At the end of the day, we are a video game grounded in history. People are getting a bit too caught up in things right now and seeing things in a very linear path without considering what the "100% historical only" r
Nothing was removed from the PFM. It never had them to begin with. They were present on the dev stream were everything is advertised as WIP and not final. We then made it clear in the dev blog what it would have. From the moment it was available to players at the start of the event, it was clear what it would come with.
In the case of the PFM, its also worth pointing out a lot of things people tried to report as missing either couldn't be carried by the aircraft at all because the radar couldn't guide them (R-3R) or simply were not used or linked to the variant we have in game. K-
Because there is no link in the same way the F-4F manual clearly links them.
With the F-104S, its hypothetically possible. But no source even links them.
With the F-4F, not only is it a possibility, but the aircrafts flight manual directly links them:
So if you want to submit a suggestion for a "hypothetically possible F-104s AIM-9 variant" based on its rail. You can. But its not the same here at all.
The devs decide on a case by case manor based on the current and future possibilities of the aircraft.
In the case of this F-
Reload speed for tanks is an entirely different matter. As BVV explained, its also a balancing tool:
Ive already exlained this.
The F-4F was decided by the manual and whats made clear is possible for the aircraft. Same case with the F-104S:
If the offical manual says so, then yes.
You are confusing the system of what pylons could and could not mount with our own system of how aircraft weaponry is decided.
You are assuming your way of going by pylon loadings is sufficient and the devs should accept this. When I have already made clear to you, thats not how the F-4F or anything else was decided.
I dont know how much more clear I can be here.