On paper comparisons or personal gameplay opinions is not how the game is balanced.
Feedback is taken into account, which is why the F-4F is going down.
However you used Thunderskill to try to justify something. Which is what my response was clarifying.
An inaccurate and unrepresentative portion is still an inaccurate and unrepresentative portion. The site itself explains to you why that is.
So once again, you are entirely free to use TS for your own personal use. Nobody is trying to stop that.
What I was explaining to the user I originally responded too and subsequently is that it's a meaningless thing to use when trying to give feedback or receive an answer on something. As it's not at all accurate. Its existed for about as long as the game and probably always will. But it doesn't change anything with regards to it's accuracy or it's use.
So if you are trying to receive an answer or provide BR feedback, don't use TS as your basis.
Before the last major the aircraft was at the upper end of its BR bracket. Since then it's still nominal at its BR, but as I explained to ...
Read moreTS itself even explains to you why it's not an accurate representation of the real stats. That's without us even having to renforce that. So as I mentioned, you are free to use it, but if you are trying to use it for the basis of asking for a change, I'm clarifying why you should not expect a change or answer based on its Thunderskill performance. As it's not at all representative or accurate.
We do not base efficiency solely on SL / RP but a combination of all factors. You are correct that we have not and never will publish stats, as I explained why above.
Again the CL.13 Mk.4 did not go up because a bunch of people used TS stats. It went up for several reasons which we explained at the time.
We all play the game daily ourselves. I've seen many people in many of these topics in battles myself
That doesn't mean our personal stats or experience sh...
Read moreWe have explained many times in the past why it is we don't share our statistics fully due to the complexities surrounding it, misinterpretation and presenting the stats allows for targeted manipulation. Hence why we have never and will never do so.
Your welcome to use Thunderskill as you wish for your personal, but please do not try to use it as the basis or even factor in asking for a change. Because it's wholly inaccurate for a number of reasons (which the site itself even explains to you) and meaningless with regards to the actual situation surrounding a vehicle.
Posting it over and over again because it agrees with what your trying to change isn't going to lead to us giving out the real stats or making a change because it looks bad on Thunderskill.
At the moment, some reports may be held for the next major as fixes start to be stacked for the future builds unless planned for a QoL. So if it's not fixed by the time of the first Dev server, we can look at a fresh report.
Both reports have been marked fixed. So if they are not already implemented they will be by the time of the next major.
Hello
Firstly, the Tornado is not moving up in BR now:
Secondly, the Tornados use their manual limits as reported in the following reports:
As such, its structural limits are historical.
There is no evidence it was ever done or even tested at the moment. A lot of sources simply saying it was "possible" but no real evidence of that or if ever happening or actually being possible. Many of the books and diagrams quote each other and are just 3rd party magazines or modelling resources. So right now, not planned at all without more solid evidence.
The only remaining FM reports open are these two, all others have already been fixed:
Yes thanks.
We are aware of APFSDS, APBC and APDS. All will be corrected.
Just because people try to use a flawed statistics website does not change the reasons (of which we have explained many times) why we don't publish full game wide statistics.
Thunderskill has never been an accurate metric and our position on that has never changed. You can go back to 2015 and find posts from myself and other community managers confirming such. So I'm not sure what your getting at here.
As for the CL.13 Mk 4, we already clarified at the time that it was not only due to the group of players that made the claims they were responsible
Thunderskill is a completely useless and meaningless metric. It's data is in no way reflective and it even warns you of that. It only uses users who search themselves up and update their profiles or have themselves been searched. It's not accurate at all.
Hi guys. Our Devs are aware of the issue and a fix will be deployed as soon as possible.
It wouldn't remain at 11.0 with AIM-9L. Which is why they were not added. Reducing it to 10.7 was what the developers decided was the better option.
A-10 has better CAS payloads and performance in ground RB. Which is factored in.
I'm also not sure what any of this has to do with the F-4F now. So let's keep things on track.
You are comparing subsonic ground attack aircraft to a supersonic fighter to try and justify the missiles being added. Which is perhaps why you can't find the logic in that for the F-4F when we have already explained several times it's not about what was used "IRL" and that alone.
The F-14A is already receiving a BR increase this update, and the Devs will monitor it closely making any further adjustments. However with the new changes, the F-4F now can't see any of the new 12.0s and has lower BR enemies it can now see.
R-60M is also not 1:1 comparable with AIM-9L, just because it's all aspect.
The Devs will continue to monitor the F-4Fs situation after this update.
It won't be receiving AIM-9Ls, which is why it's going to 10.7.
Based on collected feedback regarding ground vehicles, we have decided to make additional changes that consist of transferring some of the top and pre-top ranked vehicles to a higher level. This change does not apply to all top ranked vehicles. Based on the results of the change in performance efficiency, further adjustments to the BR (increase or decrease) will be carried out for units affected by the change and also for units that also haven’t changed rating at that time.
It has also been decided to abandon some of the points regarding the reduction of BR in AB for vehicles with HEAT shells with high penetration at their rank. Except for the Ikv 103 for which the high penetration of the HEAT shell at a relatively high rate of fire for similar guns is compensated with poor ballistics, insufficient protection and mobility. The alternative to changing the rate of fire of the Type 69-II G was to increase its BR to 8.7, the current efficiency of the u...
Read moreFeedback Changes:
Dear players!
Based on your feedback and a further review we would like to announce the following changes:
- Ground Forces Battle Ratings will be expanded to 11.3. You can find details of the vehciles that have changed in the updated table and here.
- The Tornado GR.1, IDS ASSTA.1 and IDS 1995 will remain at their current BR and not be increased to 11.7 this update.
- Further based on your feedback, we have introduced other changes such as the F-4F, SU-17M2 and J35D being reduced in BR and the Su-11 being increased in BR.
These are among other such changes, so be sure to check the tables for the full list of chnages being introduced later this week.
Thank you as always for your feedback!
devtrackers.gg