Even from 10.0 (the lowest possible it can face) to 11.3 (the highest possible it can face) its still in the upper quarter of the whole range in terms of overall efficiency.
Thunderskill is not at all representative of the actual stats, which the devs used today to provide the answer that I answered just a few hours ago.
As I mentioned in the earlier answer, they will be following the stats of the aircraft and make any changes accordingly. However right now, its levelled out at its BR as have the FGR.2/FG.1. Both the UK and Germany will receive new top fighters in a future patch.
Feedback on the matter has been continually passed and we will continue to do so. However at this time, the devs do not wish to provide AIM-9L to the F-4F as that would likely require a BR increase. This was the situation before the patch and the most up to date answer I can provide at this time.
The matter of the EJ Kai having them at 11.3 is more likely to lead to that aircraft getting a BR increase. However if the situation changes once we have a clearer view of the statistics we will update the response if there is something to be changed.
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.
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
We 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.
TS 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 shape the way BRs work though.
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 you a week or so ago we have been continuously passing feedback on the matter. Hence why now, when we have the latest BR review, it's going down based on feedback. If it performs too well at it's new BR. Then it's open to going back up at a later patch. It's situation will be monitored. But it's precisely because of feedback that changes like the J35D, Su-17M2 and F-4F are going down. They were all made based on feedback.
You can provide your own personal thoughts and suggestions in your own feedback. Which is taken into account and as evidenced by the current changes, can result in revisions.
As I clarified above however, Thunderskill won't be considered a valid means however as it's stats are Inaccurate. The Devs will compare feedback to the actual data and make decisions based on that.
No real relivance to the topic at this stage. The Devs look at many aspects, not just what you claim.
Except it isn't a fact. It's something a group of people claimed to have done. It doesn't make it a fact. Again, we explained this at the time.
We are not going to provide those statistics just because Thunderskill exists. Again, we don't provide those stats for reasons previously explained.
I believe I've answered these questions several times now and the topic appears to be going in criciles.
Again, your free to use TS for your personal use. The bottom line is please don't use it with the expectation it will be taken into account with feedback or receive an answer on something. As it's not accurate.
It's very clear you disagree with this and you have stated your personal opinion. But that's enough off topic.
These are entirely seperate cases with (I'm sure) there own situations.
If you want to link me the reports (in a more appropriate forum topic, not here) then I can check them out.
However whatever situation that issue has, doesn't change the facts about Tornado Mavericks.
That would be taking my response out of context and also adding things I never said at all.
If you check what it was I was responding to, then its explained.
The question was why the Tornado (Not F-4F) cant have Mavericks (when so far, no primary documentation confirms it to be the case as the only things that do are Janes / 3rd party level magazines) when another Russian tank can have a shell that supposedly did / did not have a feature it has (which is under investigation). One has been reported and under investigation whilst the other has no real evidence supporting it.
For starters, they are two entirely differently matters, each with their own context, stages of reporting / investigation etc. Secondly, neither has anything to do with this subject.
You will notice nowhere in my response did I say things cannot be discussed. I actually just said to ask it in the correct places (Which was done via PM)
Shells have and will always be a balancing tool. Shell loadouts have never been based on what the tank carried and we have been very clear from the get go on that. Aircraft operate entirely differently. So the comparison of tank balance standards to aircraft loadout standards doesn't apply.
There is also a massive difference between a tank carrying a shell that it could fire but didn't carry in reality to an F-4F carrying and firing a Sparrow that not only could it not carry, but was one of the key features of the aircraft variant to have all of the necessary equipment required to fire it removed.
If enough information comes to light to support that claim, then its fully open to consideration in the future. However at the moment, there is insufficient evidence that takes it anything further than just a claim right now.
This has never been disputed. Again, the devs are well aware of the F-4Fs use of AIM-9L and they have never been denied on historical grounds.
Once again, this is a comparison between two differing types of vehicles which have different standards for reasons previously explained. Shells loadouts are balancing tools.
Aircraft loadouts are based on the technical possibility and some form of link that shows it was possible. Right now, we don't have that for Tornado in any form of primary material and only claims from 3rd party and generally unreliable sources that "it was possible". If that changes, its open for consideration in the future.
Every effort is generally taken to explain why (where possible) a change cannot / can be made in certain situations where its discussed a lot. Unfortunately we cant answer every single BR suggestion and Thunderskills existence is not a reason to provide our own internal (actual) stats. Its existed for the history of the game over the past 10 years and will continue to exist.
We have a huge array of staff and skills throughout the whole company across many teams. I cannot answer specifically as to every single employee / position we have individually company wide. However all bases are covered.