NEZ: a Mig-29 can and will shot down an F-22..

[Gizzmoe]

As a layman I couldnt care less if missile behaviour is realistic or not, all I care is the fact whether the product I have paid 100+ EUR for doesnt get broken by an update.

Normally I would say "I am not as unhappy as you are with the update, but I feel with you, perhaps you should go back to the previous CMO version that you liked, there's no point in playing a version that you don't enjoy yet. Maybe try the new stuff later, once it evolved ." But unfortunately you can't, because you have the Steam version and you can't roll back.....

Man you're trouble

M

I am? It's a shame that the devs didn't provide a rollback for Steam users, that's all I am saying

[SchDerGrosse]

Thats not all you are saying and you are now just saying it over and over again.

Care to substantiate this claim with anything that I have said earlier in this topic?

edit: there really is no point in arguing in this. I think I'll put the game on hold for a few months and see what else goes down development wise in the meantime.

[BDukes]

I am? It's a shame that the devs didn't provide a rollback for Steam users, that's all I am saying

Haha I know just given you a hard time

M

[thewood1]

Just to capture the tone and what you actually said...

"I mean what the actual ****?"

"If you say that it is "normal" or "more realistic" I am sure gonna roll back to earlier versions because having 33% PoH for one of the most advanced missiles of the world when launched from practically 1/3 range is just ridiculous."

"Missile behaviour is just pure bonkers now"

"I am just pissed cause I finally had some free time the evening, dld the patch, wanted to continue my campaign and run into this THING, which at least for a first glance is a totally and utterly flawed mechanic."

"However, I still think this is silly: "My AMRAAMs are now useless unless if fire them almost at point-blank range”."

"On the other hand, judging by what others said (the AI being very conservative with missile launch distances) further reinforces my belief that the new missile behaviour system flat out broke the gameplay."

"But hey, this is a small price to play as long as we can now claim that this software handles BVR combat more realisticly than DCS."

"my belief that (i) the new missile behaviour system broke the ingame scenarios"

"What Iam saying is that they completely ignored the gameplay aspects of the new changes and failed to make necessary tweaks to the scenarios."

"As a layman I couldnt care less if missile behaviour is realistic or not, all I care is the fact whether the product I have paid 100+ EUR for doesnt get broken by an update. Because after more and more testing it sure seems that the scenarios need a complete overhaul from the devs."

So from reading those, you actually think the game is broken. You don't want the devs to make the game any more realistic if it makes it harder for you. You don't care if the game is realistic at all. You are pissed about it. You are really hung up on the AMRAAM being the most advanced missile in the world.

My suggestion would be that if a scenario is broken by your standards, put it in a thread in the tech section on the mods section. If its truly broken because of missile ranges, someone will fix it.

[Gizzmoe]

I am? It's a shame that the devs didn't provide a rollback for Steam users, that's all I am saying

Haha I know just given you a hard time

M

Looool, ok, please just be very gentle with me, I am middle-aged and very brittle, and German

[thewood1]

Thats not all you are saying and you are now just saying it over and over again.

Care to substantiate this claim with anything that I have said earlier in this topic?

edit: there really is no point in arguing in this. I think I'll put the game on hold for a few months and see what else goes down development wise in the meantime.

Done.

[BDukes]

I am? It's a shame that the devs didn't provide a rollback for Steam users, that's all I am saying

Haha I know just given you a hard time

M

Looool, ok, please just be very gentle with me, I am middle-aged and very brittle, and German

Ja! I believe we spoke before on linked in a few years ago.

Middle age is fun isn't it? Lot of wondering of what I was supposed to be doing.

Mike

[Gizzmoe]

So from reading those, you actually think the game is broken. You don't want the devs to make the game any more realistic if it makes it harder for you. You don't care if the game is realistic at all. You are pissed about it. You are really hung up on the AMRAAM being the most advanced missile in the world.

Bullshit, the OP made it very clear that he's fine with the more realistic missile behaviour, he just questions the balance of the scenarios, and he's not wrong there.

[Gizzmoe]

Middle age is fun isn't it? Lot of wondering of what I was supposed to be doing.

Yes, it's a blast, I turned 52 a week ago I slowly get better at handling my existence...

[thewood1]

I'll just reiterate...

"Missile behaviour is just pure bonkers now"

"I am just pissed cause I finally had some free time the evening, dld the patch, wanted to continue my campaign and run into this THING, which at least for a first glance is a totally and utterly flawed mechanic."

Thats not how he started out. He was very explicit the missile mechanic broke the game.

[SchDerGrosse]

Just to capture the tone and what you actually said...

"I mean what the actual ****?"

"If you say that it is "normal" or "more realistic" I am sure gonna roll back to earlier versions because having 33% PoH for one of the most advanced missiles of the world when launched from practically 1/3 range is just ridiculous."

"Missile behaviour is just pure bonkers now"

"I am just pissed cause I finally had some free time the evening, dld the patch, wanted to continue my campaign and run into this THING, which at least for a first glance is a totally and utterly flawed mechanic."

"However, I still think this is silly: "My AMRAAMs are now useless unless if fire them almost at point-blank range”."

"On the other hand, judging by what others said (the AI being very conservative with missile launch distances) further reinforces my belief that the new missile behaviour system flat out broke the gameplay."

"But hey, this is a small price to play as long as we can now claim that this software handles BVR combat more realisticly than DCS."

"my belief that (i) the new missile behaviour system broke the ingame scenarios"

"What Iam saying is that they completely ignored the gameplay aspects of the new changes and failed to make necessary tweaks to the scenarios."

"As a layman I couldnt care less if missile behaviour is realistic or not, all I care is the fact whether the product I have paid 100+ EUR for doesnt get broken by an update. Because after more and more testing it sure seems that the scenarios need a complete overhaul from the devs."

So from reading those, you actually think the game is broken. You don't want the devs to make the game any more realistic if it makes it harder for you. You don't care if the game is realistic at all. You are pissed about it. You are really hung up on the AMRAAM being the most advanced missile in the world.

My suggestion would be that if a scenario is broken by your standards, put it in a thread in the tech section on the mods section. If its truly broken because of missile ranges, someone will fix it.

Tone wise: OK I'll give you that that I have to work on me being able to keep a level head.

On the other hand the main difference between the two us is priorities.

You favor realism above all, while I am willing to sacrifice realism if it hurts gameplay.

Previous patch, AMRAAMs ruled the skies (doesnt matter if rightfully so or not). I would assume that scenario designers took this into account when they crafted the maps. Now everything is changed. We dont exactly know to what extent but from the little test I made it is apparent that the AIM-120C is completely inferior to the AA-12 Adder. And these two weapon systems used to be more or less on paar pre-patch. Dont you think that after such a change a scenario featuring these assets should undergo some adjustments too? No you dont. Because as set out above, your main and only priority is realism.

And this is just one example. At this time, I cannot give you any other because I have not done any more tests. But is this my job really? To hop on my computer and start testing to see if post patch an ingame scenario needs an overhaul or not?

I dont think so.

[thewood1]

I have no issues with anyone bringing forward scenarios that are supposedly broken by changes in the game and the db. It happens all the time. But nowhere near as aggressive as you came across. I'll also point out you are the first person I've seen on these boards actually asking for less realism. I have pushed back many times on some players wanting more realism to the point it hurts the ability to actually play.

You have yet to bring a specific scenario forward that you claimed was broken. You came up with a contrived and slanted scenario. As I already suggested. Put up a specific scenario thats broken and let people who can fix it, fix it. But claiming some portion of the game is so flawed as to break every scenario from past updates without any proof will generally get push back.

Stop doing tests with contrived scenarios that won't convince anyone. Play the game. If you find an issue, bring it forward.

[Gizzmoe]

Thats not how he started out. He was very explicit the missile mechanic broke the game.

Give him a break perhaps, he's new to all the new mechanics, he hasn't tried any of the betas, of course he's surprised and shocked of what's going on. It simply takes a lot of time and learning to get used to all the new things.

[thewood1]

This particular mechanic, we all had to get used to. Some people, like me, go out do some basic research on how this compares to real life engagements. Some people just accept it. Some people push back, but take the devs' explanation. Some people argue against the data, the little available. And some people want to go back to what they are comfortable with.

But, to me, the newer you are to the game, the more accepting of it you should be. The old way has not become muscle memory yet. I just don't understand what would attract someone to a complex, model-driven, and data-centric game that touts itself as continuously being updated to be as realistic as possible, then be THIS upset about said changes. Thats War Thunder territory.

[Gizzmoe]

This particular mechanic, we all had to get used to.

"We all"? You, I and some others "got used to it" because we played the beta for a few months, but I assume that the majority of players never tried Tiny before the update came out.

[thewood1]

Just to close up the pedantic loophole...We all who played the beta. But these types of changes happen all the time in CMO's development without a beta. Again, wrong player, wrong game.

[Gizzmoe]

Just to close up the pedantic loophole...We all who played the beta. But these types of changes happen all the time in CMO's development without a beta.

True, but the numerous changes in gameplay were drastic in Stable 1307, as drastic as never seen in any Stable before.

[thewood1]

These might have been the single biggest set of changes CMO has seen, but the changes to CMNAO in 1.15 to BVR combat are probably bigger changes overall to BVR combat. That was a complete revamp of the BVR model and the associated ROE settings. And to top if off, I don't think there was a public beta for it. I would also say the addition of WRA to CMNAO in 2015 rivals both and without a beta. WRA being added was huge and completely changed how both AI and players used BVR and other weapons.

My point isn't to tit for tat the changes. But to show big changes get made to the game and this is the first time I have seen someone ask for a change that brought more real-world decision-making to be rolled back. And wasn't very level-headed about it, in his own words.

[Gizzmoe]

My point isn't to tit for tat the changes. But to show big changes get made to the game and this is the first time I have seen someone ask for a change that brought more real-world decision-making to be rolled back. And wasn't very level-headed about it, in his own words.

Yes, he wasn't indeed level-headed, but that can happen He made it clear that he loves CMO, it's just the new mechanics he finds controversial in part. I share some of his opinions regarding scen balance.

[cscrutinizer]

Middle age is fun isn't it? Lot of wondering of what I was supposed to be doing.

Yes, it's a blast, I turned 52 a week ago I slowly get better at handling my existence...

Just wait until you add 20 years to that. I have to remind myself to zip up before I go out...