Air SB: Add EC-7 [9.7-10.3] BR bracket

[HOPPING_PONY 386]

4 hours ago, Functor said:

This is good enough, I vouched my support before on Air SB forum.

 

Maybe you wish to address the current situation with the multiple 10.3's (Add Mig21F13 to the mention for example).

 

If the plan is to stockpile 10.3 with multiple planes (even the Brits can have 3 Phantoms alone, not to mention EEL) at the very least one needs to remove the timers. Or make a pure 10.3 mode. We had a few fights in Operation mode between FGRs and Migs today, was fun. And the incentive to grind to the top remains.

 

Yes, removal of timers or lineup distribution to different BRs is needed ofc, as always in EC (probably even more than always).

[Pony51 6,572]

On 01/12/2019 at 08:16, HOPPING_PONY said:

EC-6 (8.0-9.3) - Subsonic jet aircraft
EC-7 (9.7-10.3) - Supersonic jet aircraft

 

I propose a new cutoff at 9.0

EC-6 (8.0-9.0) - Subsonic jet aircraft
EC-7 (9.3-10.3) - Supersonic jet aircraft

 

Rational is due to limited SS jets, IT and FR have none.  This will impose a minor restriction to getting SS jets so non-SS are still common choice.

 

and this

 

 

[gemanuel1 277]

Would be so cool if they did this.

Edited March 6, 2020 by gemanuel1

[_Thrash_ 797]

Gaijin is introducing top tier aircraft yet making them so undesirable with the system. Quite self defeating.

[The_Tea_Rex 801]

On 19/01/2020 at 12:29, Pony51 said:

 

I propose a new cutoff at 9.0

EC-6 (8.0-9.0) - Subsonic jet aircraft
EC-7 (9.3-10.3) - Supersonic jet aircraft

 

Rational is due to limited SS jets, IT and FR have none.  This will impose a minor restriction to getting SS jets so non-SS are still common choice.

 

This is a very good proposal, however certain subsonic aircraft are still trapped above the 9.0 cutoff, like the Hunters for example. SRAAMs or not, the F.6 should not be sitting at 9.7.

[Pony51 6,572]

59 minutes ago, The_Tea_Rex said:

 

This is a very good proposal, however certain subsonic aircraft are still trapped above the 9.0 cutoff, like the Hunters for example. SRAAMs or not, the F.6 should not be sitting at 9.7.

 

Need to adjust the BR of those units.

Perhaps the AIM cutoff should be 9.3?

[The_Tea_Rex 801]

That could work. Its very tricky to place where EC6 should "End" because you've got subsonic aircraft with semi-decent missiles (Hunter, Jav etc) and then you have Supersonic aircraft with average missiles.

[HOPPING_PONY 386]

8 hours ago, The_Tea_Rex said:

That could work. Its very tricky to place where EC6 should "End" because you've got subsonic aircraft with semi-decent missiles (Hunter, Jav etc) and then you have Supersonic aircraft with average missiles.

Difference between EC6 and (proposed) EC7 is more about speed and acceleration than missiles. Even some 8.3 and 8.0s have missiles.

Edited April 22, 2020 by HOPPING_PONY

[Pony51 6,572]

3 minutes ago, HOPPING_PONY said:

Difference between EC6 and (proposed) EC7 is more about speed and acceleration than missiles. Even some 8.3 and 8.0s have missiles.

 

Yes.  Do we have a topic about where the cutoff between 6 and 7 should be?

[HOPPING_PONY 386]

3 hours ago, Pony51 said:

Do we have a topic about where the cutoff between 6 and 7 should be?

This one?

 

[przybysz86 10,312]

given today's dev stream EC7 is even more necessary.

[zohair12976@psn 3]

I don’t think we need it yet until we get a few more SuperSonics 

[HOPPING_PONY 386]

7 minutes ago, *zohair12976 said:

I don’t think we need it yet until we get a few more SuperSonics 

Imo there are enough already, and they impact balance in sessions a lot.

But we'll get even more in next major.

Edited May 15, 2020 by HOPPING_PONY

[VoidGamer 600]

Hecc yes, please!
This would help level out the performance gaps of jets and in general would be a positive change.

Regarding further possible balance issues the SIM mode BR can be adjusted/suggested.

 

[Lord_Kerry 17]

I Think that a lot more players would play EC because of this change. 

[Hazzaah 0]

I voted no. Can’t believe I just did that, here is why. 

 

EC7 when? YES but not 9.7-10.3.

 

tldr: 9.3-10.3 absolutely yes. 9.7 is a trash decision for EC6, EC7, and overall tier  mechanic. 

——

lets look at the planes.

 

9.3 planes 
US - 0
GE- 1
Cl-13b mk.6
 

RU- 0
GB- 0 
JA- 2-(1 premium)
F-86f-40
F-86f-40 (jasdf)

 

CH- 1 (1premium)
Shenyang f-5

 

Italy - 2
G.91 YS
F-86k

 

France - 2
F-86k
Etendard 

 

Sweden- 1 
J32b

 

Thats 9 planes in 9.3, all of which can compete with 10.3 as much as any low in tier br plane competes with high in tier plane. But many of these 9.3 planes will still seal club 8.0s

 

9.3-10.3 also retains 1br tier spread. 

 

Japan, Italy, France, Sweden would have no low br in tier planes @9.7. And Italy would have 0 planes currently for EC7 (disregarding new planes) 

Also, there are only 9 plane types 9.7-10.3

F-100s 9.7
Phantoms 10.3
Mig 19s 10.3
MiG 21 10.3
Hunter FGA 9.7
Hunter F6 9.7
Lightning f.6 10.3
T.2 10.3
J35D 10.3

This is almost boring in my opinion. 
 

don’t get me wrong, I want EC7 badly, 10.3 seal clubbing is cancer since 200 SP change. But it has to make logical sense. 
 

And let’s face it, if you can’t kill a 10.3 in a f86k you shouldn’t be playing EC7 anyways.

[_Scooter98_ 189]

My opinion. TL:DR We need sub/super or some form of split EC because an 8.0 fighting 9.3-10.3 is just plain ridiculous. But we need modifications to affect the BR because an aircraft like the Hunter F.6 is overpowered against subsonics with SRAAMS but useless against supersonics without them. We also need larger maps and significantly better AAA against EC5+. The current EC's are reasonable for EC4 but not for EC5 (& 6).

 

Now for some text.

 

The difference in capabilities in just .3-.7 BR has given plenty of reason for this to be added let alone the difference in capabilities between 2.3 BR. If you think its perfectly reasonable for a Meteor F8 to fight an F-100 let alone an F4 for e.g. you need your head read. The power creep is plain ridiculous.

 

Can I kill an F4 in my meteor F8? Yes and I have before...okay once, it was once BUT I AM VERY PROUD OF THAT. But only if the pilot decides to be an idiot and forfeit any and every advantage and start turnfighting, and even then, the thrust in the F4 you have to be brain dead to lose and a capable pilot in the F8 to take an advantage with the useless Hispanos.

 

But a counter argument, an aircraft like the Subsonic Hunter F.6 without or (especially) with SRAAMS is going to be one of if not the best top dog if the EC is split sub/super.The Hunter F.6 with SRAAMS can hold its own against an F4 if they decide to turnfight but any competent pilot will just BnZ. But without the SRAAMS its next to useless because its not able to catch anything to use its cannons. So it without SRAAMS it would belong in subsonic EC, but with it would need to be in super EC. We have needed and still do need modifications to influence the BR of a vehicle.

 

On top of that the supersonics, even at sealevel, can traverse the EC maps in a few minutes. You can potentially be bombed on an AF and pick another to spawn on the other side of the map and be bombed again by the same person on the same sortie. The base AAA also needs to be significantly improved, I am strafed and killed on the af by AI jets regularly let alone by players.

We definitely need it now to give the subsonic jets a chance. With the aircraft coming this update (F104, and new A2A on the J35D off the top off my head) its going to be needed even more so. Will only a few nations vehicles benefit from this, yes, but those vehicles need to be separated immediately from the current EC, For E.G Russia her Mig-19/21s, US with her F4E/C, UK with her FGR.4 and Lightning, Japan with her F4E, Sweden with her J35, Germany with her Mig-19/21 (and probably soon to be F4, and F104), Italy with her (soon to be F104), china with its Mig-19/21 and (probably soon to be F104).

 

 

Also CAC-Sabre when.

[HOPPING_PONY 386]

5 hours ago, Hazzaah said:

I voted no. Can’t believe I just did that, here is why. 

Spoiler

 

EC7 when? YES but not 9.7-10.3.

 

tldr: 9.3-10.3 absolutely yes. 9.7 is a trash decision for EC6, EC7, and overall tier  mechanic. 

——

lets look at the planes.

 

9.3 planes 
US - 0
GE- 1
Cl-13b mk.6
 

RU- 0
GB- 0 
JA- 2-(1 premium)
F-86f-40
F-86f-40 (jasdf)

 

CH- 1 (1premium)
Shenyang f-5

 

Italy - 2
G.91 YS
F-86k

 

France - 2
F-86k
Etendard 

 

Sweden- 1 
J32b

 

Thats 9 planes in 9.3, all of which can compete with 10.3 as much as any low in tier br plane competes with high in tier plane. But many of these 9.3 planes will still seal club 8.0s

 

9.3-10.3 also retains 1br tier spread. 

 

Japan, Italy, France, Sweden would have no low br in tier planes @9.7. And Italy would have 0 planes currently for EC7 (disregarding new planes) 

Also, there are only 9 plane types 9.7-10.3

F-100s 9.7
Phantoms 10.3
Mig 19s 10.3
MiG 21 10.3
Hunter FGA 9.7
Hunter F6 9.7
Lightning f.6 10.3
T.2 10.3
J35D 10.3

This is almost boring in my opinion. 
 

don’t get me wrong, I want EC7 badly, 10.3 seal clubbing is cancer since 200 SP change. But it has to make logical sense. 
 

And let’s face it, if you can’t kill a 10.3 in a f86k you shouldn’t be playing EC7 anyways.

 

 

 

Fair point, and [9.3-10.3] looks more or less playable in current planeset, but:

1. Obvioulsly we'll keep getting more advanced supersonic planes over time, and [9.7-10.3] is more future-proof in terms of keeping starting planes playable.

2. You'll be able to pick 9.3 for free in EC7 regardless of what variant will be chosen to implement.

[Hazzaah 0]

4 hours ago, HOPPING_PONY said:

 

2. You'll be able to pick 9.3 for free in EC7 regardless of what variant will be chosen to implement.

I have considered this and get your point, however the bigger issue is using 9.3s in EC6.

 

id say there is a bigger performance difference between 8.0 planes vrs 9.3 planes than there is 9.3 vrs 10.3.

 

With the exception of the seahawk, you would be as hard pressed to kill a 9.3 in an 8.0 as you are with a 9.3 to kill a 10.3. Arguably with lack of player knowledge of 10.3 BFM and the fact that 9.3 have missles and competitive speed will mean that it’s easier To kill with a 9.3 in these situations.

 

 

[_Scooter98_ 189]

With the aircraft that have been showcased on the dev server or in a dev blog (or datamine) coming this update. A split and/or (ideally) decompression will be needed more so than ever between the EC's.

 

A split between 9.0 and 9.3 may be the most ideal solution until further BR decompression is implemented. Because as it stands, with 2 equally skilled pilots (whether they are average or very competent), a 6.7 is still capable against a 7.7, but an 8.0 already has very little they are able to do against a 9.0, let alone a 10.3, whereas 9.3's for the most part have decently capable A2A missile's that can open up a window of opportunity against a 10.3 using BnZ.

 

 

An alternative interim solution (just thinking out loud), might be bringing EC5 to 6.7-8.0 (which is the same spread as EC4 (5.0-6.3)) and adjusting the br's depending on the 8.0's capabilities. For e.g all Canberras and B57's could go up 0.3, (bringing the Mk6 and B57B to 8.3) but a Me-262/Meteor Mk4 could maybe stay at 8.0.

That coupled with a reasonable spawn points increase and vehicle timer lock (for the vehicle or 8.0 lineup only) might prove satisfactory.

 

This may achieve a more balanced EC6 if a split does happen. Or just food for thought.

Edited May 20, 2020 by _Scooter98_

[Mursac 87]

A split of some kind might be in the works.  Someone posted this in r/WarthunderSim, but I also wanted to bring it up here.  In the live server, the BR's show: Forbidden Vehicles, Rank VIII (eight) BR 10.7-11.7.  Given that rank six is 8.0 - 10.3 atm, this means that there are more than likely plans to split it up so that the implied rank seven ends at 10.3.  This, combined with the increased BR ceiling and new tier means that we might be getting both a BR split, and decompression. 

9.3 fighting all current supersonics is workable, but not ideal.  If higher performance supersonics were shifted upwards, then perhaps 9.3 would only have to fight early supersonics.  Assuming the new brackets are [8.0 - 9.0], [9.3 - 10.3], and [10.7 - 11.7], we could see spreads similar to below (incomplete, but you get the idea), with a little room left for any later additions.

 

F-100 (all variants) / Mig-19 (all variants) / Su-7B / F-104A and C - 10.3

Mig-21 F-13 / J-7II / J35D / Lightning / F104's (except A and C)- 10.7

F-4C / T-2 - 11.0

F-4E / Mirage / Mig-21 SMT & MF - 11.3

 

[soundnfury 30]

I'm not certain whether 9.7 is the right cut-off, but there definitely needs to be an EC-7 bracket, so that planes like the Sea Venom (8.0), Meteor Mk 4 (8.0), and Swift (8.3/8.7) become playable in Sim.  What chance is the Sea Venom going to stand against a Phantom or MiG-21SMT, even if the former is piloted by an ace and the latter by an unskilled brainlet?  Hurr durr shoot missile, plane fall down go boom.  Heck, I think the MiG-21 might actually out-turn it (although that's arguably because the MiG-21 is utterly broken).

[PropterHoc 40]

I really think we need to separate the 8.x's like F-84's and Me-262 C2-b's from F-104's and Mig-21's... I guess the best split would be 8.0-9.3 and 9.7-10.3+. You see, the problem here is that in Enduring Confrontation, Supersonics dominate to the extent that many players simply don't join, or at least leave a room in which there is even one supersonic jet flying aggressively, because the supersonics just strafe AF's mercilessly, not allowing those starting the match to even earn a single spawn point so that they, too, could bring out a supersonic to deal with the aggressor. I suppose that one way to help alleviate this issue would be to eliminate the Spawn Point requirement, or at least lower it. Also, to not make a waiting time after a plane from any given BR has been destroyed, or at least to lower the amount of time. Thanks, and please reply if you agree with any of this!

[firepilot1 21]

1 hour ago, PropterHoc said:

I really think we need to separate the 8.x's like F-84's and Me-262 C2-b's from F-104's and Mig-21's... I guess the best split would be 8.0-9.3 and 9.7-10.3+. You see, the problem here is that in Enduring Confrontation, Supersonics dominate to the extent that many players simply don't join, or at least leave a room in which there is even one supersonic jet flying aggressively, because the supersonics just strafe AF's mercilessly, not allowing those starting the match to even earn a single spawn point so that they, too, could bring out a supersonic to deal with the aggressor. I suppose that one way to help alleviate this issue would be to eliminate the Spawn Point requirement, or at least lower it. Also, to not make a waiting time after a plane from any given BR has been destroyed, or at least to lower the amount of time. Thanks, and please reply if you agree with any of this!

Agreed. The easiest fix for the airfield camping epidemic would be for Gaijin to just create competent airfield AAA at tier V and VI E.C. I mean, it's absolutely ridiculous that we even have to tell Gaijin that. But here we are...

[kamikazi21358 998]

+1

 

Regarding whether it should be 8.0-9.0, and 9.3-10.3 vs 8.0-9.3, and 9.7-10.3,

personally, I think it would greatly benefit the game to have br decompression at top tiers, so maybe the 8.0+ range is stretched maybe to 11.0 or more.  Which then, we could have a 1.3 spread in SB (and would greatly benefit RB).  However for now, I say 8.0-9.0, unless this becomes a thing.