Why is this game such unbalanced?

[Sleepy Joe]

German planes are OP

[Bobla]

Hey, thanks for replies

I try to adress as much as I can but obviously can miss something. Probably will.

With the "tinfoil" I was indeed referring to you mentioning time and time again some kind of "german conspiracy" and nothing else. I now see that it could in fact be potentially perceived as character assassination, though it was never my intent. So I will refrain myself from such comments, but please try to understand that such bold and unapologetic claims you put forward could be seen as cospiracy theories.

Germany has bad 109s, G-6 is a brick, as are Fw190s A-8 and F-8 (F-8 being decent in Ground RB thanks to a 1tonne bomb, but nothing else), A-1 is difficult because of unreliable armament and lack of performance.
But on the other hand, 109 F-4s, G-2, and G-10/K-4, Fw190 A-5/D-9 are all good aircraft, no one is denying that. And solely for that reason people fly them, as it's normal to flock to good vehicles.

Yes, German cannons perform really well, they have massive ammounts of HE filler, and decent ballistics (at least the 20mm). But this is historical. One might argue that with adjusted historical performance of the weaponry BR should be adjusted accordingly, but nerfing the cannons themselves would just be unrealistic. And again, .50s can't really compare to HE rounds, so to me it's no mystery that the don't do as much damage as the Minengeschoss. On the other hand, you get better ballistics and much more ammo - is that better? I don't know, it's different.

Regarding the high alt performance, yes the 109 does well, the 190 not at all (the A variant, with radial BMW801). It's actually quite interesting with the 190As, as they lose tremendous ammounts of performance the higher they go, but need altitude desperately to perform.

Yes, the P51 is not a beast climber, I never said so, in fact I mentioned it as one of the worse climbing but still awesome aircraft, that suffer because of the climb meta.

Premium "captured" aircraft typically don't get different armament options, it's just set up that way, but it's not only the US Ki-61.

And now couple of my points:

You guys claim that you are outclimbed every match. How is it that when I fly the D-28 I am at the same alt as enemy 109s, sometimes higher? Am I cheating, is my account on steroids? then again, in a P51 or Corsair that is definately the case, the plane just is not the best climber. But saying that you can't match the Germans climb in any given fighter is simply untrue from what I experience (I'd add "Spacefires" that regularly outclimb even 109s, yet no one has a problem with that. But again, some say the Spits have been nerfed and I cannot verify that, so will not touch that point.). Please explain to me what am I doing wrong (in this case right I guess?), so the outcome does not match what some of you claim.

I have to stress again the Meta argument. It just favors some kind of planes over the others. Just like tank Meta favors fast moving and hard hitting tanks, with armor being practically cosmetics, so does the Air Meta favors agile, fast climbing fighters with high burst/sec mass.

My proposition is play the Enduring confrontation. Gather as much info and statistics on matches as you can. If there is still a visible disproportion after we eliminate (at least I thin EC will alleviate the alt meta problem) the climbrate differences, then I will agree something is wrong, but now, to me it's still just "different" not yet broken or OP.

Cheers.

[SlipNSlyde]

Originally posted by Scrotum Scratcher:

I honestly feel bad for US players in my Bf109... I had a 70% win rate in my favorite one with an average of 2-4 kills each match in air RB until I played a few air AB matches. Wouldn't be surprised if Germany gets some nerfs. Fighting UK and RU isn't too unfair but US planes are so awfully bad.

Same here!
I mean its not like I haven't played German aircraft and I'm pulling all of this out of USA/British/French bias or something. I have more German vehicles than for any other nation, and I've spent more time in them.

But in the last two patches especially I just can't play Germany anymore, I just feel cheap!

It's a slaughter every round. It's not competitive in the least. German planes are so OP over their rivals that its just not a challenge at all. And since I'm not trying to impress anybody with stats that I would know are just a lie, I simply don't play Germany anymore.

I'm saying the things that I'm saying about Germany needing a nerf because I really enjoy competitive gameplay, and I seriously believe the game would be much much better off for everybody if it was at least reasonably balanced, which today it just simply is not.

[Intrspace]

Originally posted by Bobla:

Premium "captured" aircraft typically don't get different armament options, it's just set up that way, but it's not only the US Ki-61.

My point was that the premium is 0.3 BR higher than its non-premium counterpart despite having no payload options.

Curiously, the Soviet premium P-40 has double the payload weight of the American P-40 while both are on the same BR.
I would love to believe that this is just a mistake caused by the US bombs being designated in pounds instead of kilograms (where one pound is about 0.47 kg), but it just seems too convenient to be true.

[SlipNSlyde]

Originally posted by Bobla:

Hey, thanks for replies

I try to adress as much as I can but obviously can miss something. Probably will.

With the "tinfoil" I was indeed referring to you mentioning time and time again some kind of "german conspiracy" and nothing else. I now see that it could in fact be potentially perceived as character assassination, though it was never my intent. So I will refrain myself from such comments, but please try to understand that such bold and unapologetic claims you put forward could be seen as cospiracy theories.

Germany has bad 109s, G-6 is a brick, as are Fw190s A-8 and F-8 (F-8 being decent in Ground RB thanks to a 1tonne bomb, but nothing else), A-1 is difficult because of unreliable armament and lack of performance.
But on the other hand, 109 F-4s, G-2, and G-10/K-4, Fw190 A-5/D-9 are all good aircraft, no one is denying that. And solely for that reason people fly them, as it's normal to flock to good vehicles.

Yes, German cannons perform really well, they have massive ammounts of HE filler, and decent ballistics (at least the 20mm). But this is historical. One might argue that with adjusted historical performance of the weaponry BR should be adjusted accordingly, but nerfing the cannons themselves would just be unrealistic. And again, .50s can't really compare to HE rounds, so to me it's no mystery that the don't do as much damage as the Minengeschoss. On the other hand, you get better ballistics and much more ammo - is that better? I don't know, it's different.

Regarding the high alt performance, yes the 109 does well, the 190 not at all (the A variant, with radial BMW801). It's actually quite interesting with the 190As, as they lose tremendous ammounts of performance the higher they go, but need altitude desperately to perform.

Yes, the P51 is not a beast climber, I never said so, in fact I mentioned it as one of the worse climbing but still awesome aircraft, that suffer because of the climb meta.

Premium "captured" aircraft typically don't get different armament options, it's just set up that way, but it's not only the US Ki-61.

And now couple of my points:

You guys claim that you are outclimbed every match. How is it that when I fly the D-28 I am at the same alt as enemy 109s, sometimes higher? Am I cheating, is my account on steroids? then again, in a P51 or Corsair that is definately the case, the plane just is not the best climber. But saying that you can't match the Germans climb in any given fighter is simply untrue from what I experience (I'd add "Spacefires" that regularly outclimb even 109s, yet no one has a problem with that. But again, some say the Spits have been nerfed and I cannot verify that, so will not touch that point.). Please explain to me what am I doing wrong (in this case right I guess?), so the outcome does not match what some of you claim.

I have to stress again the Meta argument. It just favors some kind of planes over the others. Just like tank Meta favors fast moving and hard hitting tanks, with armor being practically cosmetics, so does the Air Meta favors agile, fast climbing fighters with high burst/sec mass.

My proposition is play the Enduring confrontation. Gather as much info and statistics on matches as you can. If there is still a visible disproportion after we eliminate (at least I thin EC will alleviate the alt meta problem) the climbrate differences, then I will agree something is wrong, but now, to me it's still just "different" not yet broken or OP.

Cheers.

I would say after having flown all of them, that the worst 109 or 190 is still on par with the best that the USA tree has to offer. There is nothing bad in either of those lines on the german tree. However most of the USA tree is worse than bad. It's terrible.

Climb rate is the worst problem but also German energy retention in the vertical is just broken. A 109F can literally turn fight on the ground for five full elevator turns, level out for a couple of seconds and zoom climb to the moon. It's broken.

So you mention a couple of the very best USA climbers. I assume you mean the D30, the D28, and the last Corsair the 4B. These are all decent climbers for their BRs. BUT when you get to altitude, every time it's the same situation for all three of them, you will be completely and massively outnumbered by Germans who are at your altitude or higher. Its' the same reason the German P47 was always better than the USA model despite the same FM. It has a team behind him at altitude where the USA plane is completely ALONE. This isnt a small thing to be dismissied. This is everything. Unless you're fantastic at 8 on 1 engagements, you're screwed.

Even in the very best climbing USA planes, Germany completely dominates the altitude and with its broken energy and broken guns, completely dominates the game. And I mean the whole game. There really isn't a BR (yeah besides 9.0!) where this isn't true.

If you think the German grenade throwers and UFO energy and climb rates are realistic, then raise the battle ratings. A LOT.

I believe Enduring Confrontation is Simulator game play. Since I play in high resolution 4K I'm already at a serious disadvantage with the spotting system that greatly favors low end PCs. So Sim is out of the question for me at least.

[SlipNSlyde]

Originally posted by Intrspace:

Originally posted by Bobla:

Premium "captured" aircraft typically don't get different armament options, it's just set up that way, but it's not only the US Ki-61.

My point was that the premium is 0.3 BR higher than its non-premium counterpart despite having no payload options.

Curiously, the Soviet premium P-40 has double the payload weight of the American P-40 while both are on the same BR.
I would love to believe that this is just a mistake caused by the US bombs being designated in pounds instead of kilograms (where one pound is about 0.47 kg), but it just seems too convenient to be true.

And the USA 109F doesn't get gun pods.
And the USA Corsairs all have horribly rolly polly noses that when rolling, bob all over the sky, but somehow magically the Japanese premium Corsair doesn't have that problem at all. It's a problem that's so bad that makes all of the later Corsairs completely unplayable IMO.

[SlipNSlyde]

Originally posted by Rootin Tootin Putin:

Originally posted by SlipNSlyde:

If you think the German grenade throwers are realistic

They are though. Look up "Minengeschoss damage".

While taking the time, look up the average altitude of engagement for USA fighters in Europe in WW2, I believe it is over 10KM!

Maybe then we could then also look up BR Increase!

Of course we would have to look up Balanced Game first. Of course that one is localized. In USA and British and French volumes it would suggest 50/50, whereas in German volumes balance is defined as 80/20,

[Bobla]

Originally posted by SlipNSlyde:

I would say after having flown all of them, that the worst 109 or 190 is still on par with the best that the USA tree has to offer. There is nothing bad in either of those lines on the german tree. However most of the USA tree is worse than bad. It's terrible.

I mean we are talking about so many different planes that it is impossible to assess that, would have to compare particular planes to particular planes, not just "the planes" in general. BUt in this general claim I can agree, that some are better some are worse, but mostly they all have diffrent quirks to them.

Climb rate is the worst problem but also German energy retention in the vertical is just broken. A 109F can literally turn fight on the ground for five full elevator turns, level out for a couple of seconds and zoom climb to the moon. It's broken.

Energy retention in the vertical (as I assume you're speaking of it in particular) is directly linked to engine power and airframe weight. And since especially 109s are small and light frames with comparatively powerful engines - you get very good energy retention. It is just realistic, I believe Spitfires (MkII comapred to 109Es, and XI and later compared to Gs) boast even better retention.

So you mention a couple of the very best USA climbers. I assume you mean the D30, the D28, and the last Corsair the 4B. These are all decent climbers for their BRs. BUT when you get to altitude, every time it's the same situation for all three of them, you will be completely and massively outnumbered by Germans who are at your altitude or higher. Its' the same reason the German P47 was always better than the USA model despite the same FM. It has a team behind him at altitude where the USA plane is completely ALONE. This isnt a small thing to be dismissied. This is everything. Unless you're fantastic at 8 on 1 engagements, you're screwed.

I completely agree! I really could not agree more. It is a fact that in most of the battles you simply have more Germans at 5k than Americans at 5k. And since the meta requires alt advantage, that's precisely where US loses. Now is that the fault of the planes or the players?

If you think the German grenade throwers and UFO energy and climb rates are realistic, then raise the battle ratings. A LOT.

You could argue that. Keep in mind that before 1.79 .50cals were virtually on par with today's cannons, and cannons where comparatively ♥♥♥♥ as rifle calibers. Germany was unplayable back then.

I believe Enduring Confrontation is Simulator game play. Since I play in high resolution 4K I'm already at a serious disadvantage with the spotting system that greatly favors low end PCs. So Sim is out of the question for me at least.

This weekend they are testing the EC in RB mode, haven;t tried yet, but I surely will and would recommend to do the same.

Cheers!

[SlipNSlyde]

Originally posted by Rootin Tootin Putin:

Originally posted by SlipNSlyde:

While taking the time, look up the average altitude of engagement for USA fighters in Europe in WW2, I believe it is over 10KM!

Highly depends really. Sometimes Mustangs would start off at about 9km, and depending on the situation dive down to engage ground targets. As for pure fighter or escort fights, well, a B-17 can only fly up to about 9km anyway, so there's not much reason for Mustangs or Thunderbolts to be above that altitude. It was much higher than say, the Pacific or Eastern Front where combat would range from 1km to almost touching the ground. Then again, all this depends on your sources, as some say pilots would try and be as close to the ground as possible to achieve maximum speed and whatnot.

Not really.

Mustangs did not attack ground targets until air superiority was established, and even then P47s were greatly preferred due to no water cooling systems.

Also when Mustangs were defending B17s the actually flew ABOVE the B17s, a fact few people seem to know. Also at altitude they had a fantastic performance advantage over the Germans. 109s and 190s alike.

When Doolittle 'freed the Mustangs' to leave the bombers and go after German fighters it was only a week until Germans stopped putting fighters in the sky. They were literally cleared in a week!

But all ground attacks before and after were covered by high altitude fighters. Altitude supremecy was always paramount to USA flight doctrine.

In War Thunder, it's the opposite.

[Lain]

Originally posted by SlipNSlyde:

Not really.

Mustangs did not attack ground targets until air superiority was established, and even then P47s were greatly preferred due to no water cooling systems.

Also when Mustangs were defending B17s the actually flew ABOVE the B17s, a fact few people seem to know. Also at altitude they had a fantastic performance advantage over the Germans. 109s and 190s alike.

When Doolittle 'freed the Mustangs' to leave the bombers and go after German fighters it was only a week until Germans stopped putting fighters in the sky. They were literally cleared in a week!

But all ground attacks before and after were covered by high altitude fighters. Altitude supremecy was always paramount to USA flight doctrine.

In War Thunder, it's the opposite.

Which is why I said depending on the situation, because ground attacking when German pilots are still in the air is pretty stupid, it's like some games in air RB there'll be those few US pilots who dive to the ground and ground attack while the Germans and Italians have the higher altitude.

German planes also had excellent performance at altitudes. Those DB engines aren't any pushovers you know. Even the Italians use them in their planes, the most notable of which is the G.56 which is an excellent aircraft, albeit suffers from bad repair costs.

Yes, by the time of the Normandy invasion the Luftwaffe wasn't even much of a threat. Most planes were engaged on the Eastern Front, out of fuel, or were reserved purely for bomber interception. After Doolittle ordered the Mustangs to "Seek and destroy the enemy wherever you may find him", things really changed. In fact, part of the reason German pilot losses became less as the war simmered down was because they weren't even up in the air as much.

[SlipNSlyde]

Originally posted by Bobla:

Originally posted by SlipNSlyde:

I would say after having flown all of them, that the worst 109 or 190 is still on par with the best that the USA tree has to offer. There is nothing bad in either of those lines on the german tree. However most of the USA tree is worse than bad. It's terrible.

I mean we are talking about so many different planes that it is impossible to assess that, would have to compare particular planes to particular planes, not just "the planes" in general. BUt in this general claim I can agree, that some are better some are worse, but mostly they all have diffrent quirks to them.

Climb rate is the worst problem but also German energy retention in the vertical is just broken. A 109F can literally turn fight on the ground for five full elevator turns, level out for a couple of seconds and zoom climb to the moon. It's broken.

Energy retention in the vertical (as I assume you're speaking of it in particular) is directly linked to engine power and airframe weight. And since especially 109s are small and light frames with comparatively powerful engines - you get very good energy retention. It is just realistic, I believe Spitfires (MkII comapred to 109Es, and XI and later compared to Gs) boast even better retention.

So you mention a couple of the very best USA climbers. I assume you mean the D30, the D28, and the last Corsair the 4B. These are all decent climbers for their BRs. BUT when you get to altitude, every time it's the same situation for all three of them, you will be completely and massively outnumbered by Germans who are at your altitude or higher. Its' the same reason the German P47 was always better than the USA model despite the same FM. It has a team behind him at altitude where the USA plane is completely ALONE. This isnt a small thing to be dismissied. This is everything. Unless you're fantastic at 8 on 1 engagements, you're screwed.

I completely agree! I really could not agree more. It is a fact that in most of the battles you simply have more Germans at 5k than Americans at 5k. And since the meta requires alt advantage, that's precisely where US loses. Now is that the fault of the planes or the players?

If you think the German grenade throwers and UFO energy and climb rates are realistic, then raise the battle ratings. A LOT.

You could argue that. Keep in mind that before 1.79 .50cals were virtually on par with today's cannons, and cannons where comparatively ♥♥♥♥ as rifle calibers. Germany was unplayable back then.

I believe Enduring Confrontation is Simulator game play. Since I play in high resolution 4K I'm already at a serious disadvantage with the spotting system that greatly favors low end PCs. So Sim is out of the question for me at least.

This weekend they are testing the EC in RB mode, haven;t tried yet, but I surely will and would recommend to do the same.

Cheers!

Well I can't agree that the 109 energy retention is realistic at all. When booming and zooming on 109s with any allied plane, under the very best of circumstances, maximum altitude advantage USA (which let's face it almost never happens) you get 2 passes max until he's equalized energy. 109 energy is overstated. A lot.

I'm not sure about a MK2 Spit vs a 109E, having an energy/zoom climb advantage. Of course the E models are nothing compared to the Fs! But I can say that the 109E1 is one of the most ridiculously undertiered planes in the game. With so much ammo on fastest firing guns in game, it would sit comfortably at 3.0, yet sits at 2.0 and ruins everything.

The later Spits are certainly better with energy but the 109K is another quite broken German plane, rediculous at 5.3, and with the absurd TA152C sitting at 5.7, together they slaughter every allie under 6.3. They should be 6.0 and 5.7 respectively at least. Especially with their new double powered German guns.

By the time Spitfires are better than 109s, they're facing jets. Which isn't my cup of tea!

One thing you are way off base on though is where Germany was before the USA nerf/German buff. USA had great guns but as I said it didn't matter. Not in the least.
The best planes at almost every BR were German, and by a very wide margin. I was not exaggerating when saying they buffed the best team and nerfed the worst team.

Run down the lineup.
Best at (around) every BR:

2.0 109E1 by miles
3.0 C.202EC by miles
4.0 C.205S3 by miles
5.0 109K4
6.0 TA 152C
7.0 ME 262A1
8.0 ME 262C2b

And that's not even mentioning the 109F4, 109G2, TA 154, P47 premium, G55, G56, all of which were fantastic for their BRs.

USA had the D30, the first Corsair, and the first P38.
Germany was by miles the better team before the USA nerf/German buff!
Now it's the same only worse.

Mediocre USA planes back then are simply unplayable now. And that's most of them!

Altitude is everything. And players cannot be blamed. Germany has the clear advantage and nothing allies can do aside from Germans diving out and throwing away the match will make for a possible win. Side climbing only seperates the team and guarantees the loss. No other options really available.

BUT

If USA had air spawns and GERMANY had to side climb, it would be dramaticaly more balanced. And if Germans chose to side climb then for THEM it would actually be viable. Expecting Germans to side climb to meet the allies would be perfectly reasonable considering their vastly superior climb rates. The current expectation is the other way around and completely laughable.

And this laughable expectation gets blamed on the players. A little too conveniently to not call 'agendas'.

[SlipNSlyde]

Originally posted by Rootin Tootin Putin:

Originally posted by SlipNSlyde:

Not really.

Mustangs did not attack ground targets until air superiority was established, and even then P47s were greatly preferred due to no water cooling systems.

Also when Mustangs were defending B17s the actually flew ABOVE the B17s, a fact few people seem to know. Also at altitude they had a fantastic performance advantage over the Germans. 109s and 190s alike.

When Doolittle 'freed the Mustangs' to leave the bombers and go after German fighters it was only a week until Germans stopped putting fighters in the sky. They were literally cleared in a week!

But all ground attacks before and after were covered by high altitude fighters. Altitude supremecy was always paramount to USA flight doctrine.

In War Thunder, it's the opposite.

Which is why I said depending on the situation, because ground attacking when German pilots are still in the air is pretty stupid, it's like some games in air RB there'll be those few US pilots who dive to the ground and ground attack while the Germans and Italians have the higher altitude.

German planes also had excellent performance at altitudes. Those DB engines aren't any pushovers you know. Even the Italians use them in their planes, the most notable of which is the G.56 which is an excellent aircraft, albeit suffers from bad repair costs.

Yes, by the time of the Normandy invasion the Luftwaffe wasn't even much of a threat. Most planes were engaged on the Eastern Front, out of fuel, or were reserved purely for bomber interception. After Doolittle ordered the Mustangs to "Seek and destroy the enemy wherever you may find him", things really changed. In fact, part of the reason German pilot losses became less as the war simmered down was because they weren't even up in the air as much.

German planes were the best at high altitude until USA came along.
USA had the advantage of being able to analyze Germany's strength before entering the war. USA planes had the advantage at high altitude. And that's not modelled at all currently. P47s get out run by A6M5s and J2M2. P38J15 at 4.3 is outrun at 6KM by 109F4, .7 BR lower! That's just wrong, but there it is. USA is not performing at altitude as they should but nobody cares since nobody survives long enough to get there anyway.

And those USA pilots that dive out have no choice.
I saw a guy doing that the other day (and I see this all the time!) he was diving out in a P51D for ground targets. NOOB you might say! He had all of Germany unlocked with an average of 3 kills per match in RB!

Truth is you get dove on my Germans, you discover side climbing doesn't work. At ALL. And you eventually dive out for a couple points before your team is erased, just like everyone else!

[Intrspace]

Originally posted by Rootin Tootin Putin:

Originally posted by SlipNSlyde:

If you think the German grenade throwers are realistic

They are though. Look up "Minengeschoss damage".

As realistic as that may be, War Thunder is a game, and games should at least be fun. The allies right now don't even come close to that kind of gun performance.
Besides, there are tonnes of things in WT which are pretty much made-up and arbitrary.

[SlipNSlyde]

Originally posted by Rootin Tootin Putin:

Originally posted by Intrspace:

As realistic as that may be, War Thunder is a game, and games should at least be fun. The allies right now don't even come close to that kind of gun performance.
Besides, there are tonnes of things in WT which are pretty much made-up and arbitrary.

I only said that because he was talking about realism. This game isn't realistic by any stretch of the word, and I don't mind if it isn't. I definitely think the whole Axis team thing is unbalanced in some ways, but the main reason I don't want this game to be realistic is so we can get more vehicles in the form of ones that are paper or prototypes. Considering they have at least some information on proposed armament and guesstimated performance, and are well balanced. But this isn't a thread on mine or yours view on if we should implement those types of vehicles.

I wouldn't argue for realism as much as for balance. But it seems that every German comes around arguing for realism when it favors them and balance when it favors them. In the end, USA/Brittain/France lose on both counts. It's not realistic, and its not balanced.

I'd just like to see the German team balanced. For everyone.
So I can fly 109s and 190s again and not feel like a dirty cheap punk.
And terrible imbalance like we have now, just isn't good gameplay for anybody.

Personally I wouldn't complain if every nation had BRs adjusted until every nation won 50% of the time give or take. And I don't think anybody else would have grounds to complain either realistic or not.

[SlipNSlyde]

Originally posted by Desolator:

Originally posted by SlipNSlyde:

Shouldn't it just be balanced then they don't have to lie to everyone?
Every nation with a 50% win rate, then who would have the right to complain?
USA being dead last for 5 years while Germany dominates air for 5 years kinda looks like an agenda though doesnt it!

Buffing Germany when they are the first place best team and nerfing USA when they are the last place worst team, is far from 'tinfoil' in calling out an agenda!

Also there is not a single terrible 109 or 190, but most of the USA tree is terrible!
All the Corsairs except the first one are terrible.
All the P-38s except the first one are terrible.
The F6Fs are terrible.

France is terrible.
Brittain is not great anymore. Meh at best.

Simply nerf Germany and suddenly everything is balanced. It's not that complicated.

Maybe if the US didn't carry bombs and rockets on their P-51s and P-47Ds and go lawn mowing, then get BnZed to death by 109s and 190s they would do better

Or maybe if they side climbed instead of going straight in because "Huhuh the P-51 was the best plane of WW2"

Or maybe if half of the allied teams didn't consist of B-17s who get insta-♥♥♥♥♥♥ by Mk 108s on the 190s and 109s and are useless to their team

Germany isn't OP by any stretch, but US planes don't suck as much as you're saying they do

Germany doesn't need a buff or a nerf, just leave them be and not have such trash allied teams who don't know how to fly their planes

Maybe if you read the thread before posting.
Because all of what you said has been discussed and debunked.

[SlipNSlyde]

Originally posted by Desolator:

Originally posted by SlipNSlyde:

Maybe if you read the thread before posting.
Because all of what you said has been discussed and debunked.

What a well thought out and detailed response, that really showed me

I'm not going to copy paste responses out of this thread for you.