Can I see the list of bug reports?
And I would hesitate to call it discrimination. Gaijin just has a double standard in general
1 Like
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
3 Likes
As someone who has witnessed the modeling issues with the ZTZ99A, VT-4A1, and WZ1001 that are still not fixed, and now the VT-5, Gaijin has an attitude problem that needs to be corrected.
5 Likes
It doesn’t help that all these vehicles aren’t easily available to get information on.
The common denominator is lack of information, especially information in English.
Of course China and Japan will have modeling issues if we want vehicles put in-game in a competitive timeframe to nations that make documents in international languages.
Gaijin probably needs a larger team of translators.
Also you posted “attitude” when you meant to post “lack of translators and on-the-ground researchers”.
Also @不利于团结的话不要说, I’m pretty sure NATO competed but that’s not relevant to this forum.
Or maybe CN tech tree actually need a consultant (not like the one who purposefully nerfed the vehicles), as far as I know CN tech tree right now doesn’t have one while most other nations do.
3 Likes
Most nations don’t cause they have staff on-hand that speak the languages/work in the continent.
But yeah, they need more staff.
Even then, many bug reports, like the spall liner-related ones, contain more than enough information for the developers to act on them… yet here we are, after a full whole year since the reports were made and “accepted”, still waiting :/
3 Likes
Yes, and bug reports help and need to be read each time.
And for some of them there are hiccups that can occur [looks at spall liner placement research].
Some are easy, for VT5 there’s explicit video showing every angle.
Harder for others.
Wait what?
Did they had tech mod before,
but he nerfed a Chinese vehicle purposefully…?
I think I am having a terrible headache now. :|
1 Like
Pls just search in the ISSUE forum with VT-5 or anyother tanks. Most of game balance related (like armor, reload speed etc.) are labeled as Not a Bug, or Not enough Info.
5 Likes
And all of the ones that were denied lack information.
The standards are set for everyone, which makes finding sources annoying.
We can’t blame Gaijin, as those standards exist to legally protect them as well as make sure that no country is given bias.
We can blame our governments for not making information easily accessible and unrestricted.
There are a lot of fixed bugs as well.
1 Like
Yeah it was a problem around 2-3 years ago, they were removed from this position though.
Gaijin now relies on itself to conduct research regarding CN vehicles.
1 Like
I believe the root of the problem lies with Gaijin itself. Some of the fixes that have been implemented only make the VT-5 slightly more reasonable, but they are ultimately insignificant. Furthermore, since the test server has already been closed, it is highly likely that the VT-5 will remain in its current state when it goes live on the official server. If that’s the case, what is the point of our discussions here?
You claim that many issues have been fixed, but why hasn’t the turret basket issue been addressed? I won’t even bring up the armor protection problems for now—let’s just focus on the turret basket, a glaringly obvious issue that has been discussed numerous times in this thread. Why was it immediately removed from the Leopard 2 after widespread criticism, yet suddenly added to the VT-5? Anyone with normal eyesight can clearly see that the VT-5 does not have a turret basket.
Yet in the ISSUE report, the response to this problem was:
Reports about the basket will be accepted only if there are sources on which the basket is clearly visible.
Under the turret ring, it is empty space instead of the basket.
This is impossible; tankers must sit on something that rotates with the turret. There is no other way.
But does this really mean that a turret basket must exist? Most Russian tanks in real-life design do not have turret baskets either, so why does Gaijin assume that if the crew rotates with the turret, there must be a turret basket?
Furthermore, the existence of a turret basket contradicts the internal design logic of the VT-5. If the tank crew runs out of ready ammunition, are they supposed to reach through the basket to access additional rounds? How would that even be possible? Despite overwhelming evidence proving that this design is nonsensical and unrealistic, the issue is still marked as “not enough info”.
And those evidence those friends have already uploaded in this forum, is also available on YouTube
At this point, I can only conclude that this is a clear bias against the Chinese tech tree and Chinese equipments, OR if they can prove where did they get those information about VT-5. And really if VT-5 is that vulnerable. I suggest Indian Armed Force just using machine guns to defend Bangladesh VT-5.
13 Likes
Right now there are no bug reports for the VT5 turret basket in English that use the in-garage photograph with the turret lifted, dunno about the official diagrams. Those images showed up after the previous reports were closed.
I can’t check the Mandarin reports obviously.
There is no bias against Chinese vehicles, that fact is obvious from many amazing [and a few under-BR’d] vehicles.
Christ, I really hope someday CN players also have tech mods which have enthusiasm in a good way. :|
4 Likes
“Bro, your words really touched me. Thank you for your support. I hope not only the Chinese series but also the French and British series can improve.”
8 Likes
Can these photos help with the turret basket report?
ZTQ-15 and VT-5 are produced in the same factory
If you look at these pictures, you can see that the VT-5 has only a rotational floor, not a turret basket, as shown in ZTQ-15. (For your information, these photos are not leaked, they were found in the photos posted on the blog for promotional purposes at the factory)
13 Likes
Does ZTQ 15 have carousel autoloader alongside the bustle autoloader? There seems to be a carousel autoloader laying near the turret floors in the second picture.