I had a feeling you would turn up eventually. Genuinely. I was thinking earlier today “I just know that one development guy I chatted with will eventually make an appearance”. No ill will towards you, to clarify. I do think that given your background in software/game development and my lack of as I’ve only ever worked in customer service and transportation, we are going to disagree on some things.
This may be true for you. But to a fair chunk of us not versed in your background, it comes across differently. To us, it’s more equatable to say, telling your landlord something in your apartment isn’t working, being told to fill out a maintenance request, and it never gets fixed.
Nah overall you’re right, they’re being ridiculous here. I’m just nitpicking that “years old bugs” is not one of the reasons we know that. Them just ignoring dozens of plenty good enough sources is the reason we know that. (Which itself even might be fine, but don’t LIE about it, just explain why you want to override history for balance, if so. “We don’t BELIEVE the Abrams has new armor in the last 40 years” is utter bullshit. “We don’t CARE that the Abrams has new armor, because we think it’d be bad for the game becauze XYZ” maybe)
I really want to like this game, I really do, but the blatant disregard for anything that would make Russia look bad is just ridiculous. As soon as I saw the hull armor wasn’t going to change because “we don’t believe it was upgraded” even though there was a mountain of evidence to contrary, I decided to let go of this game. I was a so called “wallet warrior,” I’ve bought more premium vehicles than I’d like to admit, and I was ready to buy the clickbait, kvt, and M1a1 aim, I was only waiting for this issue to be resolved, but it looks like that’s not going to happen. I’ve been disappointed one too many times, and unlike the other times I’ve taken a break from this game, I don’t think I’ll be coming back.
I find it funny cause it once again means the Abrams are going to remain the same thing from M1A1HC to the SEPV2. Side note I don’t consider “IF” they add A3 that an upgrade cause they just said in this post if they do add it. That they won’t be much different from A2.
Soo Abrams have one of best ammo in game but they will give them even better soon. And now it receive reload speed buff. While Leclerc still is missing his ammo and 4s reload speed. Give the F2 rounds to S2/SXXI/AZUR
M1:
player: Armor! M829A3! Spall liners!(data,information)
gaijin: we think the reload can be 5s(without any information)
Leopard,99A,VT4, Ariete, Merkava and Leclerc:
player: Armor! Reload speed! Spall liners!(data,information)
gaijin:not a bug
“balance”
All I see is a russian main being fine with addition to russian tree/russian tanks based on super shaky sources, but not fine with something aimilar happening with NATO tanks.
Tbh I’m not even surprised by the current status of VT-4A1. A floating cannon through a giant window, poor armor coverage with unreasonably combined large ERAs, and three Yao Ming inside the tank (once AGAIN after happening on the initial release of 99A and 1001)—Chinese top-tier tanks have barely being finished properly, until either players strongly argue about it or someone has spare time to do a few clicks.
It’s not even about documents, simply unfinished. If devs are trying to make them “unique”, I would say they are as good as Ariete.
This is making me very interested the more I think about it because what about the navy’s license? considering this license is for the US Army, who didn’t get DU hulls until the SEP anyway after the 2006 amended license. The marines historically used upgraded M1A1HC/SA etc, which were shown in the budget reports to have been upgraded with heavy armor hull components. The 2004 license actually exists in a vacuum and is amended for new (as opposed to restored) army hulls in 2006. I want to see the navy license governing how many DU hulls the USMC could possess at any given time.
It is so frustrating to me just watching them destroy the game with something so easily fixable yet they refuse to listen.
I don’t know what their goal is with the compression. It can’t be to force us to spend money due to frustration, because if a jet is outclassed in every single metric, I just won’t touch it at all, let alone spend money on it. No, I go play something else instead. It hurts their bottom line.
So it both hurts their bank account and it hurts the players. Why do they insist on not decompressing BR? I just don’t understand. Is it an internal sabotage? Maybe there is some disgruntled employee presenting the data to BVVD intentionally in a way that hurts the company?
For example I wonder who would be insane to buy the Tornado with the current state of ARB, let alone for 70EUR.
The official will not care about the demands of players, they will only complete the game according to their own ideas, even if some countries have never equipped vehicles, they will come up with them. As for the information, they will only selectively restore it or pretend to be invisible. It’s time for them to see the anger of the players
Ya’ll need to stop bringing up Yak-141.
T-80U is weird cause that’s perfect.
And T-80B is already explained to be using a drop-in thermal sight used on at least some T-80Bs.
M1A1 AIM has its machine gun thermal sight, as does every Challenger 2 tank that got them IRL.
Of course no dedicated control for setting them as your commander view key, but they exist.
@bananomet
I’ve tried to play Phantom FG1 to see if I’d do bad in it and I keep doing well.
I killed an F-15A without issue using it…
I don’t get it. I don’t get why 11.0s and 11.3s are doing so well.
The Yak-141 in game is the production iteration of an aircraft that never left prototype stage.
T-80B in game is a production variant that gets thermals that was tested on like 1-2 T-80B test vehicles.
T-80U production base version in game gets thermals because they were either tested on a few vehicles or were equipped on different T-80U variants.
No offense, but I don’t care what you say is perfect or not. I used those and will continue to use them, because hese are all examples of Gaijin’s double standards.
If this was a Russian vehicle they would likely already have gotten the hull armor based on the first NRC report with the 5 DU hull equipped Abramses.
T-80U in game is most likely serial T-80UM from 1992, with Agava 2 thermal and GTD-1250, however Agava 2 was created and tested on T-80U back in 1987 as well as proposed/used on number of prototypes, Agava was made in 1981-1982 and tested in these years on T-80B.
There were total of 25 Agava thermals and only vehicle to ever mount them is T-80B, however assure number of T-80Bs mounting them is unknown, only 2 can be said for sure, one was shown in some museum, other is put as monument. @_Renzo