i’ll still have to give him some credit here, that is the same document as i posted to start with.
didn’t even realise that it was the wrong one lol XD
40 meters in Leopard 2A5 = ~1200 meters in Leopard 2A6/7.
Leopard 2s are more maneuverable than T-90s; a cold take.
@Necronomica
I care about accurate language, and I don’t like it when words denoting change are used to denote inaccuracies that haven’t faced change.
& artificial is reductive as buff/nerf are inherently balance terms to begin with and are thus artificial.
I can respect your post tho; I just disagree with that term’s existence.
This adds literally nothing to the conversation as it is no amount less vague than what we were discussing previously. No matter what possible opinion anyone had from the first document, yours would not change it, since they have all the exact same issues.
as do i, but its just a thing one has to accept. once you have established the meaning of a word in a certain context its easier to understand what people mean even if the meaning in the dictionary is different. then you just have to let go of the actual meaning of the word because that is no longer a part of the discussion.
do you then agree on their stance of the existence of “artificial nerfs” in their meaning of the word?
1 Like
With their personalized definition that’s drastically incorrect… sure.
It’s still better to call them inaccuracies though as I fear they’ll confuse what nerf means in other conversations.
Mig-29 having “artificial nerfs” is something that’s a fact to them, but it does not work in sentence form to my academic English mind.
Issues you invent. Your claims have no basis.
It literally says DU for use in turrets and hulls. With no limits. Cope.
i can understand that. but you have to look at words as they are used in their context.
in the same way that the word “bro” does not actually mean “brother” a majority of the time when used in day-to-day talking.
It literally says DU for use in turrets and hulls. With no limits. Cope.
No, it literally does not say DU in the “Hull” once anywhere. Turret, yes.
last red square
9 Likes
Yes it does. Cope.
7 Likes
…and here come the mental gymnastics. XD
You’ve been proven wrong. Take the L, or look like an even bigger clown.
3 Likes
Oh alright (dunno why you didn’t just highlight that instead of 17 different random other things but fine).
So it was in hulls then. Not sure what there is to “cope” about, you finally gave an actual source, unlike earlier, so you proved it’s in the hull for the first time. Good job, bring it to Gaijin and open a ticket, and best of luck.
I’m here to challenge bad sources and bad claims. The previous source was bad, this one isn’t. W for everyone. Don’t include the other one in your ticket either, by the way. Only give them the purest, best sources, without watering them down with other stuff they can distract with. Quality > Quantity.
No, it was there the entire time you tried to deny it. But its funny watching you squirm and perform real time and completely false revisionism. :DDDDD
1 Like
I am referring to the old conversation I had with Necronomica, it was not in that other source we were talking about yesterday. Obviously this was in the source you posted an hour ago all along, yes.
“for the first time” lol. yesterday:
4 Likes
And have it fail because it doesnt state how effective it is of armour.
That’s like 300 comments earlier than our conversation yesterday, but okay cool. Why did you start talking about a shittier, more vague source later on, if you yourself saw that when he posted it much earlier?
Again, this is what allows Gaijin to cherrypick easy documents to refute and make it LOOK like they’re giving comprehensive replies to fool people.
Do not spam random documents of varying qualities mixed in with the gold standard ones. Do not give them cannon fodder for cherry picking.
If you know of a source like the good one above, stick to it, repeat it as needed, and give nothing of lower quality until they explicitly address it. It does not strengthen the claim by “supporting in a minor way” or whatever. It greatly weakens it by allowing bypasses. Include any others that are equally crystal clear on related points only (There’s a budget office one I saw that said armor improved survivability on like 3 specific models each, for example, for use in arguing > 0mm improvements on each step in game).
Probably the most tone deaf statement I’ve read for a while. So you are saying that JH-7A, JA37D, F-4J, J-8F, Mirage 2000D-R1, all 11.3. Tornadoes etc. are equally good as 12.0 or 12.3 jets that can face new top top tier jets. And again Gaijin is proving how out of touch they actually are.
2 Likes