This Clearly states that the posts(or poles) from which the basket is rang on the turret have Hydralic lines and i doubt the turret would work fine if it can’t pump hydralic oil/oil leak
Gaijin also instructed to use valid and good sources that usually comes in a report in the form of
and not links or images from random sites on the internet that claim this and that about tanks,
Final point is, while some kind of developer bias exist, hell 90105 sight took like what 2 years to get fixed, cv90 family sight is still not fixed after more than 4 years, stinger overload etc.
This is clearly not a case
The hydraulic lines already are modelled, even now.
And not the WHOLE basket is hydraulic lines. There’s no reason for the whole turret to be disabled because an Aluminum sheet at the side was hit by spall.
Except things can be intended over misinformation, in which case they are still bugs.
If the developers believed that T-90M has the same armor as T-62, it WOULD be a bug- even if they made it intentionally based on wrong information. A bug subject to reports to correct that mistake.
Distinction without a difference. People in the official report pipeline are having their time wasted, thus taking time away from actual reports; the details of their paycheque are irrelevant.
I should probably add that i have actually had a bug report be fixed on the dev server. however its so small and insignificant to overall gameplay that it means nothing in the total scheme of the game
Not particularly, just pointing out that these changes have a significant impact on the area to which causes M-kills, considering that shot is far away from the Center of mass; it takes out both the gun’s Traverse and the Driver simultaneously leaving no recourse for the M1 even though the shot is evidently poorly aimed (Shot’s chord is not aimed at any particular internal module, weak armor or near the target’s centroid).
You do get that there is a massive backlog of “accepted” reports and that due to the way things are set up that the lack of a submitted report (on the public portal) in no way prevents bugs (even that to which the report would detail accurately) from being fixed, considering internal (non-public) reports and a Q/A unit exist.
I disagree with the validity of the turret drive change alongside you as it looks like its being done explicitly to nerf anything that isn’t soviet (yes the T64 family of tanks have a modelled autoloader but that thing is really trolly with taking damage)
If a shot is in an unconventional spot but still has a potential to knock out a module its not a bad shot that shouldn’t be rewarded for its lack of convention. The standard spot to shoot abrams frontally kills the driver and turret ring on live server already so its not changing a fundamental of the gameplay, one cripple shot and then a kill blow.
Part 2:
And do you know how many bug reports there are
Lemme list a few of them:
Abrams hydraulic pump location(current hydraulic pump location ingame are actually reservoir pump), wrong ufp thickness, turret ring has no volumetric and wrong protection value, engine is still loud. Other logical issue are Abrams composite(chobbham) generation being the same despite every tank version from M1->SEP V2 having different composite armor generation and janky model as well as damage model
Ariete: The entire tank is wrong, model are close but armor are absolutely atrocious. No frontal composite, KE and CE protection value are absolutely bottom of the barrel(worst NATO tank rating doesnt mean that it has no armor), Ariete WAR kit despite weight 5.5 tons only provide 20mm KE protection-bug report of it still hasnt been fix
Challengers: See this thread Challenger 2 MBT - Technical data and Discussion (Part 2)
Merkavas: Merkavas composite armor is WEAKER than external rubber, wrong protection value both ke and ce, alot of missing feature, APS still suck after ALMOST REACHING FIVE YEARS NOW
There are still a bunch of Leclerc bug report:Armor, missing feature, wrong acceleration, etc… Leopard 2A5+ outer composite armor being poorly model and composite protection value being wrong despite being quite the same as STRV-122s outer composite. Chinese tank like ZTZ-99A, VT4A1, etc… Has missing armor, wrong model, etc…
I do wonder what the line is with dev server reports because I had a very extensive report about sabot pedals last year after they first dropped on dev with numerous sources about petals, how far they’d travel and all that jazz and it was passed as a suggestion followed by toning down of the petals.
Well, there is always the hope that they keep increasing the level of realism and model the charges separately (two part ammo) as being as reactive as they are IRL and so ensure an ammo rack if they get damaged.
That’s the thing the penetrator isn’t what is being relied on to take out the module(s), but abusing the way the secondary fragmentation (is erroneously set up) to cause a cascade event to to take out the modules in question is the issue.
That’s what makes it a poor shot.
I’d agree, but it has an increasingly outsized impact on the likelihood that it occurs, especially for tanks that are already considered glass cannons it’s not really needed to make them worse, especially considering none of the outstanding accepted bugs relating to module placement or (missing) armor layout were implemented with this revision to the laoyout.
Unless you’re a brit main (so solid shot and early APDS) whether you realise it or not you’re reliant on the post pen damage from spalling so this is very normal. a hefty amount of the damage from real life tank penetrations are from spall shrapnel rather than the initial penetrator too.
Unconventional killshots arent poor shots. When I play Tiger 1 I bounce shells off sherman drive sprockets to one shot Jumbos to flex on them, unconventional but still a kill.
I can guarantee you the Abrams and Leo 2 will keep their place in the meta with these changes. Challenger and ariete still suck in comparison.
I wouldn’t be suprised if that deceiver-named known reporter manager denied the bug and claimed that it is a ‘game convention’
If they’re moving into this narrative of conventions to do inaccurate, non-realistic changes to only penalize gameplay, sadly this game’s days are numbered.
every internal module that was made for tanks only generated more weaknesses and at the same time it caused more spall to occur inside the tanks once they are penetrated.
did you guys really expected that it would be different for the leopards and the abrams? i think it would have been easier to ask for community collaboration to add something that is historically wrong (spall liners for Abrams) than to have asked for modeled interiors… at least the “historically wrong spall liners” for the abrams would give a better survivability…
