Its funny how when they use made up statistics, the real values cant do the job. Yet they use the made up statistics to say it cant do the job.
-Gaijin: “OUR values on the T80 say your round cant get through its turret” -
-Us: but real life and documentation says it can.
-Gaijin: “right, but our armour values in game say it cant so, its not happening.”
-Us: maybe your armour values are wrong then?
-Gaijin: “no, they aren’t, because we know better.”
-Us: prove to us the armour values for the T80 are correct then.
-Gaijin: crickets
6 Likes
Fair I had read it had some form.
This will still be problematic
https://youtube.com/shorts/17grKTvdx5o?is=a0jHRJT9ykEzWgnl
This has nothing to do with the bug reporting team. This was a developer review and decision.
What I find particularly concerning is that no action appears to have been taken regarding the clearly visible issue with the Challenger 2’s upper add-on armour on the hull UFP, even though this is a part that is obvious to anyone looking at the vehicle. The model also has welding lines that do not align properly.
In addition, not only the splash guards around the front lights, but also the internal spall protection plates, the meteorological mast sensor, and the additional side armour attached to the hull — I am not referring to TES or OES armour here — are clearly visible in photographs. However, there does not seem to be any visible effort to investigate, add, or correct these details.
Furthermore, the mass of the L27A1 APFSDS round has also not been corrected for a long time, despite there being clear information available.
As the company has stated, I can understand that there may be ongoing debate over areas where reliable information is difficult to obtain, such as the protection values of composite armour or the penetration performance of ammunition. However, it is disappointing that even clearly identifiable differences between the in-game vehicle and the real vehicle — differences that anyone can recognize visually — have still not been addressed.
If this had only been delayed for a short period, I would not have any complaints, and I fully understand that the development team is busy. However, this delay has continued for years, which is why I find the situation frustrating.
3 Likes
Bug reporting managers reviewed the report ,accepted it then needed more information were given all the declassified information on the test and then accepted it and now it has been rejected again.
If it is the developers then they need to just be clear. Instead of making these kind of statements.
The outcome has nothing to do with the BRMs.
It was clear:
is the report still under review or has it been denied? cause i dont understand how it could be denied with how much evidence that has been provided should be more than enough for a modern vehicle
2 Likes
As we mentioned the devs are seeking and investigating for more information. Currently as it is, its not sufficient.
Is the DM53 one still under investigation as well, cause that is some confusion as well
1 Like
“its not sufficient”? when you have been given multiple primary sources on L27A1 performance but how is it not enough? players cant get what your asking for and it has been said in the past and idk the exact words but the requirement needed for modern vehicles is lower because information is classified but now your trying to find information or asking for information that cant be legally acquired
2 Likes
That one was concluded. As we said, a new report can be made.
So using the same logic - I can submit a report to say that 3BM60 is incorrectly capable of penetrating any armour of the Challenger 2.
Because there is no evidence of a test-firing or any reports that say it can.
Put simply - there is more documentary evidence provided in support of L27’s specific capability than most other modern ammunition in the game.
Which is it going to be? Either you demand the same burden of proof across the board or you inevitably are seen as being inconsistent across different nations.
Is that a genie you want to let out of it’s bottle?
*By ‘you’ I mean - Gaijin generally.
14 Likes
Can be made with new sources as i understood it.
When the main issue was it getting denied for defeating Relikt, when the report talked about K5. Only cause 1 source said T72MB3 have been retrofitted with Relikt. The report has been denied cause of a language barrier problem.
Or are we allowed to resubmit the same report.
Only with an extra explaining the bug report managers language problem?
The report cant be remade with the same sources alone
But there is the problem.
The problem is a language problem on gajins side. They didnt read the german text right
1 Like
@Smin1080p_WT
Can you provide any answer to my perfectly logical query above?
but it wasnt the sources that was the issue it was bad translation on gaijins side?
No it cannot be reported like that because its performance and details are well known.
The fact there is no test against CR.2 is irrelevant since its known what CR.2s protection is broadly speaking based on available public sources.
Yet the same could be said of T-80U?
Do you see the conflict here?
3 Likes
so is L27A1s performance. but apparently gaijin knows better than the british ministry of defence
its also known how incorrect it is ingame