Oh trust me i’m aware. Been playing this game since 2014 haha
I’m just trying to start some discussions between us and them. Will it work? maybe. Maybe not. I choose not to be pessimistic and give it it’s fair shot. At least then we can say we tried.
2 Likes
Agreed. Sadly we can’t just say they are wrong. The problem is we can’t provide evidence the tanks stat’s are wrong and the one time it was “leaked” as proof and different photos had been provided it was deleted and a bit later the tank was nerfed. My tin foil hat says that was a reflex to say they didn’t look a the leak so don’t come for us.
I want improvements as it’s my fav mbt and it doesn’t resemble both common sense or it’s reputation but without hard proof it’s not changing.
Fair game, I just wanted to share all that and show to people that they really shouldn’t be setting their expectation high, considering Gaijin made the armour on PSO worse than on Strv 122… and they use identical plates.
Seen way too many disillusion themselves.
2 Likes
I’ve got a few (if I dare say so myself) quite thought through and comprehensive topics, proving the implimentation is wrong. There’s plenty of bug reports, evidence, topics, discussions etc to change it. It’s just gone “Acknowledged” and I’m hoping to kickstart some discussions
They “acknowledged” that PSO could mount frontal composite add ons too until Mr. TrickZZter the troll changed it to “not a bug”, those guys put in so much effort and even bought actual books yet it’s all in vain…
1 Like
No you’re totally fine, dude <3
Like in my other topics on CR2, I want to give it its fair shot at being good and realistic. Maybe it’ll be fixed, maybe it wont, we’ll see. It doesn’t have to be the best, just to be as correct a guess (in absence of evidence) as possible.
If they make an effort, show why those conclusions were drawn, we’ll all be happier.
In my opinion at least tho, armour is CR2s least problematic aspect right now, i’d focus more on the transmission, power/regenerative steering and inertia values of the MBT.
Hopefully out little debate helped this thread gather some attention as well.
1 Like
The big killer here is the silence and lack of action. It distills nothing but a lack of confidence in the playerbase, and divides the developers from their own community. They need to start talking to us, engaging with their players on hot topics and working with our reports and efforts to make this game better.
I don’t think we’re on opposite sides, us and the developers, nor do I want that. I just think that we’re missing the mark by not communicating about fundamental issues the players would like to be solved and have gone untouched for some time.
5 Likes
Certainly! Even if this tank handled better, god what an improvement lol
When the whole purpose of that table is to compare other tanks to SR(L)4026 it is logical to conclude that the figures given for penetration are like for like. Or else it would be a completely pointless including any figures at all. So whatever the plate quality and angle were I would expect them to be consistent for all three rounds.
It’s a bit of a stretch to conclude that because the UK were using a low quality armour plate in one trial, which as far as I can tell took place no later than the mid-1970s, they would still be using the same low quality of plate in the 1990s.
Also the SR(L)4026 table dates from 1992 - 1993, not 1987 like he claims.
1 Like
The overall take-home here is that this game, like any piece of software or live serviced product, will only get better by constant communication and collaboration between user and creator.
In the same way as we need to tell them what’s wrong, they need to tell us how they’re looking to fix it.
Noone would bug report things if they didn’t care about this game. Noone would spend money, write on the forums, make content, etc. We all genuinely have as much passion about this as the people working on it. But right now, we’re not talking to each other and it’s divided.
The developers and the playerbase should feel like one in the same community. We’re all here because we love War Thunder and want to make it better.
We get there by talking and being upfront.
The community needs to manage its expectations, go through the processes that the devs need us to follow, and report issues as we go, but what we also need is developer feedback. Some kind of timeline, reasoning, acknowledgement or conversation about the communities biggest issues and how they’re working with us to fix it and make their game even better with each update.
More Q&As, maybe a new blog to discuss the communities biggest problems with the game via forum poll and how they’ll look to fix it. Something material to tell us, that they’re listening, they care and that it’s not going to be left to fester.
We just need to communicate. For this post at least, CR2 needs to be revised pretty thoroughly as it’s the end-game vehicle for the UK, which takes a considerable amount of time, money and commitment to get to and is not meeting the kind of standard the game usually strives for in my opinion.
I’m hoping @Stona_WT or @Smin1080p as community managers, can be our way of having this message reach the developers and be the beginning of a proper discussion and hightened transparancy.
2 Likes
Not really no, the table contradicts other values that can be found or estimated (especially for DM43), it also undervalues the protection of the M1A1 and the 2A4 in an arc.
It doesn’t even seem like they had any actual info on DM43 for that table, in fact all values seem like estimates based on unknown factors rather than the actual performance.
What’s more, it gives kW/h values that are pretty much made up, it provides values that are questionable at best, and fantasy at worst for foreign solutions.
If I had to use a single sentence to describe the comparison between the “CR2” from the document and the German & US MBTs mentioned there, honestly I’d go for my friend’s words here:
“I just want to actually see if there’s a coherent source timeline for the cr2 lol. Because atm we have the sum total of sources that contradict themselves, the others and sometimes even the laws of physics”
1 Like
Sadly lagic arguments they don’t care about. Unless your provided first ha d source material they just dont care and if they have some Russian based source that will outweigh even manufacturer stat’s. Many Brit and other tanks have been nerfed from official national sources to match a Russian source which showed worse performance again I don’t agree with it just seen the hundreds of threads about it with devs and community managers etc which have all been dismissed and ignored. They genuinely don’t care
1 Like
The goal of this topic is to build a communication line between us and the developers on the CR2 topic being fixed, not push them further away by being like this.
Maybe it wont work, and maybe you’re right - but the fact is, we wont know if we dont try. Its an open letter and invitation to prove they do care.
5 Likes
Good luck for sure. Just saying it’s not new and every attempt previously just gets ignored if not straight shot down. Remember they were given proof in photos and documentation the armour was too thin by at least half and the nerfed it further.
Wish you luck just don’t hold your breath, they just don’t care 😔
6 Likes
@Smin1080p
Do you think you’d be able to forward our concerns and questions to the development team? We’d love to have some kind of communication from them on the matter, or a statement that they’re aware of and are fixing the problems with the ingame CR2.
We would all just love a bit of transparancy, clarity and a lot more communication if that’s something you think you could facilitate? Cheers man
1 Like
Hey
Naturally at all times we are forwarding feedback from across the whole community and passing topics and issues to the developers on all subjects across the game.
As with all modern vehicles, reports on them can be highly complex from a source perspective. Much of it is not clear cut and matters can take longer to review in full and provide answers for. So its not really possible to provide a full response to every matter raised as a concern for any given tank, as there will naturally always be multiple things raised that vary drastically in size, scale and scope.
Specifically reports on armour, due to how complicated they can be due to material issues, we have made a public news post about this explaining generally how they will be handled for all modern MBTs: [Development] Reports concerning the protection of post-war combat vehicles - News - War Thunder
Its also for this reason that its not possible to provide a running commentary from the developers on the progress or status of this report beyond what we have already communicated. If we did this for one tank, we would also then need to do this for practically all others, which simply is not viable to do.
As and where we have significant news to pass of any developments, we of course will always do so. Equally feedback is always being collected and passed along, as are valid reports on any subject matter.
7 Likes
Fair enough, Bit of a shame we haven’t had more info on this since 2021 - Do you know if Developer Q&As are still a thing? I feel like this kind of topic would be perfect for a response from the Devs on the current state of things and to offer some reassurance for the future
We frequently have Developers Q&As.
2 Likes