I’m sick and tired of their crappy community relations, this has been a problem for months and they refuse to fix it. I found the problem in 5 minutes and let them know.
6 Likes
Unfortunately data mines aren’t valid for bug reports, they just like making it difficult.
2 Likes
You first have to prove that the missiles are smokeless IRL.
If there already is proof for it and it has been reported and accepted then i don’t think it’s a matter of difficulty, its more likely a matter of priority.
they are IRL, and it should be high on the priority list, it makes the chaparral near useless, it’s only saving grace WAS that they were smokeless
Has that been proven to Gaijin? have they gotten sources they deem acceptable that proves that?
Those are not deemed as sources by Gaijin.
so then they should just get rid of the Es and the Israeli one, see, this is why I’m upset with their crap.
Language please.
I don’t understand what you mean here.
The MIM-72E is the exact same missile as the C variant except it has a smokeless motor, they added it like that and it was like that until they messed it up, the G variant is exactly the same as the E variant except it has the stinger seeker giving it IRCCM, but good luck getting the G variant with the Israeli one at 10.0 where everything has flares
and my suggestion for MK211 RAUFOSS .50 BMG ammo has been denied AGAIN and THERE’S NO EXPLANATION AS TO WHAT TO DO TO GET IT ACCEPTED
You can always message a Tech Mods (for bug reports) or Suggestion Mods (for suggestions) and ask if you want to know why things were denied.
Again, they need proof of IRL performance to change things in the game. If they already have that proof then its just a matter of time/prioritisation before it gets implemented/fixed. Complaining angrily with swearing wont help at all in any way shape or form.
Edit:
Here is a guide for making suggestions:
Here is a guide for bug reporting:
1 Like
The only reason I’m “complaining angrily” is because there’s no transparency, there’s no hey, I know there’s this issue you want resolved and we’ve got people working on it but there’s more important things like UI errors we want to fix before we get this tank fixed
And suggestions, why should I have to pester someone to know why a suggestion was denied every time I make one? Isn’t that just putting more work on them? If you put a reason in when it gets reviewed then that would ease up traffic in their inbox.
Like I said, gaijin need an overhaul
1 Like
Agreed. Most feel like its talking to a brick wall.
1 Like
Easy for them to talk on their high horse when they show no sign of knowing what it’s like for the common folk.
3 Likes
Now this reply should have been the main post, mush clearer on what you actually want.
I have personally said before that they should at least have more categories to mark reports as.
To add lables such as:
- Improper sources. (for those that use sources like Wikipedia)
- Lacks needed files. (for those that do not attached all the asked for files)
- Is not a report. (for those who make forum like complaint posts on the reporting site)
- Sent as suggestion. (For those reports that are not necessarily wrong but are at DEV’s digression)
- Not currently considered for addition. (for those reports that show munition to advanced for the current state of the game)
- Working as intended. (could replace the current “not a bug”)
and probably a few more. It would likely free up a lot of time from the tech mods.
Thank you, and yes, I will apologise for last night, I want to have fun playing with tanks and planes that I like but PvP is not fun, it’s frustrating and depressing. I’ve added a suggestion for a good cooperative PvE mode that was passed to the devs 12 months ago, if they don’t want to make modes for people that aren’t interested in PvP can they at least say so? Or if it is being worked on can they say that?
It was designed for planes but can easily be adapted for ground vehicles, and even a combined mode which could be fun.
I don’t know anything that goes on behind the scenes in regards to Developement. The latest info we got abouut a month ago was this:
I don’t remember exactly what was said and i don’t have the energy to read through it again right now x)
I wouldn’t expect you to know, kinda goes with the whole transparency bit, but again, thank you
1 Like