It’s unbelievable.We’ll see how this game ends.What is clear is that it’s nothing short of astonishing that someone can have their reports closed for submitting them, only to be banned for submitting another report with new information.
As I’ve been saying for a while now, the reporting system isn’t working properly.
Remember the Devs want US to spend money on docs and then freely hand them over for their gain just to prove their “sources” are not truthful.
Seriously, I’m going to become a game developer.
Careful, you can get banned for remarks like this.
Not judging or discounting your or anyone elses frustration. Just providing a polite heads up.
Well, look, I’m going to take your advice, mainly because I was recently banned, they just deleted another post of mine without saying anything to me, and at the moment I don’t really want to be banned from writing.
Hello
Spamming duplicate reports with the same sources is against the rules. Spam requires even more moderation time or in this case, QA’s time to handle the same report again.
Reports should not be remade with the exact same sources when its already been answered what the issues are with the current sources and what is needed to clarify.
I have removed the ban for spam on the understanding that the exact same report will not simply be remade again.
We had already previously responded to this here on the forum that the issue was with none of the current sources being directly clear A) On what Scimitar variant was in Question B) What generations of thermals was referred too on the sources speaking generally on Scimitar Mk 2 upgrades.
In the event of a report being closed for suspected misunderstanding, the correct procedure for a re-review is to contact any Technical Moderator via PM. Not simply repost the report with the exact same sources.
I understand that i broke the rules. I am quite fustrated with the responses i have gotten from the mods on the CBR site
thanks for this, In the future can we leave reports open to edit for the OP so such problems dont happen again?
The sources are clear however the devs have gotten the wrong end of the stick for context. The devs take my reported specs as being an upgraded Scimitar Mk2 however that is not the case.
SCIMITAR MK2 IS THE UPGRADE, all the times where the improved specs of the mk2 are called “upgrades” are in comparison to the Scimitar MK1 and its upgrades.
the Scimitar Forward Recce Vehicle upgrade is the spec mk2 was built to in 2010-2011, but is also the spec that some scimitar mk1 hulls were upgraded to for service in Afghanistan. This is probably where confusion is coming from, a lot of the media of the time isnt the clearest in which is which.
Thank you for your reply and information sir 🫡
Currently the primary issue is a source is needed that directly states the thermal generation of the Scimitar Mk 2.
Not “Formation Recce”.
The source that confirms “improved night-vision systems.” doesn’t clarify what or what generation and the source that mentions Thales M-SPIRE FCM doesn’t mention Catherine MP at all.
Until there is a source that directly covers what’s been responded too in the previous 4 reports, please do not resubmit it as is. As it wont be accepted with the current level of information.
I have had most of the tech moderators in a thread that I have spent the last two months slowly adding more with zero response.
Almost at the end of the list and then of course will start with the next batch.
But it does feel like the player base is forced to respect a system that doesn’t force the opposite side to abide by the same standards.
Just my two cents, but there has been some pretty serious playbase rumblings this year and it doesn’t seem to be going away.
From a business stand point, as someone who is an account manager, it’d be better for gaijin to address this head on and perhaps consider an overhaul of their reporting system and processes now rather than continuing to kick the puck down the block for later.
M-SPIRE is the later end of ESPIRE. here is it in section 18 of this UK GOVT publication from 2009
this also claims that scimitar mk1s were upgraded with cathrine MP before mk2 even left the factory, the idea that bespoke tanks built to supplement the mk1s as part of the SFRV upgrades didnt also get them is certainly a weird one too.
someone has also made a FOI request about this. Further info may appear in the future, not that i think its needed given the publications from the era (whoever you are thank you for doing thr FOI)
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/information_regarding_m_sight_pe
If you dont get a response within a reasonable timeframe, you can escalate to Senior Technical Moderators and then finally myself or Piciu713.
Our TMs are volunteers.
One question: assuming the Scimitar Mk2 has a third-generation thermal imager (it’s from 2011), what thermal imager should these other two Scimitars in the game files have?
same turret as mk2 so Cathrine MP gen 3 ( think, the scimitar upgrades are a mess, hence the devs confusion)
earlier upgrade turret which i cant remember which sight it used. da12thmonkey probably will, hes much more in the know about these things
The second one uses BGTI, 2nd Gen
even if we cant fully prove Cathrine MegaPixel the generation is still wrong lol.
Top, Gen 1 - it’s representative of a Formation Recce Scimitar (E-SPIRE) from around 2003-2006. None of the later Theatre Entry Standard bar armour or ECM but Plasan ballistic armour. No 235hp engine upgrade or environmental mitigation system for the vehicles in Afghan post 2008 so dates before the upgraded version of E-SPIRE
Bottom, Gen 2 - it’s a Close Recce Scimitar (BGTI) same system on Warrior in the game
You wouldn’t happen to have more stuff on mk2 that can end this cluster🦆 of a situation would you?
I need this in my life.
In the comment of the bug reporting system it seems that we are giving information that the managers often say “not enough info” to, just to either ignore it or add it later on down the road despite saying there wasn’t enough evidence. I remember a few of us fighting tooth and nail to get the Warrior its APFSDS rounds, only to be told “not enough info” or being gaslit into being told they never existed; however now Scimitar 2 is here, it suddenly gets the same APFSDS rounds we fought so hard to add to Warrior and Warrior still doesn’t even have them. So in my eyes, it doesn’t matter what evidence we provide.
The “spam” i feel is caused by the report managers forcibly locking down the bug reports, when in fact they should leave them able to be re-opened if more info comes forward… otherwise, of course we are going to make the same bug report again with the same information, but we will add even more info to it. then when that gets closed, it’ll be the same report again with EVEN MORE info added to it. if they just left it so that we could re-open reports, we would be able to just add more into onto the already existing bug report which wouldn’t be spam, so Gaijin themselves are causing the spam. Its a completely flawed system.
They want more info on a topic, but you cant open a new report and use the same info even with added content without being accused of spam.
How it should work is that, when you do a report, you wait for a response, and when one is given the report is closed. When you are able to reply to it or add more sources, you re-open the report and wait for another reply and once its given, the report is closed again. The report should only be fully closed without the ability to reply when the report is finally passed to the developers or given as a suggestion. Or gaijin should add a “Pending” state to reports.
This is like Pokemon, catch them all (even if they don’t have STAB, incorrect thermals, and incorrect armor).