The video did 14 tests with inconsistent era on sides and I did 23 with the same parameters. I study mechanical engineering and statistics. Your evidence has so much inconsistencies that it is not viable to reach a conclusion with.
1 Like
Datamines > our experiences.
My experience sees T-series tanks ammo rack 100% of the time their ammo gets shot.
Yours differs.
1 Like
Personal experience proves nothing. Also, if the datamine is correct and there are no hidden values, then why did the results from my experiment differ so much?
2 Likes
2019
And yet, there is a video, which prooves your words be wrong. Your words arent backed up with video proof, nor full overview of testing (angle, range, point of penetration). So yeah, your evidence isnt inconsisting. Its just not exists.
2 Likes
Alright, I will make video then.
1 Like
Because your experiment was done wrong. Wanna make some super credible, if you are so sure that other is wrong? Record it. Simulate everything perfectly. And make 100 tries, better with multiple people.
Cause fragments may have missed.
I know I’ve exclusively aimed for ammo, and my dart typically passes through the ammo itself rather than the spalled armor, and the dart seems to count as more fragments than spalling does.
1 Like
When I upload video and it proves I am correct with the numbers, will you change your mind?
1 Like
Maybe. Depends on what you actually will show us
I remember that instance of the dev charged of missile development, saying mistral couldn’t turn 30G because it had similar physical characteristics to igla, and then being contracticted by multiple reports, one being from a senior manager at Matra, who worked on different missiles ranging from mistral to mica.
The bug reports was impeccable (at least 5 different sources if memory serves, and sometimes first-hand, well documented), but the devs have been ignoring it since.
I don’t know if they are biased or not, and that’s not my problem, but they should implement things as close as open and valid sources. I sometimes feel like they “know better”, and worked on the IRL missiles themselves, which is obviously not the case.
At the end we find ourselves with a gimped mistral, while the real thing should behave more like a TY-90, be it in flare resistance or range and pull.
1 Like
are your claims of “russia is balanced and there is no problem” which should be around 50% backed up by any source ? Because as bad as Thunderskill or other stats databases are, it’s at least a starting point.
You, on the other hand, have no data at all, or if you have, be happy to share it
There is big difference between “Russia OP and RUSSIAN BIAS” and obvious balancing problems. Like, im not arguing that top-tier russian line-up is strong. Im fully agree with it. But it is not because vehicles themselves are op. Thats what im arguing against. They just covers a huge variety oh things (like, middle-tier german line-ups, where you have good CAS, good Air superiority, good AA, good tanks, good light tanks). Another thing is team matchmaking. Like, Soviets are often balance with china together (or even solo) +Minor and the other team is mostly so-called, NATO TT. And we clearly see that by stats, that both China and Soviets have quite big winrate, while two other majors have super low winrate and minors like JP, SWE and FRA have somekinda decent one (because they have good vehicles at top-tier, but they are lacking in some areas, which are being covered by majors). So, in vast majority of battles we see Soviets+China+some minor, while “NATO” teams consists of GB, US, GER, JAP, SWE, ITA or ISR. So players with full and good versatile line-ups are in smaller numbers, than in other team.
1 Like
Devs aren’t ignoring the reports.
After all TY-90 is fixed.
They’re likely still working on Stinger & Mistral changes.
Thunderskill only tells us where a portion of skilled players are among ~2% of the playerbase.
1 Like
Probably because what you are probably talking about is not an ammorack issue, its a lack of spalling on 6mm structural steel issue. A type of plate that aborbs shrapnel but emmits none on its own when hit.
1 Like
Russian mains are not known for being very skilled tho. See ? me too can claim stuff out of nowhere.
Yup, at least 1 year to buff any other nation missile, 3 years to nerf the vikhrs, how long to buff the 29 again ?
1 Like
Woah they coded transmission fires?!?! How could they? /s
Literally no one shoots exlusively in 3rd person. Russian tanks are not easy mode, maybe the BVM is, I can’t speak to that, I don’t have it yet. But not aiming? Get real. No reverse speed and poor depression certainly compensates for good armor, which the tests above prove isn’t super immune 100% protection.
Vikhrs have been constantly fixed over the last 3 years. 5 “nerfs”.
29?
Also 2S38 has a broken first stage, Mig-29 consumes too much fuel [consumes 71.5 kg per minute per engine instead of 62.37 per engine], T-44-100 ran without a turret roof for a few months, BMP-2M’s external ammo blew up the internal crew for 3 years, 2S25M has incorrect reverse speed, Yak-28 still has fuel starvation with minor movements since release, Su-17M2 was over-BR’d after removal of airspawn for multiple years…
To name a few issues that Soviets dealt with that players seem to forget.
2 Likes
I agree, what does OP mean again ?
As for the “bias” part, just look at how long it takes to fix/buff anything non russion, then see how long it takes for russia. Now do the same for nerfs.
Access to source can’t explain it, cause it means russian nerfs would arrive quickly as well.
Premium and money making ? Meh maybe, but then why are some US vehicles bugged for ages ? Or germans ?
I really would like to be wrong, but I’m running out of idea here
1 Like