Vikhrs were “fixed” 2 patches ago, any other nerf before that basically had no impact what so ever, could basically shoot down a jet going in a notch at mach.
2S38 may be badly modelled, but it is so ridiculously under BR’d that it doesn’t really matter. It’s like puting a Ozelot at 5.0 and saying “see the missile can’t pull 20G !” (yes i’m over exaggerating, but you get the point)
T-44 had missing roof armor for a few months, leclerc had missing FRONT armor for a few years, well, a few is a few i suppose.
As for Su-17, congrats for having an under BR’d plane… First time ?
Yak-28 having fuel starvation (on negative G i assume ?) sure is a major problem, or maybe not, because the pilot passes out before that.
1 Like
Weird since 2S38 is just a 9040C without a search radar & better APFSDS round.
No, fuel starvation is on a fraction of a second of -0.3Gs.
And much more survivable, also the APFSDS is much better (almost twice the pen…)
Let’s also conviniently forget the thing had its ammo count reduced to 120 (less than 2S38) in the last update.
so losing fuel when going down in a dive, yeah, major bug indeed…
1 Like
That’s utter BS. When you hit 7 fragments the chance is 67.9%.
The calculation is 1-(1-0.15)^7
100% is even a ridiculous statement since that usually can only be reached for n-> Infinity.
Terrible math aside, the test has no controls, isn’t blinded and therefore prone to bias.
Just going through replays of random player thqt aren’t yourself would have been a way better process.
4 Likes
Only one 9040 was reduced to 120, the rest remained the same.
@DerGrafVonZahl
If that’s the case that Gaijin uses the correct math rather than linear, then I don’t know how I’m getting a 100% ammo cook off rate in personal experience.
I have no biases to begin with so it doesn’t matter.
My Type 10 “bias” is mostly a joke.
we were talking about the C, yes ? no ?
Personnal experiences are not enough as a sample to base statistics on, statistics are not like cooking your favorite recipe, you need to follow a strict protocole, and results are based on formulas with different indicators (confidence interval, variance, standard deviation, etc) you can’t cherrypick your numbers, sad I know. Someone who despises ThunderSkill should know that, surely ?
A human being with no biases, interesting theory
The constant false flagging to try (not successfully at all) to hide your very Russian bias is quite amusing.
3 Likes
Overpowered.
Varies times for everyones.
T-series have nerfed gun elevations (and it was even provided with source materials). Same for loading times. Gaijin havent changed it in favor of them.
Like, again, my favourite example is ammo belts on IFV. Other IFVs can load their ammo fully with top belt, while BMP-2/2M/3 (and BMD-4) can have only one belt with top belt and other one is mandatory should be another. Is it bias or not?
1 Like
Yes, transmission fires caused by shooting bullets against the hull, that’s how that works.
Lol. The code doesn’t say that…
You responded to the wrong person, cause I have all 10 tech trees.
I’ve also never false flagged. I’ve had extremely little if not any engagement with you until this week, and you follow the rules, thus have received zero flags from me.
As for 9040C, the one with the search radar.
I’ve never cherrypicked numbers in my life either.
You’re 0 for 3.
having 10 tech trees prevents you from being biased, got it
Which also appears to be the one who got nerfed ammo count, so the one we were talking about
This one is self explanatory
you mean they somehow managed to give more depression angle than they have IRL ?
I’m not sure I understand what you’re trying to say in the IFV part
It’s not cherrypicked. I’ve used ALL instances of ammo hits I’ve come across.
And yes, loving all machinery equally means no bias.
Also Lvkv 9040C is unaffected by ammo changes.
Strf 9040C is the one that’s affected.
Speed of elevation. Angles are realistic.
On Bradley you can have both belts loaded with 2 APFSDS. On BMPs - you cant
Still quite important
multiple instances of this tho, SIDAM being a prime example.
I agree it’s useless and should be removed
Sample comprises only one player, it is therefore cherrypicked, because we have to trust your magical “100%”
In a statistical problem like this many variables have to be taken into account :
→ model of tank being fired at
→ angle
→ ammo used
→ point of penetration
→ I’m probably forgetting a few, you get the point.
So unless you documented every kill you did in every game, with at least all those variables stored somewhere, this 100% claim is basically space vacuum and can’t be used as an argument
The way you defend every rus vehicle in almost every thread says otherwise
My bad, confused those 2 indeed
Confirmation bias is my guess for your experience
100% chance is an impossibilty if not every fragment has a 100% chance for ammo detonation.
Of course there is the possibility that gaijin is bad at stochastics as well. So they just add the chances each time the ammo rack gets hit (unlikely since it would be more work to program but still possible).
Nope, I have zero confirmation bias as I had no hypothesis to begin with.
I am searching for explanations behind why I experience 100% ammo cook rate, and it’s definitely connected to me aiming at ammo, and of course enemies aiming at my ammo when I’m in T-series.
I have a hard time believing anyone who has played top tier for any amount of time hasn’t had the ammo disappear on them without doing anything.
It’s under body and turret, and that’s exactly what happened regardless of what you think the code says, you could set tanks on fire with MGs.
You don’t have a 100% rate.
2 Likes