Never said I was… A developer mindset is being able to actually think about the code/feature side of things, rather than just what you’re thinking.
This is why when I’m talking to people about percieved bugs and gameplay features, I have a greater method to my inquisition, and it leads to people understanding more, and actually having more appreciation for things.
Unless you are one of the WT developers, there is no reason to mention the “developer mindset”. Because it’s too abstract and subjective, so this is not a logical basis that can convince anyone. The only important thing is the criteria set by WT devs.
And as he mentioned earlier, this vehicle doesn’t meet that criteria.
The criteria is simple. Is this vehicle can operate standalone? And you mentioned the wrong basis - the Wiesel - which was refuted.
This is also why Japan had difficulty obtaining a new SPAA. And what helped Japan finally get a new SPAA wasn’t that they cried out for an exception to the rule, it was that they explained that it could operate standalone without other vehicles.
Laser guidance of air bombs provided by ground units is not relevant to this topic and has never been rejected by the developers.
So is that ‘criteria’ set by someone at Gaijin, or is that also an opinion?
This is the issue with not accepting someone else may have more information and thought process than just a general run of the mill player.
While people discussing about criteria of ‘standalone’, actually NASAMS’ problem is more fundamental
It is stationary battery.The truck is only carrier of this battery, unloading when it reach its location.
actually Sweden has its own missile SPAAG for now, the IRIS-T SLS. Why they have to rely on Finnish first?
Well, that’s taking standalone to another level. xD
NASAMS is a whole battery, not sure how would they implement that, but Finland could get their Buk TELAR, that would work.
If it were an ‘opinion’ from some unqualified players, there would be no reason for me or him to mention like this. Why do you think certain players invent these criteria? It’s one of criteria of this game, like in order for a vehicle to be implemented in the game, a paperplan or considered is not enough; it must actually be built (at least in part).
Can’t you believe it? If so, write a suggestion thread. And see how the suggestion moderator reacts.
This is NOT the issue with not accepting someone else may have more information and thought process than just a general run of the mill player. Because it’s a matter of a rule like “This roller coaster can only be ridden by people who are at least 155cm tall and under 185cm tall”, and what you’re doing is getting rid of that rule in someday.
Would’ve thought it would’ve been listed here…
It’s often not what you say, but how you say it, that makes things eventuate or approachable.
Having to assume that new features have to be implemented in order for a vehicle to function is exactly why it isn’t a valid suggestion as of now.
Depends on the order or scope of the suggestion, more than a criteria that is ‘set’ as you coined and as I said to the other poster in here…
Have fun locking the AMRAAMs without radar then, oh.
You’re being ignorant and mocking, just because you can’t accept the point I made…
Good job at showing you have no vision or understanding of what’s been put forth to you.
Surely xd
i was just searching for a spaag, that could be added to sweden since the ito90m isnt really good due to having to guide the missles with a laser, i couldnt find this vehicle, very cool.
I like this one, but i cant seem to find if the missles are laser guided, or do they have their own guidance?
semi-active radar homing, like R-23/24/27 and Sparrow/Skyflash/Aspide
do you happen to know what variants finland has? does finland have the MZKT-69225 variant wich is this:
The one in the photo is newer. Finland bought their tracked Buk-M1 in the late 90s, it’s on the GM chassis.
thanks
much better!
