Agreed. Can you please make a separate report on hull protection? Without duplicating your previous reports on the turret. Making duplicates, even partially, only confuses. We already have too much reports on Leopards’ protection.
Also, there is no need to mention this issue:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/8ZZ3zEYPq9GV
I… have?
This new report that you closed includes the information already about that (albeit not all that I posses), the bit about the turret is only an extra.
In fact all the sources are about how the Strv 122 & German Leopard 2s starting the 2A5 share armour packages, both internal AND external, and they address the core issue, the newest German variant for some unexplainable reason is just worse despite having 100% identical armour…
Like, y’know, could have filtered information that’s useful and forwarded that, would’ve made it a lot easier for both of us.
About half your report is about a turret. Also it’s impossible to understand from the report which pictures came from which source.
The pictures are scattered and not labeled properly.
What’s the problem with it being partly about the turret? It’s still new information not included in previous reports, and it ties with the general problem of the 2A7V being worse protected than the TVM still.
If you had a problem with understanding which source is being mentioned, simply ask about it? I would’ve bern more than happy to explain in the report or in DMs…
Generally it’s a limitation of the website, if we could include pictures with the text, we’d pin the front page under the source’s talked about.
It’s better to make one report focused on the hull please. This keeps it spesific to that matter.
Okay then.
bro what :sob: aint no way man
haha, cant wait to see someone drive a A7V into gaijins office…
(Im kidding ofc…)
The fact you still have the patience and drive to make reports is incredible
This also coincides with “we want accurate hard numbers for reports” “but also don’t leak classified data plz”
I’m not…
Wow, reading trought this thread was depressing. How much effort was put into reports just to get them ignored and even the person that made the report banned from the bug reporting sight? Just what in the world is this…
i mean, its unfortunate, but at this point, its par for the course. Russia has nothing to compete with at top tier anymore, so Gaijin will never model NATO vehicles correctly, and will continue to selectively interpret every source they get.
No amount of primary sources, or even outright visual evidence will change their mind. Case in point:
The block irl is pretty clearly almost 100% steel, either RHA or HHA, but in-game, its worse than rubber (0.16x KE modifier vs 0.2x KE modifier). This leads to unusual weakness of the Leo 2/Strv122 turret/mantlet, particularly at angles. The blocks were specifically added over the old 2A4 mantlet to drastically reduce the portion of the turret front that could be considered a weakspot, and even the mantlet itself was massively improved, yet here we stand, with pictures of blocks of steel that gaijin models as blocks of styrofoam, while they lament the playerbase being “too harsh” on them.
Gaijin should remove the bug report site, its a complete and total waste of time for players.
@Smin1080p as an aside, I understand the devs have decided that ANY report regarding classified vehicles armor will be treated as a “suggestion” but why is it that literally visual evidence is also being treated as a “suggestion”?
Its quite frankly disheartening at this point, as the devs refuse to admit they intentionally mismodel things for balance (what the BR system is for, NOT the armor model of a vehicle), and players continue to dig for more and more info that the devs will never accept? It legitimately doesnt feel like the “bug report” site is of any use, as yes SOME bugs are “fixed” but what gets fixed or doesnt is very clearly purely up to gaijins discretion and some players who provide high quality bug reports are actively punished for doing so seemingly because the devs dont like their persistence on a VERY well documented issue.
Thats beyond the fact that, no offense, but the bug report site is an absolute train wreck. The search function doesnt properly work, theres no actual issue classification/separation for us to look into issues we care about, or in the language we understand, data is hidden from players that didnt make the bug report, etc… Is there any actual future for the bug report site? At the moment it just seems like a near unnavigable mess of uncategorized complaints, 90% low quality posts, and issues ignored at gaijins whim.
It doesn’t feel like a bug report site, it feels more like gaijins trash folder…
Hello
Since we have started the bug report site, we have made a number of improvements to its usability, accessibility and functionality. As we use it more and as more users also participate, we will of course make additional changes and improvements to make it as convenient as possible.
Regarding your feedback, as always, you can PM me directly with screenshots of what you mean specifically and of things you would like to see improved. Its best via PM so it does not clog this thread.
Regarding hidden elements, sources are generally the only significant element other users cant see other than the original poster and that indeed is by design. Some users purchase books or scan documents themselves and do not wish to share it with everyone publicly. There is also the consideration that if a user tries to maliciously post restricted materials, we can catch it, prevent it from being shared openly and remove all instances from our platform.
wait so Gaijin models the 2A7V after a 30 year old Source but we dont want sources that old for this tank HUH where is the logic
I appreciate the response, but quite frankly at this point, I’m not sure how much I trust it. I know more and more bug reporters by the day giving up on bug reporting and even openly mocking gaijins “interpretation” of bugs at this point.
As one great ex-bug reporter recently told me when I asked him if he had made or would make a bug report about the above noted Leopard 2 inner cheeks: “Too much work tbh. They don’t accept Datamine, so you first have to prove in-game that it’s underperforming. Then they will tell ya to prove its dimensions, and then they will tell you to prove that it’s actually metal and not cheese or butter, and at last they will tell you to prove that it’s not hollow” - @Yoshi_E , a prolific and high quality bug reporter that has himself stated this to be the reason he’s quit bug reporting for War Thunder.
Theres no good reason to trust that any amount of effort we put into making a bug report will result in any actual positive changes, and as I previously stated, a good bug report requires a lot of time, effort, and sometimes money. Its much too high an investment to get “haha nope” as a response from gaijin or one of the bug report mods.
I mean, I could, but at this point, you’d have to completely delete the bug report to fix the mess, or put a substantial amount of man hours and effort at the very least. The basic fact that there is very rudementary categorization means that every single issue on the site would have to retroactively be modified and properly categorized. The fact that you went from an arguably relatively strong bug report site on the old forums to the mess that now exists is pretty mind boggling.
This is a horrid argument quite frankly. If the public cannot see the source, there is no way for the public to be adequately informed to support a bug report, nor is there any reason for us to trust gaijins response on the issue. Hiding a source which is being used or refused is the very equivalent of “trust me bro” and no offense, but after some of the extremely questionable decisions (such as the stinger devblog) or the outright lies (2A7V/Strv122 in general) gaijin has perpetrated in the very recent future, many bug reporters have little to no trust left for the system.
Gaijin is actively killing quality bug reporting, and I apologize that you are caught in the crossfire, but you are the only one we can interact with seeing as the devs will only shout their opinions from the safety of their mountaintop, god forbid the grace us mere mortals with their presence.
Case in point: [Development] Answering your concerns regarding spall liners, MBTs and Aircraft - News - War Thunder had the comment section closed after FIVE comments.
Another example: [Development] Hull Armor of the M1 Abrams - News - War Thunder
Closed after a measly 22 comments.
The devs are so adverse to any sort of criticism, they will only engage in conversation if the conversation agrees with their claims. Challenges or criticism of the devs original interpretation is handwaved or silenced.
At this point, this convo is somewhat off-topic, but at the same time, its really not. What are we to discuss in the “Leopard 2A7V discussion & bugs” forum post if not for the bugs themselves, and the devs categoric refusal to fix said bugs? Whats the point of discussing 2A7V bugs if the devs refuse to fix any of them regardless of the information provided?
You ask us for trust and yet give us no reason to trust. It wouldnt be so bad if the devs actually just admitted it was for “balance” they made their modelling decisions, but they dont, and worse still, some people claim the devs actually believe their delusional claims.
The fact we have to somehow prove that, for example, a block composed of layers of steel sandwiching a layer of rubber, such as the case for the leopard 2’s composite side skirts, does in fact provide more protection than rubber by itself is delusional. How are we to have a conversation when the devs dont even seem to reside in the same reality we inhabit?
If we cant even mutually agree that the sky is blue, or that 1+1=2, how are we to have a discussion regarding complex things, such as modern MBT armor, powertrains, the complexities of missile guidance and aerodynamics, etc… The whole concept of bug reports is a non-starter at this point.
Sadly its more of a necessity due to the issues surrounding materials. More and more we have to spend lots of time validating and checking materials submitted. This method was the best way of protecting materials that need to be handled appropriately and removed without being shared en mass around the forums / internet in general like with previous cases. This is the safest and most secure way of dealing with that issue.
As well as the fact, as previously mentioned, a lot of people were either PM’ing tech mods to pass book scans or document scans that they had taken their own personal time / resources to go and collect, purchase and scan and quite rightly did not want anyone and everyone downloading for free without their consent in reports.
Whenever we make a change regarding a source, the report is always linked too. People normally always list out the sources used within the report itself, and if they don’t, as we have also previously mentioned we can simply be contacted via PM or in that specific changelog topic to be asked for the front page or source title from the applicable report.
Once again though, if you have further feedback regarding the report site, please feel free to send me it via PM.
There is no need to take this topic further of subject matter.
@Smin1080p I mean, when we get answers like this, how are we supposed to make reports, if gajins chooses themself in the first place which sources are valid, if one of the reports isnt accepted because it is to “old” the same standards should be hold as well to sth like the swedish trials, which are ancient at this point
We cant even know anymore what we can use and what not
@Smin1080p
Oh, come on let have some common sense here there is no ways Leopard 2AV7 armor are weaker than Leopard 2A5 and UFP with 80 angle slop still not working like how it works on STRV 122 (which is minimum reequipment of how 2A7V should work in the game) why the dev insists? there a source people work hard for and got turn over okay what why don’t tell us directly what kind of source you need? entire working of Leopard 2A7V inself?
