We did. I provided evidence that they should be at least equeal (before that I made reports about how the armour on all Leopard 2A5+ variants is still underperforming compared to the Leopard 2 TVM) in TrickZZter’s DM’s - which he claimed to have forwarded, not long after the report was closed down on the basis of “we don’t see a reason to improve the protection”.
I’ll maybeee do a few more that go more into detail later on… but at this point I question whether it’s worth it when we get with with “nu uh” in return.
Thats the problem Smin, we dont want to make any reports anymore, because the devs literally lie to our face as a reply and we have no other recourse to resolve this
Its not easy getting all these sources and piecing together all the info to provide the most accurate report we can, it takes considerable time and effort, only for the devs to lie straight to our faces as a response?
I am writing this letter to express my profound dissatisfaction and disappointment regarding the current state of the game and the apparent lack of recognition for the dedicated players who invest significant time and effort in contributing to its improvement.
It is disheartening to witness how the developers of War Thunder seem to dismiss the invaluable efforts of passionate players who willingly invest countless hours in enhancing the gaming experience. Many players, at their own expense, actively seek information to contribute towards the betterment of the game. However, the response from the developers has been far from appreciative, and it leaves a bitter taste of disappointment.
One major concern revolves around the apparent disregard for the players who invest substantial time in providing constructive feedback and conducting research to aid in the game’s development. These individuals are essentially volunteering their expertise to elevate War Thunder to new heights, only to be met with indifference and a lack of respect.
The absence of acknowledgment and the cold shoulder treatment towards these dedicated contributors reflects poorly on the overall community spirit. A healthy gaming environment thrives on collaboration between developers and players, and it is disheartening to observe this synergy crumbling due to a perceived lack of mutual respect.
Improvements are the result of collective efforts, and when players go above and beyond to provide valuable insights, it is only fair that their contributions are acknowledged and considered seriously. A transparent and open dialogue between developers and the player base is crucial for the sustained success and growth of War Thunder.
In conclusion, I implore the War Thunder developers to recognize the dedication of their player community, foster a more respectful and appreciative atmosphere, and actively engage with those who contribute selflessly towards the betterment of the game. This would not only enhance the overall gaming experience but also strengthen the bond between the players and the development team.
and yes that was made with Chat GTP as i am shit with formulating text even more so in an language that is not my own but this holds the information i want to relate in a well formulated text wich i would not be capable in writing
Thanks for your feedback and comments. We very much do appreciate the efforts put in by reporters and wherever possible, always try to provide our reasonings and explanations as far as it is possible to do so in detail, such as most recently:
As mentioned, we planned to continue these types of responses with the next one being on the Challenger 2 and addressing the reports and feedback within.
Beyond this, we always endeavour to answer all reports that are taken into consideration as far as it is possible to do so.
That’s the problem Smin! They’ve been responded to in such a manner that it pissed off pretty much every Leopard 2 player on this forum.
The developers lied and gaslighted there, they tried telling us that somehow the vehicles provides X amount of protection across a certain arc, people go about checking it out and found that to be a lie, it was then reported (by me), and that was hit with a 4 liner that nevermind explaining why they denied it, they straight up went “no”.
I’m sorry but at this point i’m more then sure that the devs regarding german tanks act like this
I mean they say they took the swedish trails as refence in 1 sentence
but somehow manage to screw up so much that the leopard2a7v has less armor then a 30 year old test version
Anyway, there are a great many things wrong, which even a little bit of research would show.
For example, on the Strv 122B+ the side composite on the turret doesn’t protect against even the very basic RPG-7 projectile (PG-7V) with 300mm of penetration, despite all the marketing material stating that it provides all around RPG protection.
The answer from the devs to such things is always “we need hard values”, which might have been fine when talking about 60s tanks, but we’re in the age that NOTHING gets quoted values, or if they are it’s in the form of “meets STANAG level 6” or similar.
This reluctance to change the protection figures in game to even the most conservative estimates based on such information (360° RPG protection for example, or “medium caliber APFSDS protection”) is effectively killing any chance for the community to use what little information there is to at least get somewhat close to reality.
Such information is often rejected out of hand despite no better sources existing, purely because “it does not provide values”. Well, even when we have values (see Swedish trials), the devs often do not implement them.
It’s quite simple, the protection level for the hull should be 700mm KE in a 35° frontal arc on the hull (skirts, front, etc)
Every time we make a report like this using the actual values from the Swedish trials and comparing directly to in-game performance, it gets rejected.
Edit:
For those wondering how the Swedish trials may still apply to 2A7V: Germany retained the C tech heavy skirts which were used on the TVM (I can prove this with picture evidence), so even the 2A5 and 2A6 should have this 30° arc providing ~623mm of KE protection.
2A7V either retains these C tech heavy skirts or gets improved D tech skirts (like Strv 122) BUT in addition it has that RPG catcher appliqué armour on the side of the hull which should improve KE protection as well.
The stuff that is currently modelled as “20mm"RHA”
IRL most likely HHA since basically ALL plates of less than 40mm thick used in leo 2 construction are by Russian/Soviet definition HHA (and WT uses Russian/Soviet definition for all Soviet/Russian vehicles!).
Just for fun, I might go ahead and break my “no more bug reports” rule and make a bug report using all of gaijins lies about the 2A7V’s armor compared to the data they lie the tank is based on
While I’m at it, might as well show that 2A7 and 2A7V feature a spall liner in front of the loader, not just on the turret side but also on the turret front inside wall.
maybe because its Classified like most Armor Values for Western Tanks but seeing how Reports about Armor are going atm it means until its Declassified it wont get any change So Smin the Reports about Modern Tanks need a change of Rules because of Classified Things like Armor
So you want direct values, but dont want people to leak classified information? That seems like a massive oxymoron. Using the Swedish trials (inaccurately as well given the 2A5 protection angles are still incorrect according to the Swedish trials) from over 30 years before the 2A7Vs existence?
Can you get me the details on what exactly the devs are smoking, because I might need some to stop an aneurysm from happening over this utter buffoonery the devs have pulled with this one. We have thrown books at the dev that shows them that they are incorrect, that the armor is modeled wrong, and should at least make the 2A7V ON PAR with the 122B+, but because the devs have pulled this “according to sources that agree with what we want to do” it just gets sent to the shadowrealm.
And its sooooo good to see TrickZZter back reporting on NATO tank bug reports, because he’s so unbiased when it comes to NATO equipment
