Kontakt 1 t80u i guess
This is something I wish people were more aware of;
Every time CMs and Mods take flak for the Developers’ decisions, people are shooting at the messengers who try their best to ensure communication.
It’s not the CMs or Mods’ fault that the Devs make these decisions.
Forwarded as a suggestion.
It was nice of gaijin to invent that specific model of T80U for this report reply
I didn’t realise K1 was “KE sensitive ERA”
You know, just saying something like “Anti-ERA ability on several ammo types on several nations will drastically ruin Soviet/Chinese winrate on several BR’s, so we couldn’t add it” is better than all of those “marketing lie”.
Is this in relation?
It definitely is their fault. As they are the people we as a community can talk to and when these people also turn blind eye to reports same as the devs then that’s just pushing their own agenda.
What Smin said there is unfortunately not true.
The T80U tanks were acquired by the UK in 1992.
The report cited is from September 1993.
SR(L) 4026 (which outlines that L27A1 must be able to pen a T80U with K5) was written before Britain acquired a T80U, however, the 1993 report confirms that L27A1 actually exceeds the single shot kill probability against a T80U frontally as was outlined in SR(L) 4026.
If they FORWARD stuff to the Devs, and the Devs decide to just ditch it… in which way are CMs/Mods to be blamed?
They did their part by sending the stuff to the Devs. It was the Devs who just chose to reject it.
What are the CMs/Mods expected to do? Put a gun to the Devs’ heads and command them to do our bidding?
It’s the people who review the reports submitted that find the responses, CMs are simply the middle man
1 Like
Then it’s clear the devs are pretty much entirely incapable of doing their job.
Bundestag report very clearly stating it is Relikt that’s the issue → must be Kontakt-5 because T-72B3 was mentioned (???)
DND source → ignored
RHM → ignored
You want us to make a new report with what? The same sources? As if the devs would even bother to properly read them lol
This isn’t even available for M829A3 BY THE WAY, we only have a patent without actual tests, but the devs don’t care.
3 Likes
This piece of information was also omitted in the original report. This page (with the 1993 date) was not included and only later provided by Flame and Gunjob.
1 Like
Alright, my apologise then.
The general point arguing against Gaijins reasoning does still stand though.
is there possibility we could see L27A1 recieve its anti era capability this major?
All of the information has been updated into the report. Until it receives a developer response, there is no timeframe possible to provide
Highly unlikely seeing their reply to the DM53 report
Oh wait )))
4 Likes
Yes exactly that, it’s literally their job to go tell the devs hey look the people think you’re making a mistake and ensure that reports are getting fairly handled but often these important reports don’t even reach the devs as these individuals themselves often have no accurate understanding of the material to properly convey the issues to the devs. Like for example they say there is no dual feed mechanism in the game but they are infact misinformed about that. So they don’t even forward this 2 minute fix to the devs because their own biased agenda.