They can just reduce repair time for few parts
I would feel bad for NATO mains. But then I remember the inequal addition of spall liners, where Leopard 2A7, Strv 122, T-90M, Challenger got spall liners while Chinese vehicles (ZTZ99A, VT-4, ZTZ96A, ZTZ99A, all 3rd gen Chinese tanks) did not. This unrealistic situation has continued for 2 years, and it is almost 3 years now! It has been reported as a bug numerous times, accepted as suggestion, and never acted upon. If you really think there is bias, you are ignorant of the reality.
Really, the conclusion we should take from this is not one of bias towards any side. The correct conclusion is that Gaijin is deliberately introducing module updates or bug fixes to specific tanks at a time, to create a constantly shifting meta. This incentivizes players to buy expensive premiums in multiple tech trees, increasing the profit. This is beyond obvious when you look at top tier air.
1 Like
I’ve been wondering what’s been the hold up on that. But at the same time everyone says the spall liners been nerfed to hell.
50/50 from what my mate told me, as he plays German and Russian tanks
Russian tanks are more survivable as the fuel tanks+spall liner eats the spall, and the auto loader does too, in comparison to the Leo2s which you have to be kinda lucky for the spall to not do anything to you if the shot is well placed
If Gaijin insists to add these detailed interior implementations, then at least add them to all top tier vehicles at the same time. Adding them to certain MBT families or nations always a bad idea, it’s biased, unbalanced and even disrespectful.
1 Like
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
how is it anywhere near comparable
how exactly is modelling the autoloader breaking equal to modelling a the entire turret bask a horizontal drive? no to mention makin it create more spall which is the exact opposite of real life?
3 Likes
Don’t forget that if you don’t hit a charge or shell from the autoloader, it eats all the spall, maybe I could find it believable for T90M but not for the T80BVM, because only one has spall liners everywhere
1 Like
What do you suggest to put in instead? More electronic modules or simply nothing? People asked for modules, Gaijin gave.
“DevServer is subject to change” is the main information you should keep in mind.
a basket meant to protect the crew? like irl?
And this is what the Developers added, a basket. It does (from what people in the DevServer claims) create more spall, since is a work in progress, it’s subject to change.
its modelled as horizontal aiming drive
This is the price for more protection, nothing is cotton candy and flowers, if don’t bother play the Strv 122B+ truly gameplay every western mains wanted.
not really though?
Model is correct, but its function is not.
Simple as that.
Again, N.O.
Stop trying to put the blame on the community.
The community voted to more realistic modules- NOT fantasy ones, which is what the entire basket being modelled as “traverse mechanism” is, and which is what the turret basket GENERATING ADITIONAL spalling instead of stopping it is.
The basket contains hydraulic lines and electronics? Yes- and those are already correctly modelled separately. Making a flat aluminum sheet wall on the basket count as “traverse mechanism” is unrealistic and therefore NOT what the community voted for.
So enough of jumping at the throats of people who did nothing wrong and using other players as punching bags.
19 Likes
I 100% agree I don’t understand how people don’t understand that this will just make overall gameplay more annoying without any positive net return. It would also reward straight up bad aiming
1 Like
Makes Scooby Doo look like reasoned science.
4 Likes
it would be positive if implement correctly
1 Like