Its a bit like event / BP vehicles too.
The Scimitar Mk 2 even got labelled a “clone” by some somehow too. We’ve got to a point where its just excessive overuse of the word or a refusal to look beyond the name of something.
10 Likes
People are just so used to hating on everything that anything good now contradicts their opinion of the development, so instead of acknowledging the good stuff they reject it. So basically, bad faith
4 Likes
I know that too well 😭
2 Likes
Not even bad faith, if it just doesn’t interest them they will go and call it a clone anyways
2 Likes
Yeah, so bad faith. Calling something what it isn’t because “I don’t like it” is subjective and therefore not enough to say Gaijin does a bad job, while “it’s copypaste” has a pretention of objectiveness meant to prove that they do a bad job.
3 Likes
Devblog from WT Mobile:
A blueprint-lootbox counterpart to the Kongo-class recently added, but there 's something else interesting abt her:
4 Likes
The M7 WIP looks great, there’s no denying it. But I can’t wait for the day when Gaijin acknowledges that the bug reports for the Challenger 2’s cardboard mantlet and the 3TD’s floating orbit hitbox have finally been processed. Then again, a new grass model is probably a higher priority anyway.
Last update had about atleast 7 new air mechanic/features. Hopefully this update we see more air technologies that was discussed about in the past.
To be fair in the smallest level to those people (and i have tried to correct them), the first blog did call it an upgraded turret, ignoring it was a completely new design hull too (though based on spartan).
The blog really could have mentioned that lmao.
1 Like
No gambling boxes this summer?
1 Like
We know AARGM is coming but i wouldnt expect much for new mechanics in air since we had so many this time. I think most of the additions for next update will be top tier APS tanks for nations that dont have them yet
I guess next week probably
I hope its ECM.
Though beyond “new” mechanics. NT has highlighted the need for overhauls of older stuff, like RWR, CMs, Targeting pod ranges, render distances, CCRP, CCIP interfaces, etc
They could “add” a hell of a lot just by going back and overhauling stuff that has been in-game for years, and tbh, I think its needed more than anything else at the moment
5 Likes
Yes. Does not change the fact that infantry guys could be employed for something more relevant
We need to have next-gen IR already and some sensor fusion for planes. We also need more fleshing out of AESA radars and ESM mechanics.
1 Like
Hope so, i’ve been saving SL just for this
Yes exactly, AESA radars for example are supposed to run multiple modes concurrently, where if you do air to ground modes and then switch to air to air, it shouldn’t lose track of the air to ground targets. Or if you switch from mprf mode to hprf mode, you shouldn’t lose all the targets you had picked up in the mprf mode, yet we don’t have anything resembling proper AESA functionalities in-game.
This sure
But I think this needs a UI overhaul first. Because I already find it confusing as hell to keep track of what is going on, especially in a gamemode like NT. I wouldnt want to add ground contacts to that mess.
even with the recent filters its not enough.
I think it needs a ground up rework
When it comes to both modern technologies and modern additions, aircraft are very very behind in mechanics, features, technologies, and additions compared to ground, it’s not even close what the disparities are.
2 Likes