None of the above options were “[totally] balancing based on real information.”
Again, the real life tanks are simply not balanced in real life. So you HAVE to deviate somehow from real life, from real information.
And no matter how you do that deviation, if the original difference in ability was, say, 20% win rate for sake of argument, your total non-historical adjustments have to add up to 20% win rate’s worth of non-historicalness, no matter what flavor you do it in. Nerf this, buff that, armor vs ammo, whatever, it’s the same total amount of fantasy no matter what, at the end of the day. So who cares?
its something you can always adjust as new vehicles get added and moved around based on performance/metrics
You can always adjust composite armor modifiers too, just as easily as changing ammo. You can change ERA effectiveness vs kinetics also just a multiplier in probably a notepad file somewhere, just as easily as changing ammo. You can change spall liners to not exist / die in one hit / take multiple hits, just as easily as changing ammo. I’m not really following your point here on “easy to change”, all this is easy.
(Also you don’t need to fine tune any of this. It’s a gross adjustment, BR + or - 0.3 can do the fine tuning. So long as the BR change isn’t so huge that whole nations don’t face one another at all at top tier, it’s fine)
I mean thats not ever going to be a 1:1 scenario, if you limit a tanks ability by 20% that isnt going to magically equate to a 20% reduction in winrates, if thats your logic then I’m really confused, but you said it yourself, real life tanks are not balanced… yes I know this which is why I have always argued “balance around ammo/armour” because this allows for a fairer balance when you make certain vehicles have better ammo vs tanks with better armour or better mobility etc. im not arguing for WoT style balance, not even close if thats what you or anyone thinks.
Granted not all stuff can be balanced like this but that is why gaijin have recently taken this approach in recent patches because they know it will genuinely screw balance over BUT it always comes AFTER the community have to scream about the unjust nature of russia getting OP stuff.
R73s got added… not a single wiff of 9Ms in site, NOT TILL community went on the hunt, then when 9Ms got added what did gaijin do… ay yes, lets add better R27s and also introduce IRCCM on R72ETs (i think thats the right one) you see how they progressively push the line.
Spall liner is yet again a perfect example of “lets add new mechanic to russia” see how community react THEN lets add it to other nations… i cannot count how many times gaijin have pulled this stunt and its precisely why
I would love the report team to not put any personal believes in their work. For be able to be neutral and not biased by their personal opinions that will imply to not request some bug report in favor of some vehicles or nationS.
It wasn’t the case since years and that why you are here talking about it. Because players are tired of all that toxic behavior.
So players can also play it the smhae sadly :/
I hope to see some improvements and everyone enjoying a game that suppose to be fun… A game.
What about Ariete protection characteristics? On the dev-server weight parameters of these tanks and their add-on armor have been fixed, but protection remains on the same joke-level.
For example, Ariete with WAR kit weights now 59,5 t, but the fact that it’s intended to protect against KE threats is completely ignored. (5,5 t pack adds about 10-15 mm of protection against 3BM42, are you serious?).
Can we get rid of this prejudice towards Italian armor industry and finally fix protection of Ariete tanks in the game?
Спойлер
PS yes it was my report, but I thought Gaijin won’t be ignorant towards protection problems as well…
That is not what I meant, I was referring to 20% only as a measure of final result by any method, not what you start with. As in, the total magnitude of change by any method will be equally unhistorical overall, that’s all
I have always argued “balance around ammo/armour” because this allows for a fairer balance
I am not following your argument/logic here, you seem to just be saying “It’s ammo, therefore → Fairer” Huh?? Why is using ammo “fairer” than using gun caliber or armor or spall or mobility? Or anything else?
R73s got added… not a single wiff of 9Ms in site, NOT TILL community went on the hunt, then when 9Ms got added what did gaijin do… ay yes, lets add better R27s and also introduce IRCCM on R72ETs (i think thats the right one) you see how they progressively push the line.
I mean yeah, duh, if you strong arm them into buffing the thing that needs to be nerfed relatively, then they have to buff the thing that was buffed even more, or you’d undo their work.
If:
NATO -3 = Russia
Then:
NATO -1 = Russia +2 ← have to add that +2 to re-achieve the desired outcome again
Re-balancing already balanced equations always requires doing the same thing to both sides of the equation.
Hi, many of your reports have been forwarded and fixed.
Some were tagged as not a bug, if you have questions about why or you think the moderator made an error you can contact any technical moderator as I said.
Currently Germany has as only nation 3 Reserve tanks, because 2 are far from starter friendly.
Pz III Ausf. B
Pz III Ausf. E
Pz. 35 (t)
And the Pz. 35 (t) is the best of them. Because:
Pz III Ausf. B has 14,5mm armor (not enove for HMG), Max 6,0°/sec turret traverse (While the hand crancks have 4°/turn each for gunner and loader by Panzer Tracts), only 35 km/h max speed and 47 mm penetration.
Pz III Ausf. E has 30mm armor (protects against cal 50 (but not russian one) slower turret of 5,5°/sec (while it has the same gears as the later J1-N which in game have 14°/sec), more speed of 71 km/h (but can mostly only reach around 40km/h because idk) same somewhat bad penetration of 47mm.
Pz 35 (t) has 25mm frontal ( protects against 50 cal over range) is 33-34 km/h (forwards and backwards, so you can go backwards for more armor) same 14°/sec turret speed, while lower velocity has even 55mm penetration and has up to 25° elevation so it can be used against low flying planes even.
Harassing, doxing and threatening employees is unacceptable and I’m sorry that some of them had to go through this. No one should ever have to fear for their safety just because of their jobs.
It also doesn’t help that some of the moderators rejects reports while using objectively false arguments to reject said reports (name of the moderator scrubbed to avoid a witch hunt):
Russian tanks do not have wet storage for their ammo
Lower flash point means that it ignites at a lower temperature, meaning that it’s easier to ignite and more volatile. This goes completely against the argument the mod is trying to make.
And yet this person is one of the person responsible for judging what gets forwared to the devs. It’s not surprising that the current approach can generate frustration amongst people who sometimes spend days and in some cases money to acquire documents to suppor their claims only to see their reports get closed for no reasons or factually incorrect ones.
Again, threats being made against the employees are completely unnacceptable and unjustifiable.
However, it’s undeniable that some of gaijin’s approach is resulting in annoyance to a large part of the playerbase (while again making any threats to the well being of their employees unacceptabke).
Gaijin genuinely needs to review and overhaul how bug reports are being handled, because at the moment it’s not functionning well (and in some cases, not at all).
I did a bug report on the stormer a while back and it was instantly closed within five minutes stating wiki isn’t a valid source… There wasn’t a single source in that report from a wiki page, the guy straight up just didn’t read it and closed it. Resubmitted the exact same report 20 minutes later with a caption like (IF YOU ACTUALLY READ MY REPORT) Bingo it was acknowledged after abit of back and forth with a different Mod.
The worst part is that I’ve made my own bug report on the M41A1, due to the fact that there is a contradiction within the source that was used to obtain the 24º/s turret traverse, being that the source is actually stating the minimum speed of the powered traverse, rather than the maximum speed.
But when I made my bug report pointing this out, and even used the same primary source that Spookston showed, the dev response was to ignore that entire part of my bug report that was pointing out that their source was faulty. They answered by just saying that when there’s multiple contradicting sources, they have to pick one and they decided to stick with the technical manual that I had spent an entire 5 line paragraph showing that it wasn’t valid.
now we just need nato tanks to have a buff without gaijin wanting (forcing) us to give actual classified documents…
instead of using the gap between their brains as a thought-processing bridge and estimate. when there is tons of stuff to read, and even gives estimates of what the armor could do
estimates… not exact data, russia doesn’t need exact data to get a new machine, so why do we need so many sources to get “tee hee we still need a estimate to know how much it improves”
take a shot and estimate yourself, about 30% improvement. done. crazy, now do the same estimation for other nato tanks, so you wont make it literally worse than wood.🤡
if they read anything there is SOME chance they can see that they could create an estimate on there own…
if the released a major update that included nothing but regenerative steering and called it “shit we should have done years ago” i would be very happy
I just don’t understand how u can ask people to provide exact numbers as one of ur mods in support ask, always for nato vehicles and then try to reason with us, please stop gaslighting and listen to what people try to say, don’t just silence them with chat bans or issue closing with not a bug shinanigans, the problem we have was all made by incompetent people with bias opinion on the topic, that affected their decision making in balancing vehicles ingame
