Nice to hear that the communication will be better and that spall liners are coming. Fills me with hope for the coming future of WT ! :>
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
2 Likes
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
That is false. No M1 has spall liners.
Ok, so you’ve got a few unvalidated assumptions there, right? First, you’re confident that the Pz III loader had the ability to augment manual traverse. This is despite the best-restored Pz III we have access to look at having no loader’s traverse wheel. Like, at all. So first, your source on that probably needs to be checked. (see link)
Getting back to the Pz IV, I assume you’re going off Doyle’s estimate, referenced in a Chieftain video on that other tank, that the loader’s crank was “2.6x slower” than the electric traverse to get your own factor of 2.6. He may have put that in a book somewhere, but hey, it’s Doyle, good enough for these purposes. Ok… but we already knew the maximum traverse speed for a manually traversed Pz IV, because the Pz IVJ had the motor removed and was entirely manually traversed. Their absolute maximum speed (presumably using both people cranking) was recorded at only 3-4 degrees per second on level ground (Doyle & Friedli, 2016). So we don’t have to go through all the effort of figuring out how fast a Pz IV could turn the turret hand cranked if two people are cranking together compared to one. We already knew that answer.
Pz III WAS lighter, so I’m sure it could do better than 3-4 degrees per second that the Pz IV could on manual cranking alone, even if there was, in fact, only one crank. The one good video we have of a well-kept Pz III traversing (Bovington again) seems to be doing at least 4.5 degrees per second (link) so that seems to be the lowest possible. The early IIIs definitely seem to need a little boost on the basis of that alone.
I absolutely agree that there was no obvious difference between the traverse mechanisms for all the Pz IIIs, so the break in game from 3.8 degrees per second (RB) to 9.8 degrees per second with the heavier turrets after the J1 seems an obvious mistake, no question. But there ALSO seems no question, from the above, that the Pz IVJ is moving too FAST in game at 7 degrees per second current manual, vs 9.8 degrees per second electric for all the other Pz IVs. That’s basically twice the speed of the recorded historical best.
A more consistent approach, assuming we didn’t want to mess with the majority of Pz IVs here and assume they’re fine for now, would be to slow down the Pz IVJ (since as you say according to Doyle should be 2.6x slower than a Pz IV with an electric traverse motor, which also just happens to work out to the historically confirmed 3-4 degrees per second), and then from its number work up to a Pz III number for manual traverse and a lighter turret and apply it to them all. Ironically, I suspect you might actually be closer to the truth if you used the Pz IVJ in-game value (7 degrees per second) for ALL the Pz IIIs, and the Pz III (early) value (3.8 degrees per second) for the Pz IVJ instead.
Typical gaijin, read it as : We gonna add all tech to our ruskies biased tanks, and other tank gonna be garbage and we gonna treat them like we treat merkava’s, ariete’s, leclerc’s etc.
4 Likes
Yea i love how they always have data for they ruskies biased tanks and make them completely biased and OP like 40 degrees of turret traverse and gun elevation speed in tank from ZSRR, but most modern tanks like Leclerc or Typ 10 have less than 30 :DD Lmao.
You want to nerf russian tanks??? GIVE US SOURCES!!! BUT NOT WIKIPEDIA AND NOT CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS NEITHER!!!
Do you want to buff other than russia tanks? GIVE SOURCES ^(AGAIN) Like imagine they got china apfds leak and they are still worse than russians magic darts cuz we all know no one can be better than supremacy magic ruski tank especially t-90m which got one hit on ukraine and dissapear faster than gaijin adding biased stuff only for ruskies tanks.
This is pretty boring already guys, lets just drop nuke on steam revievs again, they can change economy so maybe gameplay and balance too, whats the purpose of this game when only russia is playable?
Nice bait
1 Like
I just don’t understand how u can ask people to provide exact numbers as one of ur mods in support ask
If you never had sources with numbers to begin with, for an issue that depends on numbers (e.g. armor thickness, not something like “thermals existing or not”), how did you even decide that the game is wrong in the first place? Why did you even submit a ticket? What are you even asking them to do, then?
Pick one:
-
You know there’s an inaccuracy in the tanks in game, and by how much, in a way that would be actionable? Great, then you must have gotten that from reliable sources, for YOU to have known it to be true in the first place. So just… share those sources.
-
You don’t know if there’s an inaccuracy in the tanks in the game, due to not having reliable sources? Then what are you even complaining about, exactly, and why? If you don’t know there to be an issue?
“I totally know XYZ is true, but can’t find sources for it” fundamentally doesn’t make sense. No, you never did know XYZ, then.
I waited 5 months for a response i gave all the information needed and still get not a bug they didn’t even try to consider it.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/rKy9tyRE481C
You got an answer from the devs. They decided they didn’t want to do that and intentionally chose the filling in game instead. So it’s objectively not a bug, since bugs are unintentional things.
COULD they give you a long detailed explanation of exactly why they think it’s better for the game and its balance or whatever to do it this way? Probably. SHOULD developers have to explain every single thing they do all day in painstaking detail to players, instead of just doing it? I don’t think they should.
Having been a game developer myself and a mod and working in other parts of the industry in other ways, having to do that all day for everything would mean I’d have gotten out like 1/5th as many actual releases and updates and fixed 1/5th as many bugs. Because I’d be spending 80% of my time arguing with players and documenting stuff for non experts (who know no background info and have to have EVERYTHING contextual included from scratch to understand). Instead of, you know, coding and developing.
Would you want to buy a car if the car came with a detailed explanation from the engineers written for a lay audience, about every tiny decision they made, why they chose the size they did for the cupholders, everything? In exchange for the car costing twice as much money, because they spent half their time documenting all that for you? Probably not.
1 Like
I get that problem is every time i try to put it as a suggestion they just remove it, i reached the point when i have to write the whole thing multiple time so i end up making a post about it so i can C/P as suggestion.
I don’t want detailed explanation i want nothing from them i am just annoyed that no matter what this community offer they will find a way to tell you no, btw this report that i made is not something that can be easily ignored changing the filling to Trialen 105 means that every ww2 German bomb from the smallest to the biggest will receive a 60% buff to their explosion yield
I think the Stingers is a worse example:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/BZtiBBaH7uwL
Multiple sources stating 20-22G. 7 month wait. Solution, give it 13G. Because 13G = 20-22G Apparently. With no explanation at all why they are choosing to ignore the provided data, that cannot be interpretted any other way
5 Likes
This is another example but thisbis from the old forums
Even when the suggestions and reports get forwarded the still ignore it.
And this is a report that i made about the same subject if anyone wants informations or evidence.
1 Like
changing the filling to Trialen 105 means that every ww2 German bomb from the smallest to the biggest will receive a 60% buff to their explosion yield
In that case, I can tell you right now why they rejected it, because this one has a way more obvious reason to reject it than most tickets. Let’s walk through what would happen if they accepted your proposal:
-
- Every single (German) plane in WWII with bombs would suddenly massively overperform
-
- Every single plane in WWII with bombs would thus have to go up by like 0.3-1.3 BRs or something to get it back down to 50% win rates / normal balanced performance again, depending on how much it relies on bombs.
-
- 95% of players that use these airplanes would be incredibly pissed off that all their lineups are now broken and they have to spend hundreds of thousands of SL rearranging and training new crews, re-learning new metas, blah blah.
-
- What did we gain in exchange? Almost literally nothing. You and like 3 other dudes have a slightly increased historical immersion satisfaction, and pretty much nobody else would even know the difference or have any idea what bombs were supposed to historically have in them.
Huge huge huge cost (300,000 players royally pissed off), near-zero benefit (4 guys happy) = terrible thing to implement.
The issue here is that feedback system with this game and it’s developer is…bad? Poorly designed? Poorly implemented? Pointless? Pick some combination of not good. How do we know? Easy.
Ten, nearly eleven, years of players pointing out how anti-consumer/anti-player the in-game economy was and that ONLY changed after a review bombing. We can safely use a five year window for this sake of this argument to point how how long players have brought forth the issue how BR compression and yet nothing. Your player-base, for years, are bringing massive issues with your game to you, using the channels you told them to use to give feedback, and then you only address a few of them after a review bombing? It takes a Kotaku article? Game Rant article? A PC Gamer article for you to actually address a 10 year old issue? Gaijin could teach a Masterclass on how to not properly implement feed back.
Hell, we found out just today the bug reporting system didn’t even work right. Imagine taking all the tedious steps Gaijin expects you to make to file a bug report, doing so years ago, and finding out it probably got marked incorrectly because of a poorly implemented system. We can gloss over pre-existing bias many of us have come to have to put up with seeing bug forum moderators because we will never see that fixed. I’d be shocked if it was even addressed in the form of a denial.
I’m sorry but what is the point of this whole forum system and bug reporting system, community managers, and site-specific moderators if feedback isn’t even collected properly? And even then, 9 out of 10 times, nothing ever comes of it. This past year alone we have had several points of contention from a pretty sizable portion of the player-base and looking back, every single one of them was met with the now-traditional (at phrase at this point of “We have heard your feedback and will not change anything.” When you do that every single time, or a clear majority of the time, you devalue the purpose and credibility of your feedback channels.
Let’s stick with your car example. You want to make a car to sell. After coming up with something, you ask several others what we think of it. The color options are pretty good. The stereo is crips, clear, loud, all good. The air condition could be colder but it works. But the engine is sluggish and the transmission is janky. It’s frankly an uncomfortable ride. What do you think their reaction is going to be when, after taking all the steps you asked of them to submit that feedback and do nothing to address it?
2 Likes
Massive issues to them =/= massive issues to me if I’m the developer.
Every customer in every industry ever will complain that “prices for this product are higher than I’d prefer” if you give them the chance. Duh. (In this case, the “price” of the product is effectively how slow it is to progress, since speeding progress is the monetized part of the game).
Just saying “Oh you want lower prices? Well why didn’t you say so earlier! Sure!!!” does not make your business more successful… They were not deaf to all the economy feedback, they just weren’t idiots. As long as people keep paying more than the drop in customers removes (i.e. you haven’t reached the market clearing price yet), you increase prices, not decrease.
When there’s a big pushback and a review bomb, that just means “You reached or exceeded the market clearing price, bring it back down, bit too far, whoops”, which they did. Same as McDonalds accidentally pricing a burger too high, not seeing as many sales as they expected, and making it a bit cheaper again.
None of this implies blindness, stupidity, bad design, or any such things, necessarily.
Hell, we found out just today the bug reporting system didn’t even work right. Imagine taking all the tedious steps Gaijin expects you to make to file a bug report, doing so years ago, and finding out it probably got marked incorrectly because of a poorly implemented system.
They actually said it wasn’t marked INFORMATIVELY, not functionally incorrectly. I.e. everything that was filtered out would have been filtered out anyway, just possibly under a more informative label, as far as I understand. That’s not really “broken” that’s just “not transparent”, not the same thing.
I’m sorry but what is the point of this whole forum system and bug reporting system, community managers, and site-specific moderators if feedback isn’t even collected properly?
I haven’t seen anything that says it wasn’t collected properly.
And even then, 9 out of 10 times, nothing ever comes of it.
if 1 out of 10 ideas from players is actually a good, sensible idea, then this community would be overwhelmingly better at suggesting things than most video game communities. That would be amazing results for a feedback system.
I don’t mean “historically technically correct” I mean “good for the GAME”. See example above: guy who wanted to break the BR balancing of every single WWII German airplane for basically no reason. Doesn’t matter if he was historically correct, that is a very bad suggestion that should not be implemented.
Let’s stick with your car example. You want to make a car to sell. After coming up with something, you ask several others what we think of it. The color options are pretty good. The stereo is crips, clear, loud, all good. The air condition could be colder but it works. But the engine is sluggish and the transmission is janky. It’s frankly an uncomfortable ride
Except that these don’t really line up with most of what we see in War Thunder. 90% of bug report things I see are either 1) Some infinite variation of “Make it cheaper I dun wunna spend money” or 2) Historical accuracy with no consideration having been taken for whether it makes the game actually more fun or not. Neither is a good analogy for your examples here, all of which are actually about the car being more useful and fun, etc.
Nope - sorry. I don’t buy the spiel in the article one bit.
We have multiple modern vehicles in the game with subpar armoured protection and seemingly every attempt to remedy it via official channels is blocked for vague and ambiguous reasons. Challenger 2 NERA, Leclerc, Abrams SEP, Type 10 - the lot. People have gone through a lot of effort to find unclassified information - unpaid research - but if the devs have their heart set on something (NATO bad, Rasha Stronk) nothing seems to change their mind.
Meanwhile, someone somewhere in deepest darkest Russia treads on a used hankerchief somewhere with a badly doodled sekrit dokument stating that the T-90M had 5000mm of RHA. It may look like rubber and egg box cartoons but trust me Vanya - it works great. Hic. File a bug report, don’t bother with any sources.
Immediately added and implemented by Gaijin in a flash.
Did you lot learn NOTHING from the last time? It was only May this year, how quickly the snail seems to forget…
9 Likes
oh yeah? then why do f14s have arh?
if theyre the only planes to carry them, wheres the others? or better yet, why not remove them?