So you don’t actually have an explanation for why the report was refused? It’s pretty clear that Gaijin know that the ATAL / ATAS was implemented on the AH-64E as otherwise it wouldn’t have been implemented on the Dev server, the fact that I would need to retread ground for the report is odd.
Proofs, please.
This forum (ru) doesn’t affect the game anyway, so there’s no point in worrying about it.
How do i know ? I can’t see it fully and get into moderator head. I know that you claim bias here which is shows you want special treatment
Okay, let’s assume for a second that they knowingly and intentionally do not accept that report.
Great, you just made an observation, now make an argument why is the russian bias.
They are deleting bug reports that show that the P40 has an invisible magical autoloader.
Yep that was it.
That HEAT is inconsistant? Yeah you can apply that to the entire game because it is true.
Yes.
These things are not taken into account. A Concept 3 from the mid 1970s shoot the same ammo as the Comet from 30 years earlier. Where can i see you complain about it?
He already did.
For not enough info?
Your words?
Also YOU who this much claim russian bias, but havent proved it. As we know it can have a bunch of other explanations, yet you just ran with one that fits YOUR own biases.
Sure, but it’s something that needs to be fixed. It’s simple: all bullets have consistent damage for all bullets and all tanks. That way, you solve a lot of problems and a lot of discussions about bias.
Oh nonono, people in the russian bias cult will remain in that cult even if every bit is explained. That’s how cults work. Same as flat earth.
That would help gameplay tho. But i think in a lot of these cases it is just some edge case that is really hard to solve in a code that runs actually fast.
I don’t know other people’s opinions or their motivations. I just want the vehicles to work the way they’re supposed to. If a T-54 takes a HEAT attack on the front and is completely destroyed, so be it. I’m not going to stop playing with the tank because it’s easier to kill. I also want them to fix the T-55’s APDS-FS, since it doesn’t penetrate well enough at 60°, or that the T-55AM-1 and T-62M1 should have a bit more resistance in the front hull.
I’m also not complaining about the Tiger engine change, since it’s realistic.
In the case of damage, I would simplify it: each damage model would have a pre-defined damage cone, with variables such as armor thickness, excess bullet penetration and thickness, etc., to determine the size and distance of the damage cone.
Here I’ll construct one for you real quick;
The provided evidence is far in excess of what even exists for the Kh-38MT, let alone proof that it can / has been carried on each platform that has it in game, individually.
Further directly Flies in the face of the following report for the removal of ATAS from specific variants of the AH-64A & -64D;
Remove AIM-92 stinger from Peten, Saraph, AHS, and AH-64A (GR)
“Thanks for the report. Submitted as a suggestion.”
Also it was both post somewhat in jest to the fact that manager #1 referenced Proofs (its a meme that is very tangentially relevant)
There is evidence as shown above, that it is a capability; One would expect that Gaijin has their own that should support this.
Besides as the report has been closed I’ll have to wait for a Technical moderator to amend it with said information, and as such the report should have been flagged “Response needed”, to permit me a chance to provide said information instead of closed off the bat.
They are, where there are obvious incompatibilities in the systems. For example the M1IP doesn’t have access to M774, and the F-16A-15ADF has no access to ground ordnance, even though it underwent the Block -15OCU upgrade program.
Gaijin doesn’t need proof to add stuff to the game.
See F-16AJ and many others like khm khm Swedish bias with magical T-80U appearing in their TT khm khm.
Sadly it is not as simple.
Therefore?
You have not construced any argument. You made an observation.
Okay, so what?
That is just plain incompetence. They do it all the time as i could show you countless examples where the manager has a complete lack of basic comprehension of the text i provided. That is not bias, it is incompetence.
bbbbbbbbbut it is a T-80U which is russian so it is russian bias akchuwally.
Blatant favoritism towards Sweden to add trialed vehicles just because.
Imagine owning a car by just test driving it for an hour, it’s that ridiculous but I guess Sweden bends all rules.
I know, but you can always try to simplify things further, while maintaining realism, so that it doesn’t require so much data.
To be fair it is harmless. Swedish (and finnish) tanks at that BR are far better.
But on the other hand it is creating a big problem, because if that rule applies universally, then tech trees would be full of other nations’ stuff cuz they trialled them.
You cant make it simpler.
To be fair mate - you are arguing with a brick wall. He will argue until he’s blue in the face that there is no issue at all (no sirree!) or double-standards with the acceptance of reports whatsoever. Contrary to plenty of evidence.
If it’s the guy I think it is - he plays nothing but arcade anyway.
I literally never said that, even said that there is. You are just lying at this point.
And where does it have to do anything with this thread? Oh yeah nothing, you just think it is a convenient cope out for you.
EDIT:
Also it is very evident that you have zero arguments againt mine, otherwise you would have brought them instead of just doing this laughably bad attempt.
Tripod gave a very comprehensive answer above about certain capabilities being selectively added to the game over others. Oddly enough tending to favour a certain tech tree…
Now, if you cannot or will not understand that. Well, that’s a you problem.
Have a nice day. Blows Kiss
BTW - Nice flagging spamming. You have fun now.
He gave a single example.
Even if we pretend that this ONLY happens to the RU TT, that is not proof of bias.
They were literally not answered.
This is a nice little projection considering that you cant understand that listing things is not proof of anything.
Let’s say that there is John. John has a wife Mary. Neighbores hear them argue and shout loudly at each other because John found out that Mary is cheating on him with Greg.
Later that day Mary and Greg are found shot to death in Johns and Mary’s house with John’s gun and John is nowhere to be found.
Question:
Did John kill them?
While the listed things here are making it seem that John is the killer, the actual answer is: we dont know.
Just like you guys list a bunch of things and say “hahah, bias proven!!”
Either you must provide a source code fragment that shows that game handles shot damage and pen calculations.
Or you have to give a logical argument why the only possible explanation to the bug report situation is russian bias, which is something that is very, very hard to do.
It any case, the burden of proof is on you, since you guys make the claim that there is russian bias, so you are the ones who have to provide evidence and proof.
Again, this is a projection.
What?
While I fully agree with the logic, the problem becomes when you can see a clear consistent pattern for things not turning out in a fair manner, and gaijin not doing a good job of addressing it.
If you are talking about the bug reports:
Have you looked at every single report and made yur conclusion, or just seen a few like this and your confirmation bias went full speed in?
Is there anything with which they make a good job?
I’m talking about long term perception of the game’s development.
Short list.
