You are free to make a suggestion about that in the suggestion section. Currently that is not how it works.
There are way less grave things that also get players chat banned in-game.
Probably not that hard to implement on a technical level (but i don’t know).
My question remains; why?
If they break the rules in only one place why punish the other if they still behave there?
Also, we’re off topic, if you want to continue the discussion please do so in PM’s.
People like you still have no counter argument to the fact that the T series is the best MBT lineup in the game, yet you can’t ever stop talking about ‘how limited’ or ‘how bad’ they are.
Which you did not make such a thing at all.
I stated “14 months” which means before any AAs came to other nations, it wasn’t useless at all infact it was the best and controlled the skies, this is a fact.
Russia is right now the best nation to grind with the best AA,best FnF, best air-to-ground missile…etc.
The idea that you need to own a tank to comment on it is dribble peddled by people like you, objective performance is irrelevant to whether or not I personally have put in the hours to grind a nation I don’t want to play for a myriad of reasons. Although if it helps you sleep at night… you can also point out a chat ban that results from the most minor of infractions adding up over 10 years of the game? 😂 completely irrelevant and smacks of desperation
If i could politely ask, what makes them best in your opinion
Because it’s simply something you made up.
You can’t make a counterargument for someones fantasy.
T-80BVM = good
T-80Us = solid
T-90M = mid
T-72B3A = trash
T-72B3 = mediocre-mid (it’s heavily bailed out by 11.7 matchmaking)
Small silhouette, speed(reverse speed lacks but mostly irrelevant when factoring in other strengths), gun/ammo performance, pre and post-pen survivability, overperforming ERA, .50’s, smallest frontal weakspot profiles out of almost every MBT series in the game… etc.
And now i need to ask, have you actually played the vehicle to experience any of this (its not an attack its just a question)
No but nothing I stated is subjective, it’s all objective fact. The only thing that can really be argued is the extent of detriment the reverse speed has.
I disagree, it can be argued, because mobility is a pretty big aspect of a tank, and the t-series mbts dont really have that over other mbts, reversing can be important to reload and get behind cover, and the russian mbts entire side of the tank is a weak spot
If T-80BVM is a one-man-army, then yes, it can be considered as line-up, however T-90M (which in my opinion is better than T-80BVM) is publicly disliked and T-72B3A had its introduction unexpected and eventually also disliked for a battle rating 12.0 vehicle without the standard extra protection packs. Every line-up can be versatile (which in my opinion France’s is the best, specially with the latest addition) just like Soviet’s can offer, so I don’t think that’s a good counterargument since most of the “Russian bias” discussions are involved around a specific vehicle or specific characteristics (like: “Why it wasn’t destroyed”, “Why it’s so OP”, etc.).
I’ll say again and will be repeating it until someone brings concrete proof of Russian bias, or even better, any kind of preferential treatment for every aspect in the game (whereas we can confirm if is there any bias handhelding Rafale C F3 when vehicles like Eurofighter 2000 is underperforming according to the community), the whole part of the community that advocates that Russian bias doesn’t exists can be completely dismantled (which I believe the same people that do so will agree) by the moment someone brings proof of its existance, until then we’ll be fighting in this nonsensical discussion.
Earlier in this thread I documented how I hit the side of a BVM centre-mass and it didn’t kill, because ERA absorbed most of the impact and therefore it only took out the autoloader. He could then snap the turret onto me and kill me. I would find you the replay but it’s buried now, point being: every tank is weak from the side, but T series is absolutely the safest in that regard.
I highly disagree there, but im not gonna get into a prolonged argument
That’s a whole other argument that has many points to be discussed, they’re not relevant to the thread so I’m not gonna discuss them
I will say that you’re wrong. Proof of Russian bias is actually the goal for every party involved in this decade long discussion, it doesn’t need any argument because with concrete proof, is there really anything to discuss except skeptical people doubting the source? Except from that I’d be okay with proof and capability to replicate it in-game (something that could reduces doubts even more).
Define concrete proof? Because if you mean nothing short of a written confession by Gaijin CEO, it will never happen
Bias is another argument entirely but you can’t deny Russian FAVOURITISM is obvious.
Concrete proof is documents proving so, viable and sources with no legal or that shares interests with Gaijin Entertainment, this is concrete proof, something that shares inside information proving that it does exist, that information publicly shared is false or misleading.
I don’t know really, USSR is not my focus, but I’ve noticed some actions that doesn’t really means favouritism (i.e. outdated vehicles, when other nations got better units earlier), regarding the ERA ‘eating’ ammunition I’ll throw the fault in the old and buggy Dagor engine.
You can develop a good game and keep a old engine up to date however Dagor wasn’t made to handle nothing more than airplane spars and aerodynamic, there’s a huge difference in the behaviour of ground vehicle damage in Enlisted to War Thunder.
just like anything you say at this point
you literally have never experienced any of those tanks limitations hence you have no idea on how they play
you have never experienced a fuel tank explosion, no ability to go hulldown, no reverse speed, horrid gun handling and many other vehicle-specific caveats russian tanks have
btw your argument is literally “ru tanks are the strongest”
you don’t back it up with stats
you don’t back it up with your game experience
whatever this thread is going down anyway
Sure theres a lot of “russian bias” stuff thats just the engine limitation or bad modeling like good old stalinium just being a combination of volumetric sheanigans and Gaijin being not that great at modeling rounded armor.
But you gotta admit that stuff like the KH38MT, Soyuz, Igla vs Stinger debate and the highly targeted additions of realistic modules and mechanics for tanks does absolutely show favouritism
Indeed, I can’t agree more. Regarding the Kh-38MT, I tried to contact a photographer involved in military equipment specially in Russia however I got no response and I probably will to try contact again. With the objective to have any better at clearer information regarding specially the Kh-38MT if it’s a existing equipment, only a designation or something else.
If is the case of Kh-38MT a actual thing, I believe Gaijin must have labeled it wrong, the most realistic counterpart to the weapon in-game would’ve been Kh-38MTE, which does have more on-line information available not only from secondary sources but as well from primary sources.
I don’t think that’s a making up from Gaijin’s part, some secondary sources mention the exact same specifications as in-game:
https://web.archive.org/web/20180901095859/http://www.ktrv.ru:80/production/68/675/797/