Hello all! I have seen discontent about the implementation of various reports for vehicles like the Abrams/Leclerc/Ariete/Leopard/challenger…etc. A poll is the best way to gauge how the community feels, just as the HEAT-FS poll showed, so I’ll keep my question simple.
Do you feel that Gaijin adequately implements well-researched bug reports submitted by the community?
I believe the worst thing about all of this are the double standards regarding bug reports and the ever changing requirements : the Developers are not even playing according to their own rules.
You don’t provide the necessary source ? Denied.
They don’t like your source ? Also denied.
They can’t say anything about your sources because of how well your bug report is made ? Still denied, but this time with an excuse such as “balance”.
And some times, they’ll just let the bug report you spent hours on just rot in the “acknowledged” category because it doesn’t fit their agenda.
We all know by now that NATO bug reports, especially for “small nations”, require much more work and sources than for other nations : that also shouldn’t be a thing.
They have to understand that these vehicles are still in service and as such remain classified and that’s why we can’t provide primary sources …
For this reason, I would like to ask the Developers to lower their standards when it comes to sources for vehicles that are still in service to secondary sources. Asking for primary sources for these vehicles is unreasonable. Secondary sources should be enough.
Out of all these reports linked to, the only one that wasn’t acknowledged is the LeClerc. Every other one of these was either accepted or a duplicate of another report that was accepted. What are you getting at?
in the most recent update on the website they decided that the information they had did not correlate with the info that others were sending in the bug reports. While the bug report does say accepted the new reports, the post says otherwise. That’s what this poll was made for
What I am getting at is Gaijins implementation of those bug reports. Alot of effort goes into alot of them but in the end they seem to just be introduced in a butchered state, or even just denied despite sufficient evidence. Often the reasoning given is also pretty shaky, look at todays news report.
It would be a lot easier if a lot of these sources didn’t contradict themselves, something people in this thread glossed over earlier like that isn’t a big deal lol. “Often the reason given is shaky,” is because often the answer isn’t very clear, especially with what I mentioned before. Even so, they have very obviously made efforts to do this without unbalancing the game too severely like the Abrams reload rate just being introduced.
Unrelated, but if you’re going to suggest “Well it’s not balanced anyway because western vehicles suck,” then there’s no point talking to you.
They do act like we can get classified info to back it up but we all know what happened everytime. Leclurc is a big victim from it. The day it happened feels like they just fucked up the armor purposefully and never even bothered to change it.
If by contradictions are you talking about the Abrams’ spall liner? Other than that I’m not aware of any others, but I’d be happy to know.
“Often the answer isn’t very clear” well if it isn’t, then they should say so, no point dancing around the bush. If it is because of some contradiction then they should make it clear. No one benefits here.
In talking about whether western tanks ‘suck’, some do. But not all. The armor on some should definitely be improved because it is severely underperforming in some regards. See the Ariete and Leclerc. The latest Abrams also suffers to a lesser extent because of its massively increased weight for basically no utility other than heatfs(which now with stock apfsds doesnt even matter). So an increase in protection, even by a little to compensate for a loss of mobility should be well within reason, especially given the amount of information for the Abrams’ armor.
If you do not want to talk to me, that is fine. It is within your right to do that.
“well if it isn’t, then they should say so,” They do. They’ve been overly clear about this for years. See:
“See the Ariete and Leclerc.” Have you ever used them? And don’t say “Well everyone says they suck!” That is totally irrelevant. People can be wrong, and with the WT community, often are just blatantly wrong. I was told by many “The only thing good in Italy is the armored cars!” I was told many times over the Ariete was “nigh-useless,” at best. Through my own experience of just not being horrible (I’m not even a ‘great’ player.) at the game, I’ve realized these are both false.
“The latest Abrams also suffers.” Again, you haven’t used it, and the Abrams got a reload buff that some are saying makes it probably the best or top 3 MBTs currently, unless you get your opinions from SpanishAvenger, in which case there’s no hope for you.
Hate is a strong word, i feel like gaijin overlook Britain and simply dismiss anything that needs to be fixed. I mean it took 2 years for the mobility to be fixed… Funny enough it only happened once they adda premium version.
This does not help conversation about these tanks, we have concrete stuff to look at and compare which are not subjective and directly effect how tanks perform.
Do leclerc and ariete have worse armor, mobility, gun performance and qol features compared to other 11.7 mbts? Yes
Objectively they are worse tanks, as they do everything that other tanks do just worse. It doesn’t matter if you can make the 10.3 ariete work yourself as this same tank faces 11.7 in another variant THAT YOU HAVE NEVER EVEN PLAYED.
So to say it with your own words,
Have you used the 11.7 mbts? Have you ever played a 11.7 match? No? Then you have nothing to contribute to this topic if all you do is spew about your subjective experience.
I will not answer to any reply you will send in this thread as to not derail from the initial topic that Gaijin has issues with their bug report system.
I think looking at the bug report about azur and now the reload time we get to see a pretty clear picture of what problem gaijin has.
What they need is clear rules of how to dispute bug reports, level the playing field and not elevate secondary sources and websites above primary ones just because some developer thinks this is the right number and everything else is false.
If we need a primary source or 2 secondary sources to even open a bug report they would logically need the same to dispute it
It’s true that there is a problem of perception of unfairness. That Gaijin developpers and technical moderators reject insufficient or contradictory documentation (even primary sources) is to be expected. The core of the issue and, I suspect, the reason for this poll is that it’s pretty obvious for everyone reading the forums that there is no clear rule in place. If the rules were clear and followed clearly by mods and devs, then community members wouldn’t be so frustrated when their bug reports get rejected apparently randomly. And if (as Gaijin argues) it is not random, then they should provide better justification for their decisions. Perception is everything!