Almost everything is either missing or wrong when it comes to Leclerc.
The only thing that is correct is Turret Rotation Speed looks like…
1 Like
Honestly, I’m pretty sure that the Devs never go on the forums, possibly on the Russian forum, you understand, a developer can’t mix with the slot machines that we are… I think that nothing is communicated to them, ahhh, we’ve had the right to a few messages in blue but only to explain how the bug reports work or how their advisor system works.
But I don’t remember seeing anything like “I understand your frustration, so I’m going to actively ask for explanations” and in the event of feedback, answers? No…
What would it cost the developers to make some kind of “Bultin” or whatever it’s called, but in any case, explanations from the developers on the Leclerc’s situation, such as why they categorically refuse to add the OFL F2, their sources for the Leclerc’s armor (because if they refuse ours, why not, but at least have the courage to show us theirs - what are they afraid of? Of showing that they don’t have any more proof than we do?)
There’s also the question of the French CF, which hasn’t been implemented with the deep-sea fleet. Any explanations or solutions? No, nothing…
In short, the players are on their own.
6 Likes
THIS. This is exactly why I made a thread to get them to look over the work their staff (especially the consultants) do. No communication other than some Gaijin mod giving us a generic excuse on how they work.
@Unl3ashed20
That’s the official verbiage used.
Report moderators cannot dictate what will be done, and developers may not have an answer for them right away cause they might be busy working on another issue at the time of it being passed to them.
@Panther2995
Toxic behavior such as that does not make changes happen.
Leopard 2A5 PSO’s armor has been passed to devs.
KF-41 is accurate to our knowledge with any bugs passed to devs.
British armor is getting massive fixes this major update…
Yeah but I have something you don’t:
All the reports have been forwarded, nothing about telling us that they’d need more sources or whatever. Just closed and forwarded to devs. Nothing afterwards. Probably went directly into the trash bin
1 Like
Reports at “worst” stay in their file systems.
I doubt any get trashed cause there are valuable data to reference back when necessary, especially when considering future conflicting reports.
Such as F-4EJ CCIP vs no CCIP.
Not when it’s been taken as “disproven” by their so called sources. They probably only do that in case they got some sources twice and don’t need to reverify them
1 Like
… Why am I not surprised.
Seriously, it doesn’t matter how hard we try and what information we give them, it’s never enough.
2 Likes
Didnt asked your opinion so keep it to yourself.
İ made a peace with you but sometimes you need to know where to stop and not interfere Razer.
lots of green
Green means good right ?
right ?..
jk Leclerc is following the Ariete lifestyle now
2 Likes
What information tho? Cause the only bug report didn’t provide information on AZUR.
There was an Army Guide link which isn’t a source, and an image that suggested it could be ERA or composite.
So no information…
Stuff posted in here we talk about, but our little thread here isn’t a report.
Yeah yeah go on about it. You want a source? Wayback Machinehttp://www.nexter-group.fr/presse/dossier/ES/ES_armeblinde_VF.pdf
There
“Surprotection passive latérale et arrière complémentaire contre des menaces sur 360° en zone urbaine (IED, ALI…),”
1 Like
Could you check the source ?
When trying to go on it, all I got is an almost blank page with 4 pictures and next to no text :/
I am merely critiquing the report Wareta made, not opposing it, not degrading the attempt.
Cause I appreciate what everyone does to improve this game; we’re all in this together.
Your links are broken, and I appreciate the attempt at providing them for me.
Sadly your quote does not indicate ERA or composite.
I appreciate your reply.
My bad
Are you still sure the source is correct ?
I see nothing of interest in this particular source :/
And there’s no clickable link either
1 Like
Well, while the quote does not give that much informations, it still clearly states that the add on armor is a sort of « passive “sur” protection », hence disproving the presence of ERA, which is by definition active
@Unl3ashed20 for me, i still don’t see the text about the azur. Maybe it’s because i am on my tablet, but i don’t have a computer next to me
Not only that but also this link:
“Passive armor solution covering the front 2/3rd of the tank including the driver and fighting compartment” as well as specially mentioned for SLAT against RPGs
2 Likes