Is there a precise list of what document are considered trusteful ? It would saves a lot of time for both the players who make reports and moderators/developpers cause they would have less useless things to check
We are always monitoring the whole community for feedback.
3 Likes
İts good to know that your guys are monitoring any diccussion but as you can see this situation became so big that something has to be done in order prevent potential havocs.
Developers refusing any sort of possible buffs for Leclerc family while making countless unrealible excuses that people started to not to trust them.
They should do something otherwise this will not end well.
1 Like
That I understand well but Smin the only thing that Gaijin can accept to repair the Leclerc are documents currently Classified, and being classified Gaijin refuses them, how do you want us to do? We are stuck and Gaijin will never make an effort. Even if a D’AMX engineer made a documentary Gaijin would refuse it, it’s pathetic and Gaijin passes for crooks nothing of what we provided them and enough. By dint it should not be surprising that players are starting to complain.
4 Likes
I read the thing you just send and on all the report I saw to improve the Leclerc, the documents used were things considered acceptable and authorized… However every time, we are told to bring more sources which is basically impossible…
I would really like to know what source Gaijin used to develop the Leclerc…
3 Likes
For exemple a report was made for the lack of ERA in the block on the outside of the Leclerc’s turret: I have seen two “reliable” document mentionning their presence but we are kept getting asked to get more info
By the way, I’d love to buy “document that are sold legally” but if its for the developpers to tell me its no enough then screw it
3 Likes
Oui c’est aussi je que j’ai remarqué en jeu, pour le coup je ne sais pas si cela aurait une mauvaise incidence sur les capacités motrice du Leclerc si ont diminué de 10 rapports à 5 rapports.
1 Like
I almost started writting in French…
In this case there is enough document to prove it but it might “not be a bug”…
I mean the whole “They’re not a bug and should be passed as suggestion” is kinda… that.
And again, Spookston delivered undisputable proof from the US Army itself proving gaijin wrong, and they still ignored it. He literally did gaijin’s work for free, all that for nothing.
And as far as more modern vehicles are concerned, you know full well that we can’t provide actual sources are documents are still classified. So when a platoon leader state that something is present on a vehicle he operate on a daily basis (like ERA blocks in the turret) and isn’t modeled in the game, this should lead to the devs revaluating the current situation of the vehicle, because we’re not going to be able to get any actual values.
Again, the problem isn’t us, we’re doing whatever’s in our power to prove to gaijin that their current implementation of the tank is spotty (to stay polite) and that changes are needed. Gaijin needs to be more open minded with reports regarding modern vehicles.
Nothing’s been done about the T-80BVM and its ammo detonation issue or ERA being black holes. Nothing’s been done about Ka-50/52 early rushes. Nothing’s been done about how oppressive Russia is at top tier.
Japan and Israel are still missing a high tier AA. France is still missing an IFV line and lacking stabilized vehicles in general despite them existing. Buffs have been asked for the Leclerc for years.
All of these concerns have been voiced over and over and over and over again for years at this point. You’ll have to excuse me for having a hard time believing you.
8 Likes
I again have something that say the “blocks” on the side of the turret aren’t in steel but composite armor
Personnellement j’en ai ras le bol de passer 20 min à traduire mes messages il y a le Tag “fr” donc après tous… Les autre ont cas faire comme nous utilisé Google traduction.
1 Like
Simple.
They looked at that Leclerc’s photo and slapped some random armor values on it.
İ remember when XXI was about to getting add they claimed that increased thickness on gunner side wasnt actually equal to better protection, people got so mad and provided so many documents to the point where they couldnt ignore the reality and decided give better protection.
Even that situation shows how they are refusing to buff or lets say model it properly.
1 Like
Beeeeeeen copie/colle depuis un traducteur après y avoir tapé ton texte x) ça ne prend pas bcp plus de temps que de taper en français pp
C’est ce que je fait tk mais quand je regarde ce que ma traduction donne en anglais elle n’a plus aucun sens alors ducoup de doit la ré modifier pour que nos amis les anglais puissent comprendre 😂😂
If someone has access to [« La Protection Balistiques des Chars Modernes », Trucks & Tanks Magazine, mars-avril 2018] it could be really usefull for the armor issues (if Gaijin dare to do something)
Not at all. I was explaining that your report is passed as a suggestion and not a bug. You do not need to submit them as a suggestion. They will simply be classified as such. There was no implication that anyone submitted a report wrong.
Im not sure what this case has to do with this topic or the Leclerc. This was an issue of conflicting source material over a series of bug reports which are currently under review.
Sadly crew from all kinds of vehicles make statements all the time. If we took them all at face value, vehicles in game would be a whole mash of combinations that conflict with actual written and known materials. So therefor as a set rule, we cannot simply take the word of crew members alone.
As made clear and explained in detail here, the devs are very much aware of the complexities of modern vehicle armour and all materials are possible to be submitted for consideration as a suggestion. But it does not guarantee that the information specified in it will be implemented in the game.
Nobody has claimed anyone here is an issue. Simply that the current submitted information is insufficient for the developers to consider a change.
Once again, we appear to be going further and further from the topic. Which I can no longer assist with after laying out what’s required for a report to be considered.
Please feel free to submit any reports you wish and we can review and pass any valid ones that meet the minimum criteria.
3 Likes