This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
13 Likes
能发起个投票吗，我中系陆空全开，我支持删除中系科技树，现在一上线就tm被自己开的线恶心到，傻逼游戏回回给你搞小动作区别对待，所有的issue都是以最大的恶意低估性能，觉得你展板数据太牛逼了就“我们建模测算了一下打不了25km”，不是哥们那你要资料要个屁呢，你怎么不把游戏里的弹药都建模测一遍按自己的建模走呢？极速0.6-0.86mach取最低0.6mach，一个半穿/高爆弹头搞成纯高爆，还给上一套超压限制的代码，哪个反装甲不好用选哪个是吧，上次是偷摸改VT5倒车，这次是偷摸把中直RWR全砍了，合着傻逼gaijin是看老钟什么时候发现不了疲于抵抗那就名正言顺实装了是吧，那就干脆不存在这个系就没毛病了。
38 Likes
我中系所有载具都研发完成了，中系有23个徽章；但是我支持删除中系，因为gaijin真的不做人，该给的没有给，胡乱的猜测数据，恶意的贬低
20 Likes
根据内部模型调整导弹性能并非针对中国。Gaijin 在某种程度上对所有国家都采取了这种做法。我个人不太喜欢这种做法。不过，我认为这对平衡性来说还是有意义的。
(Sorry if this translation is bad, using google translate)
Untranslated
Adjusting missile performance based on internal models is not some bias against china. Gaijin does it for all nations to an extent. Personally, I am not too fond of it. However I suppose it makes sense for balancing.
2 Likes
哥们，平衡纯属搞笑，你不能在导弹很强的时候用模型削弱他，你也不能在导弹很弱的时候就不用模型加强他，如果你不用真实数据，那用来平衡的权重是做什么用的？gaijin压根就不能在真实数据上考虑平衡，最多只能在装填时间这种人为属性上平衡，现在中系的情况就是既不平衡也不历史，这也是我不会给任何人推荐这个游戏的原因，毕竟你这个游戏标榜历史
bro，balance reason is a joke, you can’t use internal model nerf it when missile is op(although it’s not op at all), you can’t use model buff it when missile is weak. Then what’s the point of battle rating? Gaijin shouldn’t consider any balance issue on a weapon data, at most something like reload time which about person skill issue. The things happen in CN TT make game neither balance nor historical, I won’t suggest anyone play this game(a game mark as historical MMO) because this reason.
15 Likes
不必陷入自证陷阱，当人家说出“大家都一样，这是平衡问题”的时候，就说明已经在拉偏架了，实际这几年过来中系受到的平衡问题、故意歧视问题贴吧里都能整理出一本书了，然而再怎么甩出来他们也不会认的
20 Likes
倒也不是自证，我现在认为最好的办法就是让北方工业直接以外观侵权介入删掉中系就好了，中系删掉之后我这样的中系玩家不玩了也不会继续被恶心，中国载具之后也不会出现在其他系被傻逼gaijin瞎几把搞
10 Likes
再说一次，我个人并不认为这是一种理想的平衡方式。然而游戏就是这样。它的目标并非是要对中国造成比对其他国家更大的伤害。
Untranslated
Again, I personally do not think it is an ideal way to balance things. However it is how the game is. It is not something which is targeted to harm china more then other nations.
你再说这一通有什么意义吗？你想表达的意思就是“我知道我们这样不对，我们就这样，但我们不改，爱玩玩不玩滚”
What’s the point of your sentence again? What you’re trying to say is, “We know we’re wrong, but we don’t care. We’ll keep doing it if we want to, and if not, we’ll just stop. Play or get off.”
12 Likes
对，直接删系，放过自己
3 Likes
中国的区域防空呢？ISSUES区面对不同系不同的审核标准呢？无资料砍掉中国直升机的RWA呢？早就通过超过一年甚至更久的ISSUES却迟迟无法实装呢?还有更多，我不否认你说的所谓“平衡”，那为什么中国每次都是被平的，而不是被衡的？[quote=“Xeno_quaza, post:8, topic:264006, full:true”]
再说一次，我个人并不认为这是一种理想的平衡方式。然而游戏就是这样。它的目标并非是要对中国造成比对其他国家更大的伤害。
Untranslated
Again, I personally do not think it is an ideal way to balance things. However it is how the game is. It is not something which is targeted to harm china more then other nations.
[/quote]
7 Likes
你说平衡，那肯定要根据某种数据来做平衡，那我请问GAIJIN官方做所谓平衡的依据是什么？现如今测试服的CM502KG又在哪里体现了所谓“平衡”？俄联邦在当前版本最多可以拥有最多12发（su30、su34）恐怖的KH38+1枚3000kg滑翔炸弹，这又在哪里体现了所谓“平衡”？
11 Likes
然而事实就是在历次版本更新中，中国不断的受到越来越大的不公正待遇。如果gaijin公司执意这样做，我们中国玩家会发动所有手段向有关部门举报，让这款游戏彻底失去中国市场。双输总好过单赢。
12 Likes
虽然版主被视为Gaijin的代表，但重要的是要记住，我们实际上并非Gaijin的员工。我只是在澄清那些明显错误的观点，同时也表达我对此事的看法。
我之所以加入讨论，是因为我认为玩家群体之间进行真正的讨论非常重要。这超越了你们少数人在更大的英文区大声抱怨的范畴。我并非某个令人毛骨悚然的Gaijin代表，在这里说你们单方面错了。
Untranslated
While moderators are seen as representatives of gaijin. It is important to remember we are not actually gaijin employees. I am simply dispelling ideas which are blatantly false, while also presenting my view on the matter.
I am here to join this discussion because i believe that it is important to actually have discussions between player groups. Beyond that of your vocal minority complaining in the larger english section. I am not some spooky gaijin representative here to say your are one sidedly wrong.
1 Like
删归删，如果删了能退钱或者是等价转移还有科技树载具的科技点和银狮都能转移的话的话我一定是支持的
4 Likes
作为版主你有做到你该做到连接玩家与gaijin之间的沟通吗，中系“被平衡”的时间长达数年，gaijin的不作为，和论坛管理员的和稀泥才是问题的关键，issue审核标准不透明，平衡定义不清晰，把玩家当刁民，尤其是觉得中系玩家的呼声是抱怨，从上到下的令人失望。
As a moderator, have you truly fulfilled your role of bridging communication between players and Gaijin? The Chinese tech tree has been persistently “balanced” for years, with Gaijin’s inaction and forum administrators’ dismissive ambiguity being the core issues. The issue review criteria lack transparency, the definition of “balance” remains vague, and players are treated as troublemakers—especially when the feedback from Chinese tech tree players is dismissed as mere complaints. This top-down attitude is utterly disappointing.
11 Likes
但是，明显的歧视看不出来？从地面单位到空中单位有哪个做对了？新时代的装备比不过其他的20世纪80年代的古董？用官方资料发issues还原性能永远是“not a bug”，认为是”第三方资料“,削弱永远是直接通过，资料来源就是巴兰尼科夫“我认为”。
But can’t you see the obvious discrimination? Which one did it right from the ground unit to the air unit? Is the equipment of the new era inferior to other antiques from the 1980s? Using official information to issue restoration performance is always considered as’ not a bug ‘and is considered as’ third-party data’. Weakening is always done directly, and the source of the data is Baranikov’s’ I think '.
This reply is translated using mechanical translation
6 Likes
我没有，这就是为什么我不会对你提到的具体例子发表评论。我相信你们对具体措施实施的诸多不满确实有其道理。然而，说这是对中国的偏见是不正确的。我在《战争雷霆》中看到过很多国家都有这种情况。
Untranslated
I have not, which is why i’m not commenting against specific examples you are mentioning. I am sure many of your grievances about the implementation of specific things has weight to them. However, to say that it is bias against china is untrue. It is something i’ve seen for many nations in warthunder.
所以还就是安东的那句话，只玩你喜欢的不就得了？
1 Like