The team are checking all issues currently and will aim to respond to all reports as soon as possible.
thats why i put balance in “balance” since it rly is just a nerf to alot of nato weapons, … again
the problem is, if its “balance” then as, Smin sugested, bugreporting it probly wont change it
1 Like
The…What??? maybe for the lower tiers. Why should a bunch of Battleships designed for engagement ranges of 20 km or even more spawn and engage at 10 km or less? Its not what they are designed for, its not what they are good at, aiming at sub 2 km is broken with the indicator jumping around like it has a epileptic seizure or physically impossible due to not enough gun depression or raised bow that wont let you depress the front guns enough. Most of the times in top tier battleships it is better trying to get that damn aim marker on target in 3rd (!!!) person in close ranges than even bothering with gunner view.
And thats besides the point of the anemic maneuverability of most high an d top tier battleships and the fact that their armor vs each other in close distances is basically paper.
If they wanted to fix it, they wouldn’t have fobbed off my questions regarding why it was permitted to hit the production environment. Many weapons we will struggle to get precise information, and they will say that it isn’t an accurate enough bug report so it can’t be actioned.
It is incredibly clear they’re engaging with the playerbase dishonestly.
6 Likes
Blud what? Amagi having better armour than Rodney??? Its paper compare to Rodney or Scharnhorst has bloody 100 mm less on sides and 50 mm on deck then Rodney. 1 more gun ? Okay why is Mutsu 8.0 then it has only 8 guns? No if Mutsu and Amagi is to be 8.0 then Rodney, Scharnhorst, Colorado should too.
This got fixed a day after the tank’s release and the Abrams is still a flat 25.4mm for years
Like I asked before, why was the RAH-66’s armor removed from the dev server with no mention in the changelog? Did you guys intentionally pull the rug out from the pre sale guys?
Hello
The issue with the T-72 was simply an incorrectly implemented part of the model. What your reffering to on the Abrams is armour related suggestion report.
The helicopter on the dev server was still WIP and not final.
1 Like
Thank you. Unfortunately with how sim bugs are usually handled, I’m rather anxious that our fixes may get forgotten or pushed to the wayside.
Thank you for responding and acknowledging.
1 Like
once again Gaijin rushed the implementation and they rushed it because they broke the game balance. The First SAMS that have multiple parts should have been the HAWK, Rapier and SA-3.
Ease into them but no Gaijin have once again jumped balls deep into current day tech.
They need to stop and take a breath and start fixing vehicles and game modes.
3 Likes
I’ve been nailing amagis and doing no damage, whilst theyve been one shotting me
Lol who came up with those damage multipliers to a already bad damage system. We gave every of these in depth armor and module modeled ships the same number of compartments that will instantly be destroyed and then you will inevitably sink. And then we will double or triple the damage to these random number of compartments which apparently are not watertight to each other. HAHA wtf is this? Just introduce a health bar system or idk. This is like playing paper ships with modules but a bad health implementation of some random number of compartments of the hull slapped all over it. If this stays with those damage modifiers, i mean why bothering modelling the armor and modules at all?
The dev server had the Rah-66’s armor correct down to the material but it’s completely gone now. The work was done and it acted correctly. Instead now the Comanche is susceptible to light machine gun fire.
9 Likes
My god… the servers are acctually tweaking. I have been kicked out twice allready. And gues what? Instead of inplementing a system where your crew DOESNT get locked out and boosters NOT being used when its on their end would be amazing and verry fcking needed. I wasted 2 boosters beceause of their shenanigans but do you get compensated? Oh hell no. But here are 80$ premiums. I was looking forward to this update. But its nothing but a buggy unplayable mess
6 Likes
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/aYoKgiH6vo64
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/a2MJBVXUUhxZ
This two are important and must be implemented
It also has too much drag and low speed limit
I hate “Destroyed by” card, how can I turn it off?
12 Likes
Theres a lot of Bugs, for what Ive seen. For example the Strela-10m2 missles either dont track the plane or doesnt do any damage, The most annoying on is the “Enemy have captured the B” “Aliies have …etc.” it it pops up on the screen and wont go away for the entire match. There is a lot to talk about
1 Like
This is probably every single missile in game at the moment.
2 Likes
Anyone able to get into customs?, I can’t
I hope the current accuracy values are placeholder, and that they’re planning one making them more accurate to real life. SDBs got hit hardest by this change. They will still work against the lightest armored vehicles, but not much else. They may still work in most cases for ground unit farming in ARB or sim, but the tanks, IFVs or bunkers I don’t think you can reasonably kill anymore.
SAAB’s GLSDB at least advertises sub one meter accuracy as well, if it wasn’t clear already. Not sure if usually most GNSS weapons go that accurate, usually there’s no need. JDAM I think only has a 5m CEP for instance, only using regular GPS guidance, whereas SDB uses ground stations as well.
3 Likes
Yeah, its a real shame, once again, aircraft get A2G nerfs that only really affect air modes