The Abrams bulkhead is an accepted and approved report that gaijin ignored. The stingers have literal documented proof that gaijin said nu-uhh to because their math that isn’t applicable to a completely different family of missiles and was and is contradicted by the weapons real sources said the Igla couldn’t do it.
5 Likes
Then you follow the procedure.
The trouble you may also be facing is the documentation you are providing may not be available or applicable to what you are saying.
The situation that you’re trying to evoke is commonly what happens when the content creators get out there with a video, and everyone comes in with their thirdhand ‘knowledge’ and scream into the forums, like it was the wind, and then get all cut up because they got shut down.
1 Like
The Abrams bug repot was following the procedure and then having them ignore it anyway. and the Stinger one was them following it and gaijin using documents from a completely different program and country to disprove something. (They would never accept this from a community report.)
Both reports followed proper procedures one was accepted and both were completely ignored contradictory to available evidence.
6 Likes
You escalate it in the manner provided in the who to contact thread.
and get ignored for years.
2 Likes
You won’t if you follow the escalation order and push for it to be recognised and fixed.
Things like the “escalation order” only work if it’s a path to getting a bug fixed. Gaijin has time and time again proved that they do not actually care about it.
You can only expect people to follow rules and procedures if you yourself do. Gaijin doesn’t so the community finds other ways.
It breeds discontent and encourages people to go around the rules when you blatantly ignore them.
5 Likes
It is a path to get it fixed, hence the escalation process.
Don’t excuse the ignoring of that path to play the old ‘Everybody reported it, Gaijin ignored it’ fallback for anything, much as what I’ve been pointing at.
It’s not a path though. If you follow the procedure and gaijin ignores it it’s not a path to get fixed. bugs sitting for 5+ years when the path is followed properly makes it not a viable path.
3 Likes
No, I don’t think that any of your reported bugs have followed that path considering when I mentioned it you seemed to infer that you’d merely posted all the details that everyone missed.
And that is where I’m leaving it… You instantly made out you couldn’t understand what was said, and made out I was speaking broken English, and that alone was the start of you trying to draw this out and make it a problem.
I literally didn’t understand what you said and I said that incase I responded to you wrong. I apologize I’ll just leave it out next time.
1 Like
Factually incorrect
Some reports are accepted, which means they have the required information and should at least be reviewed by the developers, but some are just never acted upon
Then there’s the cases where one brings primary sources to the table but the devs decide they understand better than the manufacturer because clearly developers and weapons engineer is the same thing
That leads us to hilarious things like the manpads article, a joke so good i still laugh about it 3 years later
Note that those guesses and bug report picking more often than not favors one nation in particular, which loops us right back to the issue of “russian bias”
Let’s also not forget that turning down well sourced bug reports - sometimes using documents the reporter had to pay for - with guesses and napkin maths / physics is both quite disrespectful for the reporter, but also damages the bug reporting system quite a lot
In the end, if someone feels like a system is filled with double standards and does not bring any result for the effort given, that person will resort to other means
1 Like
Kind of funny that I see this forum post after being prompted in-game to take a survey about the Heavy Cavalry update.
1 Like
I see it all the time as a commonality.
Doesn’t mean all.
About naval gamemode, i want to understand why players say “Its very bad”
Of course there are some bad things, like the uptier that ruin the balancing.
But in overall, its good. You cannot compare naval with tanks. Naval are in open sea.
Does those players really played naval ?
I am still waiting for the crew model update, and the fix for the ARB. The mixed mm was something out in in desperation when they didn’t add equivalent vehicles to the tech trees.
Having planes built for specific purposes but not being able to fulfill that purpose makes them a wall in the grind because they add no other value than being nice to look at.
Add a new game mode, country based, or even vehicle based matchmaking (splitting east and west block vehicles) would be interesting.
1 Like
This is exactly what pretty much everyone is asking for. It is absolutely beyond me why Gaijin is refusing to do anything with this
Wow, another survey that will change nothing.
1 Like
Not really much to enjoy about the game, it is ok as a bit of a time waster like Candy Crush or Cookie Clicker, not particularly noteworthy enough to waste time or money on.
It has far too many flaws and problems to rank or rate it as anything better.
1 Like
One thing I wanna bring attention to is the ground vehicle damage models. There are COUNTLESS vehicles that are missing hitboxes and armor values on a lot of different features/shapes/equipment that would actually make big impacts on them. Things like different spotlights on tanks (m60a2 for example), M728 for example has that whole crane around the turret that is completely missing from the damage model. Tons of vehicles have no collision on boxes, diving equipment etc… too many to name. These changes would only make things more realistic and accurate. I don’t see any reason why they should be omitted, a few polygons to the vehicles wont hurt performance, specially seeing the insanely high detailed models being put into aircraft damage models currently.