Wasnt the beefed up japanese Me262 passed for consideration precisely because the engines, unique to it, were actually built, unlike rest of the plane?
I do not know, sry.
(i was just trying to further illustrate your point)
1 Like
Of course there is, if there are parts that are not fake or have some source on how they should be then thats how they should be. Or do you think that the F16AJ should not be subject to changes to the F16-parts that is has? There is a difference between pure fantasy and following the plan drafted for a not built vehicle. These changes are the latter.
1 Like
Then, the guns were corrected. You are missing my point. My point is that because they are removed, they shouldn’t receive any changes. Because they are removed, and usually that means you can’t play it anymore, but Gaijin chose to remove it only from research; rather than the game as a whole. Meaning a select few still have it.
Rules & guidelines for suggestions, vehicle specific rules
I don’t see how the Ki-201 is relevant to this discussion, and you leave out the other part of the post. “No major individual, vehicle-specific parts (i.e. guns, powerplants, etc.) of the vehicle were built”
Meaning that the Coealian would not be accepted, because the turret, a major vehicle specific part was not built. The guns being updated/corrected is by these standards, somewhat correct, but still not entirely so – because they also wouldn’t be accepted because they are not intended for the vehicle as Ghostmaxi himself states.
Again, I will re-iterate, my core point is that because these vehicles are removed they should not receive any changes to them. Because by the standards laid out, they would not be accepted. Your point regarding the F-16 is arguably a different case, because the vehicle was tested by the Japanese in the configuration it is in game. The Coelian and other removed vehicles are not in the same category at the F-16AJ.
The guns, sure, you can argue for the changes to them being valid – but it still goes against what I am trying to say, the fact that these vehicles are removed and as such, I think it’s fair that they receieve no changes to their modeling, and should be put in a state of limbo in terms of their balance.
What you cannot argue for, is the changes to the armor of the turret, which was never built.
By the logic applied in this bug report, the T-34M (A-43) should be a vehicle that is for addition, but it of course isn’t. But because the Flakpanzer 341 is a unique case of a vehicle that is ahistorical and already in the game, the changes can be applied, despite how they relate to a aspect of the vehicle that is the very reason for it’s removal.
That is the issue here, and is what I mean by selective balancing. It’s contradictory to Gaijin’s standards, but because the Flakpanzer 341 has a unique status of already being in the game – it is allowed. It shouldn’t be so, and is why I think these vehicles should be put in a state of balance limbo.
While this is unrelated to the main debate, please don’t join the conversation and immediately ping someone else to argue on your behalf while repeatedly interjecting to reinforce their points. It comes off as a pile-on. Thanks.
1 Like
Well thats just your opinion, but that doesnt mean its right. Yeah i made a report for the Turret armor, because it was wrong to the turret, that it was removed because it wasnt build, doesnt mean it shouldnt/cant be corrected to be how it would have been. That all still doesnt change, that its still removed from research.
You starts to sound like strawman arguments. Overall it rather doesnt matter and i decided to just dont answere you anymore, we are turning in circles and i simply dont care no more (about your opinion).
1 Like
yeah and Gaijin and most people in your poll disagree with your core point. And youve been given multiple explanations why
So its not selective then? Because there is no precedent of a removed fake vehicle being not changed due to being fake in the first place.
1 Like
I think the whole issue of your post, which is supported by that little vote you have there, is that youre just salty you dont get access to Coelian now that its buffed.
Ki-201 by itself isnt relevant, however what is relevant is the criteria for its possible addition was met, that being vehicle specific part being built (engines).
ah yes, because as we all know, its just the turret floating around the game. No gun, no chasis, no engine, nothing. Just the turret. How obvious. /s
Ki-201 wasnt built either, its engines were. But engines alone do not make plane fly. You also need wings, which were not built. Yet Ki-201 was still passed for consideration.
That is beside the point however, because Coelian was removed precisely because there were no specific parts built for it.
Didnt know it was prohibited to actually invite people to discussion on topic they know a lot about (since Ghostmaxi would have needed to be familiar with the Coelian to suggest the gun bug report in the first place).
1 Like
It does matter, because balancing of these “removed” vehicles effects the experience of the larger player base. The turret itself does not exist, and it feels silly that the hypothetical configuration is respected to begin with – as the vehicle is suppose to be removed, but isn’t – instead only made unavailable for research. That’s why I think that they should be removed entirely, or put into a state of balance limbo.
My example with the T-34M was to illustrate the situation from the perspective of if you were to suggest a vehicle that is roughly in the same state as the Coelian in terms of what was built.
As I said in the OP:
“For the longest time, my own understanding regarding the performance of these paper vehicles is that their stats/performance are frozen in time, because of their fictitious nature in the game.”
It was my own understanding, and such, my opinion. It turns out I am wrong, which is why I made this thread – and in retrospect, I should have written it differently, and titled it differently as well. Either way that is done now.
Also, it’s not like people don’t agree with me in the poll even if this is a minor amount of people, idk why you’re saying that.
You’re free to disagree with me, but I think my point regarding the armor of the turret is valid logically speaking. It should not have been changed, as is the vehicle as a whole.
Text book ad-hominem. Calling me salty to dismiss my points and the thread as a whole is arguing in bad faith – and I’m not going to let it slide. Don’t do that. There’s not much else to address here.
The Coealian isn’t removed by the traditional sense; it’s in a weird in-between state of not being available to the majority of the player base, like event vehicles. Because it is in that in-between state, in my opinion, it shouldn’t receieve any balance changes. Also, your satirical statement doesn’t really add much either. You get what I mean.
The Ki-201 being passed for consideration does not mean it will be added.
It’s not prohibited to invite people to discuss on the topic, but the fact that you posted: “How it feels to ping that one guy who knows his stuff” (along with that gif) – right after, gives me the vibe you are intending to backseat the debate and initiate a pile-on. It doesn’t help you constantly interjected to reinforce his points, instead of directly contributing yourself, that is the definition of backseating. It felt like a pile-on, and the way you’re acting now reinforces that feeling/vibe.
It’s also bit of a strawman to say that I’m “prohibiting inviting people to the discussion” – which isn’t cool.
Yeah thats what you think and Gaijin thinks differently it seems. And like i said its not selective since these 2 are the only cases of removed fake vehicles getting a balance change. Thats why your T34 example doesnt fit here.
They are disagreeing with you. 79% say that fake vehicles should get balance changes, yes 50% say only if they come back but thats a can of worms Gaijin doesnt want to open.
Is it not your motive? Your vote even has the option “Only if they are made aviable for everyone else as well” highlighted and you keep insisting that since it is only aviable to few players, it should not keep getting any adjustments at all.
Even in the same response only little bit further down you again reiterate that point - since it is not aviable to the majority of the playerbase, it should not keep recieving any adjustments.
lol.
No one said it would be added - what was said that Ki-201 had to reach certain treshold, standard or rather level of proof of existence (of its specific parts) for the addition to be passed to developers in the first place.
It wouldnt be passed to developers if it didnt meet this level of proof of its existence.
Because whatever I would said would likely be what Ghostmaxi said and still he would need to corrected me afterwards because my knowledge on the specifics of Coelian doest not match his.
And even then, its not prohibited to agree with someone or add to their argument, lol.
It is not my fault youre alone on this.
Oh Im not saying you are explicitly prohibiting it. Its just that you constantly point it out as vaguely bad thing.
Ultimately this whole thread is pointless, as it was already decided.
Gaijin already stated they do not consider adding back the removed german trio, making it clear that the “Only if they are made aviable for everyone else as well” option will likely never happen, and the removed vehicles did in fact recieved adjustments, meaning the “No they should remain unchanged” isnt the official stance.
1 Like
51% say they should get balance changes only if they would be available for everyone else, so no longer removed.
32% say they should get it, even in the current situation.
17% say they should remain unchanged.
There’s a reason I added 3 options in the poll, not just two. Yes, my stance in specific is the lowest one, but the majority stance has the caveat of the vehicles being available for everyone else (no longer removed) – but I wouldn’t clump it together with the people think they should receive changes in the current state, is all.
I guess you are right. My bad. And yeah, it is my opinion – and I should’ve clarified that better. But it largely stemmed from my own misunderstanding after all, so that happens.
It comes off an insulting and dismissive, is my point. And it ignores the actual argument, because you are targeting me rather than my points, which is why it is an ad hominem. Keep in mind how you worded it. You called me “salty” when you have much more polite ways of wording that.
It isn’t forbidden to agree or add to someone’s argument, but you didn’t really add much.
I’m merely point out how your actions after pinging him indicated that you clearly saw it as a way for him to argue on your behalf. If you wanted to actually just get the subject matter expert into the topic, you’d have pinged him and left it that – not gloated about with “how it feels to ping someone who knows the subject” which was clearly evident with how you posted a gif. That doesn’t add anything to the conversation, and just comes off as you doing just what I said: gloating > satisfying your own ego.
And no, it isn’t your fault, but the way you act about in a manner that one can very easily interpret as boasting gives the idea that you want it to be a pile-on which isn’t exactly civil.
The way you’ve conducted yourself here gives the impression that you want to make a fool of me, rather than actually engage with the conversation – like H_ngma_ or Ghostmaxi for example, who addressed all I said directly, and we came to our own conclusions. And I respect that. We all have our own opinions.
You said “Didnt know it was prohibited to actually invite people to discussion on topic they know a lot about” which is saying I am prohibiting it, don’t dismiss what you yourself wrote.
I called it out once, and intended to move on. You felt the need to respond to it in a manner that is arguably, hostile, despite my initially polite tone.
As I said above, the way you conducted yourself here gives me the impression that you aren’t here to engage with the topic – rather, argue with me on a personal level which is uncivil and against the rules of the forum.
And I am not in the wrong for calling that sort of behavior out. I specifically worded my posts with you to avoid escalation, but you are the one who constantly chose that option. That is uncivil, and behavior that shouldn’t be tolerated on the forum because it doesn’t advance the discussion further.
The fact that you feel the need to say this as well indicates to me that you don’t want to engage with the topic, I mean you say it’s pointless – so why reply to begin with? You clearly don’t want to engage with the topic in a way that is productive, like everyone else. Which is counter-productive.
Either way, I wont engage with you anymore. I just feel it needed to point out your behavior as inappropriate, which it is, because you need to know it isn’t okay.
Gaijin doesnt want to bring them back to keep discussions about adding fake vehicles in the game quiet since they only bring problems. Of course people want something that only a few older players have (and thats really good rn), thats the problem with the way you worded your poll which is why i lumped them together.
1 Like
Yeah, that’s my bad. Sorry. And yeah, I get it. They shouldn’t come back.
no need to apologize. With the coelian being as broken as it is rn the poll would always have a flawed outcome no matter the wording.
Yours is essentially:
Do you think hidden/deleted ahistorical vehicles should receive balance changes?\
- Yes but only if i get the broken vehicle too
- Yes they should (maybe because you dont want to share the broken vehicle)
- No they shouldnt. (maybe because you dont want the vehicle to become broken, because you dont have it)
However doing only 2 would be problematic as well:
Do you think hidden/deleted ahistorical vehicles should receive balance changes? - Yes (I have the broken vehicle and i want it to be broken)
- No (I dont have the broken vehicle and want it to be not broken)
Its a real pity that the Coealin had to be this broken after the change, because it makes an objective discussion almost impossible.
1 Like
I understand the concerns raised here about buffs to unobtainable or paper vehicles. It can definitely seem strange or unfair that vehicles which most players can’t access are still being adjusted and “Buffed” Your points about selective treatment and inconsistencies are valid. But the decision to remove these vehicles to be avalable to new players to research was needed as they were not fitting what war thunder is trying to be.
Yes im aware there are still “fake” vehicles being added or still are in war thunder. And i cannot say personally what the plans are with these vehicles or about it being fair somehow.
As this user mentioned, these vehicles are still part of the game and available to players, so balancing adjustments, even if they are ‘fake’ or ‘paper tanks’. Are necessary to maintain fair gameplay and ensure all vehicles are treated consistently in War Thunder. Ultimately, the final decisions about what changes go live rest in the developers’ hands (or fingers, haha)
1 Like
These ‘paper’ vehicles/munitions need stop being buffed. Especially removed vehicles. Its unfair to those that didn’t get to obtain these vehicles. Heck I didn’t even know what the 341 was until the uproar I’ve been reading about.
If vehicle is in our game, it can be (and will be, if, for example valid bug reports appears) adjusted.
If you want to discuss specific vehicle, please use already created thread in Machinery of War section.
Thanks.
3 Likes