ZTZ99A — when will these accepted issues be implemented?

These issues have been accepted for two full years, yet the developers have still not added them to the game. So far, only the VT-4’s spall liners have been implemented. Have these issues seen no progress at all over the past two years?


https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/aCvur3pO1tmd

https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/u1eWnPupv39Y

84 Likes

ACCPETED SHOULDE BE IMPLEMENTED pls

17 Likes

希望这些问题能被解决吧

11 Likes

Every time a player wishes for spall liners in the ZTZ99A the VT4A1 goes up 0.3 BR

17 Likes

I have many other examples of accepted issues for Chinese vehicles that have yet to be implemented, but I won’t go into all of them here. Currently, key top-tier Chinese vehicles like the 99A and VT-4 still suffer from various problems in terms of both accuracy and combat performance. The developers should seriously consider implementing these long-approved issues.

13 Likes

赶紧出内衬吧

5 Likes

The 99A’s ammunition loader height has remained unchanged to this day. Gaijin has fixed numerous incorrect armor models but is unwilling to address this “minor issue.” Is this really such a massive undertaking?



The two screenshots show the current in-game state on the left, and the correct autoloader height as indicated in the accepted issue on the right. I don’t see how this is a particularly difficult change or one that requires more reference materials.

25 Likes

Regarding the ammunition loader change, I have a more direct example. P1 shows that the VT4 and VTA1 ammunition loaders were raised last October, but shortly after they were lowered again. P2 shows the current state of the ammunition loader. I have no idea why Gaijin moved it away from the higher position — perhaps they accidentally scrolled the mouse wheel a few extra times. In any case, this demonstrates that making changes to the ammunition loader is not a difficult task. So why, two years after the issues for raising the ammunition loaders of the 99A and MBT-2000 were accepted, have they still not been implemented?




This results in the ammunition loader of the 99A, VT-4, and MBT-2000 MBTs being exposed outside the main armor, creating an even larger weak zone. This further reduces survivability after a lower front plate penetration and is also inconsistent with War Thunder’s commitment to historical accuracy and realism.
bc918066f15841a87223cd033904001f_720
ae1238fbe31490b37823e93ce2e10249_720

21 Likes

It can take a long time for fixes to be implemented. Israel has been waiting for Merkava fixes that were “Accepted” to be implemented for about 4 years now I believe.

It shouldn’t take this long but I wouldn’t expect fixes anytime soon.

The company should take this more seriously.

10 Likes

not a bug

2 Likes

快进到闻着味过去给Issue删了

8 Likes

They have so many accepted reports on vehicles in the game that some of them have been sitting unimplemented for years. it’s really aggravating!

5 Likes

The thing is, many of these issues require extremely minimal work to fix. The 99A has already undergone a massive rework of its armor model — compared to its initial release in 2022, it’s practically a completely new vehicle — yet in the end, the devs won’t even bother with just one internal module adjustment. The VT-4 ammunition loader example I gave clearly shows that this doesn’t require any significant amount of work.

7 Likes

There is definitely something wrong with Gaijin’s internal resource allocation and the way they prioritize which accepted issues get implemented. I get the feeling they prefer to focus development on the new premium vehicles released with each major update and the infantry mode that has drained a massive amount of resources, rather than addressing the existing problems that most directly impact the player experience — especially those issues that have already been accepted.

5 Likes

I truly believe that Gaijin needs to take these issues seriously. These demands are clearly reasonable and grounded in reality, yet the developers seem stubbornly fixated on adding their own personal touches to certain vehicles, just to satisfy some kind of bias or emotional inclination.

5 Likes

And now they are directing valuable development time into a infantry mode before fixing important vehicles

1 Like

Actually, even without an infantry mode, these issues wouldn’t be resolved either. Tweaking things with the current materials would take almost no development resources at all.

2 Likes

I even believe that by fixing these issues and patching up the weak areas on the front main armor, the 99A’s battle rating could be increased to 12.7.

2 Likes

The issue of the loader mechanism model repeatedly raising and lowering was purely because, at the time, the VT4—being a Thai tank—was about to be added to the Japanese tech tree, so they fixed it for the Japanese VT4. But once the Japanese VT4 was withdrawn, they reverted everything back to how it was. I can hardly believe they would engage in such blatant double standards—this is practically an outright insult and mockery of the players, right in their faces.

4 Likes

This kind of double standard is just infuriating

4 Likes