Broken penetration values.

[Krieger Blitzer]

So, apart from testing together the new maps throughout the map-pack v2 (which is still work in progress) with Endro... We have also managed to check few other things as well.. the video below speaks for itself, the conclusion of the video is summarized at its end;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeazsE3Z4W8
Keep in mind this video is unlisted, specially uploaded only so that the devs could have a look at!

Later more to come...

[JimQwilleran]

What a click-bait lol.

[Wake]

Good discovery. This should be changed.

For those that may not have watched the entire video:

The 75mm PaK 40 emplacement easily penetrates all US tanks at max range. The mobile 88mm PaK 43 struggled to penetrate heavy US tanks at max range. These are historically incorrect and should occur the other way around.

[Sukin-kot (SVT)]

xD what a crap this pak43 is

[Jalis]

I dont considere a test as valid if it is below 40 try or shoot on a target. And if compare to an other gun use exactly the same target at the same distance and run also 40 test / shot. You could need spare AT gun, to avoid veterency interfere, because test are always with none vet units vs none vet units.

out of that chance have a too great part. I usually disable target weapons to make tests and reduce mobility to 0.

[Krieger Blitzer]

@Jim;
I believe that you do still actually realize that this video is unlisted already, or I mean; only accessible with the link.. as it appears nowhere else in the search results. Which means that it's absolutely nothing that I would ever want to click-bait for, anyhow!

@Wake;
Thank you for clarifying the point of my video. It's all exactly like you mentioned...
I think when MarKr managed to standardize all the Axis 75mm L/48/46/43 guns on the last patch.. he just simply forgot about the 75mm AT gun emplacement.

@Sukin;
Hahahaha, I swear you didn't see anything yet I actually just discovered such a hilarious kind of a serious glitch with this unit... Just wait for my next video and see it for yourself.. it's going to be a public video this time, this Pak43 is perhaps one of the most funny units in the whole game, u will see! xD

@Jalis;
Yes, yes... Don't worry about that. Endro was always very nice to his Paks! Each time a Pak gains any veterancy levels.. he then managed to blow them up as a reward, while bringing new non-veteran ones
And once again, yes! We tested everything for like more than a thousand time in fact.. as we also considered testing in so many different methods actually.. what you can see on the video is not everything. These are only few examples

However; some facts are actually undeniable now...
1) Pak40 emplacements managed to penetrate both the Pershing and the Jumbo almost every single time without any kind of a struggle at maximum range.. while the normal mobile Pak40 couldn't do the same on the other hand.

2) Pak43 somehow bounces off sandbagged Shermans... Nuff said on this one!

[Devilfish]

@Jim;
I believe that you do still actually realize that this video is unlisted already, or I mean; only accessible with the link.. as it appears nowhere else in the search results. Which means that it's absolutely nothing that I would ever want to click-bait for, anyhow!

It's a click-bait to us, forum users, not random youtube people who wouldn't stumble on this video even if it was listed....

@Wake;
Thank you for clarifying the point of my video. It's all exactly like you mentioned...

Only you were the one who was supposed to do it lol........

I dont considere a test as valid if it is below 40 try or shoot on a target.....

I would agree normally, but what you've seen there is really enough to understand that it is broken. Long 88 should penetrate pershing and jumbo 95% of the time and common shermans like 99%. So something is obviously wrong, even without testing it 40 times....

[JimQwilleran]

It's a click-bait to us, forum users, not random youtube people who wouldn't stumble on this video even if it was listed....

Yes, that's what I meant .

I would agree normally, but what you've seen there is really enough to understand that it is broken. Long 88 should penetrate pershing and jumbo 95% of the time and common shermans like 99%. So something is obviously wrong, even without testing it 40 times....

That's true. I also noticed that 2 days ago when I played as def vs armor that the pak 43 I made bounced from pershings. I haven't noticed any problem with shermans though.

[Krieger Blitzer]

It's a click-bait to us, forum users

Sorry, but I won't let this sentence just pass away without questioning it... First; other forum users commented normally. If you and somebody else think that it's a click bait, then i guess you don't represent all the "forum users" anyhow.. secondly; you would at least have to probably explain me how exactly u think it's a click-bait.. otherwise I will have to report your both posts, since i believe it's quite irritating to me honestly.
One guy was banned recently for a similar activity, when other participants were also not excluded from the warnings btw... Just a reminder to you, and also everyone else here; including myself of course.

Only you were the one who was supposed to do it lol........

What's ur point? What do u mean here? Why only me?
I just wonder if it would be the same way the other way around too; was it only Nami the one who was supposed to respond regarding the click-bait thing as well? Since it's him who first mentioned about it?
Or then why do u first respond about it, but not wait for him??!!
Wake simply wrote what he understood from the video, until I later came.. while also clarifying once again by myself btw.

not random youtube people who wouldn't stumble on this video even if it was listed....

Of course they wouldn't, as I am totally aware about that... That's why I made it unlisted in the first place.. but u know what? I actually wanted to send it only as a PM to the devs and not to post it in a public topic, but later I told myself "Hmm, why not? it's not some sort of a very serious bug that could be ever abused like the teleport bug for example..." But looks like I was wrong again, because when I read comments from people like you.. I just feel so uncomfortable, and then sometimes I am the one to be blamed at the end somehow o.O

So ya, you have to explain me how it's a click bait now... Cuz I find it somewhat offensive.. keeping in mind others didn't point it out. But only u and Jim!
I think the topic title fits perfectly with the content inside.. I am not playing the role of an attention whore here, ya.. to me it pretty much sounds like if you are actually trying to call me as such. Unless you clarify what u mean please...

[Jalis]

@Jalis;
Yes, yes... Don't worry about that.

If video is part / summary of a larger scale test, it is more acceptable. However I prefere stat to movie, at least in matter of test.

If it can help ; it is possible to make this kind of test alone, even without modify anything with mod Tools. You just need test map made to jails tanks or infantry. For tanks it could be necessary to give them a fake/invincible target in order it keep desired orientation, an ennemy rock for exemple.

[Krieger Blitzer]

Ya, that's a good idea.. and I knew it's actually possible, even though i have never used the world builder for composing such tests... But ya; maybe I will give it a try next time! Although I actually still prefer testing with someone else into a real game-play scenario, since it's more fun too But thanks for the hint

[Devilfish]

So I must explain or else? Gonna get a ban? . You think admins are your whores, just crack your whip and they ban at your command?
Cuz you feel offended? Do you? What the heck happened that people are nowadays such a pussy butthurts....
You always have to make a farce out of everything but so be it....

So how it is a clickbait? Do you know what clickbait is? Apparently not, otherwise you wouldn't ask, silly me.
"content whose main purpose is to attract attention and encourage visitors to click on a link to a particular web page"
So instead of just posting a bug report, writing how pak43 bounces from persh and shermans and so on, and leaving a video link as a documentation (or a "proof" if you wish), you just blathered something about while working on maps blabla, this blabla, watch this video pls. And finished it with the fact that video is unlisted, implying it's something special because not everyone can watch it.
So you encouraged the people to click on your video, thus clickbait (look up the above definition if you forgot)

What's ur point? What do u mean here? Why only me?

What I mean is simple. Wake had to point out the actual bug/balance issue, because you just encouraged us to watch the video and said nothing. No idea what does this have to do with Nami.
It's like when you click on a youtube video because it has boobs in the thumbnail and you have to scroll down to comments to find this one with 1000 likes which says "Boobs are at 10:25" or in the worst scenario " There are no boobs!".

Of course they wouldn't, as I am totally aware about that... That's why I made it unlisted in the first place..

So you made it unlisted specifically because you knew nobody would stumble upon it anyway? You made the video invisible for public because you knew nobody would click on it? Does this make sense to you?

You know why nobody else said anything? Because they don't give a fuck. I just read the topic when you already reacted to Nami, "correcting" him and explaining how he didn't understand. So I've corrected you. That's all. Do clickbait all you want, I don't care.

P.S. Just in case, Butthurt: "Overly or unjustifiably offended or resentful"

***You better calm yourself down and watch your language sir, stop polluting the post with anger, its silly to start a brawl on this post, and no, we aren't tiger's whores, it started well until you put your finger on, its a disgrace for our new members to see that kind of bahaviour here, we will not hesitate to cut off people who don't respects each others, you don't like the dude? IGNORE him, im fed up to see that wall text of nonsense, warning sent.

[Leonida [525]]

Oh cmon i think this debate is simply useless. It's a bug reported in the forum with a video. I agree that Tiger should have written a more detailed first post so everyone could read without seeing the video, but i dont think it's a big problem for anyone who's not interested to see it all to step at the end of it at the summary. So in my opinion Tiger did this thing in a wrong way, but i cant help seeing that everything he does is immediately criticized, even if it's a good point to make the mod better, like this time. All other things does not matter. And now I fly away

[Krieger Blitzer]

Oh cmon i think this debate is simply useless.

I wouldn't even call this a debate in the first place...
Anyway, I think no one should expect me responding Devil's last post.. but I reported him indeed.
Don't know what's exactly going to happen... Maybe nothing at all happens for now, though not sure.. however; we must not forget about this one there:- viewtopic.php?f=16&t=1349&p=14078#p14078
So, even myself need to be careful.. which is what I already mentioned above btw.

I agree that Tiger should have written a more detailed first post so everyone could read without seeing the video, but i dont think it's a big problem for anyone who's not interested to see it all to step at the end of it at the summary. So in my opinion Tiger did this thing in a wrong way

I would have definitely written a more detailed first post, but why typing a wall of text while I have already provided an unlisted short video for it? With also a summarize at its end like you already pointed out too?!
So ya, I don't think I did it the wrong way.. if someone is just too lazy to watch a short video, then it's actually not my problem ^^

[Devilfish]

@Leonida
Of course it's useless. I didn't even criticized him. I just explained him what Nami meant with his comment since he obviously got it absolutely wrong.

@Tiger
At least be a man and have some manners. When you post a wall of text of how offended you are and how you demand explanation ASAP or you'll have me banned, respond to my nice and comprehensive answer.
Instead you just report me like a little kiddo (given reason probably hurting your feelings) and pretend you could not be expected to respond to such post, because...who knows lol.....

..., but why typing a wall of text...

The 75mm PaK 40 emplacement easily penetrates all US tanks at max range. The mobile 88mm PaK 43 struggled to penetrate heavy US tanks at max range. These are historically incorrect and should occur the other way around.

Such a wall of text. Significantly exceeding your average post length buddy...

***Devilfish has been ban for a month for insults via PM.

[Viper]

I didn't even criticized him.

surely you did not , criticizing is a polite way for expressing disagreement with somebody's actions.

At least be a man and have some manners.

but what you did is much worse, you are being impolite, you are provoking him more and more. looks like you want more of this drama.

Instead you just report me like a little kiddo

tiger already replied this point. he can surely respond you further. but looks like he doens't want more of this drama on the forum because he want to maintain good appearance. and is afraid to get involved into such dialogues again, not to get charged or banned.
on the other hand. looks like you can't understand you were warned before. you don't respect this place. or maybe you don't give a fuck like you already say. which is interesting.

Such a wall of text. Significantly exceeding your average post length buddy...

those two lines by wake are introduced at the end of the video already. tiger doesn't have to retype this here again if it's already in the video.


back to topic, just like everybody else.. i must agree pak43 is under performing. and pak40 fortifications are over performing. something has to be done.
but there is an idea around, what about to remove pak 40 emplacements? pak43 should be an emplacement instead. i guess this idea was represented before. but it had not enough interest i think.

[Krieger Blitzer]

back to topic, just like everybody else.. i must agree pak43 is under performing. and pak40 fortifications are over performing. something has to be done.
but there is an idea around, what about to remove pak 40 emplacements? pak43 should be an emplacement instead. i guess this idea was represented before. but it had not enough interest i think.

Ya, I also discussed this suggestion with some BK mates.. including Endro. And so far absolutely no one disagreed!
However; I doubt that there are any available models of Pak43 emplacements.

P.S
Just noticed those red lines above.. it's good to see forum moderators are actually still looking after the forum, hopefully everything is all settled out now... Let's be cool altogether guys!

***Tiger is banned for opening his big mouth, he will have a full month to think about it, i don't want any comments regarding bans.

[Jalis]

However; I doubt that there are any available models of Pak43 emplacements.

none are needed, an emplaced gun, is just an entity Inside an other. You have emplacement model, you have pak 43 model, you can have a pak 43 emplacement. Question could be, on the scale, where is pak 43 place between pak 40 and flak 88 emplaced.

[Panzerblitz1]

Again to make things crystal clear between us, the forum isn't a fighting area where people can insults each others freely and write hatred nonsense text wall regarding their useless brawls, its been messy between members for too long now without any friendly results, now its the time to clean the mess, and mess will be cleaned, trust me on that, no one is essential if they're acting like jerks.
Also, If you insult a team member and don't respects warnings, its a one month ban (it used to be permanent), if you continue that way, its permanent, respect the forum rules http://forum.bkmod.net/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=15.

[Viper]

at first i couldn't really understand why only one side (tiger) was banned but the other one (devil) was kept free and only warned. but now it makes more sense both sides get banned.
looks like there is no tolerance for anyone now. this is justified. but i am afraid you will end up banning too many people like this :/

but anyway can we now get back to the original cause of this topic?
the publisher of this thread reported a bug with penetration values and everyone approved. i think it should not be neglected. or covered up with speaking about another matter.

and is it possible we could have pak43 fortified? there is no need for fortified pak40 in my humble opinion.

thanks for reading!

[Panzerblitz1]

We are working on the PAk 43 and the PAk 40 emplacement penetrations.