First of all, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to all the dedicated community moderators, especially Monika. The hard work and efforts of the moderation team are evident to everyone. You have done an excellent job bridging communication between the players and the development team, and we all understand the challenges you face. I wish you all even greater success in your future work.
The following questions and discussion are directed solely at the War Thunder balance team, the development team, and the Bug Reporting Managers. They are not aimed at any other players or community staff.
First question to the development team:What are the standards and data sources used to determine the parameters of in‑game vehicles?
War Thunder has always prided itself on being the most realistic vehicle combat game. To achieve that, the creation of content must necessarily be supported by concrete, real‑world documentation. So what exactly are these sources?
Every time in the Bug Reporting section, players are required to provide “non‑third‑party sources” for suggested changes. I would like to ask the development team: where does your data come from? Does the material you have access to meet the same standards you demand from players? There have been multiple instances in the game of gross data errors, verbatim copying from Wikipedia, and misinterpretation of source material. The prevailing view among experienced players is that the development team “does not understand military matters.” For a game that claims to be a realistic military vehicle simulator, how can a team that lacks military expertise be entrusted with the creation and balancing of in‑game vehicle data?
If the development team’s own sources do not meet the same requirements imposed on players, then this constitutes a serious and unacceptable double standard—a fundamental breach of trust that cannot be tolerated.
Second question to the development team: What are the standards for modelling classified or sensitive parameters?
We all understand that modern vehicles are subject to high levels of secrecy, and the development team cannot obtain precise, detailed documentation. However, that does not give them license to invent arbitrary values. To cite a few glaring examples: the Brimstone air‑to‑ground missile still uses only laser guidance; the weight of the M829A3 round remains incorrect; the British Challenger 2 MBT has had a turret basket module added for no apparent reason; and the armour package on the M1A2 SEPv3 is also wrong.
All of this demonstrates a complete lack of military reasoning and basic common sense on the part of the development team. If certain aspects of a vehicle or weapon are classified, players have no objection to using placeholders—for example, instead of specifying the exact explosive filler of a missile, simply writing “Chinese high‑efficiency blast fragmentation warhead” would be perfectly acceptable, even if its performance values were set to a weighted average of existing in‑game explosives. Players would not take issue with that.
Third question to the Bug Reporting section: What is the submission mechanism for the Bug Reporting section? How are Bug Reporting Managers selected? Is there any qualification assessment? Are their professional competence and expertise evaluated?
I believe most players have experienced this firsthand: the Bug Reporting section frequently contradicts itself, seems to argue with its own previous decisions, fails to understand player submissions, and closes tickets arbitrarily based on keywords or personal whim. Does Gaijin officially conduct any review or qualification checks on Bug Reporting Managers? Are there regular performance and expertise assessments? Currently, the Bug Reporting section’s decisions often fail to earn the trust of players—especially veteran and community‑active players—and this situation may even directly contribute to player attrition.
Fourth question to the Bug Reporting section: Why are data mining, player calculations, and third‑party simulation platforms not accepted as sources?
War Thunder features a highly complex data modelling system, where the same piece of equipment can behave very differently under different conditions, and these behaviours are often not easily quantifiable. Data mining and third‑party simulations can clearly and accurately present these details. Gaijin has introduced in‑game performance graphs, but these are far from sufficient. Most data discrepancies appear in the air domain—parasitic drag of various pylons (Additional Drag), missile drag coefficients, engine thrust envelope charts, aircraft drag polars, etc. The game provides no channel for players to obtain such information, which severely hampers communication between players and the development team and makes Bug Reporting submissions difficult.
That is why data‑mining groups and third‑party simulation platforms have become valuable resources—they offer players a way to access these data. Some of these platforms are widely recognised by the community and have proven their accuracy through practical testing. They should be admissible as supporting evidence for Bug Reporting submissions. The same applies to player calculations: as long as the calculation is correct, it should also be accepted as valid evidence. After all, that is precisely the purpose of the Bug Reporting section.
Fifth question to the balance team: What are the criteria for buffing or nerfing vehicles?
As a long‑time player, I have often seen certain vehicles or entire nations being adjusted for no apparent reason. What is the basis for these changes? Is there a complete, rational formula for macro‑adjustments, or are they decided purely on a whim? Looking at the available data, for example, the German top‑tier win rate last patch dropped to 45%—does that trigger a buff? War Thunder has a very high grind cost; when a player chooses their first nation, that choice will likely define their main gameplay experience for the next one to three years. Therefore, shouldn’t the development team actively balance the various nations? If one nation becomes overwhelmingly dominant (e.g., the current state of the Soviet tree), it severely degrades the experience for players of other nations, and the high grind cost only compounds the frustration—leading directly to player churn.
As for the Chinese top‑tier aircraft, why has it been repeatedly nerfed? Its win rate and global K/D are both around the average. Are these nerfs merely arbitrary decisions by the development team, with no justification whatsoever?
The above are the questions I wish to raise with the War Thunder official team, as a veteran player and active community member. I am confident that many other players share these same concerns. I hope the official team will take these questions seriously, because many of the changes and adjustments are not particularly difficult to implement. Over 90% of players are simply asking for fairness and their due rights as customers. I have invested a significant amount of money and time into War Thunder—I still have over 100 days of premium account remaining. I do not wish to see our legitimate concerns and questions brushed aside with vague replies or corporate platitudes.
Our demands:
1. Disclose the development team’s source materials , so that players can know where the data for in‑game vehicles come from, and can use those sources to help correct errors.
2. Establish a strict and fair review mechanism for Bug Reporting Managers , improve the submission process, and introduce clear, transparent rules to regulate their workflow and assess their professional competence.
3. Launch a player vote to select a publicly trusted third‑party data simulation platform, and allow data from that platform to be accepted as valid Bug Reporting submission sources.
4. Publish the game’s balance mechanism , so that every buff or nerf has a traceable, rational basis.
5. Increase the authority of community moderators , and raise the weight of their suggestions and feedback in the game’s development process. Community moderators are a vital channel for player‑developer communication, and the official team must pay greater attention to the opinions they convey, as these truly reflect the views of the player base.
I have never advocated for venting through insults or emotional outbursts in the community. However, sometimes the official team’s actions make it extremely difficult for players to remain rational. I sincerely hope that the official team will face our reasonable and fair demands head‑on, and not let down the passion that millions of players have for this game.
The original text above is in Chinese. I have used translation software to produce this English version. Please excuse any awkward or unclear phrasing. Thank you.