The developer must show the vehicle's data source

Dev Server "Hornet's Sting" General Discussion - Dev Server
,
1

Developers should show what materials they use as a vehicle reference, not “we think this is the way it should be”. As a “history, simulation” game, the vehicle parameters inside should be well thought out.

Gaijin has always said that he will not use classified data, so the developer reference data is also non-classified, from the recent changes to the game’s vehicles and the creation of new vehicles, I can’t see whether the developers are using the right data,whether the vehicle model and the armor and firepower of the vehicle

In this thread"Discuss whether developers need to publicly disclose the relevant reference materials used in the creation of the vehicle"，Administrator only said “reporting standards have been consistent for all vehicles since we introduced modern vehicles.“,source of vehicle parameters is not explained.

Developers have to show the data sources they refer to, instead of always saying “we’re doing the right thing”, a large percentage of players are now suspicious of the metrics developers use on vehicles

45 Likes
2

this is a much needed QoL change. i support this!

10 Likes
3

Immense support. If they deny our source, they should present a more solid source than that.

9 Likes
4

There is definetly 2 sides to this problem

The first is the sheer volume of vehicles and the number of sources most likely used for each. logging all that would be rather insane and it would be near impossible to share every single source for every single vehicle.

The other side of the coin though, is that Burden of Proof should not fall solely on the community. Too many times Gaijin has denied a report but havent proven the report was wrong, or that the source was wrong. So they definetly need to get better at proving something is modeled correctly when denying a report.

But most of the time, with most vehicles. There are plenty of sources proving its wrong , but it wont be fixed not because they have sources that contradict, but because its not profitable to invest the time and resources into fixing the problem

As a bit of a side note, would also be good to see the devs provide evidence for why highly requested BR changes are being denied and same again for any vehicle moving up or down in BR

12 Likes
5

And if they do do that, it should be something beyond “it has average efficiency/our stats say it’s fine.”

2 Likes
7

When putting a new vehicle into game or a change to an existing vehicle, the data source should be recorded, otherwise it should be labeled as “speculation”, and the rejected proposal should indicate why it is wrong or why it conflicts with the current data (the current data should also be presented).

4 Likes
8

agree

9

This aspect could be resolved by adding sources to the bug report before they close it, demonstrating what they think is credible regarding their research. Though I do somewhat suspect that would be very depressing to see the quality of their research.

1 Like
10

I’m used to seeing references posted on the full changelog for modifications, typically when a a stat is changed like top speed, gear ration, turret traverse etc.

I don’t know that war thunder would have access to all their material sources. If it’s anything like producing history texts, dealing with physical archives for historic documents can be quite an onerous process where the archivists refuse to let you access documents, claim to have lost documents they can’t be bothered funding, lying about documents being lost etc.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the devs cannot access the document they originally used for most vehicles to verify accuracy

11

But even just providing the reference, if not the source, where possible, would be more than enough.

But even if it was limited to vehicles added in say, the last 2 years? Would mitigate that greatly

12

Thats quite fair, I’m getting a bit old and I forget that this game was new over a decade ago, I keep thinking Brittain wasn’t added that long ago 😬 but at the same time I think that documents for the original german and russian tanks have possibly been lost to time.

1 Like
13

References rarely appear for minor nation kit in change logs. Regardless, most of the issue is them arbitrarily ignoring reports, instead of a change being made. This is where transparency is most needed.

1 Like
14

Such measures would cripple Russia’s cyberpower development, and this strategy amounts to a decapitation strike on Gaijin Corporation.

15

that is fair

16

at least they start this from new added vehicles, especially the ones people concerned a lot, like the totally wrong VT-5.
in fact, gaijin uses third party website as source sometimes, but they don’t say.
for example, the Fakour-90 missile, which has a HAWK’s booster, is from a website news. honestly, it’s really ridiculous when HAWK’s rocket is 1m longer than AIM-54’s.
this time, it’s another attitude, they ignored all the sources and choose to make an imaged tank. “it’s a light tank so it should be made of paper”
I think there is a lot more to do to improve gaijin’s workflow, and be more open
also the bugs, many bugs only require lines of code even just a few words but takes months to fix.

2 Likes
17

Hello

What sources we have used or whatever we used to reach a conclusion are generally provided when answering any valid report that was passed/forwarded on for review when it is closed. Sources (and reports) are also listed in changelogs when a vehicle is changed via them.

Unfortunately with over 2000+ vehicles in game, it is not practical or realistic to have a place where every single source ever used in the creation, development and any subsequent changes post release via reports or internally could be displayed and kept up to date.

As you can imagine, this is simply not a sustainable thing possible to ever create.

1 Like
18