What kinda annoys me is when moderators don’t specify what source they use as their justification when denying bug reports. I’m not saying all moderators do this. Some mods do give their sources and they get my tremendous respect. However for those who don’t, it’s hard to verify what they are saying is true and we have to take their word for it.
I suggest that when devs are using sources to make their vehicle, they cite it in a document (preferably google docs so that it can be updated with ease) and when the vehicle gets released in a patch, the document is released in a directory (it would pretty much look like a wiki but with vehicle specifications) so that everyone knows where they got their sources.
Not only it allows us to see what sources they use, it gives us transparency and allows for us to verify the authenticity of the vehicle being implemented in game.
I would like to see this for every vehicle. I understand that it takes tremendous effort however, I feel like it’s a necessary step to bridge the gap between devs and the playerbase.
What do you guys think?
Edit: Can we please stay on topic? I understand that a lot of systems are not implemented correctly however, this is not the thread to talk about it .I mainly want to talk about how this can be implemented.
Edit 2: As a stop gap, devs should respond in a format like this:
for developers to respond either they should accept the bug report, or respond in a format like this:
Response (Accepted or Denied):
Reasoning (it could be for balance, they don’t know and made a reasonable inference, sources provided is not sufficient or doesn’t meet standard, or sources the devs have is accurate):
Sources (devs don’t have to provide the source, they can just cite it):
Id love more transparency, but speaking from experience, even when citing sources, the devs will straight up lie, so dont get your hopes up, it will probs just end up annoying you more.
Case in point:
Ignoring the fact its patently insane to think the germans never improved the Leo 2’s armor ever since the swedish trials in 1993, its already clear the game does not match the numbers seen in the swedish tank trials, which THEY THEMSELVES CLAIM TO BE BASING THE ARMOR ON.
There are many more pictures in some of the leopard 2 or german threads compairing the strv122 and leopard 2A7V to the swedish trials numbers, but in general, the Strv122 underperforms them a bit, and the 2A7V underperforms them a lot.
No amount of primary documents are enough to get gaijin to budge on a position they dont like. They will model things how they feel like modelling them when they feel like modelling them unfortunately and will lie straight to your face about what the documents say. Thats why they dont show their sources, because they know they’re lying and they know its just gonna be a bigger hassle if the community at large does too.
Also you sometimes need to find hyper specific documentation, and even then it goes both ways as an example;
The report for the GPU-5/A 30mm Gunpod to be mounted on the F-15A & -15C was rejected, since I only had pictographic evidence of it mounted to the F-15B that served as the surrogate for testing the F-15E configuration during trials, even though other sources state that it can be mounted on the MAU-12 bomb rack with no modification, and the brochure makes no reference to a specific variant.
Further the A-7E also has access to the GPU-5/A even though the USN never purchased any, nor was party to said trials but they were flown on the A-7D, of which the -7E is a modification of, I’d put in a report for its removal but I’m not exactly sure how you are supposed to go about finding “documentation” to prove a negative. (Also I do need to put one in for the A-4E as well)
Also there was a failed attempt to get the GPU-2/A 20mm gunpod mounted on the A-4E “Early”, aborted due to it being literally impossible to externally identify the airframe it was mounted to being an A-4E “Early” (with ECM hump fitted), the A-4F (Rolling upgrade to the A-4E “Late”, with the ECM hump fitted). Even though I can prove that the unit had all three variants in question in active service at the time of the trials (only one of which was an A-4F, working on a separate program at the time). Even though again documentation makes no reference to the variant in question, and that it would be a drop in replacement for the existing 20mm Mark 4 mod 0.
It’s funny because the exact same references were used in a second GPU-5/A report for the F-15E was accepted. I’m also still waiting on the report for the GPU-5/A for the F-16A-10 to be actioned as well, though it has been seen in the files and was submitted while it was on the Dev server way back.
There is also a whole series or reports about the FIM-92 that they have been sitting on for months now that would completely overhaul their performance in basically all respects, I wish a CC or two would pick up on them, and make them a more widely known issue especially considering the “Article” that their MANPADS expert put together, which is directly addressed in the report, and has glaring issues.
I’d also be nice to know why exactly the POST seeker was not included when the, Optical Contrastrange extension mechanic was implemented, even though it has something that is functionally identical, though operates slightly differently.
I do agree with referencing the sources used. They would make bug reporting a lot more simpler.
To be clear, I am not saying that they should provide the source material itself, just its name, ISBN and author name, the same requirements they use for bug reporting.
However if they did that, people would see how much stuff gaijin makes up for the sake of balancing and would start crying about it
It would also be great if they cited sources for every vehicle tweak/change. I’m still sad about them chopping my beloved Lorraine 155’s reverse speed in half without documenting it. As far as I’m aware, it wasn’t mentioned in the update changelog, let alone with sources.
(Credit to @gszabi99 for the datamined info)
While I do agree with you, even when there’s no source backing up they will simply say its for balance, that is if they even bother to answer at all. I doubt they will answer this post.
Yeah, should’ve clarified that. Wouldn’t want Gaijin getting in legal trouble. Also including the page number would be really helpful.
For the stuff that gaijin makes up, they should try their best in inferring how it would perform and state how they made that inference in the document.
its because they dont have a consistent implementation. if they did the igla wouldnt pull 60 degrees off the rails which it CANT do in real life whilst the stinger and mistral are still stuck with proven wrong g overload and awful seekers.
Honestly I think they would accept a report on changing the internal 20mm to the 25mm that was originally intended before they accept this, despite having even less evidence
Gotta love how Gaijin claims this, yet also claims things as absurd as M829A3 having no difference from M829A2, despite what the Army has said about the round
It makes sense, but only in the specific context of Rolling airframe missiles, that use an open control loop and Bang-bang actuators; such as the Redeye (FIM-43) or Igla; but as the Stinger uses proportional Control surfaces, and has an Closed loop Control scheme, it’s not limited in the same way.
It shouldn’t apply, but does because whomever went looking for resources didn’t even try to look at (western) patents or spend all of five minutes googling around.
I’ve said this sometime in the past before but I feel like back when War Thunder was exclusively a historical WWII/Cold War vehicle game, Gaijin’s policy on implementing suggestions was more clear cut and simple, but now that classified documents and such are involved in researching vehicles, Gaijin clearly uses the outdated (((dokuments))) policy as an excuse to hide behind balancing decisions, which leads to a LOT of community to dev frustrations for more modern vehicles.
I feel like if they implement something based on gameplay balance, they should just be transparent about it so people aren’t forced to dig through a mountain of paperwork to have Gaijin blow players off. I may not agree with certain balancing decisions but it is much more preferable if they were honest about certain things than Gaijin devs maintaining a curtain of silence behind closed doors as to why they won’t tweak/buff/nerf X based on existing documents.
It functionally isn’t that much of an improvement over -A2 if run though the Penetration calculator, AND the ERA Bypass mechanic is not implemented. Which was the point. That performance depends on additional mechanics being implemented and that is something they are yet to at least commit to.
It’s the same with how early Anti-Radiation Missiles apparently “Can’t track moving Targets”, it’s not that options like the Shrike (AGM-45) or Standard ARM (AGM-78) they are talking about but the Kh-28 / -58, and other assorted Soviet Missiles that were designed to go after Static Western Strategic Early Warning Radar installations, and so do not include the bands for Tactical Radars, but have very long range, and large warheads comparatively.
