Legiondude, on Jul 12 2015 - 11:40, said:
Since it seems like modules would be an indicator to the tanks identity, how about we wait until the test server launches before reclassifying them?
That's fine, no rush.
As for the asterisk, I'm mulling over the idea. Since the charts are meant to bring some clarity to WoT's material I do enjoy the sentiment I'm just not sure if it has a place, unless there's a need for it among the other trees as well. How would you express definition of a "very definitive source" to a passerby player?
Directly indicated, or at least clearly implied, by a credible source.
The Russian reports aren't credible enough nor is the turret picture. They are just pieces of information. The Mi-To 150 drawings give no indication of date. And the drawings are the only thing that show a 15cm cannon thus no correlation with anything published as everything published so far state a 105mm cannon and no mention of a 15cm (or any other caliber). Therefore it's difficult to think that the Mi-To with the 15cm was the vehicle that performed driving testing. I'm sort of expecting Suzuki (as he owns the drawing collection for Mi-To 150) to eventually publish something explaining the cannon as he, or anyone else that he has shown, must have noticed the cannon is not the Type 92 105mm or any other 105mm but much like the Type 96 150mm cannon.
My concern for bringing up the idea is that anyone that is making references to these graphs may fall under the false impression that the color coded indications are all well grounded. So then as the same people making reference to the graphs later discover that some of the color coding (i.e. some of the Japanese heavies) are not necessarily well grounded, they may feel less confident in the graphs as a whole. The integrity of the whole project would be damaged. But by distinguishing what is well grounded and what is on the on the level of, at best, "probably", the integrity of the whole thing won't be harmed.
Edited by SoukouDragon, Jul 12 2015 - 12:26.