Community Update No.8: Responses and What’s Coming!

[Milashny_Koteyka]

@MAUSWAFFE

Well, if I come to this game wanting to play a national military then it’s pretty bad for me to see I have to play multiple trees to find maybe a handful of vehicles from that nation in each tree.

My point on that is, it CAN and SHOULD be a national tree with national tanks - but it shouldnt be a greek subtree with leopard 2s in israeli which uses merkavas.
If your country really uses the copy+paste machines, then just apply the national decal to it - this won`t change a thing. And if there is a unique model, but its like there is only 5 greek tanks out there which arent copy+paste, then it should be those 5 tanks added to the developers of that tanks.

Because i chose to play the nation not to get “another t-55 and leopard 2a4” but rather to get its unique machinery.

And having said that, making main three “donors” to minor countries makes them irrelevant as trees, as you can get most of their techs in other countries, and those which you cant usually happen to be cacti.

@MAUSWAFFE

Many variants and even entire vehicles are exclusive to domestic use, and their strong industry often means they have even more prototypes to expand on that.

and then we have that duality where ‘ones’ need and ‘others’ dont because applied different logic. YES, i agree, there are plenty and pretty of unique domestic machines, prototypes, ect ect in main nations. NO, they hardly count as ‘gameplay diversity’. Yes, im a big fond of the idea to keep trees unique, and no - i dont want to apply that logic only to those who ‘have many tanks’ and ‘dont need subtrees because main nations’.

I strongly believe that if you only have several unique machines, then they alone should be added to the producer/designer country to keep nations unique. And if you happened to have MANY unique models, as Korea does for example, then its okay to have own tree or subtree, based on the country`s history and\or ‘relationships’, or even straight up on game balance.

[Milashny_Koteyka]

@TheDudesRug

Such as the CM-11 in the Chinese tree (even if it’s slow as heck).

best part is that it is unique, making it enjoyable. Same with M48 Super in germany - the fastest M48 in game with a character

[AurenKarach]

@Milashny_Koteyka

making main three “donors” to minor countries makes them irrelevant as trees,

Gaijin looks at the game the following way: if you complete one tech tree, you have finished the game (I think they literally worded it this way in a Q&A). Everything else is endgame content.

Since people tend to stick to one or two trees, they chose, instead of incentivising people branching out, to make every tech tree a “complete experience” where you get a bit of everything.

It is not a state of affairs I like, but it also isn’t gonna change. That ship has sailed a long time ago.

[paolgand1975-psn]

From extensive experience, I can assure you that the tendency to overrate Italian stuff comes mainly from the Italian mains themselves.

Heavy tank riots? That’s a compression issue, much bigger than this discussion.

Agility? If you’ll pardon the joke — it’s a clear case of Tafazzi syndrome: that self-sabotaging urge to find any excuse to get a higher BR.

[Milashny_Koteyka]

@AurenKarach

Gaijin looks at the game the following way: if you complete one tech tree, you have finished the game (I think they literally worded it this way in a Q&A). Everything else is endgame content.

if it`s like that, thats the dumbest reason i ever heard (if its not hard for you, may i ask you to find where they did say that? I never heard of that so, its pretty stunning for me)

Tho even that way, the ‘complete experience’ doesnt require you to touch EVERY single instance of the machinery in that game, it may also reflect all the game mechanics and other unique parts of the game that you can touch while completing the tree. Meaning it doesnt neccessarily have to be “complete a tree and touch every tank that game has”, rather being “Complete a tree and touch every mechanic we have”. That being said it is completely being seen like that: when new mechanic added, every tree gets some of the machinery to use it. Drones - light tanks being added and/or remade, Autocannons? ATGMs? yes! Terramorphing - of course, every country gets a machine with an excavator scoop. Flame bombs? Of course everyone gets at least one instance! Parachute bombs? Same thing!

So its not necessarily needs or is meant to be like “add every tank in every nation”.

@AurenKarach

That ship has sailed a long time ago.

tho i doubt that as we started having clone wars maybe several years ago, as Gaijin became the “hungarian” studio. Each and every instance of clones before that was labeled by them as “neccessity to make tree playable”, for example, the british and US tanks at 2nd rank of France, or “to complete the tree” as the 1-3rd Chinese ranks. Back then we at least tried to have unique trees - France, Italy, Sweden, and then again even Israeli Merkavas were made for US because “we dont intend to add Israel as it has not much tanks”. And then something broke - 5 M44s, 5 M55s, 5 mosquitos, each and every update MUST have at least a single added machine for EACH tree, ect ect ect.

[Knuckles7080-live]

You forgot about the survivability of said vehicles most of those vehicles that have a single launcher on top giving it great hull down advantages like it1 or shtrum s witch are in the same rank witch is how most of these single launcher vehicles should be used as scouting vehicles camping in the distance or a ambush position the Bradly was practically made to replace m113 so theirs no surprise of it being better than m113 also Bradly tow missiles have less pen than most of the missile that these other vehicles have in the rank
Also .50 cals or anything as strong can pen the Bradly turret armor and kill the gunner/commander it may not be reliable but it’s possible as the turret is 25mm all around and .50cals can pen armor 10m-100m.but the m113 and similar vehicles should have scouting/drones or artillery available to them if they don’t then
they should get them. Those apc’s relay on teamwork really

Edit: not to mention other vehicles like Spz bmp1/bmp1/zbd86, marder one, and amx13 hot

[AurenKarach]

@Milashny_Koteyka

if its not hard for you, may i ask you to find where they did say that?

I’ll take a look, if I don’t find it I’ll ask TEC on stream since he probably remembers it. I thought it was the Dec '24 Q&A with BVVD, but it’s not that one. In any case, it was a while ago, I would say a year or more.

@Milashny_Koteyka

Tho even that way, the ‘complete experience’ doesnt require you to touch EVERY single instance of the machinery in that game, it may also reflect all the game mechanics and other unique parts of the game that you can touch while completing the tree. Meaning it doesnt neccessarily have to be “complete a tree and touch every tank that game has”,

Well, if you play China, you won’t be using Panthers and Tigers. But you will play an Abrams and a T-34-85 and an IS-2 and perhaps one day even a Leopard 2… So even without literally touching everything, it would still allow you to experience a substantial part of what Ground RB has to offer, yes?

You’re looking at it from the player POV. Look at it from the POV of a for-profit company.

You observe a phenomenon: most people stick to one tech tree (and complain a lot about balance, whether warranted or not). So you as a developer are spending money and time to develop 3D assets that most players are never gonna touch.

You have two solutions.

One solution - encouraging people to branch out - is an uphill climb. Controlling player behaviour is hard, and to do it successfully you would have to rebalance several aspect of the game’s economy and perhaps even the matchmaker.

Another solution: you make every tree “complete” by adding nine M48s, ten Leopards and seven Chaffees.

You are now producing content that people will actually play - because it’s literally everywhere. It doesn’t matter if you play Germany or France, you will have the M44 regardless, and the P.204, and the Clovis, and, and, and.

You also save up on resources because of c&p, redirecting them elsewhere.

You get to space out the unique vehicles. Now if you add the Hummel, it’s not as part of one update where all the WW2 arty comes in at once, it comes in one update and gets the headline, then the next update the Sexton does it, etc etc etc…

If you’re a company, which option do you pick? It’s basically a foregone conclusion imho.

[paolgand1975-psn]

What you’re saying confirms that all APCs equipped with an ATGM have huge operational disadvantages compared to a Bradley, which may have its limitations but also undeniable advantages.

Moreover, almost all APCs have an exposed gunner, and the hull is just air, and offers only about 10-15 mm of aluminum more than the Bradley’s turret.

Let’s be honest: all APCs converted into tank destroyers are rather sad, situational, and disadvantaged.

Spz bmp1/bmp1/zbd86, marder one, and amx13 hot: I didn’t mention them because they have a lower BR, which just confirms how disadvantaged APCs with TOWS are in the game

[EvilMan5298-live]

For anyone curious — here are the technical specifications of the new Mosquito:

technical specifications

[Milashny_Koteyka]

@AurenKarach

I’ll take a look, if I don’t find it I’ll ask TEC on stream since he probably remembers it.

Will be waiting for answer, thank you

@AurenKarach

Well, if you play China, you won’t be using Panthers and Tigers.

but you would use the machines that would have same mechanics as them

@AurenKarach

So even without literally touching everything, it would still allow you to experience a substantial part of what Ground RB has to offer, yes?

Yes, tho even without Abrams, Leopard 2 and Tiger, you definetly will still get the experience of the GRB. And it will be even more substantial if you won`t meet the same tank against you that is not a tropty (like KW-1 747).

@AurenKarach

You’re looking at it from the player POV. Look at it from the POV of a for-profit company.

As for that, that make me wonder even more, as if we look at the game from the F2P MMO, the most crutial for devs is to keep players online, meaning that making them grind several trees for different experiences is PRETTY MUCH THE POINT of having different trees - to keep player online, to make him spend money on different premiums. For example, why would i buy the M1 ClickBait, when i can buy the Al-Khalid and have FOUR different top tier tanks - Abrams, Leo, t-80, ZTZ99? Its strongly against profits.

tho then again, making different trees takes time and money as you need to make more assets. But i look at it as at a “continuous” profits: yes, its easier to cut costs here and there to add 5 same tanks in 5 trees to win a quick buck, but on the long term it only makes ppl less interested in spending time and money ingame as they can touch most of it paying only once and playing short-term.

@AurenKarach

One solution - encouraging people to branch out - is an uphill climb.

its not that "encourage"ing them is hard - you add new unique machines to other tree, ones that are interested in it go and grind/buy it. And then again, adding that same tank to THEIR own tree wont make them pay more, rather if they stick to that tree they will grind it whatsoever in some time anyway and wont even notice the difference.

@AurenKarach

You are now producing content that people will actually play

No - you produce content for those who dont really want it, making it easy way to make big numbers of things “you have” in game, but small amount of those who interested in it. Those who play will get what they want by playing or paying - and those stuck on a singular tree will play on which machines they got stuck on, making new added vehicles a toy for newbies only.

@AurenKarach

Now if you add the Hummel, it’s not as part of one update where all the WW2 arty comes in at once, it comes in one update and gets the headline

well, thats one way to look at it, and its a relevant way for sure. Other way to look at it - you now have ppl who wanted Hummel talking bad at you because “huh why didnt you do it instead of M109”, and others who say “nah we have m109 why make the tree bigger”. Yes, certainly will be those pleased, i certainly will be, but now the HUMMEL is being outdated for sure.

@AurenKarach

If you’re a company, which option do you pick?

Depends. I dont agree that cutting costs so much and making a quick buck of it is really a good way and that it will keep the game relevant for much more time.
Tho there is pretty much no competition for War THunder now, so no where to go except leaving the tank shooters completely, and that gives the devs a card blance for such actions…

[KillaKiwi]

The both have blue and white in their national flag 😂

[BirdBonk]

@七-十三

SU30 AND RAFALE FOR JAPAN THE NEW STRONGEST NATION IN WART HUNDER FUCK YEAH

we dont talk abt indian vehicles for the uk 🤫

[AurenKarach]

@Milashny_Koteyka

the most crutial for devs is to keep players online, meaning that making them grind several trees for different experiences is PRETTY MUCH THE POINT of having different trees

Yes and no. One of the ways to incentivise players to try out different trees would be to reduce the grind, for example. That also includes an element of risk, because maybe people won’t do what you expect. The important thing for populating lobbies is how long you spend in game. Whether you’re spending it playing one tree or five different trees is secondary.

@Milashny_Koteyka

but on the long term it only makes ppl less interested in spending time and money ingame

Eh, I’m not sure. For example, since a lot of people have a fixation with reaching top tier, the current system incentivises the purchase of very expensive top tier premiums to skip grinding a tech tree altogether.

@Milashny_Koteyka

you add new unique machines to other tree

The thing we need to keep in mind for “sobriety” is that even when tech trees were unique, most players tended to focus on one or two. So uniqueness alone is not enough to change that tbh.

To be clear I would much rather have a system where we have max 4 or 5 separate multi-national tech trees that are each unique in flavour. But if we want to understand why we’re in this situation instead we have to analyse the decision-making process and the obstacles, unfortunately.

[Knuckles7080-live]

@paolgand1975-psn

Spz bmp1/bmp1/zbd86, marder one, and amx13 hot

They’re all 8.0 vehicles

@paolgand1975-psn

APCs converted into tank destroyers are rather sad, situational, and disadvantaged.

Witch like I said Apc and similar vehicles should have scouting/drones or artillery available to them if they don’t then they should get them. Those apc’s relay on teamwork really

@paolgand1975-psn

almost all APCs have an exposed gunner

Witch most apc have 4-5 crew members

@paolgand1975-psn

all APCs equipped with an ATGM have huge operational disadvantages compared to a Bradley, which may have its limitations but also undeniable advantages

God I hope so with how much money went to making the Bradly a replacement for m113

Like I said theirs trade offs the apc get stronger missiles and is a good hull down vehicles the Bradly has a deployment time to use its tow missile witch have less pen also its a bigger target compared to a apc btw m113 have the same amount of armor that a Bradly hull armor has. At most I see the br moving to 8.7 like the bmp2 but not any higher do to the m3a3.

[andresuager]

Thats so may amazing things to war thunder! lets see if we could get the Trophy APS fixed after 10 months that its first report was accepted

[Raptor-Dark]

@magazine2

The Damage Control Window for Naval

turo also for land units?

[racimazzedine]

new tanks

[BlueTrain]

Fact!

[KhorneFlakez1337]

We have enough 30mm autocannons in the game already…

[KhorneFlakez1337]

Sure, for Israel, but not for Britain.
It really should be a seperate tech tree though, considering how many vehicles they operate.