So the problem lies here:。
when exactly will the so-called “in development” content be implemented? It can’t just be left unspecified and without any kind of “timetable” for players to look forward to, right?
You’re right, aren’t you, Leopard 2 PSO with its D armor package? How long has this thing been sitting in the ISSUE tracker as feedback, but has it actually been implemented in the game?
1 Like
Three subtrees seem to be what they’re going for, like Thailand/Indonesia/Malaysia or South Africa/India/Australia, this really shouldn’t be any different.
1 Like
Please, please, read the full changelog, not only Major Announcement.
Click this and start to scroll. Vehicle part is only small fraction of whole update. The rest is wall of text with bug fixes and other changes.
2 Likes
So far, we could see that number go up.
No… I’m not copeing for Canada in the UK, clearly why do you ask
1 Like
Sadly British Gazelles were never fully armed with anything meaningful for the game. It was initially considered, but sadly there’s no evidence they had the same compatibility as the French variants. And no evidence they had anything other than just SNEBs.
1 Like
+11111111. Whatever I have said for years. Let me attach a similar comment, based on the usual Leopard 2A4:
duplicate premiums are way better than unique premiums cause it prevents pay walling unique vehicles like F14D PUCARA T58 etc
its a good thing anyone who complains about them doesnt know what there on about
6 Likes
This. The starting point of this bandwagon called naval a slop, never stated a word on Pucara or Orao, just critisized the best monetization possible (cashing gooners) while not even commenting on the both copy paste and fictional AJS Early.
No wonder why the Chinese community is 10 times more effective to get their voice heard when international content guys are this aware of the game
1 Like
Well, you can still give it some other guns, for “balancing reasons” isn’t that what y’all say all the time?
duplicate tech tree vehicles are kind of sad, especially if it means that an original vehicle from that nation wont get added for that slot or only years down the line. they are okay to pad out loadout but still.
and while alot of people will hate me for it, i actually really really really like duplicate premium vehicles, it means that unique vehicles aren’t locked behind a paywall, increasing the chances to meet them in a match and therefore making gameplay more interesting. If i had one wish for this game it would be to have all premiums be duplicate of TT vehicles, even retro activly.
and there are 1000s of reports left to be fixed. the backlog grows faster than it is ever cleared.
Even if we generously state that there is only 3 bug reports for every vehicle, then that is still what 10’000 reports?
I would suspect the average is more like 20-30, with some more like a 100+. So Purely vehicle reports, and not weapons, or maps, or mechanics, etc etc. The reports are probably over 50-75’000 reports.
Let alone the fact that there have been no new gamemodes in years. Existing gamemodes never get updated (like not a single ARM target was added to ARB/ASB for this major update) and new maps are exceedingly rare (Air Sim hasnt had one in 4 years… 4 years… I dont think 1 per year would be an unreasonable ask)
If you (the devs) spent an entire year jsut fixing bug reports, refining mechanics, adding new maps, new gamemodes, etc and just generally improving the health of the game as a whole, then War Thunder would be better for it. Even if not a single new vehicle was actually added that year, which would be extreme, but at this point, almost needed.
Too much effort is put into adding new vehicles and not in making sure that:
- The vehicles that are added are in a good and healthy state
- That they recieve on-going support and bug fixes after the “honeymoon period” (and many dont even during it)
- That they actually have anywhere to be used effectively.
The B-One added this major update for example, sure its a C&P that fills a hole in the tree, but its totally DOA at the moment because the bomber overhaul hasnt come yet and may not for years, and there is no meaningful gameplay for an aircraft of that type in either ARB or ASB.
9 Likes
“Forwarded to devs” and “not enough information” 7 years ago
2 Likes
I was here for the backlash when you added the A6E and 2S38 as unique premiums along with the F-89s being still locked as premiums only.
I am one of those people who hate unique premiums because as part of the older guard, I experienced being left out of meta defining vehicles (for the time) because they were premium only.
I understand the reason for copy paste and I do appreciate the efforts to be more transparent in the future. I think that alone can help you alot.
Though I feel from reading the room, what people have issues with seemingly is the copy pasting without unique modifications I suppose? At least that’s the read I’ve been getting on things. Some also argue that nations that are anemic for choices shouldn’t have been nations on their own but we’re here, and there’s not much to do about it.
HOWEVER, Gaijin, please if you read this comment somehow someway, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE consider adding the Arab TT in some form! Either as UAR or Levantine states or whatever! I just want to see the Arabs also represtented as they have always been important on the global stage and they have several unique take and exported variants of vehicles!
naval is a whole seperate can of worms copy paste is a bit different as armor protection between different ships varys due to improvements of same class of ship like improved bulk heads etc
True, but they should also reflect what makes a tree unique, especially if they’re headliners in the store
The Clickbait, PZ btl 123, and Ariete Certezza are far more interesting than stuff like the Leopard 2a4 OtCo and F-16AM as they actually represent the nation they’re in
1 Like
We do this when there is a technical compatibility or basis to do so. Currently for the Gazelle, that’s lacking in terms of the functional kind that would be relevant to the game. Guns by themselves are also not great.
Mostly we are referring to the more substantial weaponry featured on the French Gazelles, which were actually used in the anti-tank role.
The guy just called naval a sink of money, where it definitely profits with all those Gneisenau and Sevastopols.
copy and paste costs nothing, we can have them at the same time.
I do read full changelog. Everytime. I’ve been an active player for many years and I would love to be one for many years to come.
I remember that with every major update comes a lot, and I mean A LOT of issues. Yes, you do fix bugs, but as I have stated in my original post - every update adds even more (my fav to this day is A-4s crashing causing whole lobby to crash to desktop). It’s like taking one step forward and two backwards.
What I would love to see is huge updates concentrating only on fixing known bugs. It’s fixed is an awesome thing, but it only challenges small portion of problems. Volumetrics, traction, ghost shell (and many more) are to this day really problematic and there is no change to those on the horizon.
Also I have tackled QoL upgrades aspect - we desperately need those. Bombers have been useless for years now - 4 bases on maps that take ~5 minutes to spawn again, damage model that is straight up absurd, useless AI-controlled gunners (even on Aced crew). Traction and map design are really bad - to the point that players have a small portion of liked maps and hate most (if not all) of the others. Top tier matches are filled with one death leavers, to the point that having a match that lasts longer than 4-5 minutes is a rear sight.
What about Air RB? It was the best thing ever and it’s gone now, never to be seen again.
There’s just so many issues and they are not addressed.
1 Like
firstly, i would like to thank you and the team for this post regarding this topic, and i want to provide some polite feeback on it.
In general we know that some players would prefer effective and interesting premium vehicles, but at the same time, do not want important or unique vehicles outside of the research tree.
i find this an acceptable approach to premium additions if variants and prototypes of domestic vehicles are either not available, too nebulous or too important to leave out of a research tree.
however, if the current priority is for “important or unique” vehicles to be added to the research tree, then what about those “important or unique” vehicles that have already been added as premium vehicles without an adequate tech tree counterpart?
for exemple :
- the Sud-Ouest Narval. it is important as the only french-designed aircraft of its rank and unique for its tree as one of few twin-boom airframes
- the Sholef 155. is is unique as an isreali-designed self-propelled howitzer, and important as the only autoloaded SPH the tree has.
since vehicles like these are unique or important to their tech tree and if the existing premium vehicle stays to fulfill its function of progression? could we hope for them (or a variant of them) to be added back into the research tree?
Our aim with this is to add variety to lineups, enhancing the gameplay aspect itself, and also to include the vehicle arsenal of smaller nations that often go underappreciated. Although this is a positive, the downside is that the unique feeling of each primary nation can feel diluted.
We want to make it clear that when we add a duplicate vehicle to a nation, this vehicle isn’t replacing a unique option that could be added.
i can understand that engagement with the community can and has been somewhat rocky over WT’s history, complicated for the fact that not everybody seeks out every source, is up to date on the ones they have, or even go in as much depth as they could…
…but, i feel that if the problem is misunderstood intent, then we’re talking about an issue of communication and coordination, which i believe is rather well illustrated by the provided exemples
For example the M44 for Germany, this vehicle filled a gameplay gap in the tree while we worked on developing and implementing the Hummel,
we could not simply assume that the AS90, Palmaria and Hummel would be added after the M44 & PzH2000 came with the “Storm Warning” Update, and we cannot assume other SPHs will come either, since disappointment would be inevitable for every update that they aren’t added.
communications over plans and intent for SPH additions, or over which one was/is being worked on would’ve helped not having to assume.
and delaying some SPH additions to coordinate an “artillery” themed update, would’ve helped make the intent clearer.
For example, the Leopard 1A5BE addition doesn’t negate the AMX-30C2 (which is in our plans for the future)
similarly, while it is nice to know now that the AMX-30C2 is “in the plans”, we simply couldn’t assume that it was until you told us, and, much like the M44 and SPHs :
- delaying the Leopard 1A5BE until both tanks were ready to share the update would’ve given a clearly indication of the Leopard’s purpose as an “alternative” rather than a “replacement”
or
- communication over what your plans are and why a (so-called) “duplicate” is being added now, before another option is ready, would’ve allievated fears that one might be used to “replace” the other.
4 Likes