I don’t believe thsi. I can’t findanymore the graphic of premium per updates, but we are right now at 1:3rd of preium, most of the time at toptier.
3 Likes
pardon?
So true!
1 Like
In War Thunder ammunition is given based on balance necessities.
They are also replacing DM33 with 43 as stock shells.
If Gaijin really wants a Leo at 9.3, that would work and would be better than handicapping the 1A5BE.
Sadly, people can’t accept the idea that there can be both. BeNeLux and French options, just like they reject the idea that nations should be getting both host and sub-nation “grind” premiums.
Considering people want Belgium’s last MBT gone(which is kinda insensitive on the historical side) and replace it with one of 3 things.
a “C&P” French MBT. (yes, it is a variant, but the 1A5BE is also a variant, so I just held it to the same standard the 1A5BE was held to)
A 1 off, as only one 1A5BE with MEXAS was ever made.
A private prototype whose addition is likely affected by who the late version is in service with.
4 Likes
That’s the graph you are talking about?
2 Likes
I’d say that Poland and Czechoslovakia could easily work independently as tech trees, that or giving both some type of sub-tree.
But still alright option.
2 Likes
Honestly this point was mostly solved with daily backups from my experience. Battle ratings also change often, drastically changing certain BR lineups for specific nation, so adding a vehicle, to fill in certain lineup gap, doesn’t seem to be that effective, unless there is really large gap and the vehicle and other vehicles around it are unlikely to change BR, which is more and more unlikely as time goes on. There is very few gaps to be filled, so this really doesn’t sound like something worth to be adding copy paste vehicles for.
1 Like
Are the new game modes ready? I’m tired of the old mode; it’s been the same for years. Or you could bring back the quarter-events. One old quarter-event per month.
Yeah that could be done too, both have very significant developments of their own. Personally I mainly want to see them share a tree with reworked subtrees. With the current subtree system there might be issues where one ends up underrepresented compared to what it could/should be.
1 Like
France has 3 times as many BeNeLux “Grind Premiums” in the store as it does French ones, the issue isn’t that people don’t want BeNeLux ones, it’s that they would like actual French vehicles in the French tree
Doubly so when the BeNeLux premiums consist of two American Airframes and a German tank
3 Likes
I mean that’d probably happen too especially with combined CS/Pl tree, where 100% Czechoslovakia would be underrepresented meanwhile Poland overrepresented.
2 Likes
Yeah, they are not very good at adding subtrees. It’s a good concept with a lot of potential in my opinion, but most of the time it’s not used right and just feels like one of the nations is only bonus content for the other, rather than being distinct nations working together.
3 Likes
We all know why you’re adding copy paste vehicle: cheap / easy filler to worsen the grind and encourage premium sales. You’re welcome
2 Likes
Perhaps, instead of making excuses, you could at least slightly alleviate player frustration with clones. For example, if a players already has a Sherman/T-34/M109 or any other duplicate vehicle, they receive a 25% ‘discount’ on research points when researching a similar vehicle from another nation. For a third nation, it’s 50%. For a fourth and subsequent nation, it’s 75%.
This is the simplest solution to the clone problem. The only problem is that your priority isn’t player comfort and unique gameplay, but prolonging the grind at any cost.
5 Likes
First of all, I understand that announcing everything in beforehand is sometimes not desirable to capitalise on that surprise and hype effect for updates. With that said it is still very unclear what your priorities are regarding what and when to add. You announce or state that you recognize that there is some issue or that you plan to add something, but then you maybe add something else first and then finally add something widely requested after years of radio silence about it. This feels confusing and frustrating, due to uncertainty, whether a feedback was heard or even desired and creates a feeling of disconnection between playerbase and dev team.
For example, right now there are few gaps in certain tech trees that are well known and sensible for people to desire their filling. You already made these efforts to fill gaps before, but then it felt like you stopped and started to focus on something else, which felt like priority to fill bigger gaps got lowered. It felt like feedback about that was not needed anymore as you were already focused on it, but then focus shifted anyway and we are just starring at these old gaps wondering, whether you want us to keep voicing our desire for that or if you want us to be patient and wait for your next step in this area, or whether you simply don’t care about these gaps anymore.
Recent improvements to Naval were very much appreciated and felt like you care about Naval and want to make it better, but it felt like it came out of the blue after years of radio silence instead of aknowledging you want to make it better and you are preparing it and when it came, it came without explanation which areas you improved and which you didn’t without explanation why (no time, no need, no priority?). So updates like these sometimes feel partly directionless or unfinished without obvious reason why.
I could go through more examples, but my ramble already seems to be way too long.
France literally has more F-16s now than the US tech tree, the nation that built the thing. You can’t simultaneously believe that nation identity somehow matters AND that duplicates are only intended to fill gaps. These things are clearly mutually exclusive in regards to how copy pasted vehicles are added.
9 Likes
In a way public roadmap was great due to having constant display of your intention and priorities for immediate future, however I understand that it probably felt too rigid and binding for your purposes, development process and schedule.
I feel like there is still a place for more permanently displayed intentions like a roadmap, but it could be modified to better fit your needs as a dev team. I could see something akin to Trello board with these articles instead, to make the roadmap more modular and flexible to assign different order of priorities without having to put specific date on it.
It would help us to assign feedback to specific parts of that as well instead of creating imaginary ones out of pure speculation due to various uncertainties.
Maybe being able to flag certain articles like these as major ones to highlight them as more fundamental, instead of just having them drowned in the list here that is dominated by a sheer number of activity in these, which makes it feel like community interest completely dominates your prioritisation.
So there needs to be better communication depending on wether you are adding a copy-paste vehicle as a “temporary until X/Y/Z gets added”
Either way, I hope this means that those implemented vehicles which were added as a stop-gap get put UNDER the more interesting/unique vehicle
Recently when the British TDs were shuffled around the M109 got put under the FV, which I think is okay in regards of having copy pasted vehicles.
If you want it, the option is there, but the more unique (and honestly more interesting) vehicle is prioritized and easily gotten to; I don’t have to grind the M109 for the 9th time just to get to the FV
Moving forward this should be done if possible
1 Like
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.