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
fr, this is my issue with Gaijin. It’s always “tHerEs nO eVidEnce” instead of, "This wouldn’t be balanced, not right for the current game state, would change the landscape to much, etc. In the pursuit of ‘realism’ (sorta) they will ignore the players requests that would make the game more enjoyable for them
1 Like
And its a big load of work removed from the gaijin 3d models workers.
The plan will be a Rafale to Israel
1 Like
I often wonder how many vehicles the people who complain the most about copy-paste additions have. After researching and owning ~2100 different ones I’ve only spaded less than half of that and countless are unique variants.
I highly doubt there are many people behind these complaints who have genuinely spaded what we currently have.
well thailand operates VTs and that subtree didnt ge tem soo
Promissed do them 69420 years ago
All this verbiage just to say “We don’t care what the community actually thinks, because we’ll just give them another slightly different F-16 and paywall a bunch of historically relevant vehicles like the F-14D, I.A. 58, A-6E, J-22 (and many more!). Also we’ve functionally killed heli PVE (by allowing the Gepards to shoot down most if not all of your incoming AGMs thanks to overlapping fields of fire) so that people will just buy GE and stuff instead :))”
11 Likes
This and make the turret basket bigger
While I very much love the current premium philosophy and general sentiment of using copy-paste as a way to fill gaps, I do think there’s a major problem of “monotony”. For instance, France getting F-16s was nice, but it currently feels like it’s all that they’re getting.
Maybe one option would be for the devs to provide tech tree roadmaps so that minor nations can have a better understanding of the timeline for when their unique vehicles will come in and supplant the stop-gap vehicles? Or at least provide a list of ‘in the works’ vehicles even without an ETA?
1 Like
it has many ways it could be more unique that gaijin refused to implement because they want it at a specific br
If modeling effort is such a big issue, it would make sense to see more families of vehicles where the hull sports multiple different turrets.
Vehicles like the ERC, Cadillac Comandoes, Spanish BMR, AMX-13, Saladin, Patric AMV etc are all great candidates that could each provide 5-15 vehicles from a (with some minor modifications, looking at you Sagaie 2) hull
1 Like
I am not chinese but i can see why.
They dont need vt4 tbh