To which they will say, “but but the Hummel wasn’t ready”
It was in the files for at least 10 years, and after all this “work”, Gaijin cared so much about it that they made it a hogepoge of late and early variants.
smells like lies and deceit.
1 Like
that’s were prototypes and non meta vehicles comes in handy, they are not suited for the masses, but still interesting to play, even when they’re only gimmicky.
so why don’t you remove the CP vehicles when the nations own alternative is implemented?
There’s no point playing the game to face the same meta vehicles over and over, even more when they are copy-paste everywhere. Having CP as a stop gap measure is a good thing, but only if they are replaced once their alternative is implemented.
1 Like
I honestly don’t have a big problem with duplicate or “copy-paste” vehicles.
Of course, unique vehicles are always more interesting, and I understand why many players prefer them. But in many cases duplicate vehicles are historically accurate and also useful for gameplay.
Many countries used the same or very similar vehicles during and after WWII, and this became even more common during the Cold War with NATO and Warsaw Pact equipment. The same is true for modern aircraft such as the F-4, F-16, Tornado, Eurofighter and eventually the F-35.
For smaller trees, copy-paste vehicles can also be the only realistic way to fill BR gaps and make lineups playable. Having only one vehicle at a certain BR is often worse than having a duplicate that actually helps the lineup.
Maybe one possible improvement could be a discount system: if a player has already researched or spaded the same vehicle in another tree, researching and spading the duplicate version could require less RP.
I respect players who want more unique vehicles, but sometimes a useful copy-paste vehicle is better than having nothing at all.
Hi there, im reposting practically my thread here cause a moderator felt it was at the wrong place, duplicate, talking about too many things etc etc, when it obviously was structured, touched on several things for obvious reasons and the title was an obvious metaphor i picked up in the actual post. So i hope by placing it here itll be alright.— you do touch the topic in the OP of better communication and feedback after all— So here go my two cents to the current state. And yes ive looked for similar threads but frankly most of them, go into the bias discussion which i actualy didnt go into, so no idea why id get a lock without any real pointers that make sense. And yes, its not touching a specific BR, vehicle or just one thing, as imho that is NOT the main issue currently at all. If i pull the post apart and scatter it in different old threads it practically says nothing coherent to a thematic that is deeply connected to every faccet of the game, If a moderator isnt fine with this id need more than just saying random things that dont apply if youve actualy read and understood my post, thank you.
Hi there, quick thing at the start. Im not gonna rant, not calling bias, not discussing it in any way. This is about fixing the right things without compromising your companies own internal views and decisions about how you spend your resources and dev cycles for whatever reason thyre taken the way they have been in the past year or so. Im one of the silent players, which is more common than youd think, but we feel the same as everyone regularly here in the forums and elsewhere.
Bring back more practical gameplay loop actions to be possible by simple design changes along the capture and map structure to ´´balance´´ out of the current one sided meta that gets only stronger as soon as certain maps, gamemode and nation matchmaking corrolate into just senseless arcade headbashing, no vehicle, module, premium etc etc will change this and it does apply to ARB in general too, they face the same issues just from a pilots perspective. Youre trying still to be a realistic, right, right?
Over the past, it was a lot more possible to influence the matches outcome with smart play and smart teamplay an awful lot more. (like a 2 vs 10 comeback nailbiter without any CAS use) Which made certain vehicle and matchmaking issues or vehicle inconsistencies a lot less impactful on the maps where anything but bashing virtual turrets into eachother at point blank was possible.
More and more you have inadvertently opted to ´´fast action gameplay´´ to quote your devs in interviews. Why? You have an arcade mode for that entire reason, its always been there for those wanting a quick headbash of a game.
From my perspective there was no reason to opt this much to promote tiny maps, urban`s and funnelling into realistic modes.
Pouring money and dev cycles into the infantry mode project and licenses didnt help the situation by the way, but thats a future proof company planning thing i dont want to go into and have certain understanding for it.
Main point:
Rebalance by giving us back play ´´options´´. Frankly i think many would concour you could leave the vehicles stats as they are for most parts if you´d just bring back the realism into realistic modes by encouraging teamplay again, be it dedicated active scouting and capping with the occasional support shot, flanking, skillful manouvering of terrain without being spotted by someone with 0 risk to him (looking at you UAV spam) which made using terrain mostly useless and promoted the just push W thing an awfull lot.
While in theory drone spotting is realistic to todays battlefields it did not help gameplay at all.
Awfull high to top tier map cycles. You changed map cycles to have more ´´fast paced action´´ in the rotation. Again pushing realism for arcade in a realism mode. While id agree that many of the bigger maps are spawn campable from afar, thats a thing id also put on the to-do list. Those need fixing for a long long time now, some you have adjusted, and that was great. But we rarely get them as it is now. However, pushing W for 30 seconds and standing in the enemy spawn isnt exactly better now either is it?
The ´´ban one map´´ option does by far not fix this, and lets be fair, the downvoting a map realy isnt meaningful to the matchmaker script now is it? And we understand that. You dont want minutes of waiting especialy when one nations que is rather full compared to others. That only strengthens the need for more quality map variety.
Much of the ´´one nation fills most of the cue´´ shift happened due to this, as it promoted strictly their biggest strenght 100% and devalued all other nations strenght most of the time.
So bottom line, give us back the gameplay options by better map design, its a lot easier fix than shuffling around a second reload, adding a spall liner, adding volumetrics, rearranging BRs and copy pasting holes in tech trees. One thing added to the other and that was imho your biggest mistake lately. You left most your hard worked and designed nations optionless in the gameplay aspects in too many situations.
Capturing:
For the love of god, can we please talk about the fact that especialy in high to top tier a 30 meter capture point makes no sense anymore? They need to be a lot bigger to encourage some half strategic value to pushing them instead of just yolo in and hope to get the first shot off and not bounce it? Also the fact that youll have a 50/50 chance of a CAS just dropping a bomb mid cap circle and cover the whole thing with one bomb? Imho Capture points need to be a LOT bigger to actualy fight about them and give options of value to clear them out, less hold W and pray, its just bland gameplay which players got tired of by now. That also is not a big thing at all to change, test em with like 100m across and go bigger from there, see what makes sense, im sure most CC´s would love to give you some PR props for meaningfull changes to the simple things back to meaningfull options and realistic gameplay.
What hese things do for you:
It gives vetarans what thyre asking for, less bland gameplay, better balancing of nation matchmaking due to being able to counter mismatches and the occasional overdesigned vehicle, by map knowledge and teamplay, more engaging battles with less roflstomps, more fun and adrenaline. Which will equal time bought for you to finish whatever other dev cycles you got going on and have those left working on the cycles for WT come up with better concepts and designs gameplay wise, instead of stopgaps that often make things worse in another way. And i wouldnt be surprised that reviews and PR light up quite a bit more as a result when people see and hear that youre opting to adjust back to the values or realism and teamplay and leave arcade headbashing to arcade mode again and balance better by design, less by stat values (often unrealistic for balance reasoning or missing data) and less stop gapping with copy paste to make trees partialy playable again artificialy.
These are all strictly my opinions and experiences, yours will perhaps differ but i reckon youd agree to a degree when lookin away from discussions about bias and the like.
Thank you for your time,
Kind Regards
2 Likes
debatable, it’s also both a loss for the players and gaijin, as with CP, no need to grind a tree to get a vehicle if it’s copy pasted on another tree, making player skip potentially interesting trees they could enjoy.
One argument in favor of it tho is that some trees benefits from the CP vehicles more than the original tree, like the italian m109g (and even the german one that’s unique because no m2, making it actually worse than it’s brothers).
And yet its been 7 years?
Guess it isn’t that simple after all.
I perfectly agree with the point about the PaK Puma germany is in need of a later ww2 light tank, but i also think the germans not having any medium tanks between 6.0 and 8.0 is an issue, especially ww2 designed ones like T44, M26, Centurion Mk.1 in other nations. (In reality I’m just a sucker for the Panther II), but i think my point stands.
I believe others stated it, but for this part if gaijin listened to players who made suggestions that helped make these “mostly copy paste” vehicles more unique it wouldnt hurt/would be a great boon. Especially when it comes to ammo.
EG for the leopard belgian ammo, though another great example of it would be imo the Chieftain/Iranian challenger in the UK TT. Both got effectively the same ammo that the British have instead of the proposed/developed ammo that would be given to the Iranians to use which would have been very interesting (example being an improved HESH shell, HEAT rounds designed for the British guns, etc). It also would likely have been more interesting for the 4030 if gaijin did away with APFSDS for it and finally implemented the REAL L15a5 round to give to it/Brit tanks in that br (and not what we currently have).
I think this is where gaijin could massively improve on the “copy paste” side, just because its a copy doesnt mean it has to be using the same ammo for the same BR range.
I also think a lot of the issue comes down to gaijin rushing to the finish line on the progression tech wise and I kind of predicted the problem years ago. Gaijin being way too focused on additions to top tier/pushing forwards that resources for backfilling are limited so we see masses of M44s where nations realistically should have had their own artillery years ago and so on. A good example for this issue would be the British armoured car problem, its been ~10 years (basically when the Brits were added to WT) since they got a WW2 armoured car that was of British domestic production and that was only 3 vehicles, 1 is an AA, 1 is the Daimler starter vehicle and 1 is a relatively rare event car, the AEC. Meanwhile the Germans have multiple cars even though the British were arguably just as, if not more wheel crazy in the war.
Using copy pasting could actually help fix that even by a limited level, copy over the Boarhound from the US TT to the UK TT, the UK was the only country that historically gave the platform a good trial and according to some reports even fielded it in rear lines in Africa. We saw a similar swapping of vehicles with the Canadian tanks so I do not see the issue here.
Thats part of what bugs me/I assume many others with copy pasting, it seems to be extremely arbitrary by gaijin and require significant player pushback to finally get the copy pasting that players WANT over the ones they dont want, how much effort from the community did it take begging for the Skink to go to the US too? Or the Ram tanks for the UK?
4 Likes
To be honest, this kind of copy and paste isn’t even the biggest issue, the biggest issue of the game imo is the lack of new gamemodes, yes, I’m aware that you’re working on infantry, nuclear escelation etc. but I’d say that we need a completly new gamemode for ground. Also, a new gamemode for lower tiers of air would be nice to see.
Of course it won’t replace that nation’s unique options. What it will do is erase the uniqueness of the other nation instead. Germany has already been turned into a donor tree for half the game.
And now Japan’s Indonesian Leopard just straight-up blows the PSO out of the water. I can understand Germany, as a major arms exporter, having Leopards show up in other countries’ trees. If another nation gets one or two of them, fine, whatever. But Germany is the original manufacturer and has so many excellent Leopard variants of its own, and yet you somehow refuse to add any of them.
How long has it been? We are still stuck with the same few ancient meme Leopards from years ago. Where is my Leopard 2A7+? Where is the 2A7A1? The 2A6EX? And most importantly, where is the already-delivered 2A8?
These could easily be added either as event vehicles or as regular tech-tree vehicles, but no, you just keep sitting on them and add a Spike PUMA, huh? Couldn’t hold yourselves back from adding the one thing nobody wanted, could you? 🙄
5 Likes
Mirage F.1CG has AIM-9P, 9P4/P5 capability and 4 of them. In contrast with 2 xMagic 2 and 530/E and Super 530Fs of the French. Also , they are not capable of ground attack guided weapons , only iron bombs.
Mirage 2000EG is practically a Mirage 2000E with RDM radar and M53-P-2 engine. Worse radar than RDI of French 2000Cs. Original EG didn’t have 530s. Also the export Version of ICMS MK.1 EW suit , i thing it has more flares/chaff and it is modified - better than early M2000Cs , but doesn’t use Eclair or Spirale like the FR ones. The 2000EGM had RM-3 improved radar version and can carry Exocet and 530D as well as had some minor software updates to radar ad EW suit.
Mirage 2000-5Mk2 has better radar tha 2000-5F , it wears RDY-2. 5F has Serval with Sabre and Spirale but without ICMS Mk2 EW suit, 2000-5Mk2 has ICMS Mk3 EW suit which is improved with probably the same hardware. MIssion computer of Mk2 is MDPU derivered from Rafale’s instead of MC1/2 of 5F, INS Mk2 uses TOTEM 3000 and 5F ULISS52 .Mk2 has better data-link . Mk2 can use Exocet and SCALP-EG, 5F does not.
Rafale is the same . I know it has SCALP EG and Exocet integration , but i think the French ones can do it as well. Though M version can use Exocet but C can’t i think. Maybe that’s the only difference.
To be fair by far most of the more unique vehicles just haven’t been added yet. Go look at Israeli suggestions, there is a lot of interesting stuff there that so far went ignored by Gaijin.
1 Like
I wonder what they do with the middle eastern nations. Pakistan is said to have a home alongside China, but there are many other nations with interesting militaries. Israel would also likely stay a separate techtree.
In a way this is what we got, with Japan, Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia. But I don’t think we will see more SEA nations there anymore, that would probably be too strong. Instead I could see nations like the Philippines or Vietnam combined with a future Korean techtree that has already been announced for the future to spread the nations out more and balance alongside existing nations.
This one is a very popular suggestion, so I think it might not be too far off from being implemented, even if the votes on it are rumored to be influenced by bot accounts I still think there is enough legitimate votes to make it one of the most popular future techtree concepts
I’d also want to add a Polish / Czechoslovak techtree, because both of these nations have very interesting vehicle developments and enough to make a very capable combined techtree that can match existing game nations.
2 Likes
The strongest fox 1 in the american tt is only on the f/a18c early.
I like this take. It’s not that others shouldn’t get their Leopards, but Germany should get more of the interesting Leopard variants they made. With the Leopard 2RI it would’ve been a great chance to add Leopard 2 Evolution or Revolution for example.
That’s a fair point, and I think there are valid arguments on both sides. Some players value uniqueness above everything else, while others prioritize complete and enjoyable lineups.
Personally, my point isn’t really about whether copy-paste vehicles are good or bad. They’re here, and in some cases they genuinely improve a nation’s lineup.
What I’d like to see is a system that makes duplicate vehicles less frustrating for players who have already unlocked them elsewhere.
For example, if I’ve already researched and played an M109 in one tech tree, perhaps researching the same vehicle in another tree could come with a significant RP discount, similar to folded vehicles. Alternatively, let me skip it entirely and research the next vehicle in the line if I already own the equivalent elsewhere.
That way, players who want the duplicate for their lineup can still get it, while those who don’t see any added value aren’t forced to grind the exact same vehicle twice just to progress.
To me, that’s a reasonable compromise between preserving good lineups and respecting the time players have already invested.
1 Like
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.
4 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.