The WW1 one, has a distinctive vibe, it makes me picture you in stiff scarves, sporting a handlebar moustache, and peering through a monocle lol
Choose via occasional coin flip
1 Like
What is this AI-looking response though?
Nations in WT =/= markets in real life
@Smin1080p_WT do you know if this is intended that stuff like TWS+ and TWS ESA are getting displayed in Hangar, but as TWS in an match?
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/jvfYJqPI1lLO
1 Like
Its from a Business Perspective
Market of users the term is used to describe ( total number of existing and potential individuals who use or might use a specific product or service)
In this case Commonwealth Equipment, I’m guessing you’ve never heard of the term.
A Conglomeration / Collection / Group of members,
India, Kenya, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Indonesia, Uganda, Cameroon, use and still use Vehicles, even Ferrets are still active in some African countries, i could go on.
Additionally, I was addressing War Thunder as a whole, particularly the extensive pool of vehicles available to the United Kingdom compared to other nations in the game, I also highlighted the crucial role that the top four nations play in ensuring the game’s longevity and continued development.
Thus you can compare it to Market share also, imagine each nation has a piece of the pie, looking at my very own player card on collected vehicles, you can clearly see the “Market Share of each Nation”
So the Top FOUR are USSR, GERMANY, AMERICA and the UNITED KINGDOM
By the way how do you unlock the “vehicle collector” visual? I assume you need a certain amount of vehicles in every nation?
1800 Vehicles in total
That’s… a lot. But alright
Wait the math isn’t mathing
How do you have it then
Be happy, back when it was WIP it was 2000 ))
How do you have it them
?
But that doesn’t make sense, some pics show people with less than half of that amount with that display, just look at the above messages
Wait, true
500 vehicles total.
3 Likes
Jesus…
They lowered it to 500?
XD
Sad
1 Like
I remember because before I started grinding multiple nations I only had around 300~ and it wouldn’t let me put it on.
2 Likes
Alright, that’s very achievable then. I got around 200 from what I just counted
If you try putting it on it should tell you how many you have /500
1 Like
It doesn’t, maybe because I’m on the phone app
I teach composition at my local university. I know LLM when I see it. Both your initial response to @Rowiek and your response to me might be grammatically fancy but they miss the point of the initial interactions.
First, in your response to Rowiek, you’re simplifying the issue. Your response is discussing the idea of adding more vehicles to nations in-game as if it’s a matter of a company opening a new branch in a new location, when that’s a very poor analogy (if it even is an analogy at all) to how WT works. “Nations” in WT are just a collection of vehicles, and what goes where is purely up to Gaijin as a game design decision. That’s one of the reasons that subtrees are controversial. But basically none of your response had to do with what Rowiek was explaining.
Then, in your response to me, you assert that I’ve never heard of “Commonwealth Equipment,” with a capital E, as if that’s a proper noun that actually refers to anything relevant. I know about what the Commonwealth is and I know about their various military vehicles. They’re cool, and hopefully the game will continue to get more of them. But of course, which ones will actually get added is a game design decision from Gaijin.
It’s interesting that you claim that the “approach isn’t just about immediate profit, it’s about long-term stability” when that’s basically the opposite of what @Rowiek was pointing out. Gaijin focusing down on adding vehicles to the most popular nations and comparatively neglecting smaller ones (this is all relative of course) is making the nations that are less-popular in-game less attractive to new players, which in the end creates a vicious cycle further de-prioritizing their development.
What does this even mean in regards to his initial comment? Don’t you dare plug this into ChatGPT again for your response, think for yourself for a second.
4 Likes
Do I really need to break this down? Fine, let’s simplify it.
In the short term, the system is unbalanced, the focus should be on the four nations that generate the highest revenue for the company. These “big four” deserve priority, while the smaller nations can be gradually filled out over time. The primary emphasis remains on maximizing the impact of the top contributors, which are clearly USSR, Germany, USA and United Kingdom.
From a business standpoint if something you had in stock was selling out, you wouldn’t buy something completely different and expect the same result, you would re-stock the same product and continue to make profit
And if you’d actually read further back into the discussion instead of jumping in without the full context, you’d know we already covered this. We talked about the United Kingdom having more vehicles than other smaller nations, and I was pointing out that the UK’s position as part of the Commonwealth reinforces why it belongs among the top four.
Its actually logical, they don’t just throw them anywhere, its planned out.
Hence the commonwealth for the United Kingdom
Used rather than, commonwealth tanks, planes, boats, and ships (just a simplified version)
Long Term stability is important for the Company, showcased in the explanation for the Big Four Countries, without a main source of income, the “other less developed nations” would not have the funds to be outsourced and brought to the game, two different angles can work together you know, that’s my train of thought regarding the matter