That is a major disappointment
Seeing one of the best sparrows limited to just F-18s is pretty sad
1 Like
They will eat their words on “F-14D is a F-14B analogue” argument too, though later. The F-16 ADF is not doing well around 13.3 and hordes of down BRed Su-30s need a competitor.
If they drop a TT equivalent of canardless Su-30s, F-14D will take an AIM-7P and go up
And by that I hope you mean that any future discussion about potential TT/Premium additon and possible plans will be communicated more clearly with the playerbase in order to avoid any such controversy and misinterpretation, instead of ignoring playerfeedback to avoid mean words.
3 Likes
Plans were communicated fully throughout the whole process. The plan to introduce a TT variant was only added after the major for this current major. Not daring the last one.
Quite then opposite. Feedback was listened too here and the reaction from some here has not been positive at all.
Its also far from just “mean words” and frankly inexcusable and unjustified regarding some of the insults thrown back and leveled at staff as a result of feedback being implemented.
Yet they changed between then and now. If gromvoiny merely said “we do not have such plans currently/as far as i know”, I do believe reaction to TT F-14D addition would be entirely different.
I dont claim I speak for everyone or that I see into gaijins decisions, but I know for sure I wouldnt have laugh at his expense were that the case.
The whole addition is clouded in controversy, tis to be expected.
Obivously, not trying to justify that. Feedback needs to be within certain rules.
1 Like
Plans can always change. That should be very apparent from the history of the game over 14 years. Development is always fluid.
When they do, we communicate that as we have here.
At the time of Groms response, there indeed were no plans for this. Only after the major update, as I previously mentioned, when reviewing the feedback it was clear regardless of the similarity to the F-14B and after the release of the major, people would still like to see a TT F-14D.
1 Like
Yes, but there’s a slight nuance to how the information was presented.
As far as I know, your answers usually follow the wording of “we currently don’t have such plans.” That’s perfectly fine. I doubt many people would have an issue with that, and obviously no one can reasonably complain if those plans change in the future.
However, Grom explicitly stated that there were no plans, without the usual qualification that this reflected the current situation and could theoretically change.
That distinction matters. If the standard way of communicating this is “we currently have no plans,” then a statement that categorically says there are no plans is naturally going to be understood differently. When those plans inevitably do change, people are therefore going to point back to the categorical statement.
It’s not like this exchange matters in the grand scheme of things. I just don’t think Grom should get a pass on the wording here simply because plans can always change.
3 Likes
I appreciate different people may have differing speaking styles. Particularly when different languages are involved. With myself, I often add those words at the end of everything, perhaps over excessively some may say, simply because I know how answers can be twisted and taken out of their context. Its only after several times of someone digging out a 4, 5 or 8 year old post in some cases to go “haha got you!” That it becomes second nature to add them.
It should be however understood that anything is subject to change. There never is a definite “never” in the sense of the word. We can only ever speak withtin the current context and facts. Regardless of who is saying it. So Grom was absolutely correct here in the context of when this answer was given. Plans have simply changed since.
2 Likes
If that’s your final stance, so be it. There’s no changing it, I suppose. I was just hoping for an entirely different outcome to this whole controversy surrounding the F-14D.
Thank you for taking the time to respond.
1 Like
As someone who did not buy the F-14D, I myself am very pleased with the TT version coming next patch. I do have to agree though with everybody else here, that the way this is being managed is far below optimal and is highly questionable.
We have had a similar situation before with a far less famous vehicle, the JA37DI, and Gaijin acted on the feedback within the same patch. With this precedent in mind, the implementation of only the premium version of the F14D, together with the strict denial of any possible TT version in the future couldn’t end in any other way but people asking themselves if this was done purely for the sake of more sales, since it was clear from the get-go that people would be more willing to spend money on a F14 than a JA37. Can you blame them?
3 Likes
Well obviously.
Love it when a company that bases it’s business model on peoples good will, villainizes them.
People are going over board with slurs but their point still stands
1 Like
A couple of important differences here.
Sweden has far less available vehicles than the US. Whereas the Ja37Di did actually limit the tree somewhat (which is why we agreed and introduced it as soon as possible) the same issues was not the case with the F-14D. Whilst the Ja37Di was a higher BR with drastic loadout changes over the D, the F-14D was more of a sidegrade to the F-14B. The gameplay was almost identical in both, as was their performance generally.
So the cases are not quite the same here.
We also must consider the context of each update. To make a seperate vehicle, even if its a similar / identical variant, time is needed to configure and set it up into the tree, allocate its icons and also create sufficient skins for it. This wasn’t possible within the existing plans of the previous major update. Which was already very heavy on new aircraft content for our artists and designers.
After the major update, when reviewing the feedback it was concluded players still had a heavy desire to see an F-14D regardless of its similarity with the B and identical spot in the tree. So we implemented it into our plans for the next available opportunity, being this upcoming major.
1 Like
Player retention? Whats that?
2 Likes
Saying Grom was “absolutely correct” feels wrong in this situation.
When a developer explicitly states there are no plans for a tech tree F-14D, players naturally take that at face value. Many trusted Gaijin and bought the premium pack, genuinely believing it was going to be the only option.
Even if plans simply changed afterward, the reality is that paying users ended up feeling misled just a couple of months later. “Plans change” is understandable, but that doesn’t change the fact that people spent real money based on dev statements. Calling the situation “absolutely correct” rather than acknowledging how misleading it turned out to be really doesn’t sit right.
4 Likes
My response saying he was absolutely correct was in the context of the above screenshot I was also responding too. Which, at the time, the facts as they were from the developers. So the response was correct, because that was the true plans of the time.
There wasn’t any misleading here. Players were actively asking for a TT version to be introduced, despite the existence of the premium version and why it was introduced. We provided the reasoning as to why one was not planned and the factors behind this.
Despite this, even after the release of the major update, people continued to leave feedback requesting a TT version. After every major update we naturally have a period of feedback consolidation regarding the next major. In which it was decided, based on player feedback to introduce a second F-14D.
Everything within the game and even future plans can change. Again, this is one of the reasons why we no longer post “planned” vehicle trees, as there can often be very hostile reactions all the way to accusations of lies, decete or other inappropriate claims.
1 Like
J-11A:
F-16A ADF is a decent 13.3 plane, Su-30s don’t need a competitor, they need to go up
1 Like
It seems there is a fundamental confusion here between intention and outcome.
Shifting the narrative to “we simply listened to feedback” while portraying the community’s frustration as purely hostile is something I cannot accept. The issue has never been about whether Grom had bad intentions at the time. It is about the fact that an official developer’s statement influenced paying customers to spend real money, only for that premise to be reversed shortly after.
Regardless of whether the plan changed later, customers who made purchasing decisions based on official information ended up feeling misled. Defending the developer blindly and framing the company as the victim does not change the reality that paying players were affected.
Even if Grom’s intention back then had nothing to do with what happened now, I believe Gaijin should at least offer an apology to the players who purchased the pack in good faith, rather than deflecting responsibility.
7 Likes
You should know better than most, that people are seeking out not just the overall airframe but specific models, often for their name recognition alone. If it was Gaijin’s plan to add a premium Tomcat, for the sake of adding a premium Tomcat they could have defined the F-14B to be this very vehicle from the beginning in their long term plans.
This feedback was available to Gaijin’s team well before the final release of the update. Their unwillingness to look at it before the release / to communicate the reception of this very feedback is Gaijin’s fault alone.
This is clear to most people but does not matter after the fact. People spent money and now feel backstabbed.
2 Likes
One more thing, what the person who delivered the message on behalf of gaijin said was also quite funny. What do you mean it is unforgivable to say unkind things to your employees? Do you want me to praise you for making a big lump? Wow, is this lump really like chocolate?