Pre-Order: F-14D Super Tomcat

Official News, Development Blogs and Updates
3155

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
3156

Player retention? Whats that?

2 Likes
3157

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.

5 Likes
3158

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
3160

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
3161

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.

9 Likes
3162

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
3163

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?

3164

Smin or Grom, at this point I don’t really care who’s answering back to me, but one thing I know for sure is that refunds have been previously made before for vehicles that were corrected due to errors on Gaijin’s end.

The M60A1 D.C. Ariete incident from many years ago was at BR 8.3 with a stabiliser, and the selling point of that tank was the stabiliser itself. The vehicle was then nerfed by removing the stabiliser and dropping the BR down to 7.7, but as far as I remembered, refunds were optionally given to people who intended not to keep the vehicle or bought it for the stabiliser as promised before.

Fast forward to today, and we are in a similar albeit different situation. The F-14D was being told by a member of the store team (which btw is still classed as a Developer on the forums) that it will only be exclusive as a premium vehicle because it is “virtually identical” to the F-14B, yet we are getting another broken “promise” in that sense since it has been backtracked and will be added WITH a tech tree variant.

All in all the TLDR is that I am purely asking for Gaijin to open up the possibility of a refund for users who have decided that they have been, in some capacity, deceived that the F-14D would be a premium exclusive, only for that statement to no longer hold going forward.

1 Like
3165

Am I wrong that Premiums are “pay to progress” not “pay to win”, the Premium F-14D still has it’s premium bonuses dose it not? I fail to see the issue.

3166

Read my pointer here instead.

3167

There has been no portrayal as such. My comments were regarding the frankly unacceptable insults and remarks made by some (nobody said all). A sample of which you can find on Reddit, posted by some here who have already shared their views.

3168

I don’t think anyone is seriously arguing that Gaijin explicitly promised there would never be a Tech Tree F-14D. That is not the issue.

The issue is the context in which the premium was sold and the information available to players when they made the purchase.

When the F-14D was introduced as an $80 premium, players were told why a Tech Tree version was not planned. That naturally affected purchasing decisions. For someone who specifically wanted an F-14D, the practical choice at that moment was: buy the premium, or don’t have an F-14D.

Now, only a short time later, an almost identical Tech Tree version is being introduced.

You can say that plans changed because of feedback, and I’m perfectly willing to believe that. In fact, responding to player feedback is a good thing.

But that does not make the criticism disappear.

If community requests for a Tech Tree F-14D were already substantial before and during the premium’s release, then surely the possibility of reconsidering that decision was foreseeable. At the very least, that uncertainty could have been communicated more clearly to people being asked to spend $80.

Something as simple as:

«“There is currently no Tech Tree F-14D planned, but this may be reconsidered depending on player feedback.”»

would have given buyers a much clearer understanding of the situation.

Instead, the premium was released under the justification that a Tech Tree version was not planned, people purchased it under those circumstances, and shortly afterward that position changed.

Again: changing plans is not the problem.

The problem is that when those changing plans directly affect the perceived value of an $80 purchase, transparency matters considerably more.

And the “we stopped publishing planned vehicle trees because people accuse us of lying when plans change” argument does not really address this situation either. Nobody is asking for every future vehicle to be guaranteed years in advance. We are talking about a premium product that had just been sold specifically in the context of there being no planned Tech Tree equivalent.

There is also an important difference between:

“Plans can always change.”

and

“Customers should reasonably expect that the main selling proposition of an $80 premium might change almost immediately after release.”

Those are not the same thing.

I’m actually glad that player feedback resulted in a Tech Tree F-14D. I think it belongs there.

But you cannot use “we listened to feedback” as though that automatically invalidates criticism about how the premium was marketed beforehand.

Both things can be true:

Adding the Tech Tree F-14D was the right decision.

The way the premium F-14D was handled before that decision was poor communication.

6 Likes
3169

These were due to drastic changes to the gameplay or capability of the vehicles, such as M60 stabilization etc. A refund was not provided, but a 30% discount for the OF-40 MTCA.

No such drastic change has been made to the F-14D premium. It remains as it was, with all the same capabilities, rank and pack bonuses as before.

1 Like
3170

The unfortunate reality of this however is at the time, there were no plans. Had I or someone else said this, only for it not to come true, a different set of people would be here now saying I (or whoever posted that response) gave false hope / promises / lied to them about a reality that didnt happen and we simply “ignored feedback”.

In reality the opposite has happened here and we have actioned the feedback given to introduce a tree version at the next possible point.

3171

And I understand that, but I think this is exactly where we’re talking past each other.
I’m not accusing you personally (or any dev) of lying, nor am I saying Gaijin should have promised a Tech Tree F-14D when there genuinely were no plans for one.
I fully accept that there were no plans at the time, feedback continued, that feedback was reconsidered, and the decision changed. That’s actually a positive example of listening to the community.
The problem is that this explanation only addresses why Gaijin changed its mind. It doesn’t address the effect that sequence had on people who bought the premium.

2 Likes
3172

Once again, Nobody is invalidating any criticism or feedback of any kind.

Please check again what I said.

I was speaking specifically about the unjustified insults hurled at staff and devs. Which are not acceptable. Not about constructive criticism, which is always welcome.

3173

Correct.

Players are paying to skip the tech tree grind and immediately get a fully spaded, premium bonus F14D. Nothing is lost for people who brought it (other then braincells from playing 13.0-14.0 matchmaker)

The F14D (whatever the new name for the tech tree version will have) is great, as people who didnt have $80 to spend on the F14D / already have the tree researched, will now get access too the F14D, and people who wanted to buy it will retain access as they had before. I don’t see why people are complaining

3174

Even if other players requested it, I don’t recall Gaijin ever releasing an identical copy-paste of a premium vehicle into the tech tree with the exact same specifications just a couple of months later. Historically, premiums came after the tech tree version, or there was at least some difference in performance.

Many players argued that the F-14D should have been a tech tree vehicle in the first place, rather than a premium pack. Please don’t frame it as if the majority simply wanted an identical copy-paste added to the tech tree right after. The feedback you mentioned doesn’t reflect the entirety of the player base either. When submitting feedback, players might have asked for a tech tree F-14D, but very few would have demanded the outright removal of the premium or asked for it to be converted into a tech tree vehicle—simply because everyone knows Gaijin would never accept such requests. Even if there was feedback asking for a tech tree version, the opposing perspective from those who already bought the pack was completely ignored.

Releasing an identical copy of a popular premium aircraft into the tech tree just two months later, without even considering the opposing perspective, is undeniably misleading to paying customers. There were plenty of ways to gauge community sentiment properly, such as running a survey or creating an official poll, but instead, you are simply using “many players requested it” as an excuse to defend that misleading outcome.

The end result is clear: several players were directly misled and negatively affected by Gromvoiny’s official statement. That’s why I think Gaijin needs to apologize.

Nobody is defending toxic insults, but the community is raising legitimate concerns.

1 Like
3175

There almost was one other case, the JA37Di, which was initially prem but a TT version was added shortly after during dev server.

1 Like