This would help better organize the vehicles so it doesn’t become confusing.
3 Likes
good effort but bad in practicle, why would anyone want to have to browse through 4 different tech tree menus just to create a lineup, maybe subtree can be highlighted in a different color or something while staying in a single menu to give them a bit more recognition idk, the whole ui feels kinda old for a 2024 game but this change would just make it more cumbersome
Jeez maybe because right now the vehicles are organized by lineup already?
I mean you got South African SPAA’s in the SPAA lineup. Cause Gaijin decided to organize sub-tree vehicles per line rather than as a separate line within the tech tree.
Mainly so that subtrees have enough space. A whole nation does not have the space to be added in a single line, or in the case of multi nation subtrees even less than that.
This also gives these nations more identity rather than being “under” another nation and flag.
This system is also no more cumbersome than putting aircraft/helicopters into your lineup, which is an existing feature in the game.
3 Likes
They need to work on this ASAP
2 Likes
Sub-trees already have the room to add unique stuff.
3 rows, 3 foldered vehicles per row, 8 ranks, that’s 72 vehicle slots minimum before adding a 4th row.
War Thunder doesn’t need to clutter its user interface.
Nah. If anything they need to declutter the user interface rather than create clutter.
Like this is genuine UI clutter that ruins games previously:
Spoiler
You can’t just mindlessly put any vehocle anywhere or folder it with any other. An SPAA line for example is an SPAA line, so you won’t see an MBT there suddenly.
You also seem to severely underestimate just how many vehicles there are to add. Sure a subtree might look neat condensed in a single line of a tree, but then you only have a fraction of its vehicles represented, and lose out on space for the main nations vehicles.
Take for example Britain, now try to tell me how you will reasonably represent the Indian nation there with current subtrees? Issues like this are what is to be fixed with this suggestion.
So you’re telling me that you can select foldered vehicles, without issue, you can Switch between nations, and you can even make compined lineups of Aviation and Army without it being clutter, yet this is too much?
I genuinely don’t see how this is so much of an issue. Maybe if you can elaborate on which exact part of this is introducing so much clutter it can be improved on, but to me this is only concepts that are already present in game combined to improve the implementation of subtrees.
If you have any constructive criticism, please feel free to share it so the suggestion can be improved. In fact large parts of it have already been improved based on other players suggestions here, so more is always welcome.
4 Likes
And the SPAA line has over 50 empty positions.
And no, I do not under-estimate how many vehicles there are to add.
Gaijin can change the system around to allow a 6th column, which would increase the minimum amount of vehicles per tech-tree vehicle type by 72.
I’ve stated it previously, but I’ll try to reiterate in a way I think is understandable.
1- Arma; the infamous game for having poor control schemes, and one of the worst cluttered messes for changing controls in games. No effective search functionality, controls that don’t function if you bind it incorrectly.
Then there’s the weapon selection system, and information on-screen [lack-there-of].
I tolerated that because such a game was the only one of its kind at the time; 2015 onward came with competitors and the game slowly lost its main playerbase due to the UI clutter and clunk of the game itself.
A hatred I have that it took a friend metaphorically twisting my arm to play Arma with him again cause I didn’t want to deal with the clunk/jank/inefficiencies in the user-interface.
The exact part that is clutter is the entirely new window to get my vehicle.
Right now all I have to do is click research, make sure I’m on the right vehicle type, and all vehicles are on screen. That is clean-ish and fast.
And I never have to leave that window if my lineup is beyond and any of these:
One window to drag and drop into lineups, no swapping windows except for vehicle types.
And as much as you may think foldering and windowing are the same, I challenge you:
Open up two different internet browsers.
Have a new tab on one, minimize the second.
Which is faster? Selecting that other tab; or opening the other window?
Tab is faster, cause it requires less processes. Folder is faster, cause it requires less processes irrelevant of the fact it’s less clicks to get to.
Abandoning this idea and doubling down on more columns IF and when they’re necessary.
Right now it’s a game limitation, just as much as this topic’s suggestion can’t be done in War Thunder’s current form.
That or making your idea ENTIRELY OPTIONAL for players. Your idea is still implemented, I just get to keep all my vehicles on one page/window.
I am passionate about this due to my negative experiences with other video games.
No offence, but you kinda are.
Alone the British air tree can fit at least 8 full lines of vehicles itself without any subtrees and with quite a bit left for Premiums, that’s for the British tree which isn’t nearly as big as some trees could be. Take the US for example, here is an old reddit post showing just how big the US tree could be on its own
^this is excluding anything other than pure american designs btw
hell look at BeNeLux’s tree suggestions, there you could fill at least 3 lines of tech to which couldn’t possibly be put within France without taking away from french vehicles (who still have a considerable amount to add)
6 Likes
Yes, it could be considered a “clutter” however when it was a stated game limitation that “trees cannot have more than 5 lines” I think this is a good solution for ever decreasing space.
Especially if they try to organize trees by the country (see Hungarian and South African sub-lines) which will leave space for the “original” nation to get more stuff.
As well as that, foldering should only be done when its similar vehicles, and not to fluff trees. Adding in folders to literally everything does nothing but increase the use space of vehicles that may or may not be similar depending on the BR, like when the BMP-1 was foldered with the Marder 1A1(-) instead of said Marder being foldered with the Marder 1A3 right after it.
Also this seems incredibly selfish. Being against an idea for improving the game unless they make an “optional” version just because you want your stuff to stay the way it is currently is very short sided.
Besides, the original post specifically mentions foldering nations.
If you want a specific vehicle but don’t want to switch the nation viewed, you have the search bar.
5 Likes
Sadly, being what they state as a game limitation, I doubt this is an alternative they consider, which they have been very clear with in the past.
I don’t fully understand how this would work either. Sticking with the India example, how would you fit hundreds of vehicles that such a tree can hold into not even dedicated lines of the already filled British Aviation and Army trees with that option disabled?
Or even ignoring numbers, how would progression be handled? Players could either “jump” vehicles using that option, or have entirely nonsensical progression in one of the display types.
I have already considered ways to possibly make this an option to disable, however all would just add more clutter and compromise the benefits this suggestion is intended to provide, so I don’t see this as possible.
1 Like
8? 8x8x3x3 = 576 aircraft.
It doesn’t even max out its 5 lines yet which is 360, and that’s before adding 4 or more vehicle slots per rank.
Except this also can’t be implemented due to game limitations.
Thus the easier solution is to change the code to allow more than 5 columns.
You claim it’s selfish to be against improved ideas, which I’ve never done in my life.
Exactly the problem. Regressing back in time.
Then your idea is dead on arrival as it can’t be implemented by your own argument here.
If fixing the game limitation of 5 columns can’t be fixed, then neither can the far more complicated limitation of one window per researching tree which itself is less ergonomic for players.
India also doesn’t have hundreds of unique vehicles. They have ~5 unique aircraft.
1- This is clutter and clunky.
2- This is segregation.
3- There are over 360 vehicle slots per vehicle type with 3 rows per rank, this is over 7000 vehicle slots for all ten tech trees air and ground. We’re not to 3000 vehicles in-game yet including naval and helicopters.
4- This idea is hurdled by game limitation, just like more than 5 columns.
4a- More than 5 columns is objectively an easier coding experience than this backwards moving suggestion.
Yes alvis, 8 lines just because it doesnt currently fill out its lines, doesnt mean its not capable of. this thread (made by me and many others) shows just how large the British air tree could be. And its still missing several major aircraft used by britain such as the Martlets, Havocs and more
I would also like to bring up the point others have made, you cant just throw vehicles in any line you fancy, otherwise is goes against your main reason for arguing against this, which means you are either a Hypocrite or arent thinking it through fully
4 Likes
The reason Gaijin do not want more than 5 lines is the low screen resolution of the hardware of many players.Unlike expanding with more lines, simply having more 5 line trees does not interfere with their reasoning.
One click in an easy to understand nation based system is more than worth the possibility of improving the quality of current subnations and many future nations that would otherwise not be able to receive their own tree.
They are still combined. You can make combined lineups as you could now.
However a nation is not another nations property. Subtrees are supposed to be the nations collaborating, not one nation being owned by another. This system in my opinion makes this very clear by representing independent nations that can be brought together in battles in shared lineups.
Sounds like a lot, until you realize it’s not…
Japan for example is one of the smaller trees, yet when counting Japanese aircraft not yet in the game there is already enough to fill those 360 vehicle slots alone. And that is assuming anything can be put anywhere, while in reality the first 4 ranks have to fit disproportionately more than they ever could.
This is one of the smaller nations, yet there is already no more space for any subtree vehicles unless you take away from possible Japanese additions. Properly representing a whole other nation is completely unthinkable.
Now apply that to nations such as Britain or France, much larger nations in terms of available vehicle variety to add, both already having multiple subnations.
360 vehicles a nation may sound like a lot, but in practice it is not, especially when “a nation” is trying to be multiple.
It is, but that wasn’t Gaijins issue. Their issue was how intuitive it would be on lower resolution screens.
With this system you have a nice, convenient 5 line nation that looks as proper on any resolution and aspect ratio as current trees, with a nation selection that is no less intuitive on such screens either.
2 Likes
The easier solution is not always the best solution.
How is this regressing in time? Are you incapable of opening a menu?
It isn’t really all that different from what we currently have. For example see the helicopter trees. It’s just that but looks different.
You still get all of them, again look at the helicopter trees.
This only works if you assume that the Rank system is abolished and you can put anything anywhere in any line. There is only so much space per Rank per line under the current, very well organized I might add, system.
But of course it isn’t like that is it? Early Ranks inherently have more things because the technology was both cheaper and simpler. There were 24 variants (marks) of the Spitfire, and some of those had sub-variants. There were only about 5 variants of the Tornado, and yes those have subvariants but do you see the difference?
The ability for tech trees literally already exists. It’s just foldering them. Hell, they could consider it separate trees in the code if they allow them to all fit together.
And yes, more than 5 columns is objectively easier, but once again, just because it’s easy doesn’t mean its good. Personally I would rather not have to scroll endless amounts of lines left or right to find a specific vehicle that I want. And again, if you want one thing, use the search bar. That exists.
This suggestion is actually incredibly forward thinking. I literally don’t get why you think it’s backwards. Backwards would be like removing trees and lines entirely. This is comparatively good, and leaves open future growth potential, which is exactly the opposite of what “backwards” does.
2 Likes
I fail to see how this is a bad suggestion.
I’m probably repeating what I said before but it’s a win-win for all involved. heck the worst of it would the maybe two new UI needed with everything else just being stuff in-game needing to be put together like:
“The two most difficult parts of this would be making the new UI and making sure the code doesn’t implode after being stuck together.”
Like the UK getting all major commonwealth members as a sub-tree is a popular idea however all the major members have enough for 4+ trees.
Staying with the UK example:
It gets room for a domestic light line well at the same time it can get all the major commonwealth members as “sub-trees” without any taking away for either. Heck, on top of that, you can just grind a sub-tree without doing the host and just have a line-up of them or do more than one and make a combined line-up.
Heck, it solves the other sub-tree problem over line-ups that are basically a 2.7,4.0 and 6.3 vehicle because that’s what the sub-trees have to put together for a line-up for that nation. whereas this all of all 5 lines and in turn stuff like a full 2.7 line-up over just one vehicle. Under this, I could click the UK group and just grind Canada or I could also do the ANZACs (or all of them) making full line-ups of just one nation or two or more depending on the number of nations in a group.
What this suggestion does:
A. Makes room in the trees with current rules
B. Makes sure sub-trees aren’t treated as band-aids to the host tree
C. Both host and sub-tree tech are to be represented without being an event.
D. Treats both host and sub-tree as if they were new full nations well also keeping the other part of sub-tree with combined line-ups.
1 Like
Damn I’m late to the party : (
1 Like
You didn’t miss much, a lot of it was off topic. I’ll probably need to ask a mod later to clean up a bit…
Actually a lot less off topic than I thought now that I look at it again, I probably did that myself mostly with what could’ve arguably been DMs to Alvis instead.
2 Likes