Subtree Rework - Nation Folders

[MAUSWAFFE]

@AlvisWisla

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.

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.

@AlvisWisla

Nah. If anything they need to declutter the user interface rather than create clutter.

Like this is genuine UI clutter that ruins games previously:

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.

[AlvisWisla]

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.

@MAUSWAFFE

I genuinely don’t see how this is so much of an issue.

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.

@MAUSWAFFE

If you have any constructive criticism, please feel free to share it so the suggestion can be improved.

Making your idea ENTIRELY OPTIONAL for players is something I believe can occur with the right method.

I am passionate about this due to my negative experiences with other video games.

[lxtav]

@AlvisWisla

And no, I do not under-estimate how many vehicles there are to add.

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

https://www.reddit.com/r/Warthunder/comments/12hnckk/extended_american_air_tree_br_decompression_v2/#lightbox

^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)

[S3b5]

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.

@AlvisWisla

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.

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.

@MAUSWAFFE

Nation Folders, as the name suggests would improve the subtree system by completely reworking it from the ground up.

Rather than inserting another nation into the techtree of another, both nations have their own, independent techtrees. These are then both placed in a folder that is opened up when hovering over a nation in the existing nation selection bar.

If you want a specific vehicle but don’t want to switch the nation viewed, you have the search bar.

[MAUSWAFFE]

@AlvisWisla

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.

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.

@AlvisWisla

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 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.

[AlvisWisla]

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.

@S3b5

stated game limitation that “trees cannot have more than 5 lines” I think this is a good solution for ever decreasing space.

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.

@S3b5

Besides, the original post specifically mentions foldering nations.

Exactly the problem. Regressing back in time.

@MAUSWAFFE

Sadly, being what they state as a game limitation

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.

I believe this idea can exist alongside other graphical interfaces, but at the time of this post I do not know what that looks like.

[lxtav]

@AlvisWisla

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.

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

Ultimate British Air Tree: A Project to improve the UK Tech Tree (V2.5 OUT NOW!)

[image] Ultimate British Air Tree Hello! and welcome to the most ambitious British suggestion in War Thunder History, the Ultimate British Air Tree! This has been a project by me (@lxtav), @AVROVULCANXH558, @TerikG2014, @Headnaught, @Rileyy3437 and many, many others who are part of the Anglo-Maltese Suggestion server that has been in the making for months, in an attempt to bring you the Greatest, most ambitious potential future of the British Tech Tree in War Thunder. We hope to raise the aw…

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

[MAUSWAFFE]

@AlvisWisla

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.

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.

@AlvisWisla

1- This is clutter and clunky.

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.

@AlvisWisla

2- This is segregation.

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.

@AlvisWisla

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.

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.

@AlvisWisla

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.

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.

[S3b5]

@AlvisWisla

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.

The easier solution is not always the best solution.

@AlvisWisla

Exactly the problem. Regressing back in time.

How is this regressing in time? Are you incapable of opening a menu?

@AlvisWisla

1- This is clutter and clunky.

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.

@AlvisWisla

2- This is segregation.

You still get all of them, again look at the helicopter trees.

@AlvisWisla

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.

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?

@AlvisWisla

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.

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.

[StormRyder13]

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.

[Shrek_2_On_DVD]

+1

Also, I would like to see modern-day flag icons and nation names in the game.

[Deathmisser]

Damn I’m late to the party : (

[MAUSWAFFE]

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.

[S3b5]

Quick question I just thought of.
Would East Germany and West Germany/Federal Republic of Germany be split like this, if it’s implemented? Should they be split?

[S3b5]

@AlvisWisla

I can only imagine the ammunition those people would obtain if this system was implemented AND exceptions were made for the Russian Federation or Federal Republic of Germany

See the issue here is that there is a very clear line from Soviet development to Russian Fed. development. It is very obvious. For example, T-80BV → T-80BVM, T-72BU → T-90 → T-90S, MiG-29S → MiG-29M → MiG-35, etc. It makes sense that they stay as one, because Russian equipment is a development on Soviet equipment. It is quite literally built off the back of development the Soviet Union did.

For East Germany, at least compared to the rest of the tree, such development progression doesn’t exist. It would essentially start at the T-55, which was not a German tank, and end with the T-72S or whichever one they ended with, which was also not a German tank.
Whereas for West Germany, they produced their own vehicles so it can be said that they at least learned from the past vehicles such as the Panther, King Tiger, etc. Not that they were direct successors, but the line of development actually vaguely exists as opposed to the East Germans who operated mostly imported equipment, and thus did not take previous development lessons into consideration. They physically couldn’t because they were not the “creator” of the equipment.

The same idea would also exist for the PRC and ROC, with again the same question. Should they be split like this?

Also, less serious; I’m not going to lie every time you say “segregated” and “bias” and “double standards” I am unable to keep following your point. How are they segregated if they’re under the same tree? Under your logic, every line in one tree is “segregated” from every other line. I don’t even know where the bias argument comes from here.

[AlvisWisla]

I hated the separation of coastal and bluewater, and still do. I liked everything on one page able to research things all one one page all with one style of vehicle.
Clean, fast, efficient… until it was no longer any of those.
Now, the original naval research tree wasn’t as efficient as a ground or air tree, just more efficient than today’s method.

A technology tree is derived from family trees, we see them in Civilization and of course War Thunder. Always encompassing one page… different sized pages, but one page none-the-less.

It stops being a technology tree the moment it’s not a single page, it’s no longer a derivative…
War Thunder in reality has 30 tech trees for helicopters, fixed wing aircraft, and ground vehicles across 10 named host entities that we incorrectly call tech trees.

This suggestion is okay as a graphical interface option, which I believe there’s a solution to allowing this to exist as other games have succeeded.

You may disagree with how I see these things, and that’s okay.
I have this strong unending feeling that I need to speak my perspective on this subject in a civil and articulate manner or I’ll drown in regret.

Removed stupid language.

[MAUSWAFFE]

@AlvisWisla

Under this system, they should for consistency.
Making exceptions leads to quick real double standards that people falsely claim War Thunder already has.

I agree there needs to be a clear line drawn, but in creation of this suggestion I clearly put it in a different place than you.

The thought here is that a single nation is not separated for shifts in its government, as a separation is generally not necessary when the previous form of the nation ceases to exist with the start of the other.

They could be if it is needed for space at some point if the system is there, but generally in this case it might be best to wait until it is necessary.

As for the specific cases @S3b5 asked about:

I do believe that East Germany in particular is an interesting case, being a split from the German nation that existed in parallel to West Germany, and later unified back into Germany. Here I can actually see a separate tab being reasonable, since it does reflect a very real split. I’d personally still wait it out until the space is necessary since it’s both Germany.

As for ROC/PRC, this one seems more difficult since it is an ongoing situation. It is comparable to the split Germany, however both of these still exist and it is very much up in the air what direction it takes. There might be reunification similar to Germany, or there might be a more clear split off nation of Taiwan, but until we know for sure there really isn’t any form of separation Gaijin can do that wouldn’t appear politically charged on something that is already rather controversial.
Here I’d say to keep them in a general China (neither PRC nor ROC in particular) tree similar to Germany, and best hold off any split.

@AlvisWisla

I can only imagine the ammunition those people would obtain if this system was implemented AND exceptions were made for the Russian Federation or Federal Republic of Germany.
Screams of Russian and German bias, and double standards, this time true.

Even then, there is no bias hese no matter how you put it. There is no benefit in having one tab over multiple, if anything having multiple allows for more space which means more vehicles as well.

@AlvisWisla

Why should the Soviet and German tech trees be kept whole when everyone else is stuck segregated and non-inclusive? Non-included? With sub-nations made 2nd class “citizens” to the main tech tree…

There is no “2nd class” to anything. In this system the trees of (for example) Italy and Hungary are functionally the same. They are both fully independent trees that simply share a folder and with that lineups.

There isn’t even a “main” or “sub” tree anymore, since the “main” tree shown as the face of the folder is always the one the player has selected.

[GTP_Paulie-psn]

Anything that allows full new nations to be added that can still be used in conjunction with existing nations in lineups I’m in for.

[AlvisWisla]

@MAUSWAFFE

There isn’t even a “main” or “sub” tree anymore, since the “main” tree shown as the face of the folder is always the one the player has selected.

You need a default tech tree to show up when the game launches each time, and that’s going to be the flags we see now no matter which system is used.

[MAUSWAFFE]

Interesting… So not being the nation presented when the game launches, but still getting the proper representation once selected makes these “2nd class nations”.

So what do you call not being represented at all, and rather being used as tool to fill another nation?