I fail to see any removed feature. Everything is still there, the nation based trees are easy to understand and navigating them is as easy as a simple additional mouse click that in turn allows for many exciting new vehicles to be added for all affected nations.
When I tried to consider a toggle as you suggested I ran into many issues I couldn’t fix, mainly boiling down to the point of research order.
A vehicle is placed behind another, but when turning multiple 5 line trees back into one, this can’t be kept the same. So either the research order changes with the toggle, or the display of research order will be very unintuitive and hard to follow for at least one of these options.
So really all that can be properly done with a toggle is still stay restricted to the space of only a single 5 line tree, with no real option to branch out any of the nations further than you already can. And even then there would still be issues with vehicles that are currently placed throughout the main trees, such as the South African ZA-35 being connected to the British Chieftain Marksman.
So even when the rework is effectively down to a glorified search filter by operating nation, it doesn’t let the toggle function properly.
I can’t compromise a rework that hundreds of people have voted for, so unless you have an implementation that doesn’t face those issues and still allows for all benefits of the rework, there won’t be a toggle.
It can though. You just tie the progression together in the backend, and give a visual indication that they’re attached. AKA separating the UI from the research system, and the UI being a “loose representation” for lack of a better term; MMORPGs do this with quest requirements.
As an alternative, you can treat the start as a foldered vehicle.
You can do branching paths.
There are an unknown amount of more methods to result in the same parity between visual representations on the screen.
Edit:
To reiterate: I do not oppose the idea itself; I only oppose replacing outright the graphical interface.
The backend, the mechanics of research, I assume everyone here wants that unified.
And in my eyes the only way for that to be unified, and this idea to work is separating the graphical interface from the underlying mechanics of research… which would allow for columns, the existing graphical interface, and your idea with a number of methods to make them all seamlessly work.
(Hi I’m Laiti the one who wrote the old forum post) I whole heartedly support this for the game, glad to see someone made a suggestion far more in-depth than mine! (And making a lot more sense)
FINALLY!
The solution to the major issue that allows people to stay comfortable with what they’re familiar with.
To reiterate why I think this is plausible:
Gaijin, YOU have to separate the research functionality from the graphical interface of the research windows/folders in order to implement Mauswaffe’s idea to begin with.
With that said, it’s a perfect opportunity to keep the old inferface and/or have the new faction idea at the same time as Mauswaffe’s idea.
In a recent update to the suggestion, the formatting of the suggestion has been updated. This includes minor changes for better visibility and a more visually appealing design. @馮如’s Rework for Subtrees from the old forum is also now finally mentioned in the main suggestion.
The main new addition for the suggestion is the Faction Overview, a new menu that, as the name suggests, gives an overview of all vehicles from the various nations of the currently selected faction.
Sub-trees should have their own autonomy; their own separate tech trees, premiums and everything, while still being under their parent tech trees. Personally I even want RP not to be shared, but keep the lineups interchangeable in combined battles, with in-battle tabs representing each flag and you would be researching both countries simultaneously.
Any chance you could have something toggle-able like the research helicopters with ground vehicles thing? Instead this time you decide whether or not to split the RP earned across nations evenly or to research just one nation’s tree.
IMO though it would be bad if the RP earned would only be limited to the flag carrier of a nation since the entire point of subtrees in the first place was to supplement what was lacking in a parent tree which would mean both trees would have difficulty researching without the other especially in the current state of economics in WT since the only option you might just have is to split evenly which would mean you will require twice the RP.
I do believe that having the “sub nations” locked behind the main nation, would be a good idea, for example completing Britain, would then unlock Australia and India for research.
But you would be researching two tech trees at once and using both in the same battle. If that’s not enough, maybe some sort of bonus RP and SL multiplier could help, or lowering the costs of researching and purchasing vehicles of sub-tree nations.
I just came here to post something like this suggestion. I really like this idea, I’ll be sure to read it fully and all the comments and see what i can add to it to help. I really hope they implement this or something close to this coz rn it’s all so messy and the vehicles of our respective interests are just used to fix up other nations’ shortcomings. They add some they leave some, dropping droplets on thirsty soil. Might as well just plan and and introduce these folders one at a time, this concept will be something similar to israel, where you can gain exp upto a certain point and then switch over to your nation of interest.
I’ve read your post carefully (although i couldn’t read the comments, so some of the stuff I’m about to say might have already been suggested)
instead thinking of nations as techtree and subtrees. Think of them as co-techtrees under a fabricated faction with a fabricated neutral name and fabricated symbol (not necessarily a flag). This eliminates the complaints about representation entirely coz now no nation is entirely under one nation, they are just cooperating with each other under the same banner, as for stuff like sour relations in real life my next few points will help.
abandon the line system. Now this is very important if we are going to have multiple co-trees/folders. Gaijin might need to increase the no. of tiers if they do implement this. This allows for flexibility of choice. Say for example you are against a country you don’t want your nation to co-operate with, so you have the choice of not investing in that country’s vehicles or stuff, as there are no lines if you do need to get some stuff from this nation due to minimum requirement you can just take one vehicle at the required tier. You are not forced to research and buy stuff you know you are never going to use. This might cut the revenue from premium vehicles a lil bit so there are solutions for that in the next subpoints:
-relate the number of vehicles you can get at a certain with the number pf vehicles you have from the previous tier. Say for example you only have 8 vehicles from tier iv then you can only buy 8 vehicles in tier v. If you have 10 in tier 1, 10 in tier 2, 10 in tier 3, 8 in tier 4, you can still only buy 8 in tier v. This makes for a hellish grind for someone going for unlocking all the vehicles thus preserving the need for premiums.
-divide the vehicles into categories at a tier instead of lines. Light, medium, heavy and such in low tiers. Light, mbt, spaa in top tiers (or just medium for mbt for consistency). Now make the condition that you must have a certain amount of vehicles in a category to purchase stuff from that category in the text tier. So for example, the requirements are 3 mediums, 2 light, 2 spaa, 1 heavy, 1 TD at a certain tier (can change as per the vehicles and number available), you if you only purchased 6 vehicles from previous tier, and you bought 3 mediums 1 light 2 spaa, then you will only be able to purchase mediums and spaa in the next tier.
Yes its already a faction if you look at the faction overview part of the suggestion. The line system is abandoned in the faction overview but if you look at the national level, the traditional line system is still there. The categorical division of the vehicles would be represented as such in the factional overview.
i will try to be as clear as possible now. i’m suggesting the FABRICATION part not faction part, i might have unknowingly worded it like so but i was just trying to chnage the perception and make the answer elaborate to avoid confusion.
i’m talking about abandoning the line system in progression not presentation, i tried to be as clear as possible but i feel u didn’t quite get what i was really talking about.
again, this is also for progression not presentation.
please read the content carefully before any comment, it hurts my pride to see the suggestion i poured my heart into writing being brushed off without being read or understood carefully, if you have any qualms about my suggested system you can criticise me based on that, but undermining my efforts without comprehending what i’m talking about doesn’t sit well with me.
This is also something I thought of. In the suggested Rework national trees are not interconnected in terms of progression. You can research Hungary for example without ever needing to touch the Italian tree.
See it not as a combined faction tree, but multiple independent national trees that function with familiar line progression, but can be combined in lineups of the given faction instead.
This cooperation is optional, but beneficial to gameplay since it offers better lineups.
The folder includes multiple national trees that can be selected, each functioning as independent nations.
The Faction Overview is a menu that helps navigation of a faction, but it isn’t indicative of research progression. That is shown in the national trees.
Faction Overview showing all vehicles of the faction in a structured and orgnized way by BR and class.
With the additional space gained for each nation, this makes research progression more logical too. British light tanks for example get a line for themselves instead of being squeezed into a South African line, while South Africa branches out more into Light tank, MBT, SPAA, etc. lines like other nations already do.
I see you put a lot of effort into your idea, and I do like specifically your idea for a faction symbol that can be useful in many cases, such as the RB battle statistics that can only show so many flags, or being shown when the Faction Overview is open.
I also liked the structure of your research system, but I also feel like it is probably best to keep research as familiar as possible to players since the rework already has a lot of significant changes.
But maybe you can make your own suggestion about it at some point?
It would also serve well if we name the factions, for reference purposes, say zzz faction is better than xxx faction coz they have yyy and rrr nations. Like that.
My point being if we are going to change the tech trees around anyway and give freedom of choice to choose between nations then why give partial freedom let us choose between vehicles too.
I’m not too unhappy with the way things currently are so I’m not going to go out of my way to do that but it was worth a shot to see if you could get some new ideas or implement something from this. I’ll just be very happy if they just do the nation separation as I’m only interested in indian vehicles currently and the way things are right now they are probably going to add majority indian vehicles as event vehicles or premiums wheres if it comes as a techtree of itself then it’ll be somewhat balanced.
I’d leave the naming up to Gaijin here though, since historically we are at a dead end with “Commonwealth” not fitting the GB/ZA/IN faction likely won’t have all commonwealth nations, or “BeNeLux” can’t apply to FR/BE/NL/LU since France isn’t a part.
So what we need is probably some Wargame Red Dragon style fictional faction names and since I donn’t know what nations go where this is on Gaijin to choose.
Yeah, fair enough. But then again with separate trees come multiple lines of separate vehicle types anyways that should make it accessible enough.
India is one that I can see working out very well like this. I’d imagine with a rework we’ll see one at a time additions of new nations added like this and subtrees changed to the new format.
India is actually a good choice for this with the popular independent tree.
This is honestly a no-brainer addition. Especially regarding simulator. This would help a LOT in balancing that department of gameplay, especially for REDFOR which sometimes struggles to get enough players to even start a match. Especially at higher tiers where the only REDFOR options are China and Russia. Addition of Warsaw Pact countries would help a ton in this regard.
This could also add the possibility of adding new medals for countries + new profile pictures as well, with sub-nations having their own rewards. Gaijin already rewards people with achievements for playing certain sub-nations (Australin Ace, Hungarian Ace, Finnish Ace achievements on steam) so further rewards would be nice, and could incentivise people to play these sub-trees.
I highly support this, and find any opposition to this down-right silly and misguided.
This is cool and all. However. Your suggestion doesn’t seem to address how this will affect matchmaking. If I, your most enthusiastic China player, wish to only play with my Chinese vehicles without the other China in my line-up what will happen when you-know-that-player decides to play with both China and the other China.
The matchmaker forces me to play with both Chinas on the same team, making this suggestion slightly redundant when Gaijin could just add a much more simpler way of expanding the trees like just add another row or something. I can already only play with China if I want. But I can’t force myself onto matches with only 1 China on my side.
All nations get split now. Sub-trees are there to complement nations so this doesn’t seem like a realistic option.
MM Que is now made so if you’re playing with mixed line-ups, you will not get into a match with players who que for single nation line-ups. This seems like an ok option but prevents interesting stuff happening like say east Germany going against west Germany. Also ofc Gaijin can’t imagine a world where you take longer than a second to que.
Opposite teams. You will now fight your own nation’s tanks. I’ll just say I dislike this heavily as realistic battles are already arcadified enough.
You’re missing a kind of interesting proposition here to allow combinations of nations that were historically under a treaty. That’d fix the issue of who should play with who and no more complaints about a certain nations not having the right equipment to compete with others. Though that’d require semi-historical MM which is another topic. Otherwise you end up with people choosing whatever they please and queing which would work with arcade but contradicts the very point of separating nations you want with this. Unless you play sim, it’ll only matter to that small playerbase.
This doesn’t seem like a research thing. You still need the right number of vehicles to progress yea? That seems a bit poorly explained but that’s how I understood it, looking at the F-86K image. Maybe I read over something?
It’d allow for more nation medals which is cool. Maybe profile pictures or something else. I think these are the actual benefits to get out of this. I just think this nation folders idea is kind of unneeded though if it’s just to make the hud more convoluded without any meaning. Simulator battles I guess but there’s simpler ways to fix that. Alvis already mentioned this but there’s more than enough room right now.
I guess if you look into the core of my word salad without the leaflet self biases and forceful topic changing I’m trying to say that it’s a great idea if it’d also allow minor nations to play on their own in realistic but otherwise right now as it is it just seems like an unnecessary change when the hud is in a pretty ok state.
