I’m currently working on a Polish tech tree.
1 Like
Nice post ,well made but I have to disagree.
The big issue is they all look great on paper but ultimately, they all have to play on the same map. For Sweden we have the M4 the Panzer 4 and the T34 all on the same BR of 3.7 .Kind of seems pointless playing Sweden as I have mained US, German, and Russia for a long time.
T34 vs T34 or Sherman vs Sherman just reminds me of the very old days where tank vs tank battle games were the same tank vs the same tank, like we are going backwards in time. It’s not what I expect from a game in 2024
Entire teams of completely different tanks and so many nations together just kills the tiny amount of immersion left in War Thunder.
From the complaints on this forum it is not a desire for a million new vehicles that is needed on here but a way to make the game fun for those we already have. Map quality, CAS spam issues, Era issues etc These are what the player base seem to be worried about and they seem to be the reason for people leaving the game. If anything, players just buying in to the game with new premiums is causing alarm not happiness.
2 Likes
Blockquote Entire teams of completely different tanks and so many nations together just kills the tiny amount of immersion left in War Thunder.
This can be circumvented by ‘event’ type of games, such as we see in Simulator or events. We’ve had full random battles for at least 6 years now.
The major point of this post is that we shouldn’t only look at the ‘big 3’ nations in game for content, nor did I ever argue that we should have a status-quo of gamemodes.
These issues you’re raising are the job of different parts and people involved in game development of War Thunder. I see the relevancy to player retention and the growth of War thunder, but I don’t feel like that is a reason to disagree with my arguments. Please elaborate further on why these new nations shouldn’t be added, except for ‘immersion’ reasons.
1 Like
I would actually be happier if Gaijin reverted to only the big 3 to be honest especially in the WW2 era where I play. Spamming the game with every nation prototypes and fantasy vehicles may fill Gaijins pockets, but it does nothing for the game play.
I get no pleasure from just being in an M4 vs enemy M4s especially when they are just the same tank painted a slightly different colour.
The game to me is about what happens when you leave the hanger and I am tired of being killed by the same tank I am using because we can’t tell who is who in busy urban games. Maybe you should justify to me how you see that as an improvement over T34s vs Panzer IVs or M4 vs Panzer IV,s.
Maybe I f I was a nine-year-old kid I wouldn’t be bothered but I am not sadly. Every side using the same tank is a major step backwards and that is how Gaijin are implementing new tech trees.
I would actually be happier if Gaijin reverted to only the big 3 to be honest especially in the WW2 era where I play.
That is sadly an impossibility. (Unless you play another game that is.)
Spamming the game with every nation prototypes and fantasy vehicles may fill Gaijins pockets, but it does nothing for the game play.
Once again, this is a point that is irrelevant to the core argument. There is no mention of support for fantasy or ‘every nation’ prototypes being added.
I get no pleasure from just being in an M4 vs enemy M4s especially when they are just the same tank painted a slightly different colour.
Agreed, when not in a random battle, this has been a frustration for me as well, but since the addition of the german sherman in 2013 I’ve been able to live with the fact that war thunder isn’t an immersive mixed combat vehicle game. It tries to be realistic at times, but the matchmaking has long been degraded into full random battles!
It’s ultimately the choice of Gaijin in how to add vehicles for new nations. And I agree that the pz4, t-34 and M4 shouldn’t have been in one tech tree, as that lineup is one of the most OP in the whole game now.
1 Like
Definitely, I agree. New tech trees are always good. As we had more than a handful of nations been denied a home in the nations we have, new trees would allow that. More independent trees are definitely the way to go with them receiving sub-trees as needed.
Well, there is a good Canadian ground tree and I’m almost done with the air tree. But I’ve come to like the idea of a “commonwealth tree” with the rules we have. main nation and sub-nations to make 5 researchable lines. (Canada with ANZAC sub-tree)
Plus there are all the unique and interesting trees above. Out of them, only two don’t look interesting enough for me. But that wouldn’t bother me as I just wouldn’t play them.
3 Likes
Agreed, that’s also why ‘independent trees’ aren’t added in the list of ways in how to integrate new nations, as that would mean we would have between 20 and 40 new ‘nations’ in the game and that seems too big of a step to take in War Thunder, for now.
What gives you the biggest sense of satisfaction? Seeing a full line up of German or American Armour rolling out from spawn or sad collection of era and nations with every tank form a different country like a parade from an Armour Day at the local fair?
To me there is nothing more fun than one nation vs one nation (or close) when it happens. Now it is just a shambles and many of the nations have the same tanks and you want another ten nations thrown in? Nice idea but how does it work in game? China vs Sweden with M4s and T34s in both? So far from what WT was meant to be and in close proximity no way to tell who is who. I’m firing my last round at a friendly and not firing at all at enemies in the same tank as me who are then killing me. We have tiny maps, smoke, fog and a big blur of blue letters over ten tanks close together and no means of identification. It didn’t used to be an issue but is becoming one with more nations and more copy/paste.
Why?!?
I think that there is more than enough! There’s absolutely no NEED for more vehicles.
It would make much more sense if Gaijin focused on gameplay, new modes, graphics and just trying to make the game better. The only thing we don’t NEED is more vehicles.
2 Likes
15 magach on Israel TT + centurions, just to have 3 merkavas.
China with 90% of TT being Russian + USA
I sometimes play air sb and just detect 5-6 f16, from China, Italy, Japan, cant be sure if the Israel one also
Zsu 57 is also on 5 nations, stop the copy paste crap please.
What gives you the biggest sense of satisfaction? Seeing a full line up of German or American Armour rolling out from spawn or sad collection of era and nations with every tank form a different country like a parade from an Armour Day at the local fair?
With all due respect, I have answered that before in this thread. So long as Gaijin does not change the matchmaking for random battles, you will never see a solely German vs USA matchmaker. The first sherman in War Thunder was in Germany, it has been like this since the game’s inception.
We have tiny maps, smoke, fog and a big blur of blue letters over ten tanks close together and no means of identification. It didn’t used to be an issue but is becoming one with more nations and more copy/paste.
Identification is done by using decals, just like IRL. And that has always been a problem in War Thunder, sure the amount of mixed matches have increased in recent years. (I remember having M4 vs M4 in 2016, still happens now).
What I hear from your arguments is the following: “I don’t like random battles with the current matchmaker, because I can’t handle fighting the same tank as I’m occupying, even with blue names for my teammates above the tanks and I wish for there to be a realistic/historical matchmaker like there kind of was in 2013”.
I agree of course, but I don’t see why that would warrant the deletion of all non-major nations or the blockade on new nations being added, these things aren’t exclusive.
What I am arguing is the addition of more unique vehicles. Gaijin does seem to like adding ‘copy-paste’, but I’m not arguing for that, now am I?
3 Likes
China and Israel have been done dirty on launch and many suggestions exist to show the potential they could have as their own character.
5 Likes
I would suggest you read the roadmaps Gaijin put out and so some research on how gaming companies are structured. There are separate teams for these separate subjects, it’s not about x or y feature, Gaijin is big enough to do both at the same time.
Edit:
The game’s progression system has long been dependent on new content in the form of vehicles being added. Game data has shown time and time again that the War Thunder playerbase mostly flares up with events and new content being added. Sure, some people have 4000 battles in a T-34 or M4A1, but most people have between 20-200 battles in the vehicles of the nations they play in, with outliers being more common in WT veterans.
Not adding new vehicles would be detrimental for the game’s growth.
3 Likes
Depends if you are gaining more players than you are losing. The introduction of new vehicles in WT at 6BR has had a negative effect on that BR for me and made me wonder if I want to stay in the game. It isn’t about just introducing new vehicles but making then work in the game that is the issue. People wanted helicopters and dedicated tank busters like the A10 and now they are complaining about CAS spam.
I think Gaijin should think more about things before flooding the game with new and shiny vehicles. Many are losing their dedication to the game it seems. So many posts from long term players saying goodbye. There are also many complaints about new players coming in via new premiums. Big spenders killing the game at high tier. Are they enjoying getting slaughtered at 12 BR when they have no clue about the game? are they speeding big once then leaving while driving the old timers away as well?
If Gaijin are making a fat pile then OK but it has nothing to do with us and we will never know either way. I can only say that to me it is driving me away and I play less and less as the game gets crazier and crazier. I’ll play but no longer have enough faith to spend like I used to. If Israel are a sign of things to come then you are wrong.
Yeah. The reason I made that thread is that in the article Economy Revision - Our Plans in Detail, they said there were 10 playable nations ingame and they had, “No intention of stopping there!” That means we’ll almost certainly get a new independent tree this year.
Yes this works. If we get more independent tree the could take one. As of right know we have at most 3 more sub-trees possible.
This just won’t happen at this point. They decided to do sub-trees instead.
If they ever where planing on doing this we would have had a “Commonwealth tree” by now. Instead we have a SA sub-tree and nothing for the other 3 dominions(the primary nations of a “Commonwealth tree”)
Well this would be nice and how sub-tree should have been done. All my interactions with Gaijin staff has shown the are to stubborn to change from the current system.
This comes with the 1 Death Leaver problem. Where if they want to play that nations vehicle they we just leave the match because the other stuff doesn’t interest them
Or it’s the “Canada problem” where if they want to make a line up of that nation they can’t as it now split between 3-6 trees making them become problem one: 1DL.
So yes in my opinion new independent trees should come. As Gaijin has decided the “main tree-sub tree” system is the way of doing things.
Now don’t get me wrong not all nations have enough for an independent tree that is what the sub-tree in a related nation is for.
But if the nation can make 4 relatively full lines with no 2+ full BR gap(like a gap like 2.0-3.0 is fine as it is game with some nations already but 2.0-4.0 is not) is the bare minimum for me for a nation as it can receive a sub-tree down the line.
1 Like
I will admit this is a opinion post based of of my observations. Using my takes on the limited hard evidence we have.
Poland should also be added to the list. Together with Yugoslavia they are the most fleshed out on the list.
Highly underrated nation, it actually has a lot to offer in terms of new content.
2 Likes
I agree. I’m currently working on a Polish Ground tech tree and it’s quite interesting.
1 Like
@Thomas_Belgium Funny how you are all positive and advocating for ‘minor’ nation subtrees, saying how great they are and even making a list linking examples in your post, but then you come onto my Hungarian minor nation subtree suggestion (which fits exactly what you seem to support) and vote ‘no’ and proceed to leave my suggestion off of your list of minor tree suggestions…
Either a huge hypocrite or just hates certain countries. Ironic either way.
Edit: we discussed it and came to an understanding.