Only because if this behaviour of Chinese people as you see right now if they are using logic they will understand quickly and won’t continue this long arguing non-stop about this. They will understand it is THILAND’S THAI VT-4 IN THE THAI SUBTREE THE THAI CREW USING IT IT IS USING THAILAND’S FLAG just sit ALONGSIDE the Japanese tank NOT COMBINED WITH JAPANESE TECHTREE AND CALL IT JAPANESE VT-4.
Understand?
That is true. The crux of the issue is that chinese players against this, thinks Thailand is below Japan. That Japan owns Thai vehicles such as VT4 if they share a tech tree, which is completely false.
Probably means they think Pakistan and Bangladesh is beneath them instead of sharing the tree, if that is their mentality.
Fine, but that should also mean no more foreignly designed/produced vehicles Taiwanese vehicles added to the Chinese tree.
If the Chinese players want to have that tradeof, it’s fine by me.
I think the main issue I see is the implication of subtrees. Gaijin simply don’t do a good enough job to present these nations as equals.
I have a question for the Chinese players here. Is the issue the Thai VT-4 added outside of China itself, or is it the implication of Thailand being placed “under” Japan?
For example what would you think of a Thai VT-4 with a reworked subtree system, where it’s added to a full Thai research tree instead of into a Japanese line?
The detailed rework suggestion if more info is needed:
Or what if the techtree was called Thailand, suggesting Japan was the subtree of Thailand?
Would these change the reaction?
Bigger than israeli tree sure. Also less unique which is pretty insane
Its because its japan. Japan’s behaviour in ww2 is still a massive deal in china.
Yeah I got that part, which is why I specifically asked about two scenarios where Thailand wouldn’t be Japan. Once by completely changing subtrees and making them equals, once by changing a name to suggest Japan under Thailand instead.
Functionally these don’t change much, but they do chanve the implications significantly
This is plain stupid crap. If they cant grasp the concept of a sub tree they shouldnt have any say in changing it.
The onky thing i want is the subtree’s flag in the tech tree near the japanese flsg.
Then the majority of Chinese players want to keep Japan (ingame nation) off from Chinese vehicles no matter the cost
Because of their reasons which can’t be mentioned in the forum
And ‘not adding Thailand VT-4’ will be their only option
While Thailand players wants to see their MBT in game.
And this pararel created all this shitstorms and infinite pararel.
Right?
:|
Thankfully, It seems some chinese players understood difference though.
The solution is ignore chinese players. The thai vt4 is a different weaker export cariant. Thailand operates more vt4 than even china lol.
Well, I’m asking to see if the reason they don’t understand it might just be the poor implementation of subtrees in general.
I linked the suggestion for reworked subtrees, which is what I personally think Gaijin should’ve done to implement subtrees and would already change the system in a way that might solve this issue.
Renaming the tree is also a convenient temporary solution if such a rework takes time, because it changes functionally nothing, but might still fix the issue in the meantime.
sure but atleast it provides the connotation of “hey they’re not the supplementary nations, They’re equals”
because some people do think that about sub-trees in general. For instance the British ‘sub-tree’ is its former colonies as they were ‘under’ british control.
That doesnt mean it ingame of course but with the connotations that follows people would assume as such
They are supplementary nations. That doesnt make it in any way ineferior.
The reason subtrees exist in the firstplace is to add vehicles from nations with a shortage of unique vehicle for a proper tt, to a nation with lacking quantity
thats exactly what i mean… they’re in no way beneath the actual nations in the tree, its just people assume it as such by the design of the ‘sub-tree’ itself.
Even the name sub-tree brings connotations. its just English 101, the words you use will bring either a negative or positive association with the context, doesnt matter if you didnt mean it
branch for instance would be a much more neutral term
Yeah, we have India as a sub-tree. And Italians are having Hungary.
But it really doesn’t mean that ‘we still rule India’ or ‘the Roman Empire is still alive and maintaining Pannonia’. :/
But also, Thanks to Gaijin’s poor implementation, they give false assumptions like that.
So, we all suffer thanks to Gaijin. :|
As always. :(
Interesting not here, Gaijin also doesn’t use the word subtree in official releases and haven’t for quite a while now. This is likely the reason. Usually they go for “[nation] branch” or “[nation] vehicles” as the neutral options.
In the rework I took this a bit of a step further by just going for “nation” in general, and refer to factions of multiple nations as either “folder” (for the UI) or “faction” (for the functionality of a group of nations).
I know it’s a bit off-topic here, but still interesting how much weight language alone can have.
yes public opinion does certainly play a factor, I also think they way its portrayed is also a contributor, the fact that Thailand is brought in to “bolster” Japan isnt really helping the narrative, even if they don’t mean it as such people will (as i said) take ideas, put some associations with it, spin it, or run with it.
You cant really prohibits that, its just the nature of words and meaning. What you need to do is how do you protect what you wanna say from being narratively driven away from the point you want to make. Its such a simple thing but obviously not that apparent and often its hard to nail down. Not everyone is the same, language is also another barrier, its just a lot of seemingly inconsequential factors that doesnt need attention. But it is.
Let me wrap it around so it stays on topic and the mods don’t nuke this important feedback aspect.
This sums it up very well as the reason why VT4 is contentious even though the standard of implementation are clear.
This is quite interesting as I have not taken notice. I’d say a good amount of players too since ‘sub-tree’ is the initial and intuitive word to describe said branch. I agree and should follow suit.
At the end of the day though, words and false implications, not even supported or explicitly stated by Gaijin, (As in saying Nation A is with Nation B because colonization, protectorate, puppet-state fighting for/under) shouldn’t be the reason why Thailand loses it’s VT4 in the Thai branch.
I genuinely hope some in the chinese player base realize they are offending and disrespecting Thailand by demanding we conform to their wishes as if they are more important or take more priority over Thailand.
In context, the “Sub” prefix relates to being a smaller cog in a larger project. I guess that flies over people’s head and they link it to it being subpar.
But yeah, Thailand is a subtree or a branch of Japan. So the Thai VT-4 fits.
thats just one context. Any form of Sub is just a minefield of negative connotations
Sub- prefix (as in the case used in ‘sub-tree’) by definition is “Under/Beneath/Below” or “A subordinate portion of-- X”
It goes back to this: