Im pretty sure he meant Diversity of vehicles as in the type of vehicles we will encounter would shrink like light, medium, heavies to just mostly heavies or just mostly lights etc… Not by Copy paste vehicles. Could be wrong, but that was my interpretation of it.
I think he means in terms of models, but that can be too
Dont forget that after saying premiums should give you no direct advantage, they added the BMPT-72 thingy as a premium that has 2 huge advantages over the TT version, and not just bc its functional and the TT one isnt lol
More armour from shrapnel generally
Higher protection from the likes of big guns and side armour is improved
It also has commander thermals over the TT
only “disadvantage” is 2 less crew but it will be one shot most likely and thus almost meaningless
6 Likes
I saw it on the devstream, Oxy saying that the premium would be a little better than the TT version, its hard to not hate this company
11 Likes
There is no hardline in War Thunder. The goal posts are moving constantly because Gaijin choses to move them. The best ones are when you get different answers from say a community manager and a bug report manager on the same issue.
7 Likes
9 Likes
That aside, I’m glad we’re finally getting some top tier-ish jets that have latest weapon systems.
Nah bro I love stock grinding my 12.3/12.7 jets against a clearly hard to fly top tier premium
1 Like
What do you mean BR spread of ±0.7!? Think about the waiting times, doesn’t anyone think about the waiting times?!
3 Likes
…and are not interested in player feedback.
I mean we were told that ai planes won’t have a ticket impact (in Air RB) in order to avoid the situation that ai turns around games without player input.
This is flat wrong.
Example?
I invite everybody to watch this replay:
Gaijin Entertainment - Single Sign On
or to read this summary:
Unbalanced Maps in Air RB - Feedback thread - #5 by Real_K_Soze
Based on the replay or my summary it is more than obvious that gaijin is not aware of that their statements are wrong (ai plane ground kills won’t have ticket impact) and that even if players try to put their attention on that, these efforts are useless.
You can win there without any action as ai will win for you ; same as on some Pacific maps.
To make things even worse: This nonsense with late spawning ai planes (imho the only map with this “feature”) was already part of this map long before they changed this map into a “Frontline” map. My Bug report is still open.
So from a holistic pov it looks more like that the chances that our cat would get a job as corporate security consultant are way higher than that gaijin would be able (or willing) to fix even basic flaws in Air RB…
3 Likes
As BVVD said in Q&A video,
Q: Are there any plans to introduce more WW2 vehicles to make mid range BRs more diverse?
A:
I checked – each year, we add about 30 to 40 vehicles from the first half of the 20th century.Given how many mid-rank vehicles are already in the game and how well those parts of the tech tree are filled out, adding even more vehicles of that era doesn’t make much sense.
That’s why we more often than not use those kinds of vehicles in special events and activities.
Still, there are quite a few interesting vehicles from that era that can and will be added over time.
I know that you are not saying that you are no longer adding any WW2 vehicles, but I have to reject the premise behind this answer. Does the first half of each tree technically have more vehicles than the second half? Yes. Are there more modern vehicles that need to be added to fill out the top ranks? Yes. However, I feel as if there is an insinuation that these WW2 vehicles are mere roadblocks to players who want to access top-tier vehicles. Or, at the very least, that the development of WW2 vehicles is “done”. This is not fair, and not true to what War Thunder should be. War Thunder isn’t just a modern vehicle game. It’s supposed to be WW2, the Cold War, AND the modern era. There should be no surprise that there are players who favor WW2 vehicles even when they have top tier, like myself, or even that there are players who play WW2-era vehicles exclusively despite being Level 100.
What I am hearing here is that it “doesn’t make much sense” to continue to support these players by adding new and interesting vehicles from this era to the game. There are dozens, if not hundreds of vehicles from this era that can be added to each tree. And I sadly must assert that these additions of “30 to 40 vehicles” each update are really anemic. How many of those are copied from other trees? Take a look at France. It has an extremely underdeveloped air tree despite the storied history of French aviation. If we include early Cold War aviation as well, it seems to me that HALF of the French air tree is just copypasted vehicles from the USA and the UK. This is a disgrace for a country that has countless unique indigenous airframes. And then you added the Netherlands to make the play more interesting, but have decided to drip-feed unique Dutch airframes while adding copypastes wherever you can. And, if we do get any highly anticipated WW2 vehicles, why should players have to hold their breath to see if these vehicles are going to be event-locked or premium? As a Japan main, I see that the only WW2 vehicles added to Japan in the last couple of years were the B7A2 and Ki-48, both of which are technically event vehicles. Where is the Ki-64? The Ki-93, the A6M8? The Ki-46?? I’m sure fans of other nations can name other anticipated planes that have yet to be added to War Thunder. And yet, now you say that it “doesn’t make much sense”. Since when? Did you always think like this? Because as far as I can tell, Gaijin has been kicking the can of WW2 vehicles down the road for a long, long time.
Sure, I get it. A lot of players are excited to see the addition of new modern vehicles and weapons. As am I. However, it shouldn’t be necessary to remind you that War Thunder is also a WW2 game. There should be no reason for it to atrophy. With this announcement, you have simply confirmed the fears of many players. I already know a few prominent suggestors who have decided to call it quits because now their WW2 vehicles are unlikely to ever come. If you think it’s an issue of progress, and you’re afraid of players complaining about “WW2 slop” when they want their shiny new Su-35 in the future, then you need to make the brave choice of separating WW2 vehicles so that they have their own tree to ensure development.
15 Likes
6 Likes
I guess gajin introduce ARM from mid 60’s ~ mid 70’s era
USA tech tree lack heavy bomber between B-17G/B-24D group & B-29A (battle rating 6.0 ~ 6.7), and none Boeing B-50 Superfortress
In the past there were topics on the forum where you could regularly ask developers including BVV_d (who was responsible for DM iirc), could there be at least yearly QnA with developers nowadays?
Like for example I would really like to ask naval lead developers why some ships get unrealistically fast theoretical RoF (like some Soviet projects BBs), while others the worst possible practical (like Littorio class with 45 s instead of theoretical 28 s)?
1 Like
So the dust has kind of settled, and I took time to collect my thoughts on this Question and Answer video. I posted a response to someone else’s comment earlier but I want to have my own jumping-off point.
At this point, the sentiment that this QnA was bad is widespread. It’s easy to attribute this to the toxicity that can be found when players of online games are told “no,” but there is more going on than this. At least to me, this QnA fails on three criteria:
- It’s not very engaging as a Question and Answer segment.
- It doesn’t work well at building excitement for the future of the game.
- It raises concerns about Gaijn’s approach to game development and their interactions with their players.
I’m going to go through each of these and explain my thoughts.
As a Question and Answer video, it’s not very engaging. QnAs are meant to bring forward the kind of discussion and details that would not be possible in normal press releases (or in War Thunder’s case, devblogs or Community Manager posts). But this one was basically just a list of features (and complaints) that BVVD could easily confirm or deny. Confirming or denying features is fine, but this doesn’t necessitate a QnA. As for including such widespread and vague complaints such as “are you ever going to fix naval battles” left me scratching my head. Why engage with such trite criticism? It comes off like a strawman fallacy, casting the players as inept and ignorant of their own game. So TLDR; the choices of questions were uninteresting at best and fallacious at worst.
Second, it doesn’t work to build excitement for the game’s future. Previous QnAs have often included some really exciting information about upcoming features and mechanics. Last year’s QnA, for example, discussed the focuses for 2025: new subtrees and new vehicle classes. This one does have some reveals, mostly about the Aerial Warfare mode, but otherwise the positive answers are confirming fixes to issues players have identified for a long time. While that is nice, and I am glad that the development team is acknowledging and addressing those problems, it’s less exciting and more… expected. Fixing problems that your community identifies is what is supposed to happen, not an exciting revelation.
Third, there were some repeated themes in many of the answers throughout the QnA: BVVD would respond to a request for some feature, gameplay mode, or mechanic with something like “No, that would be a terrible idea. You don’t want that.” Now, I can fully understand that some requests (or demands) are a bit unrealistic, so there absolutely is room to temper player expectations. But so many responses were like this-- telling players that they don’t actually want something that they are asking for. After all, these are supposed to be the top-rated comments that were selected for BVVD to respond to, he must know that these are popular ideas. The one that stands out to me the most was definitely the comment on more game modes beyond point capture/conquest. “If you really wanted other modes, you wouldn’t be playing this one.” This is disgustingly fallacious. A downright disingenuous, bad-faith argument in plain words from one of Gaijin’s creative leaders.
This really makes it seem like the attitude of the development team towards the players is adversarial: They must justify their creative decisions to the players who oppose them by proving that the players don’t just disagree, but are wrong. I am not a game design expert. But I am a teacher. If I went into class each day with the goal of failing each of my students, I would not be a very good teacher. This only further increases the atmosphere of toxicity in the community.
Furthermore, many of the denied features also seem to show that the developers don’t just dismiss the players, but also have a very limited vision for the future of the game. Multiple times, the discussion of improvements to game modes (outside of Aerial Warfare) was met with a denial. There have been many suggestions on the forums of additional varied game modes that should be relatively simple to implement, but we are told not just that this is impossible, but also that we are stupid because we are playing the existing modes in game. Despite last year’s QnA talking at length about new types of vehicles and vessels, this year basically says that the current types of vehicles and vessels are all that can be implemented: strategic bombers have no place in air battles outside of one-off event vehicles, and submarines are challenging to implement too. Again, players have made suggestions of many ways to integrate these and other vehicle types into the game. It’s possible to have a creative vision that differs from the playerbase, but if that’s the limitation then say that instead of brushing the players off!
Anyway, that’s my take. I still appreciate everyone who worked to put this video together, because I do like to hear from the development team and the community managers alike. You all work hard to make a game that I really enjoy. I want that game to be the best it can be and continue to succeed and grow so that I can keep playing it, so my criticism is meant to be constructive. I hope that any devs or CMs reading this understand that (and understand and constructive criticism from other commenters) and can look past the anger and toxicity to make the game a better experience for everyone.
17 Likes
“we don’t do 0.7 BR spread for shorter wait time”
this is from today
the super influx of people online and I need to wait 2 minutes to get into a match server, while on lower amount of players you can get load in in just 10-20 seconds
might as well make an option to separate squad match from solo match. It is infuriating every single time teams with squad has an unfair quantity advantage plus more coordinated attacks
1 Like
Funny how the most compressed tiers are the most crowded in your screenshot… but decompression would raise waiting times so badly trust trust
1 Like
BVVD wouldn’t even have to worry about wait times if they put in effort to the game. If the game was made properly player numbers would be so much higher
13 Likes
“Small maps are what the players want”
Maybe clean your glasses Mr. BVVD
3 Likes
Next update the BMPT dropped…
