Mainly the title. What are your guy’s opinions on New, sub, and current Tech trees when it comes to adding them with Copy/paste vehicles? Do you think Trees should try to stay unique, minimizing the amount of vehicles that are shared across all of them? Should it be pure balance, having as many copy and paste vehicles to fill out line ups?
Here 2 different polls.
First Any new Primary nations (Think Jap, Sweden, Italy) added to the game:
Should Stay truely unique, Having little to no Copy paste vehicles. Only using what they built.
Should have a little bit of copy/paste to fill out certain br’s. Having less copy/paste vehicles than uniqe.
should have a fair amount of copy/paste vehicles to fill out a full tree, never leaving any br without a lineup.
Should be added with as many vehicles as it could get. Copy/Paste
Other
0voters
Second, Any new sub nations (Think Canadian, Swiss, Australian) :
Should Stay truely unique, Having little to no Copy paste vehicles. Only using what they built.
Should have a little bit of copy/paste to fill out 1 or 2 br’s. (Possible br holes greater then 3.0)
Should have a fair amount of copy/paste vehicles to fill out the line, Never leaving a large hole in the br. (Greater then 2.0 Br’s)
Should be added with as many Copy paste vehicles as it could get. Giving most br’s another vehicle for a lineup. (At most having a .3 br gap)
Other
0voters
As for our current primary and sub nations, I’ll leave for the comments.
Copy-paste in ground makes unique lineups more often than not.
Copy-paste in air allows people to experience a vehicle earlier if they are progressing on that tech tree prior to other tech trees that host the specific aircraft variant.
No one forces me to play them, so I don’t mind.
I already skip over BMPs because I never want to play them.
A copy-paste Stingray in America isn’t going to upset me. Either I’ll play it or I won’t.
Copypaste should be added, but not in the way it’s now, like: “we will add this leased vehicle, it isn’t instead of ingenious designs of course, but prepare to wait for years because we don’t care, the gap is filled the job is done”.
Also imo copypaste should mostly be placed in folders as 2nd/3rd vehicles, so players could skip it if they aren’t interested in them, but research if they need them for lineup or just want to do so. Another helpful move would be the addition of RP reduction for each next exact same vehicle researched like in a perfect War Thunder, after I’ve researched Chinese M4A4, I get 50% RP reduction for Italian and French M4A4 as well as their modifications, researched Italian M4A4 and French one gets another 50% reduction.
Officially such vehicles can be called “international” and have some visual symbol (like a planet maybe) in research TTs telling about such mechanic. This would encourage players to research new TTs even if they are filled by vehicles which they have already known from other TTs.
Although it should be applied to only exact same vehicles (not variants), regular tree vehicles with same 3D models, same modifications and BR.
(I’ll be going off the definition for copy paste as a vehicle which has no difference in gameplay, so even a mg change for a tank would be a unique variant in my book)
As long as the copy paste is used to fill gaps where nothing else can, I’m ok with it. That being said, I firmly believe we have way too much copy paste in the trees currently and the pattern of several identical howitzers being added every few updates while plenty of unique vehicles are tossed into events or BPs is concerning, I would prefer it be the other way around.
As for new subtrees and trees, as long as over 50% (preferably 60%) if the vehicles are unique or unique mods unavailable elsewhere, then I would be in favour, regardless of it’s a standalone or alliance tree.
They’re fine if we keep getting unique vehicles alongside as well. Copypaste vehicles are a great tool for understanding difference in skill level between nations too.
A cope out from gaijin but can also be explained by lack of documentation for certain vehicles.
For example I would love to see the Super Mystere B4 in the game, it was a prototype of the Super Myster B2 with IIRC, an early mirage 3C engine, which eleminated most of the problems with the SBM2 (underpowered and anemic afterburner). Trials indicated that it was superior to the F100, so it would be a lot of fun in game and would make a perfect 9.3 for france.
However, it was a one off prototype, there’s like one pic in black and white and the blueprints (if they still exist) will likely be a pain in the ass to get, meaning that reference gathering for modeling and creating a FM would be very hard. Meanwhile, copy paste vehicles are cheap, convenient and fast to make, so why bother?
A lack of documentation can be an issue, although we have vehicles in game which have none or vague information about them, for example modern tanks, there is basically no information on Ariete tanks armor composition, but they are in the game with protection modelled based on pure assumptions, plus its WAR armor was implemented when there was zero info as well, later it was found that WAR is intended to protect against KE (direct hits of enemy APFSDS), though it still isn’t fixed up to this day.
Self propelled Howitzers and mortars have no place in war thunder. we dont do barrage strikes in this game, its direct fire and CAS spam. Id prefer if derp guns of any flavour were limited to small numbers in their home trees (FV4005 to britain, 15cm sig for germany, KV2 soviet, M55 america) and it stayed exclusive and rare.
For full TTs (new or old) C&P should be avoided where possible, but will be an innevitable thing to occur.
for Sub-TTs… It should only be done if 100% absolutely necessary.
Is there a unique native (main-TT) option?
if no, is there a C&P native (main-TT) option?
if no, is there a unique Sub-TT option?
Does this “hole” pose a serious and meaningful impact onto the trees integrity or a popular line-up? Is there a community interest in seeing this gap addressed?
If yes, is there a C&P Sub-TT option?
That is process that should be taken when adding any new vehicles, especially when adding “hole fillers”
(though quite frankly, im not even entirely sure Gaijin knows what a TT hole looks like? They’ve added South African SPAAGs to 5.3 and 8.3 and Indian SPAA to 10.3 but have yet to add any SPAA for 6.0-7.0 or even 9.0/9.3. It would be funny if it wasnt so annoying.)
its pretty easy to see the difference between allied nations getting shermans and say, the leopard 2a4 being omni-present despite there being many more leopard variants they could add for flavor
Well, I saw a guy who disagree about ‘any kind of exported version of US built vehicle outside of US TT’ before. :/
For example, buffalo mk.1 (inferior F2A-1 with extra armour)
That is what I am worring about. :(
“You guys have XXX, So you guys can’t have YYY no matter how many vehicle you used, how iconic it is, because copy paste is bad.”
I am well aware about everyone’s worrying about Copy paste, and it’s adverse effect.
But I just don’t want to see that it becomes ‘strong gatekeeping tool’.
The pretense of realistic and immersive matchmaking is long gone now.
Axis and Allied dogfights are extremely rare, there are no Sabres and MiGs over Korea and despite all of the preparation; there was no landing on Hokkaido.
Most players only play 1 or 2 tech trees I’d guess, it makes sense from a pragmatic point of view to add content to as many trees as possible so players have more vehicles to grind and play.
What’s the point of a new TT when it brings nothing new to the game?
If a new nation TT is added to the game, it should be filled with vehicles of original design with only occasional C/P vehicles where needed to patch the gaps. Subtrees should not have any C/P vehicles at all…