Reworking tech-tree progression to fix bloat

Suggestions
1

Introduction

Most of you are probably aware of the problem of tech-tree bloat. Both Germany and the US suffer from having too many things to research, making progression take ages compared to countries like Japan (which might have as low as one or two things to research per tier) is incredably breazy to progress through.

I belive that the game should continue to offer a wide selection of weapons and vehicles, and I don’t want to see anything that’s currently in the game removed (except maybe mines, but that’s a entierly different topic which I won’t get into here. If you want me to tackle the issues with mines tell me and I’ll make a new topic for it but please don’t discuss that here otherwise). I would even like there to be even more stuff added to the tech-tree across all factions and tiers, the subfactions deserve more love after all. However, adding more things to the US and German tech-tree, especially early to mid tier stuff would just worsen this problem. I don’t want there to be a excuse for Dark Flow to be lazy and continue to only add new things for the higher BRs after all.

So, how do we futureproof the tech-tree for all factions? I have three different suggestions for how to rework tech-tree reaserch to either mitigate or comletely remove this problem, and I shall present them in order acording to which I’d like to see see implemented, worst to best.

1. Make every research tier independent.

Right now, to progress in the tech-tree you have to both research roughly eight different things in the latest tier to advance to the next one and you also have to research any weapons/vehicles preceeding the one you want to research. All in all a fairly simple system (though I would have liked if it was clearer that you don’t have to research all things in the sub-trees to continue onwards, but that’s just past me complaining). The the one simple change I propose here is that you don’t have to research every weapon/vehicle in the line to progress, simply research enough things to progress to the next tier to unlock the ability to research the first things in the new tier.

Pros:
Simple to implement
Would somewhat deal with the bloat

Cons:
Does not help with the bloat in specific tiers, grinding old weapons would still be a thing
Time to 100% complete remains the same and unequal between factions
New system would likely be confusing
Would also likely make the tech tree look like a mess

2. Proportional XP cost.

Currently, weapons and vehicles have a XP cost depending on their exact location in the tech tree. Instead we could make the XP cost for an entire line in a tier the same for all factions, proportionally distributed between all weapons or vehicles in that line so that it takes the same amount of XP to progress no matter what faction you’re playing.

As an example, lets say faction A has four rifles in tier 1 research, 5 000, 20 000, 25 000 and 30 000 XP cost each (80 000 in total) and faction B only has three on the same tier with , 5 000, 20 000 and 30 000 each (55 000 in total). Progressing in the rifle tree in faction B is noticeably faster, as you don’t have to gather that additional 25 000 XP, (these are tier 1 numbers, this problem is of course way WAY worse in higher tiers). Instead of the current system it could be decided that to finish the tier 1 rifle tree you need to gather 65 000 xp in total, or an equal 12,250 XP per rifle for faction A or 21 700 XP for faction B (not exact number, rounded up for aesthetics).

Pros:
All factions would be virtually equal on XP costs
Actually fully negates tech tree bloat without removing any content and leaves room for expansion
Tech tree stays the same in terms of looks, no confusion here

Cons:
Factions with few weapons would suddenly take ages to grind for just a single item (fixed by adding more stuff to the game)
Adding new stuff would always skew the numbers, making it ever easier to grind out any new update items (not good for the long term life of the game that each new update is “finished” faster than the one before)

3. Progression through normal tree or subfaction tree

What do I mean by this? Well, what if all weapons and vehicles were taged depending on its country of origin? What if you could then choose to research either the very next thing in that line OR the next thing of the same country tag, regadless of what tier it is in (as long as you have unlocked that tier of course). I would like to see this solution implemented together with a subfaction rework update, flashing out the forgotten Brits and Italians of Enlisted. (Seriously, A Burma update with NO new things for the British Commonwealth, I mean come on!)

Pros:
Would make the subfactions feel more distinct from their main country
Experience the sparse tech-tree of Japan as the US, now just with a British coat of paint
If you only care about one countrys’ stuff you can now skip everything else, which would cut down on research time
Subfactions rarely have things for all BRs, if any. This change would let you progress to the next BR without having to go back to the beggining and start all over again just because there is no British automatic rifles
New weapons/vehicles would no longer contribute as much to tech-tree bloat as you can skip things from countries you don’t care about, futureproofed

Cons:
Researching everything in a tech-tree would still take longer for some factions than others (the curse of being a completionist in my mind, just learn to deal with it)
Squads are country and weapon/vehicle specific, you’ll have to for example ignore BR II MGs for the US because they’re all British (a symptom of a larger problem, as I said I want to see this change together with a subfaction rework/expansion)
Does nothing to aid the Soviets, who still have more things that should be added to thier tech-tree (which would lead a barely acceptable Soviets to also be bloated) (also mitigated if the Soviets got a subfaction, Mongolia update together with a Manchurian Campaign anyone? wouldn’t cavalry be cool? (and stupid))
Might be the hardest change to implement, idk I’m not a programmer.

All good things…

That’s the end of my TED talk, please discuss my ideas and come back with feedback for them. Again, if you want me to takle mines, tell me that as well but after any feedback you might have and if I peaked your interest in the whole subfaction discussion I have authored a topic on the subject previously where I also had some ideas for a subfaction rework, please read that too if you’re interested.

Thank you for your time and have a good day.

2 Likes
2

While yes this can be annoying. It also stops people from rushing a single BR 5 weapon and then beeing stuck with BR 2 AT vs heavy tanks. Or a BR 5 tank they cant even deploy but not an infantry squad to keep up with the enemy.

3 Likes
3

You still kinda can do that, and that proposed change wouldn’t really do anything to make that problem worse (I’m not even arguing for the removal of the 8ish rule here). If you’re grinding away to get the best rifle straight from BR I and you’re not noticing the absurd amount if time it took to get there and you haven’t wondered why it’s taking so god damn long… well you might well be stupid.

Even if you for some reason persisted, you would undoubtebly use the stuff you also researched along the way, meaning you would encounter that specific problem way way earlier, like two BRs from now (if not the immediate next BR). Which people already do, it’s incredably common to see people uptiered not knowing what they’re doing, I to this day keep seeing the short barreled Panzer IV in BR V games.

4

Any traction this thread may have has been kneecapped with a cannon.

Forum users will just find one thing to disagree with and never show their support if they find any.
The devs would rather that suggestions focus on exactly one or two suggestions at most to avoid ambiguity.

You listed the pros and cons of everything, making this a much more sensible TT fix than some older posts.

In spite of this, I’d really rather that they just folder similar content, and to folder enough equipment that the exp necessary to advance the tiers is comparable to other factions.

Suggestions 2 and 3 would cause WT syndrome.

Namely, the fact that having less content means a longer grind to acquire the same thing for the former, and the addition of a faction subtree would make people more inclined to shamelessly ask for unnecessary additions to the game such as another playable faction to divide the playerbase into more MM queues, for the latter.

Suggestion 1 would put players at the mercy of the devs’ TT placements, and may even encourage Tiger 1H syndrome, also from WT, wherein, instead of making a good lineup with excellent backups, players would see the opportunity to skip “unnecessary” equipment and become a liability.

To put things into perspective, it may mean that players would rush, for example, the MG 34 while their own equipment only consists of bolt-action rifles. They’d end up in BR 3, with their only BR 3 equipment likely confined to a single squad, making them largely useless teammates that may face a BR 5 player with nothing but automatic weapons equipped, at the worst case scenario.

5

That’s probably fair, maybe I’m hoping for the better nature of man, but currently the only engagement with this other than yours was a guy who pointed out a problem which isn’t even specific to my suggestions and two people who liked that guys post… I’m realising that maybe I should just have left the obviously bad suggestion of entierly… naive me for thinking that a wider discourse would be constructive…

You’ll have to explain your folder idea to me, I’m not sure I get it… it sounds a bit like suggestion 2…?

I don’t quite see how a proportional XP cost would lead to WW syndrome, but maybe I’m just not getting it. Though for the subfaction things, I’ll just start by saying that the Mongolian idea was about 95% a joke and 5% “maybe there’s a premium squad potential here”, and as for a expansion of Italian and British content… well they’re already in the game and they already queue up for the same exact things as their parent faction, adding more player choice in what you want to bring to the battle (full British tech-tree lineup for example) won’t divide the playerbase. I’m not sure we should make it “shameful” to ask for stuff in the game either, that sounds like a bad attitude.

As for the critique of suggestion one, I still think it’s the worst suggestion of the three (and just a throwaway one because good things come in threes) but I honestly don’t see how it would make the problem of people not understanding the BR system even worse than what it already is. There really should just be a “home page tutorial” that explains it anyway to begin with. New players already rush for stuff, they’ll either come to the realisation that they’re doing the wrong thing or think the game is way too hard, grindy and P2W, it’s a common issue. The factors for cause, effect and conclusion is not changed by suggestion 1 (which I again don’t want to see put in the game). It’s got other problems, but that aint it cheif.

6

Suggestion 2 puts the exp requirements of a faction with less equipment to unlock under the mercy of factions with more equipment to unlock overall. Something your original post already acknowledges.

Foldering similar equipment makes it so that weapons that do not feature a significant performance gap will not be required to progress to the next piece of viable equipment. This reduces the grind, makes it so that grinding makes meaningful progress, while the fact that enough equipment getting foldered means that the performance/exp progression between a slim tech tree faction and a bloated one is comparable. No adjustments to existing exp. Only making sidegrades optional.