Don’t forget about the M18 hellcat of top tier. That’s right, the authentic gameplay of popular M18 at top tier by simply jumping into one of our renowned Ariete series today. I mean why you need a Leo2A7 if you can fire DM53 from a paper tank?
* Additional armor and extra MGs sold separately and depend on availability. T&C applied.
I love the m18 hellcat. It’s like the perfect balance between a meta vehicle and a skilled players only vehicle that anyone can pick up but you need to learn a bit to really do well. Ig that’s about every vehicle but I feel like the m18 really exemplifies this. Also why is there m18 outside of American tt that is lower br (I think) and a bit higher top speed.
Can’t forget the eventual Strv 123 upgrade, which is currently un-finalized, with some details un-released. Still, something I agree with, making the SL grind easier would be awesome. I like using Italy with the Pz. IV G and the Breda 90/53, good grinding vehicles.
Yeah, I guess, but it’s only the tech tree’s with a full 5-6 line tree that would be complaining about it. Being put at a “technical” disadvantage should definitely have some adversely positive effects.
You know that is not what i suggested. I am a believer that 1 should not pay for the other, the suggestion is to encourage other nation use, how 1 spends is another matter
Forcing, but not really, players to play minor nations, unless they want to be at SL earnings disadvantage, should definetively have some adversely positive effects
Having a poorer line-up is a major one, the other thing is, not having a ton of multi-use vehicles.
An America 10.3 line up would be pretty solid, while, Sweden for example would have a few things, and if you wanted to force some up-tiers on a vehicle, you can do that.
When I say “more” I mean a small percentage, in the 5-18% range, depending on how well lineups can be. Now of course, this is just in theory, it’s not like gaijin would implement it most likely. But essentially yes, being put at a disadvantage to generate more product seems pretty fair.
Well, yea, I just personally dont like the general idea. While the lineup thought might have some merit, in case of air rb with one spawn it would be irrelevant.
Me being technically punished by missing out on SL by not playing plane of minor nation doesnt sound like fun nor it would encourage me to grind minor nation.
If this isn’t just one example of this, what is? Now, I will say, if you take out the premiums, it is 5 and 4, that’s why I said a variable area in % of your “booster” if you would.
A) OP, not you
B) i didnt see that part of the comment. Yet i still stand by what i said, while regarding to ground lineups holds SOME merit, it falls flat with regards to game modes such as air rb with one spawn per battle.
And even then if were talking about ground battles exclusively, im not okay with being technically punished by playing E8 sherman and not some minor nation lineup.
E8 was used just as an example. Yes, the multiplier could change.
It would still be technically punishing players that choose not to play minor nations.
In truth im not sure if there can even be way to incentive players to play nation they dont want to play without “technically punishing” major nations.
For example, I have no desire to play chinese tech tree, and if game told me i would be making 20% less SL unless i play china, i wouldnt feel encouraged to play it; on the contrary.
Minor nations have been getting punished since day 1, just look at the numbers waiting to battle, minor nations are just used a slot filler to make up team numbers.
My suggestion is for nations air and ground, you must be awar of the USA CAS apocalypse. The main 3 nations get all the new cucci kit, it would not be punishing the top 3 to give a buff of say 15% to 18% sl increase to the minor 7, i dont know much about navel btw