Okay… good for them. People do that now anyway, just with more grind attached. :P
Oh really? I haven’t seen the pantsir anywhere but in USSR. I can tell you what your suggestion would lead too. Top tier would be nothing but pantsirs and leopards.
There would be exponentially more grind if every single vehicle was in one massive tree, mate.
2 Likes
Maybe it would. But one doesn’t design a game around balance issues.
One does design things within the game around potential balancing issues, however. If you don’t, then you can say goodbye to any semblance of balance.
Everyone having equal access to everything would be inherently more balanced, as the purest form of balance is a thing vs itself.
And, while balance should be taken into account and some things should be designed around it, if you use balance as the sole basis for what happens and how it happens, you have an insanely boring game. Why would I want to face myself when I can face something that is stronger in some areas and weaker in others?
The idea they are suggesting would enable lazy players not to leave the comfort of their tree and work up another 1. Which is the reason you see the demand for all the C&P. Player: I want to play a leopard but don’t want to grind another tree. Hence all these nations getting leopards.
Gaijins current strategy of C&P kills all incentive to leave your tree. Just prove your nation test drove X vehicle then wait. Really a bad precedent which makes me see their former hesitation to go past cold era.
For players already down the trees there will not be much grinding. But for new players yes it will make the grind extremely worst.
1 Like
Yeah, I am currently only really going down US tree, but I don’t want Leopards or gripens, Typhoons, and Rafale’s, I want stuff like Abrams, F-15’s, F-14D, F-16’s, hornets and super hornets
Tbh ppl should consider that stuff before they commit to a tree
1 Like
It’s one of the things that made nation choice unique and made line up vary. I play X TT so I am limited to X vehicles that I have to use to their strengths.
1 Like
Less grind is good, yes. That’s, like, one of the most consistent complaints/requests in the WT community, having to grind less.
And needing to grind through all ten nations at once rather than just a single one would make the grind infinitely worse.
1 Like
Less grind for people already down the tree. Not for new players with your suggestion.
Which the grind could technically be skipped in other trees anyway with the ge RP.
1 Like
And you’d still be able to play those same “limited” lineups even if more options are presented to you. That’s how freedom of choice works; you can still you what you’re already doing, but others get to also do the things that they want too.
1 Like
You are advocating for more mixed battles I am saying let me look flags on each side to decide my strategy.
Also stop with the statement you are free to play said limited line up. There is no incentive to play limited lineup in your suggestion as stated countless times.
Aka build game breaking lineups. The tree system is used as balance in of itself, it’s hwy all these copy paste subtrees are detrimental to the game. If you can play the strongest AA, tank, and CAS in the same lineup something has gone horribly wrong. The limitations of trees are what keeps the game playable
1 Like
I never made a suggestion, I simply listed a purely theoretical ideal in terms of lineup building specifically. As in, the more options for a given lineup, the better.
1 Like
So basically all of you want the nation trees deleted and replaced by companies. And if you want nations still then everything not flying the host/main tree flag must be removed no matter if it is unique or not. Oh well here at it let’s remove every tree that isn’t US, Ger, USSR after all they don’t deserve to be in the game by 90% of C&P haters(for they use at least 1 modified vehicle).
Disagree? You where the ones who said that any model changes were C&P.
2 Likes
You suggested it, mate. It not being an official suggestion with its own thread doesn’t mean it’s not a suggestion.
1 Like
This is backwards. If there is a “strongest” in the first place, then something has already gone wrong. Locking said “strongest” to specific players is objectively less balanced than letting everyone use it.
Of course, everyone using a thing doesn’t mean it is balanced, but it’s more balanced than only some people having the thing.
1 Like