I apologise for my phrasing but that sounds like cherry picking.
If it’s just a general guideline and not a clear set of rules/criteria, you’ll only continue to get forum posts/questions and complaints that’s worse for everyone.
I argue that the community should be directly consulted on this front. Directly pull us on whether or not certain rules/Criteria should apply to this shared vehicle rule.
Until then (clear rules/criteria), I’m sorry, but I will contest that it is unclear and by extension, perceived as unfair.
The US has both the F/A-18C and F/A-18E, which are functionally identical variants. In such cases, if there is no defined spot in the tree where they can take a new place (Like how the Rafale M can occupy a different line to the C) then those do not fall under what he was talking about, as the US already had/has those variants equals. Thats not to say its impossible in the future, but they are also not part of what he was talking about (Base F-104s, M44s, M55s etc).
That happens and is going to happen regardless of its a set in stone rule or not. People will always spin to see something some way or another.
Feedback is directly taken into account, thats precisely how things like the M44 and M55 came about as common additons in the first place, as BVV explained in the video.
Both of the D and F aren’t needed for the US and would defeat the reason for rank IX unlike Britain and Japan they can come in without messing things up
Yes but clear rules/criteria objectively reduce it and, for people like yourselves, provide a very quick (One that could potentially be automated) response to such forum posts resulting in less clogging
When they are near, if not, fully identical performance wise. I think there should be a system where players can choose which in the folder they can research first
The 18F also wasn’t needed for Britain. Like I don’t care if the 18F does or doesn’t come to the US tree, but using “not needed” is a bit weak when Britain doesn’t need one either.
Imo if there isn’t a load out change I think having the two seat option should be a modification with worse performance in exchange for a different look
Yep, but none of them were needed. Which is why I’m saying that saying Britain “needed it/them” is weak.
That doesn’t mean I think they are incorrectly placed in the British tree, they clearly fill a role there that Britain didn’t have before at top tier: Shitbuckets with a lot of missiles.
