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.