Could you get hit by spaa from this attidude?
And why do you think that?
I would still play combined mode. As well as all other players who enjoy using CAS.
Nope. It stays the same.
There’s no double standard…and, as mentioned, CA is already a thing in the Air modes with AI because putting players into 64km by 64km maps isn’t viable.
Many tankers disliked Fulda because of the size of the tank battlefield that map; do you think a 64km x 64km map which also includes major obstacles like mountains or rivers would be received better as a tank battlefield?
To quote you, you said:
That is you suggesting RB GFs only contain player controlled GFs and AI aircraft; ergo, forcibly converting RB GFs into a TO mode.
If that isn’t what you meant, you needed to write your intended comment better.
I don’t want to be mean…but that says a lot more about you than it does about me or what I said.
What I said was accurate and reasonable: forcibly converting RB GFs into a TO mode would undoubtedly inspire the biggest outrage in WT history and hobble the game. Nobody would trust Gaijin if they were suddenly deprive of half their vehicles in their game mode if that was done overnight in the manner suggested. Do you think WT players would just accept that silently?
While this claim is often repeated, it always strikes me as bizarre: War Thunder’s premise is combined arms battles…yet apparently ‘no one’ is interested in that or here for it? C’mon…
The fact that WT has kept moving along over the years while TO has gone…essentially nowhere also casts doubt upon that. I guess it’ll all remain unsubstantiated until (unless) we see TO, eh?
This is literally the definition of double standards.
Map size is irrelevant.
I am suggesting, that we should stop with double standards.
Or simply people should stop using arguments like “it’s combined arms game”, as it clearly is not, or “it was a plane game”, as tanks are in this game for over a decade.
1 Like
Reason’s simple. A lot of people are mad at CAS, which would mean they’d go to the TO mode, and I understand it, there, you’d only have to worry about tanks and nothing more. Then there’s the combined arms mode, and yes, you might play it, but we all know that a lot (if not the majority) of players would play the TO one. This way, the players that entered the CA mode (if queue times allowed it), would face tanks at the start, and then there’d be what one could call and more difficult ARB (or what would be similar to the SEAD events last month) you can’t see tags, you have SPAAs shooting at you and then you also have planes shooting at you.Ground battle would become secondary in this case.
1 Like
So you admit, that players want to play TO mode, and thats why they ask for it for over a decade.
Another reason to add TO.
Let player play the game how they want.
Besides, i am one of the biggest advocates for TO. I will still play “regular GRB”, because i didn’t grind kh38 just to stop nuking everybody from orbit.
3 Likes
Sorry, I’m writing thinking ahead, I like combined arms and all, but the problem is that IF they added a TO mode, everyone would rather play that one instead of the combined arms one. Basically because CAS players would be obliged to play in the CA mode, and so, there’d be much more CAS players than pure tank players. Because of this, the ‘solution’ would be to kill all these CAS players that are killing tanks with SPAAs (tanks can’t do much sometimes). As you might have seen, a lot of people would want a TO mode which would mean they’d rather play TO than CA.
I don’t know if I’m speaking Chinese or Swahili (no offense to both languages), what I’m saying is that the CA mode would then be full of planes, so you wouldn’t be able to shoot your KH-38s without targets to shoot at besides the SPAAs being focused by half you team of Su-30/34s. No one would play that mode not because it isn’t liked (right now), but because it’d be absolute trash.
If I fly in a straight line and ignore all things, ye
See, I’m not against the TO mode because I like CAS, I’m against it because it would do any good to the CA mode.
It would be identical like it is right now
So you are just cas main concerned about not getting free kills.
1 Like
Weird answer because you are not against TO mode but at the same time is not doing good for CA mode is like you are against the TO mode for players who want to play only tanks.
Um, no. Being realistic about the different natures and needs of two very different modes is not a double standard.
Map sizes are relevant and the mechanical implications of them are very, very real. As I said before:
If tankers in RB GFs are upset about driving across the ‘large’ map of Fulda because ‘it takes too long’…‘the drive is boring’…etc, what possible reason could you have to expect they’d like or prefer even larger maps that aren’t optimized for GFs?
Understanding that GFs players wouldn’t want this is simply reading the room: that’s why the suggestion of player units on Air maps has been laughed at when it’s come up before. It’s just a naive idea.
To be direct, I don’t think you understand how big an Air mode map is or why a GFs wouldn’t want to have to traverse it.
I’m against the TO mode because CA mode would be absolute dumbshit. I’m not against players, I’d play it too, however it isn’t the most viable solution.
And what the hell, I don’t play CAS because my huge skill issue doesn’t allow me to, I either crash or eat a missile first second I spawn. For once you could look at the stats and say something reasonable and you don’t, how opportune.
And yes, I play the AH-60.
Um, yes. Thats literally the double standards.
They are not.
Your fulda example is missed.
As we have GRB now - they are not fully open for tanks. Tanks are playing in small pit, while 90% of the map is closed off and only operable for planes/helis.
Introducing tanks to ARB would end up with creating multiple “tank pits” similar to GRB maps.
BUT ALL THAT IS IRRELEVANT. The point is - people still use “combined arms” as argument against TO, while this whole “combined arms” is not applied to gamemodes other than GRB.
That’s rich comming from you, tbh
1 Like
Indeed, I wasn’t trying to be: your reaction to what I said was frankly bizarre, given how reasonable what I said was.
Put simply, I said ‘WT players wouldn’t enjoy the forcible conversion of RB GFs into a TO mode overnight’…and that’s obviously a sensible take, given how RB GFs operates and what its players are accustomed to.
Most of the players you see around you wouldn’t handle such a dramatic shift yet you seemed to think that was objectionable or outlandish when it clearly isn’t either of those things.
Considering that what I said was entirely reasonable and valid, I’m not sure why you’re so incensed. My comment was painfully measured and moderate.
To be direct, do you think WT players would just sit by and accept a forcible switch of RB GFs to TO? That’s all my comment there was dealing with and yet here you are with all of this…
I said changing RB GFs capriciously overnight would invite an uproar…I did not encourage any sort of favoritism.
To your question directly, you’d have to consult with Gaijin to obtain specifics (I doubt they’d share such data); logic would say that the players who play all aspects of the game (air, ground and sea) are likelier to yield more monies paid than those who only steer to any one aspect of it.
The framing of your remark suggests Gaijin should place undue attention and favoritism to what paying players have to say/do/want, which is…problematic to say the least. That methodology would be a firm road toward P2W.
I think is the viable solution because people come to play tank vs tank not getting killed by some CAS main. If you don’t like like TO mode is your choice but let the players decide which mode they want to play.
Imagine that TO mode is put into game then I’m sure 90% would play TO mode instead playing the CA mode and leaving people like you in 6vs6 battle.
2 Likes
What I said about Fulda is not missed–it actually fits with what you’re saying, but you are missing what I had said. Fulda was long the subject of complaints because of the size of its tank battlefield, which many felt was too big.
Considering that the Air modes you suggest unleashing tanks upon are far larger…that distaste for Fulda’s (comparatively) smaller maps means GFs players would be the ones who’d sour on a player GFs units in AF modes framing (and that’s before we consider the problems associated with obstacles on the larger AF mode maps).
Humorously, what this reminds me of is the idea I had mulled years ago with an [Enduring Confrontation] sort of framing with (in effect or literally) multiple RB GFs matches playing out beneath a concurrent RB AFs match on an AF mode map.
The idea of such ‘islands’ of tank battles is far more plausible…but given how EC and World War mode have fared, I never saw the reason to bother putting pen to paper on the idea beyond conceptualizing it.
CA exists in every other mode, so I’m not sure what you mean.
In AFs we have the AI surface units and in NF players have access to aircraft as well (including spawn tokens).
How do you figure? I have plenty of experience to draw upon when making my comments and I’ve played both the AF/GF modes extensively.
As I said before, if TO were to be added, I’d probably play that one because I’m bad with CAS and Israel doesn’t have anything to counter it right now (at top tier). And that’s basically the problem, if one thinks objectively long enough, you can tell that the CA mode will not be CA in any way. every player will have a CAS platform to spawn and that’s it. Nothing on the ground and 12 players trying to kill eachother in planes. Now tell me, where the hell is the CA mode here?
2 Likes