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.
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.
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
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.
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?
It was as many tanks weren’t able to properly enter the battlefield before air arrived and destroyed them.
Examples such as T95, Maus etc
Irrelevent.
Tell me how can i spawn in tank or heli or spaa while playing ARB.
Tell me how can i spawn a tank in naval.
You still tak abou AI…
Maybe it’s problem with you all, that you treat ground players and AI targets the same. You think about ground players as simple bots to just bomb them, and you just don;'t care about them
If you really do not want to talk, then that’s ok.
At least thats what i figure the way you discard/ignore arguments.
It’s all the same for cas mains.
So you understand why TO mode will never be a thing and people should cope with what they signed up for, which is combined arms.
Bascally: “We can’t improve the game because people will want to play improved games”
No because people spend a lot of money for planes to use them in GRB and Gaijin is not going to throw that away.