The game mode name is elaborated upon in the mode description, which makes specific mention to aircraft. I have never opposed renaming RB GFs to ‘Air/Ground Combined Arms’ or something like that.
The single best idea I’ve seen floated for TO is the trigger queue idea…let the matchmaker operate in parallel until it has enough ‘opt-in’ TO players to set a TO match together.
This would alleviate population issues, though at low population BRs there may still be hiccups (time would tell).
There have been people (over the last decade) who have advocated for the wholesale removal of CA gameplay in WT, seeking to impose TO upon everyone essentially overnight. That’s undoubtedly soured some people on the basic concept.
Eh…I have to doubt the bolded part flatly. Combined arms gameplay is very popular because it’s on offer here–whereas other games have other bits and parts (ships, aircraft, tanks, etc.)
What many people get confused about when they see all the complaints about CAS and the like is the effect of negativity bias on perception. People who are motivated to react negatively to ___ are much more likely to go on the warpath about ___ than someone who was happy about ___ and goes on about their day. You rarely hear positivity, but often hear negativity (this is how/why sites like Yelp are skewed).
Population issues are a real and serious issue…but the idea that CA would “be dead” is simply bogus. The likeliest problems related to population would be certain BR ranges where the matchmaker would choke trying to draw up players for matches, particularly if distribution is uneven (ex. ‘everyone wants into RB GFs or RB TO’).
On selling the idea…whatever you might think of the developers, their motivations or what have you, they’re the pathway to TO. Progress either goes through them or it doesn’t happen…
