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
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.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
1 Like
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”
2 Likes
No because people spend a lot of money for planes to use them in GRB and Gaijin is not going to throw that away.
And improved game is a very subjective opinion.
1 Like
I like that it is overall accepted that TO won’t be a thing because people would play it instead of current gamemode
5 Likes
Nobody is throwing anything.
People who has cas will still play it in GRB.
It lierally is not. Adding TO makes everybody happy:
- players who do not want to bother with CAS will enjoy their tanks with other players who think the same.
- players who want to use CAS will enjoy their CAS with other players who think the same.
5 Likes
I recall the complaints being centered on sheer size and slow entry into battle…not anything really centered on enemy aircraft.
Regardless, that framing means things wouldn’t bode well for them on AF mode maps…
It is entirely relevant, as I said and now as others have verified.
That you cannot do those things does not mean CA doesn’t exist there. It exists in a different form than what you are expecting, for similar reasons in both.
Would you like to be in a tank sinking in the waters of the NF mode?
I discussed AI units in the AF modes because that is how CA exists in the AF modes. AI surface units are there because it would not practical for players to be there (due primarily to the distances involved).
Spoiler
Aside from the comical, unprovoked generalization…I have tons of play time in RB GFs. I am very familiar with the mode from both sides, so please spare me all that…it’s flatly strange to go off on such a tangent.
That you’d say what you did shows that you don’t know how/what I think about these things.
Yeah, this is the best thing in all this.
“NO, we don’t want game to improve”
1 Like
I recall something different.
I don’t know, the other guy said “enjoy your 6vs6 games”.
I wouldn’t call that beeing happy.
If it will be like this nobody knows, since the forum is by far not representig the majority of players.
But i am betting Gaijin is not going to split the playerbase and risks losing money.
Honestly, i will not be repeating the same talking points week by week.
1 Like