How about replacing all gamemodes with Enduring Confrontation PvE

Game Discussion Realistic Battle
,
52

I feel like this is just another bait post…

PvP is a core part of the game and the main reason at least every 9/10 people play for. You can’t just remove it because it’s “interrupting your PvE,” that makes no sense. Go play the assault gamemodes if you want PvE, you cannot take PvP away from the game that ENCOURAGES PvP.

Gaijin holds tournaments for PvP, not PvE. Balancing matters because of PvP. I’d play some roblox knockoff if they turned WT into PvE only, and i can make a bold assumption the majority of the playerbase will do something similar.

Basically removing PvP (the whole core of the game) kills it and nobody wants to play anymore.

53

Issue isnt with people on forums being hardcore PvP fans, issue is what is being proposed.

OP is not proposing “hey lets fix/rework ground assalut/PvE mode” or “lets add EC PvE”. If he did that, like, whatever. Good for you, maybe it will be the next best thing amd everyone will flock to it.

But OP wants to REPLACE all existing game modes with EC PvE.

Theres no possible justification for not only taking away other game modes from people not interested in PvE, theres no justification for forcing arcade, realistic and sim players to play one game mode.

1 Like
54

If anyone thinks the game is monotonous now, force it PVE.

This is only issue as a certain part of the player base only complains about new and shiny, not caring about what needs to be fixed. If the player base stops complaining about “where next jet” and more complain about bugs and fixes then we will not sit with a situation where we get a infantry announcement before proper re-models on early planes, for example.

Depends on the time of day - most people go there with prem for SL.

Lastly - if you want to use your vehicle to its design then complain about the facts that battles has recently been forced linear, half the map covered in red zone instead of player ingenuity and tactics.

1 Like
55
56
57

(I think it is important to say this is a joke comment)

YDYM, Forum and Gaijin HQ will burnt down to ground if we doesn’t get F/A-18E/F with AIM-120C-5 and modern infantry squads which comes out from Bradley and will clear those soviet tanks out with FGM-148 in next update.

By the way, who cares about bug fixes and proper balancing over early jets?
it is dead mode, and nobody plays it. Pouring resources on it is nothing but a waste of time at same level of Bomber cockpits.
Use those resources to make F-22 and IIR missiles instead.

1 Like
58

Early jets used to be fun - been there but somewhat miss the historical matchmaker on it.

Early props are still super fun - though for sake of argument : bomber cockpits would be nice for those in sim but personally I would more care about the fact that (as has been proven again and again) the models disintegrate weirdly. Personally - I do not really touch bombing that much.

However - my current gripes :

  1. TWS tracking ghost objects, including objects that are under terrain
  2. Tree hit boxes being misplaced along with some buildings.
  3. Floating structures in various air maps
  4. Players randomly vanishing or not rendering sub-700m with LOS while having max crew and max graphics (so keen vision and system performance is not a issue)
  5. Camera angles resetting or changing alignment by itself - major issue in sim and realistic battles
  6. 20mm / 30mm / 35mm / 40mm damage handling - SPAA being the BEST TD in game
  7. Incorrect ruder input (at least visual) on mouse-aim + instructor
  8. Map rotation - constant CQC fights and sub-500m engagements
  9. Some buildings and terrain have no collision
  10. RCS handling (easier to lock objects that is 0.002 than objects that is 1.5)
    +++

In terms of PvE - Other fantastic PVE based vehicles games already exist, especially on PC. PvE code base - driving a solid AI module that will be engaging and “smart” to prevent exploitation and player pattern forming will be even a bigger code mess. So many other games have tried - the closest to getting it right is Ready or Not and even there we still play the AI weakness.

59

To be honest, ‘the whole comment’ was a joke :|
And in fact, I want to see rather fixed early jets than those dumb F-22.

Anyway, I hope Gaijin fixes their game as soon as possible
There are flaws in every inch, even if we only think about ARB. :/


But I will really worry about Gaijin if they decide to ‘add fewer or no vehicles but concentrate on bugfix’ on the next update.
(According to Gaijin’s accuracy when they attempt to fix some bugs. that update name will be new ‘operation health’)

And back to the original topic, I am sure and agree that current PVE modes (assaults) need to have a serious overhaul.

But [‘Replace current gamemode with PVE version’ by OP] seems way too risky.

1 Like
60

I took the title to be hyperbolic. There’s no need to remove all PvP from the game. The kind of mode OP envisions could run parallel to existing modes.

61

Its very clear that the initial intention, the one with which OP made the post, wasnt hyperbolic.

62

The difference between Heli PVE and Assault is that Heli PVE is basically Sim, but less rewards. Assault gives you boosters ONCE and like 300rp.

63

Forcing and enforcing Pve is against TOS and is banable

64

Going to need a source for that. Article and line that says that.

I have the Terms of Service out right now, and I am not seeing a single article saying, “you shall not call for PvE” or anything along those lines. The closest thing you can argue, is:

ANNEX #1. GAME RULES:
2. “You must play fair and not intentionally disrupt your team’s gameplay. For example, you must not hurt your teammates on purpose (“friendly fire”), block their movements, or stay inactive (“AFK”) during a game session.”

However, even that does not disrupt your team’s gameplay. The purpose of a PvPvE mode is essentially to PvE in the first place, with the added addition of PvP. Technically, calling for one half of a dedicated PvPvE mode (which is to say “PvE”) is not breaking any rules. Shall we call to ban those who strictly PvP in Simulator as well? Are you to be banned if you say, “PvP people get this part of the map, while bombers get this side” because technically, it’s not disrupting anything due to the fact that you are not disrupting the very nature of a PvPvE gamemode that is Sim. You could argue that you are disrupting the “free roam” however that cannot hold.

65

why not listen to one of the Game Masters

image
image1033×354 41.9 KB

image
image1044×481 52.5 KB

The problem is when they start trying to enforce PVE this would distrupt the gameplay of PvP players and could also fall under pasive behavior which you can report ppl for ingame

1 Like
66

That’s the fun part, they say it’s in the rules, but never say where. They say to report them especially if they become verbally abusive towards PvPers. Verbal abuse is against ToS, as stated in Section 3: Restrictions and Sanction.

3.1.1 profanity, obscene and offensive language, words, phrases, and abbreviations (including their disguised forms)

That’s reportable and can lead to a ban. As I said, I am going to need to see where in the contract I signed that prohibits calling for PvE. I am not insulting the administration or other users when I question someone’s integrity, especially when the person in question is simply a game master, not someone hired by Gaijin as expressed in 1.2. Community:
"Generally, the Community Managers, Moderators (and Global Moderators), Game Masters, Coordinators (and National Coordinators), and other persons managing Gaijin’s Websites (collectively “Website Managers”) are not employed by Gaijin and assist Administration voluntarily and free of charge. "

Also, I am going to have to report you, as under 3: Sanctions and Restrictions, 3.8. “It is not allowed to discuss threads closed by the Administration or Website Managers or any Users’ posts deleted by them” and since that thread is closed, you are technically breaking a rule that is put in place in the contract. Black and white, clear as crystal.

One may argue that I am breaking the rules of 3.15. “Dismissive attitude to the Game Rules, the Gaijin’s Websites, and the Gaijin’s Terms and Conditions is banned.” However, as I have not seen in the official rules on the supposed PvE ban, I am not dismissive to said rule, as it has not been proven to exist beyond the tirades of certain individuals who do not speak for Gaijin, merely they are appointed by Administration to help on the forums, as shown before.

Another may also argue that I could be in violation of 3.11., in particular, “offering advantages in gameplay” through talking about base bombing, however that is a massive stretch. Simply mentioning the benefits of destroying bases in a PvPvE lobby does not grant any certain advantages. However, if you do consider that an advantage I shall give some examples of other advantages I have seen. These are not my personal comments, however they are examples and I am excused from being accused. How about we talk about all the “just notch” comments when referencing radar missiles. Since technically that is offering an advantage in the game. Same as talking about gaining height in props, or even putting on bushes or proper camouflage in GRB: that is technically taking advantage. So any and all people who have brought these points up, should be banned.

Under 4. Limitations of Liability, “The Administration does not guarantee that: the information posted by Users on Gaijin’s Websites is trustworthy or true.”
Funny enough, even the Administrators cannot guarantee that what the Game Master has said is true. So until I am shown which rule specifically prohibits PvE as shown in the contract and/or by Administration, who by definition “are the official Gaijin representatives authorized to give official responses on behalf of Gaijin”, I will continue to question, not be dismissive, of the elusive “Prohibited PvE” rule.

67

before we get any of that, we would have to get something along the lines of this Give us bigger maps (Voting)

I don’t see them making any large-scale maps unless the player base fully supports it and honestly it is more likely to get smaller the more they add Prem’s into the High Tiers.

1 Like
68

Really thought this was going to be a TigerTank post. Must be an alt account.

69

That will unfortunately not happen. The maps will more than likely remain a fixed medium “three lane” type, shown especially with the recent “fixes” in Jungle (removal of trees to have better line of sight), Sinai/Sands of Sinai (removal of obstructions, especially with the remodel of the city/C point), Advance to the Rhine (cleared up obstacles), and the recently added map of Attica (spawn camper paradise).

70

Just like this Attica Is By Far The WORST MAP MADE

*that map is hell once someone gets a plane

1 Like
71

Oh, and so I make this clear, Ronny. I do not care to get others involved with our certain “legal issues” alright? I made my point, hopefully very clear. My point is simple: I have read the ToS, cover to cover, quite a few times. This is not a dismissive act towards Administration or their hired help, nor am I dismissive towards the rules: I do not care about furthering this beyond our little spat, of which remains in topic and is appropriate of the original post, nor do I wish to include anyone “higher on the food chain”. If you wish to continue privately, I will indulge, but as the rules state, I will not speak of our private matters.