Doing so would lose them their 13+ rating, which would be very detrimental to a significant user demographic. Right now any kiddo can install the game for free without any parental controls, and once hooked, can bug mommy for her credit card.
Getting a mature rating by showing violence and death to persons will introduce “engagement friction” and cut out that market segment.
1 Like
Dude you think the demographic would be an issue?
Going full milsim would lose them all the shooter players, so the AB and RB crowd.
I said going full milsim would be the only way to make infantry work. I didn’t say it would be as popular as the current game.
Milsim has a far lower audience than a vehicle shooter.
It could be one of the greatest milsims ever however and i personally would enjoy it.
A milsim would be a great own game and they could reuse a lot of WT assets. It would be a better idea than aces of thunder.
Considering how poorly/unpopular WT’s “Simulator” mode does, it doesn’t matter how greatest it is if it loses money and has to be cancelled. Which I expect is what will happen to Aces o’ Blunder.
I see you never went to bidness skewl…
I never said aces of thunder will be a success.
Lol. Who is saying anything about commercial viability?
I am saying what technically can work. You are putting the cart before the horse. You need to check what is technically possible BEFORE making it a product.
A WT milsim obviously wouln’t have the current WT audience but the ArmA audience
It beeds different pricing, Advertisement and be a seperate game.
Yeah, you obviously don’t know anything about how businesses work.
You know that there have been FPS combined arms games since the 90’s right?
You know that there are already plenty of “milSim” games that have infantry in them?
Of course its technically possible.
The question here is if their is a viable business case for it (ie. makes money).
GLWT. I think Gaijin knows both their audience/market and their games strengths and limitations better than you (or I).
Yes, whichbis why i mentioned two of them already.
Are you intentionally misreading posts?
For slow people:
What i said is, that AB/RB/SB all do not fit infantry in the action shooter style. As you would need artificial balancing like you would have in battlefield. This goes against the real performance figures WT uses / tries to use.
The other option for combined arms is milsim. Only Air SB works for this as the gameplay in AB/RB and ground SB is too unrealistic to support milsim.
So from a simple gameplay view infantry does nit fit current war thunder. (!!! gameplay view, not business view … Sadly i have to point that difference out)
And all i said is that the current majority of WT players are not milsim players. Which should be obvious.
So instead of arguing what you imagined i said, stay literal.
Which is wrong. The previous power armor infantry event had playable FPS infantry and it worked just fine. To work them into the game would only require reducing their capabilities to fit an era/BR (ie: bazookas < RPGs < ATGMs) There is no reason at all that they couldn’t add Steel Beasts/ARMA style dismount squads that you could control or they could be AI. In any mode at all.
So they point I am making is that your point is wrong and irrelevant. The only reason they can’t/shouldn’t is that adding people to the game is that they will lose their 12+ rating because it would need to show people getting killed and run over by tanks.
But I guess its something you can’t understand, so, oh well.
Ok, how would you balance it?
The gameplay for infantry would be pretty much identical in every mode while the gameplay of vehicles isn’t. So how do you balance the complexity differences that exist for vehicles but not for infantry.
As the dumbed down assists for.vehicles are designed to mimick infantry controls in shooters?
It’s the bomber Situation but worse.
Thanks bro, unfortunately this is the music for the event trailer, im looking for the music to the vebt itself
There would be an AB, RB for Infantry, and an enduring confrontation for tanks and infantry, in the AB and RB spawn points would build up to helicopters, aircraft and tanks
How does that balance gameplay?
Especially in sim?
The last time we had this kind of discrepancy it was with bombers and we all.know how great the balance of bombers turned out. There is a reason you left out sim and you know it. Because AB and RB are.both arcade.shooters,.easy to balance between them…the issue is the balance between the shooters and sim, that’s what made bombers how they are.
Your solution is incomplete.
Infantry will be worse, as there will be even less gamemode differences in gameplay.
I didnt leave out SB i just was doing s quick short explanation
SB would be EC for Aircraft, Tanks, and Planes.
I dont get what you mean by balancing, I know the bomber problem but whats wring with infantry, what problems would it cause? Just give them there own game mode like ships, it could be an EC front line mission, RBEC, or SBEC
Playable infantry would have to be its own game mode. The current map pool and mechanics are designed and balanced with only vehicles in mind. Power armor infantry only worked because it was a limited time event and gave Infantry, well, power armor. I would not use it as a gauge to determine how well Infantry could work in WT.
While I can see AI infantry being implemented as a method to make points harder to cap, and put the I in IFV, as well as being a more active defense against spawn campers, playable infantry would change the mode way too much for it to be a good idea. Separate mode? Can absolutely see that. Enlisted isn’t doing so well, and is essentially WT with Infantry. All you really have to do now is merge the two games, have Enlisted be a mode in WT, and go from there where RB is more mil-simy while AB is more like Battlefield and COD.
2 Likes
Exactly, we could have ECRB and ECSB, large scale maps, long battles, focusing in infantry, Tanks and Aircraft would be with higher spawn points, APCs could be a thing and SPHs
Don’t think it needs to be EC, nor do I think that would work, though I think there is a solid argument to be made for making EC more accessible then just hoping you get lucky for it when you go into matchmaking.
Yeah i can agree, At this point Im hoping they were not Joking.
IGN did a video about it 3hrs ago? Proof?
It depends on how they implement it. If the “infantry” are just mech inf. sections that only deploy a doctrinally (and game balance) determined distance from their carriers, say 20 m, and then go away if their carrier is destroyed, then there would be negligible effect on game balance and would only be a moderate buff to IFVs. They would just be another “weapon system” attached to the vehicle. You would not have “orphaned” gaggles of dismounts roaming the battlefield.
The maps would be fine. Infantry follow the same rules of cover and concealment as tanks. If you drop them on top of a hill, yeah, they are going to get coaxed right away.
This just off the top of my head.
They just reposted the trailer.
Yeah I know, but with the trailer drop on the 31st and all the hipe, it would be rewlly disapointing if this was a joke, lets hop next week they will tell us if its a joke or not, once the vebt is over.