which could be the end of it for some players, because FPS games attract streamers and hackers. the former tend to influence dev decisions too much. but that’s my opinion
3 Likes
I wouldn’t use Battlefield as a positive comparison. That franchise has been slowly dying for years now. Regardless, that hasn’t been the sentiment I’ve heard, but maybe I’m wrong, though I’m skeptical.
Those would be good points if it weren’t for the fact War Thunder currently has Naval, Ground, and Aircraft all in one game. They follow this logic, at the very least naval would have been spun off into its own game from the outset.
As for the rating, that really isn’t as big of an issue everyone makes it out to be. There are ways to keep a low age rating if they care about it, like not having blood and so on. At worst, it would be rated T, which is what Fortnite is.
And they could arguably make more money if they merged Enlisted into War Thunder. War Thunder is an established title, and much of its success can be attributed to it being, in effect, 3 games merged into one. Adding a fourth, one that has more appeal then Naval, would expand the game’s market and increase the playerbase of both.
And, again, War Thunder, the far more popular title, is nipping at the heels of what can be added, at least for its most popular modes (Ground and Air). ‘Sacrificing’ Enlisted to expand the longevity of War Thunder by merging it under War Thunder’s umbrella is a mutually beneficial decision. Enlisted would gain access to a much wider array of vehicles, Enlisted expands its playerbase, more attention would be brought on to War Thunder and it can advertise to the FPS crowd.
I’d also hardly say that War Thunder is better off without playable infantry, provided it is in its own game mode. So long as Ground battles, as we know them, stay the same (maybe rename them ‘tank battles’ or something), nothing is lost and is only gained.
EDIT:
Don’t see why that would be. War Thunder regularly gets tens of thousands of players as it stands, and there are streamers aplenty already. I fail to see how the existence of an infantry game mode would suddenly make people quit, so long as they can still play ground as it is now.
1 Like
They get more money by splitting your currency between games.
Enlisted avgs anywhere from 3,000 to 5,000 players on steam alone. For the title it is that is just fine.
FPS infantry has no place in War Thunder.
7 Likes
I totally share this opinion.
The only way i see AI in WT Ground is beeing a IFV modification (or any Vehicle that carried Troops) that lets you deploy a small squad with some launchers that defend the area you dropped them (will mostly annoy you with taking tracks/engine) and the most use of them will be defending capture points
like the AI in the Trenches from the event.
(This could also open the Can of deployable mines)
New Door animations on their way of inviting HE shells
Other than that they have no place here.
5 Likes
Completely agree. I occasionally play Enlisted too (partly to fill the void left by the death of Heroes and Generals), and it’s great fun, but I can’t see it working if it would merge with WT.
So much would need to change that it woukd basically be nessecary to make an entirely new game…
Keep FPS in Enlisted, improve that game
Keep WT vehicle focused and improve that game.
7 Likes
It was really great in the beginning. later years became a huge cash grab with terrible progression.
2 Likes
Yeah, for me the Downfall began with the Map reworks.
But it was still a lot of fun from time to time.
1 Like
If Enlisted is truly dying as you are claiming, then what makes you think merging Enlisted into WT would bring in more players? People that play WT and are interested in Battlefield-like shooters most likely already play Enlisted and Enlisted players that are interested in WTs vehicular combat gameplay most likely already also play WT.
If you can’t see how the points I listed would be major reasons for Gaijin not to merge Enlisted and WT, then I think you are massively underestimating the effort required to combine these games compared to the rather small increase in income this merge would bring.
WTs dev team already is having a hard time keeping up with the huge amount of bugs, inaccuracies and balance problems the game already is facing. Having a fourth mode where not only aircraft have to be balanced according to the capabilities of tanks, but also both aircraft AND tanks have to be balanced according to the capabilities of infantry would be an absolute nightmare.
I’ve said this before, but not a single aspect of WT has been designed with infantry in mind. They can’t just copy Enlisteds code and paste it into WTs code either. Game development (software development in general) isn’t as easy as people seem to think, you constantly run into problems and the more features you have, the more things can and will break when working on other things.
But since most of this doesn’t matter and your main focus point seems to be WT running out of vehicles to add, let me tell you this:
Adding infantry doesn’t change the fact that the amount of vehicles that people are hyped for is limited.
Infantry isn’t going to keep the people that are only interested in the vehicle gameplay around, especially not if the infantry has the same progression as vehicles.
And as a sidenote, logistics vehicles could be added without playable infantry, but most of these vehicles won’t be moneymakers either way.
1 Like
Did you include any documentation stating the Pave Spike as being capable of 73x zoom?
The Kurnass has TISEO? Where?
I’m fairly certain the Pave Spike did not have a zoom mode with 73x magnification
That’s not a source for the bug report. If anything can bug report the stat card for being incorrect.
1 Like
A lot of the bug report managers don’t really take the time or have the time to review the whole document it is important to be to the point with your sources and direct with the information and state what you want to need changed.
I would have to verify it but I believe most of them are volunteers not paid even if they were with the volume they receive especially the amount of bad reports they won’t really have the time.
So wait, does the Pave Spike get 73x zoom on the Kurnass 2000 or does it get the 2.9x-9.6x that it has on the Buccaneer?
Then why did you make this statement?
I haven’t found a valid source yet but the only number I had seen given to the the Pave Spike is x4.
Well, you made the bug report, so you should know if it has 73x or not.
It would also be good to include some more info in the bug report, especially if there are more problems than just the zoom being wrong.
That’s the same number I have found, but according to a spreadsheet listing the zoom levels that Gaijin assigned to the pods, the Pave Spike has 2.9x base and 9.6x while zoomed in.
1 Like
The screenshot says that the inbuilt optics (the TISEO) has 73.7x, not the TGP (Pave Spike)
It doesn’t list the Pave Spikes zoom on there, afaik the “Pilot” specs tooltip never lists the external pods’ specs
Harrier GR.7 as an example:
You’ll have to test the zoom for the Pave Spike and the TISEO seperately ingame to be able to tell if the zoom levels are correct or not.