This mostly comes with the fact the Brimstone launcher was just a mockup, the actual vehicle is fully functional.
Yeah, which therefore means the suggestion rules (allowing individual mock-up components or tbh, even most of a vehicle) are not the same as Gaijin’s rules (which seem to mostly prohibit adding features that were only mock-ups)
I think suggestion rules have the exact rules for consideration, but not necessarily addition. For example vehicles with too little information to add can be suggested, so they can be considered and potentially added when possible, but that doesn’t mean this isn’t a limitation that exists.
But mostly like you said it’s probably more that their priorities are different than the actual hard limits. I just think this could mean that for events those soft rules could relax a bit, and it doesn’t necessarily have to mean fully paper designs will be added anytime soon or the core rules for consideration are changed (even if that’s possible too).
Except the vehicle is still fully functional, hence why it can be suggested. Again, its down to the developer’s discretion for the Brimstone since there’s no information on how its operated, what seeker it’d use, etc.
^Also iirc its denial for the Brimstone is that its totally nonfunctional and wasn’t planned to be functional, it was a tech demo without planned functionality as far as I’m aware.
Was the Streetfighter really a prototype though?
I thought it was just a Challenger 2 with mockups of what the streetfighter would bring, and it’d need vehicle (or variant in this case) specific components built to be an unfinished prototype. More like the Flak 341 with a mockup of the turret on the standard Panther hull, which is still just a mockup because the hull wasn’t exclusively made/modified for it.
That’s what I’m saying. I’m not saying it shouldn’t be possible to suggest it, just that these sorts of vehicles can be suggested (another example is the NMBT, which is clearly almost entirely a mock-up, just on a functional chassis) on the forums, but Gaijin’s internal rules are stricter and pretty much require the whole vehicle to have been constructed in full (ofc there are exceptions in-game, there’s some inconsistencies)
Edit: NMBT suggestion doesn’t exist anymore so maybe it was removed for being a mock-up, I don’t know
Edit 2: It does still exist, just the link on the previously suggested page is wrong
I mean I guess this is just going to be a looping conversation because we don’t know Gaijin’s internal rules generally. We can only assume them based off of comments and suggestion rules.
This one or a different NMBT?
Any ideas if/when the pack sales will be on console?
Suggestion rules allow people to write about anything within the regular limits of Gaijins internal rules, but Gaijin with a limited amount of content they can add at any given time will hit these limits significantly less than players writing about whatever unusual thing excites them.
^Also Mauswaffe words it (my thoughts) better than I can
Also have to consider that since they can’t add everything at once, adding them individually also causes “bias” issues in the community. “why can UK get Chally Streetfighter but US doesn’t get AbramsX / USSR doesn’t get Object 640 / Germany doesn’t get another leopard” .etc.
If it’s true that they are taking the rather mild French criticism to delay Swiss ground vehicles then this might be more of a consideration than I’d have expected previously…
It’s not something I’d want to have much effect on additions, but I guess from a business perspective it makes sense.
this happens literally every (if not most) devblog cycle
Sorry buddy. I know it happens, just didn’t expect them to do it like 2 days after🤝
All good, just a natural part of the Cycle atp, one more devblog always is good though ^^
Can we expect the teaser to come tomorrow?
Maybe
could we see 5th gen atrcraft at next update?
Maybe in December dont get your hopes up tho
no
that is something that would be added for the Christmas update