You would stand to gain more ground if you stop pretending that adding a new mode would have no impact on the game as it is now.
It’s intellectually dishonest to keep insisting that dividing the ground player base won’t have any effect on player experience.
Maintaining this charade makes it harder to take your cause seriously.
So please tell us how it would impact it and why is that so.
The players in mixed battles won’t be bringing in A plane 2.0 brs lower than all their tanks, so the air aspect will be more contested and competitive and not just some moron who brings A stuka with their tiger tank and slams into the ground (though I am sure this will still happen) because they have nothing in their air tree ground out.
So people who just want to play ground units would do that in a mode for that and devs wouldn’t need to ‘balance’ things out by doing unnecessary nerfs and changes?
It is all about money.
It doesn’t change that people still can do it, just because they won’t be able to do that as eaisly doesn’t mean they will learn that before buying the vehicle.
I’ll give you the 2 biggest ways.
For the sake of discussion we’ll use small numbers. Say the ground player base is 10,000 people.
If 3,300 of those people decide they want to play TO instead that means the ground player base loses 1/3rd of its players.
A loss of 1/3rd of the players means longer queue times and less people for any given BR. While longer queue times might not sound that important, less people for any given BR is. Fewer people in a BR means more up tiers. You will have less matches where the majority of players are using the same BR of vehicles. Overall this will drastically impact the experience for new players and anyone grinding out a tree as they progress up it.
This effect will only be worse for the TO players who are drawing from an even smaller pool of users, and they will not have access to CAS to help balance out the uptiered tanks they are facing.
Gaijin will have to devote some degree of development resources to TO mode. Any resources it takes, no matter how minimal you may try to claim they might be, are resources that no longer go to the rest of the established game. You are robbing Peter to pay Paul.
This is not to mention all the little ways it will have an impact because my point is not to get into those weeds but to establish the immutable fact that there will be an effect. What I want from this is for TO supporters to stop pretending to the contrary, accept that what they want comes at a price, and continue to advocate for your cause honestly by acknowledging that price.
Well if they ask for advice before buying that would dissuade them from purchasing, and if they buy it and regret that would discourage them from A second purchase. Also if they are brand new they might chargeback and just quit the game all together.
I’d say offering more choice would have a positive impact.
My examples lie in old school Runescape and Warframe, both of which drive greater player retention and loyalty by being consumer friendly and offering a high variety in choices to play.
Dota 2 and League also can be cited as examples - League even going as far as making some of its temporary game modes almost permanent because players liked them so much. This incentives people who’d have quit to instead buy skins in the new game mode.
OSRS, LoL, Dota 2 and Warframe all stand as highly successful, positive examples of consumer-first business approaches leading to sustainable success. OSRS is kind of the odd one out being a p2p game, but you can fund your premium indefinitely doing fun and engaging gameplay (1/500 clears of a boss that takes ~1 minute to kill has a chance to drop 44 days of premium (synapse, 1/400 clears of a mini-dungeon that takes 10 minutes to clear has a chance to drop 140 days of premium (bowfa)) so it’s kinda f2p in that sense.
I more want balanced CAS than TO, but the same argument gets brought up for RB EC which I’d absolutely love to have and feel the same about.
IN FACT
Gaijin wants to drive sales of groundpounders?
Give us Air RB EC. Sim is scary even if it isn’t that much harder with some intentional and constructive practice beforehand, so it’s hard to recommend to people who want to use strike aircraft in a pvp environment. Air RB EC would solve those issues.
(It also would enable a greater diversity of air superiority aircraft as well, seeing as EC style objectives make ambush-predator flying much more viable than moshpit in a 8x8 square that ARB devolves into - thus, even more sales!)
We already have enough players and the numbers are getting bigger. This argument was already talked about in this topic.
Copy-paste of already existing mode just without air units, nothing more.
Doesn’t change anything, already can be used in mixed battles and air battles.
This is exactly the kind of bullshit I’m talking about. You cannot just handwave the issue and pretend its not a factor.
The growth of players benefits the game, dividing them is a setback at the very least and a significant detriment is all likelihood.
Instead of saying “dividing the player base doesnt matter” start saying “yes what we want will divide the player base, here’s why it’s worth doing that anyway”
You forget about servers and other constant use resources needed to maintain a game mode.
Already talked about in this and others topics many times, no point in repeating it.
Clearly there is a point in repeating it because otherwise you get people pretending it doesnt matter, which in turn makes it hard to take you seriously.
I wish War Thunders business model was like Warframe, player retention would go up. Unfortunately their business models are polar opposite where people will spend money in Warframe purely because they enjoy the game and want to support the developers and war thunder purchases are often made on impulse and because of anger from lack of skill or pay to win vehicles. I have never heard someone say they bought something on war thunder because they want to support the developers and their hard work.
This would be great but A big nono if it means players can grind through the tech trees at A faster pace.
I could also see mixed battles being more common with big 3 nations on both teams if the player base is divided, squads who run different nations would have A smaller pool to mix with. Kind of like how naval realistic looks now.
And where is your concrete proof that the impact it would had would be felt ?
In theory, getting queue times up from 1 second to 2 seconds is an impact, but how much would that negatively impact you and your gameplay ?
You have to realize the more players game has, this will be less of an impact.
You’d have a point if this was, let’s say, year 2019 when WT was way less popular. In fact, according to Steam, WT had average of 12k with peak at 21k players in November 2019. This month it has an average of 61k with 111k peak. This is not counting people that play outside Steam platform, so real numbers are even higher.
Why? You are just doing that but in opposite way. You are saying “dividing the player base does matter”.
Also there is a way how to implement TO without dividing playerbase.
That’s only possible if the game has a crap ton of playable missions and fun content to offer like warframe, but it doesn’t. Imagine warframe only had warframes. All war thunder has is vehicles and people are happy playing ARB+GRB all the time…. why?
Yes, because nobody else gets to do it. And its not like there aren’t options for other nations (there are), but gaijin insists on keeping the current status quo for several updates now.
I haven’t flown against it yet, but I can imagine. It’s incredibly annoying to try to do CAP while there’s an SPAA taking infinite nonzero chances of hitting you, all while you basically have to exist between them and the enemy airspawn if you want to actually intercept CAS before they bomb your team.
So even on my CAP fighters I bring small bombs or rockets to take them out so I don’t have another annoyance.
Don’t forget the new ammo boxes means SPAA can reload their ‘magazines’ continuously. Wirbelwinds can now shoot indefinitely (gun overheating an obvious limitation) for just under 2 mins (firing off the ammo box’s 3200 rds). I assume an M16 or T77 can also do so indefinitely.
In my defense, the M18s and PT-76Bs deserve it
I can one-up that.
