Oh, I have seen many people wanting TO that are supporting the idea of limiting the number of aircrafts in GRB.
I thought that this suggestion won’t be rejected by a ‘WT player’.
In the case of denial, people often isolate themselves against their flaws and mistakes. They might pretend that everything is fine and ignore their own negative emotions or disagreements within the problem.
BUT … this is not limited to CAS players. I see this behaviour very often here. On all topics.
4 Likes
The average player has the patience and attention span of a goldfish. A small increase in queues that experienced users like all of us could tolerate would be unacceptable to the general populace.
If much larger games with far larger player counts like CoD with multiple similar game modes still experience the player sorting problem where everyone ends up dog-piling in one game mode, there is no reason WT would not see the same.
If it was implemented at all, it should firstly only come after CAS’s actual problems are properly dealt with. Secondly, it would only stand a small chance either as a trigger queue chance (which we see how well that is working in Air RB now) or as a weekly rotating event sorta like Sim over a very narrow BR range to limit the queue splitting.
Asking for a whole separate mode for all BRs simultaneously is utter lunacy unless you also throw in a whole bunch of more gameplay changes to make TO truly unique. Which would undermine ULQ’s and everyone else’s arguments of “its the same mode, just no aircraft!” That would be unique maps, unique objectives, massively buffing artillery to prevent camping in lieu of CAS, among others.
And if any of those unique features were to make it “popular” for reasons other than no CAS, then you can be sure as xxxx that the current Combined Arms mode will want the same maps and objectives, gradually robbing TO of any uniqueness. Hell, CA might even want the buffed Artillery as Artillery is mechanically near-useless even after overpressure.
2 Likes
This is why I do not see any serious TO mode ever becoming a thing. Its biggest proponents refuse to even acknowledge its problems because they’re so desperate to get the mode in any form.
It’s akin to revolting to topple a supposedly tyrannical government, and then the revolters stop partying and say “okay, now what?”
2 Likes
If one could really provide any examples of the problems that TO would face, we could really have a discussion, but many still failed to provide any actual problems that TO as a mode would face and not problems that the game as a whole has.
Spare me the talk about camping positions as it was already discussed and showed that You don’t need the air or artillery to deal with them. Making an argument that ‘bad players might have a problem’ only shows that air is only for bad players to deal with better ones. No changes to the gameplay will change that.
2 Likes
But thats the thing. There is no hard evidence queue time would go up. Only speculations.
In open beta there was some issue with plane cockpits and planes were removed from SB game for 3 or 4 months. You know what happened? Nothing. Game continued to be played as it was and there was no issue with queue time even though at that point in time WT had 1/4 of players there it has now and from that 1/4 maybe 1/3 played SB. So even with that small amount of players there were no queue time issues for full BR games.
1 Like
Oh it was because of that! I totally forgot that there was an issue with this and I still belived that there was a time when tank SB had no planes. Now I know that I’m not imagining things :D.
Even if the queue time things turn out to be little more than a boogeyman with no substance, I still strongly believe TO in any form has no place in WT before CAS’s actual problems are dealt with. No, “lack of TO” is not one of CAS’s actual problems. TO is just a set of horse blinders to ignore CAS’s implementation problems with.
1 Like
With TO around, players playing the combined mode would be focused on it, meaning that more players would be using the air and sorting things out.
At the moment You can have a full team with people who just want to play tanks against a team who is going to use the air and dominate them. With TO around, it wouldn’t happen.
Should I copy Your comment from other topic where You actually said the reason You don’t want TO without hiding behind ‘cas problem’?
Players want TO only because Gaijin doesn’t think CAS has implementation problems. In fact it all started with ask for RBGF rebalance in regards to assets but for them everything is OK so players went for TO solution.
Since when has putting forward ones opinion of what might become an issue taken as rejection of changes/the change?
You can always add to it as I made an interesting observation, as part of a *discussion".
Or just pretend it is the same as saying there should be no changes in current GFRB regarding aircraft.
Edit: Not sure how you know they support a TO or not.
So the opinion that something won’t solve the problem (that a person who created the suggestion talks about) shouldn’t be called a rejection of changes/the change either ;).
I know. Well over 5 years of this noise and these TO Demanders have as little to show for it now as they did back then.
2 Likes
Because you conflate the Balance of CAS (not about TO) topic with the Tank Only topic (About TO). You just do not understand the difference in context. If only you would do something than create pointless arguments, always distracting from any chance of discussion or just avoiding discussion altogether.
At least the quality of new topics on TO have improved.
But this is about “If people are complaining about CAS in their games, and you’re tired of the complaints why don’t you support them to have their own version of the game?” with the title asking “Why do CAS players so vocally oppose any suggestions”.
And yet again the reality appears to be very different and proven by this pointless exchange by you creating false equivalence.
If only you spent more energy on honestly asking for a TO mode, the whole crux of this “issue”. Or will you skip past the rational reply given by Morvran_ and the point of view shared by many.
6 Likes
The discussion resolves around changes that would ‘repair’ the balance and I just point out that as long as there are people who just want to play tanks, the said changes won’t make much difference. As I have said many times changes could be made (even proposed some) after the said ‘problem’ of people who just want to play tanks is taken care of.
As I haven’t really seen anyone who says that they want TO and is against any changes in GFRB:
I would love to see some examples of that. Because mostly people just point out that the changes proposed won’t change the problem for them not that they are totally against the idea ;).
It is quite simple really:
Those whose solution is “Want TO” is not relevant to “Rebalancing CAS”. If “it won’t change the problem” then they are in the wrong thread and their points are better off in the TO thread. Chiming in that it does not “solve it for them” is because that topic is not for them, hence we have more than one topic on the forum. Using the correct one helps wasting time, yes?
Those whose solution is “Want TO” is relevant and encouraged in “Poll for TO” (Official TO thread).
I really do not understand why this is difficult for you unless you are just being intentionally difficult. Which I presume you are since it is quite a simple concept that you yourself seem to understand when you help redirect people to the correct topics (sometimes).
So I am curious as to why you believe my comment regarding a 4 or 2 aircraft limit per side is opposing anything, since it is clearly there to open up the discussion of how such a thing could be implemented or work, and what other issues it might cause.
Whereby going to a thread that is focusing on the current GFRB, which is for people wanting to play GFRB as it is (Combined), and coming from a TO want is unhelpful and irrelevant. You don’t want current GFRB if there was TO and will not effect you. But there will be no TO if TO advocates can’t actually do something positive, unlike Richardtheguy who managed it very quickly considering how long you have been involved in discussions.
But you know this and just play the fool, so good luck pretending you want a TO (never action, just a comment to the Devs in a random survey).
Sorry but You are the one who is difficult here.
Most of the ‘suggestions’ are coming from the people who just want to play tanks in GF RBs mode as for people who like the combined part, don’t see the problem (see the comments about spawning SPAAs or air). So by the said solutions mostly won’t be needed if TO gets added.
Not to mention people who openly say that they suggest ‘things’ that would ‘stop’ any need for TO, while people who like combined part of the game don’t see it that way.
As said, there is no point in suggesting changes that are for people who just want to play tanks in GF RBs as there will be a place for them.
And again,
As example I ask for something like a quote. Again, just saying that suggestion won’t solve the problem for some people doesn’t mean that someone is against suggestions ;).
We can go all around about making suggestions to balance the CAS/air in GF RBs mode for people who don’t enjoy it but there is no point in doing so if:
a) There would be a place for that people.
b) There are people who like current state of things.
3 Likes
Where? You replied to me trying to compare two different types of comment, which you have failed to substantiate.
No evidence for that it appears? Certain TO advocates trying to derail other threads? Yes I see that. Even trying to stat-shame Games Masters who don’t fall for your bait.
So far in the Balance thread we have post 141 and post 226 (500 more to trawl through but forum time over). I see little support for changes by yourself, your opinion just making a new mode would result in x,y,z is just your opinion, yes? Not fact. You just push the “if TO exists no balance is needed” claims (which is a guess, yes?).
Yet you do nothing to get a TO (apart from one random survey question, is that right?). The dead thread hardly anyone uses, including yourself.
And now you have just made the quote you asked for, with the other examples in said topic (Balance).
So your opinion is that there is no point rebalancing CAS (as I said people had referenced) “for people who don’t enjoy it” and “those that like it exactly like it is”. Well, there are more than two groups aren’t there? And why should these two limited groups dictate the conversations? So I will say there is a point in doing so because your scenario (the two groups) is extremely narrow.
Again, where am I being difficult?
Pointing out the different topics?
Pointing to your example being spurious?
Then still not actually explaining yourself as to why “there is not point making Suggestions” (yes, I see your narrow perspective on just those solely wanting TO in RB) is the same as “I think limiting planes to 2- per side might possibly cause other issues, discuss”. Which is why you replied to ME.
And ALL this to avoid moving the TO topic forward. So why do TO advocates so vocally oppose any suggestions?
I still am not seeing “CAS players so vocally oppose[d] to any suggestions [TO mode being the OP subject though not in title]”. A few have said why they don’t like the idea for their own reasons, but since no Suggestion has ever been made it is hard to separate those purely discussing the “details” from those possibly completely against the idea. And then those against the idea come from multiple angles; some being just against the idea in general and those from the point of view of theorising why splitting modes might be detriment to the game, since Gaijin won’t answer/no one asks Gaijin directly/no one takes on board Gaijin gives.
It is not my fault you do not know what “Balance CAS” thread is for and who it is for, and what this current thread is for, and what the TO main topic (forgotten as people supporting TO fail to support the topic = shows Gaijin what the situation is with niche wants I presume) is for and who it is for.
So no, I do not see how I am being difficult but your failure to do much positive (C+F topic, yet fail to produce the C+F topic that involves anti-CAS, a better choice to make if “you see planes as a problem” and want to do something about it. I think that is the sum of it?) and literally saying "for x people (not relevant discussions) Suggestions won’t change it for them.
And back you hinting that you are “vocally opposing any Suggestions” because it does not sate every “group” of players…
But we know you are not serious or else you would not be so awkward. Game is not just for players who ONLY want to see tanks, it is just a reality. So those TO advocates do nothing but worsen the current mode out of some odd spite! Well done, I see all those other players bowling in to support your non-Suggestions.
There is a point to Suggesting changes and Suggesting new wants/needs, it just is not going to keep EVERYONE happy. No Shit Sherlock! No one is asking for the Ultimate solution to please ALL players of WT.
1 Like
You mean suggestions about limiting the number of aircraft or making them harder to spawn because they want to play tanks more? I have seen many like that.
So now comparing what people have said with their actual stats is stat-shaming, lmao. We should allow anyone to state anything without the need to look it up!
So no quote?
This has nothing to do with the quote I have asked for.
Is it really that hard to read?
Most of the changes proposed are because there are people who just want to play tanks.
Again because You still fail to understand a simple thing:
If solution is made because there are people who enjoy just playing tanks in RB, there is no real point for them as:
- It is just better to give a place for people who just want to play tanks.
- The said change can destroy the fun people who like current state of things have.
I don’t oppose suggestions to the current gamemode that are for the current gamemode and for people who enjoy combined aspect of the game.
I oppose suggestions that are trying to solve the problem of people who just want to play tanks by destroying the fun for others and not really changing anything.
Have I seen CAS players oppose the suggestion of TO? Of course I have.
2 Likes