What even would be the changes in a realistic mode? It seems that absolutely no one can agree on the changes that mode would have
2 Likes
this is exactly the problem. everyone has his own version on how historical accuracy/immersion should be implemented in the game.
My interpretation of the original idea was more about less hud, no penetration indicaters or aim help, no sticky 3d spotting, maybe increased scale and movement, weapon modifiers.
Not really anything to do with the discussion thats been happening about BR placement and HA.
I could be wrong
Simply put, immersive environments.
Some weapons and vehicles have been added (before the merge was even an idea) that were a result to try and balance the weapon from an opposing side (MkB 42 vs Federov) when they could have been left out of said campaign (Federov not included in the game unless you guys release Finnish faction and Winter War), because they are not entirely accurate to the setting.
Ultimately, this merge could help fix these problems due to having a focus on the power rating of the weapon/vehicle, so with accurate weapons, it’s not a complete one-sided battle and the gear is more evenly matched (like seeing PPsH with a drum on Moscow, despite it having a higher BR)
TL;DR: With the new system of matchmaking that the merge is presenting, this mode would add additional parameters that lock certain weapons out of certain maps. It will most likely have a longer queue time due to the different checks the search has to go for to get a populated match, but as a lot of us expressed, we were willing to wait a few more minutes for a game that is more enjoyable to our interests.
Yeah I’d be down for that idea. And where we can still have bud and aim assist. Just have it be a mode in itself but not a hardcore mode
i really dont know… realistic could mean lot of things… could be realistic ww2 experience with HA weapons, could be realistic without HUD etc.
1 Like
In this same topic players want a more “hardcore” experience instead of HA
not to mention people cant even agree on what kind of HA they want.
Right, there’s obviously a spectrum of interests as you pointed out, but generally I believe the majority of us looking into obtaining a more “Realistic” experience enjoy certain elements. I’m personally not opposed to implementing some elements from the hardcore mode as seen in Custom Games, but it’s not a requirement, and I believe having the setting be realistic would do good to satisfy the majority of people who have had complaint.
Pretty sure he only called it “realistc battles” as a parallel to warthunder. Which has nothing to do with HA
@Bigote0070 summed it up with “hardcade”
Hehe
1 Like
Sure, but Voyo has been one of the people who have advocated for HA for months alongside the rest of us. So as I said, there is a spectrum of interests, as some people amount gameplay mechanics on top of the actual atmosphere and equipment of the game.
So if he wasn’t referring to HA in addition, then that is my mistake, although considering he mentioned “the split in the community” this is the biggest thing I could think of that would be what that was in reference to.
1 Like
To add onto the prior point: as more “settings/campaigns” are added, whether it be Leningrad, Kursk, Battle for the Bulge, etc. it shouldn’t be difficult to allow or disallow weapons to those campaigns to maintain the atmosphere.
Basically, the mode is a combination of the systems from the second test and the third test.
The reason why this whole debate has been so large is that due to the direction the game is taking, it feels as if it is casting away a set of players who joined and enjoyed certain aspects of the game.
Custom Games may be feasible, but it would need a major overhaul, so I believe in the end that this separate mode would be good to appease everyone so we no longer have elongated threads of bickering and fighting with one another over this aspect of the game.
2 Likes
You seem to care about historical accuracy, do you think Volkssturm guns should only be in Berlin
depends on how it is handled. if it puts low level player vs high level player against his will then no. if it was optional then yes (and by optional i mean it was put in t5 folder). if in low level battle it constantly puts all players in berlin cause 1 player has 1 volkssturm weapon then no.
How about this. Berlin would be in two tier settings. Vulksturm weapons only be in both tiers in Berlin. And the vulksturm weapon carriers are taken into low tiers if they weapons are surrounded by tier 1-3 guns. Then high tier of surrounded by tier 4-5 guns in their arsenal.
how about no. 1 player shouldnt have all the power to decide map based on his weapons.
1 Like
Not over the entire lobby but a decision that only affects themselves
I propose a solution in this topic that reduces the impact of player pool fragmentation by allowing players to easily move between campaigns while keep the current immersion.
1 Like
I agree with taking the multi campaign arsenal and merging the tech tree that way other players don’t have to unlock the same weapon multiple times however keeping the campaign system as at the same time it keeps it simple. Really no need to merge the campaigns. Just merge the universal unlocks like the mp40, ppSh, avs, m1 garland, Thompson, mg34, etc
I wholeheartedly support this idea !
I think that if players want to hop around the battlespace with 5 automatic weapons per soldier BFV style then let them have it.
For the historically minded folk, implement Realistic mode, make each map a unique scenario with specifically allowed weapons, vehicles and equipment that were historically there. The only separation between new and old players will be the degree of weapon upgrade, unlocks per squad, and perks per soldier. Run a generic squad progression tree and pull generic line ups into each scenario. Add all uniforms, equipment etc… as part of an individual scenario/map commensurate with the level of unlocks on the generic squad / vehicle templates in the line up.
1 Like