Most folks have already offered various ideas about techtree progression, campaign unification into fronts and many different variations, to adress unlocking Skyrim MP40 for sixth time.
However, we have some more serious issues.
I have a less orthodox proposition for them.
Currently, we have a choice between axis or allies teams. Often contributing to the issue of “main” creation, which possibly makes them biased.
My question is:
Why not both?
Think of it this way - regardless of the team You play as - you still unlock campaign levels for both sides.
And the issues this approach could solve or at least alleviate, would be several:
- We have “mains” - as I mentioned earlier. Pretty much everyone who does not have enough time to play everything, is forced to concentrate his/her efforts towards a single faction in a campaign. This possibly results in them being biased and not aware of the capabilities of other faction. Making campaign progress independant of whatever faction You play as, would remove this issue. Additionally, this would make the players (potentially) more rational in terms of what they actually want (no more frequent posts of “[insert a gun name] OP, pls nerf!”).
- Balance and matchmaking - there would no longer be much need to choose only specific faction when entering the game. With players now choosing “play any faction” more often, the matchmaker would have an easier time designing better teams.
- With both sides of a campaign available, folks would have more options to spend their orders (and money). Potentially, I see this as financially attractive for developers as well. Since, there are more reasons for players to buy premium stuff (from BOTH sides) to spice up their gameplay.
This won’t resolve unlocking Skyrim MP40 for sixth time, but, it would solve many other issues that we have now. Combining this with campaign unification/techtrees, we would also be able to simplify many of the problems with bias and inaccurate judgement of what gun/vehicle is powerful and what is not.
5 Likes
To sweeten the deal, I maintain my original idea: those glorious and Chad enough to choose “play random faction” should benefit from a small xp bonus at the end. Those players are “equalizers” or “champions of balance”. They deserve a treat.
10 Likes
But it’s understood that the mechanic of high degree grinding raises the likeliness of people paying for premium and bp in order to shorten the grind, ya?
I’d give this idea (what I personally like) a pretty low chance to be publisher supported
Ah…
In that case, it can indeed be… not as attractive.
But again - are premium squads made to be sufficient on their own, or are they supposed to be useful as a support/niche option?
If they are supposed to work on their own - yes, You’re probably right.
But, if they are just a piece of the puzzle - well, then premiums are more useful when you already have earned foundation.
1 Like
In fact… not really.
I’m a whale. I own way… WAY too many premiums.
Yet I already lvled up most campaigns to max, except some I’m less interested in.
Premiums I never really use to grind… they’re mostly just for fun, because they have unique stuff. When you “try hard” attempting to gain the most xp possible, regular armed to the teeth squads are always best.
Theres some few exceptions to this like pz3N in Tunisia (tanks here were subpar before Pz4), or that ugly censored pz4 in Moscow being the only one with HEAT shells… because Moscow is not really balanced tank wise.
But yeah. The long grind policy is merely to keep ppl hooked. Notice that when ppl max a campaign…
… they move to the next one. It’s a bit masochistic true. I think it’s because ppl like feelings of accomplishment. Premiums… they don’t help reaching that. Grind is not faster with em even if advertised as +100% xp while using them.
For the BP and premium subscription however, yes you’re spot on. Those help tremendously.
3 Likes
Well, with superior premium squads you are at least able to finish a campaign quicker than anyone else. Plus premium xp.
Just to clarify, I personally have absolutely no problem with grinding for long times.
As long as the game is fun to play. The game play should be the contest, not the pursuit for being the fastest in having all the stuff or being the most superior bozo on the field.
Fair grinding makes the value of reached stages.
It simply means nothing to buy these stages of success in terms of entertainment. I never got the idea of it. Next level is cheating.
1 Like
Another thing to point out with this - it would reduce the amount of overall grind. Good thing for players.
At least, in current sense.
Obviously, the devs could adjust the amount of exp earned or the cost of unlocking each level, if they wish to retain the grind times.
Another reason why this would make sense - we already have bronze/silver/gold orders, which are used by all of the factions, in all of the campaigns.
Our main in-game currency is used by all factions - we don’t have specific “axis orders” or “allies/comintern orders”. Or orders specifically for 1 of the campaigns.
So, logically, the final step would be to make all the campaign experience progression combined, so that the player earns experience for all of the campaigns, all of the factions.
For now though, making experience earned by both factions in the same campaign would be enough, to test this ‘proof-of-concept’.