Unfortunately, no plans about choosing a favorite theatre in sight. As far as we know, you’ll play Germany and end up in any place from Moscow to Berlin, and anything in-between.
According to current info, that USUALLY shouldn’t happen. The matchmaker will TRY to put players together taking into account their equipment.
But, if too few players are in queue, you may indeed occasionally see King Tiger in Stalingrad or such.
There is no XP progression in custom games. Thus the game has been ruined.
I’m going to miss the theatre selection too, but I’m waiting to see how it will actually be before tearing my robes apart.
I’m deeply saddened by this. It’s upsetting enough that I just got into Enlisted and I’ve played every day for 2 months, yet even worse that now the game that I love is killing itself for reasons that are unwarranted and not necessary. This is going the same way as WoT and battlefield 5.
Actually the game is turning itself upside down to try and PREVENT a slow death.
It was foreseen since long time that the separate campaigns format would be unsustainable in the long run, due to the playerbase stretching out too thin.
you can always desert, no penalties outside xp , yeah it sucks why are they doing it, to make the game easier for devs by limiting lobbies, or low player count, yeah i know they probably said why ion one post three years ago, i love Tunisia so i know how you feel second what about daily requirements a lot of them are tied to playing a certain amount of games in a certain campaign
What I think could POSSIBLY be a viable solution, is to have a permanently active mode where the war theatre is fixed with periodic rotation, along with normal random matchmaker.
Say, in example:
Three days, you can play dedicated Ger vs Us event in Tunisia OR normal random matches.
Next three days, you can play dedicated Ger vs Ru event in Stalingrad OR normal random matches.
Next three days, you can play dedicated Us vs Japan event in Pacific OR normal random matches.
And so on.
Yes there is if you have a full server or quite a few people and you’re playing non modded maps
Looks like you need to go back and read a bit more, while they don’t say that those things are going to be impossible it will be very improbable that they will happen frequently.
If you will choose German army you will play a random map from Moscow, Stalingrad, Tunisia, Normandy and Berlin campaigns. What campaign - it depends on your equipment and your soldiers.
It is possible.
Though I am loathe to admit it, if the merge fixes campaign stacking and leads to more balanced matches then it was a necessary change.
That’s going to be a soft rule, and we’ve yet to see just how soft.
Personally I hope it’s done away with entirely.
DF hopefully doesnt fuck up —> playerbase grows —> mappicking gets implemented (currently too few players for that) —> everyone can play, what he wants. ill play le bre west/la perelle nonstop!
I think that removal of the campaigns is the biggest downside of the merge and will be the one thing that will backfire for several reasons.
I believe that apart from the small hardcore community, also given the too long progression, not everybody plays all the campaigns to the same extent, and certainly some significantly more than other according to preference. Well not anymore…
I believe that there are some campaigns more appealing to the new players, Normandie especially, which you need to get them hooked. Well not anymore…
I believe that the removal of campaigns and random map selection will make it very, very hard for new players to learn maps. Combine it with the above point, well, yeah…
I also find it incredulous that with all that in mind, they still announced 2 more “campaigns” this year, when there will be a chance of only 1 in 6 to get a specific campaign map (ie. Germans, and one of the new campaigns is a German one) , and that is ideally, given how the map selection works atm it will be probably 1 in 10. Unless the “new campaign” is just a bunch of new squads, because surely it won’t be map specific. Wow!
Also what is a point of introducing new maps when they will be simply lost in the sea of already existing maps, even if they introduce one, good luck playing one! With the point above there will be at least 1 in 40 chance of getting a specific map. And that is if the map selector doesn’t screw you over, gl with that. Wow!
And all that even mention customs, GTFO! like right now.
They should be the an addition and not the main game, it’s bad enough that you can do battle pass task in them, mmmkay??
What I propose is that one campaign be singled out of the merged campaigns, and be on rotation, as the guy above mentioned like every 3 days, so we would have 3 days of Normandie + all rest, then 3 days of Berlin + all rest, etc. Would solve most of the aforementioned concerns.
Well, wouldn’t be a merge without removal campaigns.
Ppl screaming about map selection and so forth fail to realize why this new changes is here in the first place: Reduce the amount of queues/solve the split playerbase.
Wow, I didn’t know that. Thank you very much for explaining it to me. It is as if a veil was lifted from my eyes, WOW!! and again, thank you.
Always happy to help lost souls!
I understand these new changes confuses a lot of ppl. No shame in being ignorant!
Yes I can see the underlying issue and why a dev team would do such a thing. That’s what world of tanks did to get “new players”. They should take care of the veteran players and cater to them because they will play the game regardless of if it’s in a good spot or a bad spot in its timeline. New players will play, get bored and quit. Old players will return and quit based on the scale of change. I’ve seen that happen with Wot, WoTC, BFV, BF4, call of duty WW2 (2017) and Minecraft (change of music and addition to realms only for multiplayer saved maps) and each of them hurt the original player base and barely brought in new players (except Minecraft, new player all the time come). I believe you understand my points.
I agree. If the new player base is an issue where there is not many people, why not leave the system how it is, and increase the rate at which levels are unlocked by lowering the xp needed to level up the campaigns? Why not give bonuses for playing “random games” and/or a “quick game” function while leaving the campaigns separate. I have premium time and I play about 6 hours a day, everyday for 2 months. I’m pretty decent at the game and more times than not I am on top 3 on my team. I am now on level 20 Germans on Normandy. I’ve been recovering from a very bad surgery so I have been playing WoTc and Enlisted. I have an Xbox one from 2013 so I dislike the idea of a skill based match maker, I will be put up against people with expensive PCs and I will be defeated in a rapid fashion much like what call of duty did with SBMM.
Maybe the merge won’t be so bad, I’m being positive but I know that all good things come to an end. GTAV has a giant player base still and the best part is that they never changed the roots of the game to bring in new players. They kept the game the same and made money easier to get/receive.
Reduce XP needed to rank up and lower cost of premium squads and vehicles by a couple $. Or leave the squads the same and make a free version be available for more events, bringing in old players and connecting new players.
Weapons cant be used their production year but later : not bad
Seeing weapons in early war campaigns but produced actually later : nope