Don’t deny my personal experiences.
The ability to lock in on one campaign with a selected set of equipment really made me feel like fighting for a city in 1942. Taking away the consistence on all levels - the continuity of one war theater, the set of weapons that existed in the time of the campaign, and the squads that were chosen based on the front that they fought on, that’s a really big change.
And before telling me something like “it’s subjective” or “sounds like a you problem” maybe consider the fact that I’m not the only one voice here missing the higher historical accuracy, that was DEFINITELY there in the campaign days.
there’s a very difference between arguing for objective changes rather than subjective ones.
i’m sorry, but no changes to the map system or somehow outright delete stuff that offends your immersion is gonna ever happen.
because this game is not made by me or you, for me or you.
but the community. and above all, the developers " view " and lead designer " way ".
as much i don’t enjoy enlisted like i used to, you don’t see me pestering everyone just for the sake of my own gripes trying to change the game for everyone else with my personal and again, subjective takes.
it’s just going to be ugly and more " hurtful " for you ( or veekay ).
right.
and willingly ignored VS weapons at low br, end war camouflages etc.
it’s rather funny to consider that.
but no. it all should be changed to appease a very tiny minority.
i’m sorry, but i’m fairly sure the HA people are less than clans.
and that’s saying much.
so… it is subjective.
because you ( like veekay ) refuses to understand that HA games never has been and never will be profitable in the long run.
this game would have been long time dead.
you know why it didn’t?
because it didn’t carter to the minority.
it instead open it’s front to more casual players and allow a more varied gameplay.
and that is coming from someone who wants nothing but pure hardcore historical accuracy that would pretty much make you or veekay shy away.
i’m not even kidding.
but you know, the way i cope is through the mods editor.
the same thing that everyone except console has access to.
yet none of you uses it.
which it’s fascinating considering that despite it’s many flaws, enlisted mods editor can do what you guys ask for.
but i guess arguing about feelings or rather pointles threads about how the game should carter to a minority is more simple.
i’m not seeing many results though.
as from someone who plays this game from 2020.
i can tell you the target audience is not for you.
nor really that much for veterans like me.
but people who loves to grind and get new shiny toys every once in a while.
i’m not sure how hard it is to comprehend such concept in 2025.
as much i have been fooled by the initial claims and PR of being an historical game when since the beginning, it was not. it was rather simple to accept the fact that it wasn’t going to be and move on.
( best personal advice that i can give. or start modding. )
as they say, take it or leave.
which my point is, you can make it HA, yet you all refuses to do so.
and most of you don’t even follow what you chant for.
so all of these takes are not gonna do much for anyone.
it’s like complaining about going to mcdonald and they mess up the order every time.
fool me once, shame on me. fool me twice type of situation.
wouldn’t you agree?
there is definitely more than those two guys you care to mention. Don’t cherrypick.
No, I did not use that word. And 4 likes is not the real number of all players. It’s representative. Surely suggests that this is an issue for some people. Don’t belittle this group, pretending the 4 guys who gave likes to this particular comment are the whole group in the community who are interested.
but enlisted is not historical accurate because no many people cared to begin with.
because historical accurate games are not balanced.
and no balance = no fun = not many players that plays it to begin with = even slower updates rate
p.s
i have seen the historical accuracy community vanish because they weren’t many.
and those few either left for good, or like me and the EMC are still around making mods.
and then… few people clutching the straws desperately trying to get something back that never will.
who could have guessed that players do not like getting pounded by T34s or Kv1s in moscow with just short barrel panzer IIIs.
or facing tigers with m5s stuarts.
i suppose you deliberately chose to forget how emtpy tunisia or moscow were on the german side pre merge.
the very campaigns that no one but you guys want back.
after all, there is a reason why the merge happened inspite someone lack of better judgement.
if you find that fun.
you can always gather with that HA community and do that even today over customs.
i don’t see what’s stopping you.
I loved playing on the German side in both those campaigns. I didn’t deliberately forget anything. Stop making assumptions. Yes, some campaigns were more popular. So what?
The players who liked to play all day in just Normandy or just Berlin have lost this choice.
such a bad desertion punishment I BET there will be ability to skip punishment for 100 gold or whatever and that’s the sole reason devs haven’t consider anything else
needless to say from a business prospective that’s nowhere good to have.
especially when you had constant complatins from the playerbase getting steamrolled by full enemy teams while having only bots on your own side.
that is deliberating forgetting or coincidentally leaving it out.
and again, sorry, but it’s really not about you.
you don’t single handely support this game.
but many people do. ( no, i’m not accusing you of not being a contributor financially )
i’m just poiting out that you or i may have enjoyed a challenge.
the rest did not.
which again, it’s why the merge happened.
as it “solved most” issues.
brought more balanced matches ( outside the latest shitshows ), more players for all factions and teams.
at the sacrifice of the already non existant historical accuracy.
it defeated the whole purpouse of having them to begin with.
and realistically, as a company, you don’t want to have unused assets that no one uses.
not really.
communities and custom games are still there even in the next update last i checked on callisto.
Having players that choose one 3D battlefield over another, WITHIN the same game, is not a loss of customers - less people in one campaign, more in another.
What is bad for business is losing the interest of players who were willing to spend money on the content for it’s collection value.
First I bought Calliope for Normandy. Then I was intending to gradually buy the unique MG squads for Moscow, early MG42 and KP-31 assaulters for Stalingrad, and a few others in the future, because they were badass and felt unique, placed in their specific historical campaigns. But since the merge came, I have zero inclination to collect them, or even the event stuff, they feel worthless.
There is enough “BaLaNcEd” games on the market, I’ve had enough balance in BF3 already, where the maps where forced into symmetry and both factions could use the same guns.
And you know what is definitely NOT balanced, by the way? The invasion mode. As asymmetrical as it can be, yet it’s the most fun mode in the game.
I would prefer a “preferred” map selection system much more flexible than this:
This is too limited, impossible to tell/change my current preferences in a few clicks and does not help telling you what do I actually like or don’t like to play in the next 1-2 matches.
I would expect that the map selection is a best effort style, focusing on matches populated by players and balanced/fun matches rather than trying to meet all my expectations. (Hence preferred.) And based on how many map mode combinations my preferences allow, I’d gain bonus XP if I’m not too picky, just like with Join Any.
Also I’d welcome an interface where I can select the outfit/weapons for multiple BRs for the same squads simultaneously, so my squads can join anything from BR1 - BR3 with matching weapons if I want it so. (I guess this part is the hardest to implement.)
So my preferences split in 3 sections could look like: #1 - Battle rating / Faction
If I get a battle task with semi-auto kills, apart from the Armaguerra I’d probably change to BR3 like this, with my BR3 soldiers carrying semi-autos which I don’t like much, and only Germans would require weapon changes (bolt action to Armaguerra on BR2):
Changing back or picking a single faction would also be easy.
Also I’d be happy to get back the option to simply select whether I want some matches in the desert or not: #2 - Battle Theatre / Faction
(The year info is a late night best effort, feel free to correct them. )
And then if I have time to play 3 matches and 2 were the same mode, it would be really simple to tell the game to avoid it in the last match with a selection like this: #3 - Game mode
In #2 and #3 the dislikes are not bans, that would probably make it hard to create populated matches if everything can be simply banned.
All in all,
with 25+12+5 thumbs up/down for BR/faction, location and game mode, the match maker would be much better informed about my ever changing preferences,
the newly implemented map ban feature would still be available under the “Detailed map selection” button to avoid maps that I hate
by allowing to set up the same squad for multiple BRs simultaneously, I’d be available for more queues than before
Exactly, and players who have paid for the premium account and/or the battle pass will be scammed because they will not receive the corresponding percentage for participating.
How about instead of punishing people who disconnect because their team does not want to play, you make people WANT to play the game. Implement penalties for not playing the objective or for not building things that help the team. Mainly rally points. Why should I want to stay in a game where players do not do anything and I am being spawn killed?
After some considerations I’m quite sure my original suggestion will be too complicated for the Average Joe (no offense @Conscript_Joe, you’re not average ), so it could be multiselect for each option:
BR [1 … 5] prefer / OK / ban
Factions/side [Soviet / Allies / Jap / Axis + perhaps Allies minor / Axis minor ] prefer / OK / ban
Battle theatre [Moscow, Tunisia etc] prefer / OK / dislike
with simultaneous squad setups for the different BRs so I can join any of them not just one, and not mixing the fractions x BR x theatre like in my first comment.
Game mode [Invasion … Armored train] prefer / OK / dislike (+ ?? general prefer Offensive / Defensive regardless of whether invasion or bomb planting, when I’ve defended 3x in a row)
@VivaldiX96: the Armored train was disliked for presentation reasons (to have at least one disliked), I don’t think I dislike any game modes when they work as intended, and not 2 players + 4 sniper newbies vs 2x4 stack.
)
), so it could be multiselect for each option: