I have recently come up with an idea I’d like to share with You guys.
Why don’t we just bring the campaign selection back in the game to add some historical flavour that has been taken from us by the merge update? (I don’t know about You lot but I can’t stand tanks with desert camo in Moscow XD). The campaign selection will allow players to choose only “historically accurate” loadouts adequate to chosen campaign (as it was before the merge) but will NOT provide an option to choose to play only this specific campaign. The player will only be able to choose a faction (as it is right now - but with different loadouts for each campiagn).This will for example completely delete Italians from Berlin.
About the research tree - Unlocks can stay as they are right now but they should be assigned to specific campaigns (ex. You unlock FG 42 but You can only use it in Berlin and Normandy), each time You unlock a squad You get the same TYPE of squad (ex. assaulters) for every campaign in which this certain nation is present (ex. You unlock a sniper squad for Soviets - You get 1 sniper squad for Stalingrad, 1 for Moscow and 1 for Berlin all from “adequate-to-campaign” divisions).
BR should remain the same imo.
I don’t know if this “idea” makes any sense to You guys. I’m looking forward to Your opinions and suggestions. Let’s hope Devs will somehow see it. Thanks for the read.
Stay safe!
there were 2 reasons that were officialy stated for “the merge” .
one reason was that there was not enough player base to populate all the different queues in the campaign system, thus forcing people to play against bots. an incorrect assessment, but it is as it was given.
the other reason was that the campaign system prevented them to add more campaigns, and more gear to each campaign, since being linearly unlocked means everything should go to the end of the line, be it top level gear or low., and “the merge” system allowed them to add more gear intertwined, from low level gear to max.
the assessment was right, the application was extremely horrendous, since now whenever something gets added in lower BR brackets, it locks you up of unlocking higher gear till you go back aaaaaaall the way to unlock (and pay) the older thing.
so if they go back now to campaigns and independent queues, they just lost the part of the population that left because of the merge, while not gaining anything but extra work just to end where we started, but worse. we are knee deep into the death spiral now, full speed and no brakes.
I am against the independent queues, as I wrote above. Sadly You made a very fair point about the gear. I guess its time for me to quit as well.
On what information do you base this conclusion? Or do you just mean that in your opinion it is incorrect?
follow the axiomatic truths to reach the logical conclusion.
axiom 1: before merge, there were ALWAYS people playing all the different campaigns.
axiom 2: the player base was so overwhelmingly one sided per campaign, that most of them turned into full players all the time on one side in an overwhelming number of queues, so much so that the matchmaker had to resort to fill the opposing side with bots.
axiom 3: cyclic changes from side to side depending on the whim of the playerbase were constantly present, not depending in the faction involved. but NEVER balanced tho, just a pendulum movement from one side farming bots to the other doing the same couple days later. with the exception being very few times, depending on time zone mostly, in normandy campaign.
deduction 1> if players were split evenly among the different sides of the present campaigns, for every 2 matches full players vs bots, you can get 1 full match player vs player.
deduction 2> if players themselves decided to NOT split evenly, actually creating the situation previously described, there needs to be INCENTIVES for players to split evenly.
final assessment 1: we scrap the entire campaign system and call it a day, making an entire new system, which demonstrated by pure reality check that didnt solved anything, since we ALREADY couple weeks into “the merge” have populations imbalance based on BR. meaning, “this side on BR X is dominating”, “that side on BR Y is much powerful”, “that other side on BR Z is just a bot farm”, “just play E faction in F BR, is much easier”, etc etc.
final assessment 2: if we give the proper incentives to join random side/campaign, just calling it “REINFORCE NOW AND EARN BIG BUCKS”, people will join random sides and therefore the lower populated sides/campaigns would get full queues, by virtue of the random joining system putting players where they are needed, and imbalance of player factions will be negated.
they went with assessment 1. do you think it solved the main problems? was it the right conclusion to fix the problem, in your opinion?
I skimmed your post but it’s too long and you are off at the start.
All campaigns were not reasonably populated. It was not unusual to have only a few humans on each side.
So. There’s that.
aha. so, when i answered a question posed by you, your counter argument is “too long, i dont care about your answer anyway”.
of course if i join an NA server at 4:00 AM i could find a match that wasnt full. but that isnt aplicable, since i could also try to find a match when the servers got DDOSed, not find any and get to the conclusion it is a common thing, even when it clearly is statistically negligible.
i once threw a det pack on a tank on stalingrad, and exploded the tank and the plane that was flying above. at the same time. the plane took shrapnel damage, crashed and it counted as a kill. would i say it is a common occurence, even if it happened in a statistically negligible number? or a once in a blue moon chance?
If you think that’s really how it was then there’s no reason to debate. Feel free to believe what you believe.
Your statements of fact are based on your perception only.
nice, we agree to disagree, that is the way of reason!
and about the rest, no thoughts? the incentives, the already one sided BR tiers, the bot farms already present in enlisted 2.0, the 2 matches “player vs bots” equal “1 match player vs player” in raw numbers, if evenly split?
I didn’t see any compelling cogent thoughts in your post worth responding to. Things still need improving but I would say that, in terms of human population in matches, the game is in a better state.
here, a TLDR:
and another:
and a third:
i am still wondering how you got that this:
is opposed and mutually exclusive with this:
the logical steps to get to that conclusion escape me. your answer is directly enforcing the base premise. there were ALWAYS people, by your direct answer if you were there, there were people. nowhere is said there were ALWAYS full lobbies. thats a different premise.
comment: “everyone in this city owns a car”
answer: “you are dead wrong, not everyone has a volkswagen!”
comment: “but that is not what i said!!”
answer: “never mind, i didnt read the comment but still think you are wrong!”
but never mind, you do you.
here, from the source of all knowledge, the wikipedia. this might enlight you.
A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the [informal fallacy] of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be “attacking a straw man”.
The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having refuted or defeated an opponent’s proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., “stand up a straw man”) and the subsequent refutation of that false argument (“knock down a straw man”) instead of the opponent’s proposition. Straw man arguments have been used throughout history in [polemical debate], particularly regarding highly charged emotional subjects.
better nah ya 10 min a game one side was all generals and above rank our side was sgts pvts and me a LT so I’ve no idea what game you been playing but its worse now then before the merge this is the only game which demotes you as your at a total disadvantage the in it begins Elkaless is correct its mismatched cos folk left the balance is like war thunder grant tanks v tigers tanks --lol its still fun but ifd never spend a penny here
I’ve had many more good matches post merge than in the past 6 - 12 months prior in high and low BR in all campaigns and factions.
I do think there needs to be a way to keep players from leaning to one side or another based on win rate but that’s not really what the OP was on about if I understood him. The reality is that there are more humans in matches.
High BR Germany the first few weeks post-merge was nearly untouchable. Japan post-merge is dominant. There are various reasons for this and it needs to be sorted out but it doesn’t invalidate the logic behind the merge.
I also really want MEHA, but many players don’t want it, and DF doesn’t want it either
So I am more looking forward to seeing King Tigers in the Pacific.
OP’s main point is a desire to bring back campaigns. How does your point relate? Are you really expecting King Tigers in the Pacific or just spouting out some attempt at rhetoric?
If in the past, I may be satirizing
But now I do feel that this is not impossible. After all, we have abandoned a lot of historicity, so why not abandon more in exchange for a better gaming experience?
The meaning of merge is to gather more players to play together instead of diverting, and to ensure that players with similar weapons will play together to ensure a more fair game.
However, this also brings inconvenience. If you want to play different maps, you need to adjust your faction and BR. You need to reorganize your squads, soldiers, weapons, and vehicles to fit in different BR. This may not be a big deal for legacy players, but for many new players it is, which is not conducive to experiencing the vast map pool of the game and generating interest.
Why not open up all the maps? This will further reduce diversion, allowing players to experience the fun of PVP instead of farming AI, and regardless of which BR you choose, you have a rich map pool instead of just playing a few maps all day and quickly getting tired of it. Some people may find it uncomfortable to see the King Tigers in the Pacific, but they will learn to adapt it gradually, just like the King Tiger appeared in Stalingrad and PPS42/43 appeared in Moscow, And the fun of the game will be even greater in the future than before.
Oh, I forgot to answer your first question: How is my words related to OP
That’s to say, forget about historical accuracy. The old campaign system will divert players, which DF will not happy to see. So why not expecting for a system with less historical accuracy but fewer player diversion and more campaign maps instead？
I’m not sure what you’re on about.
Yeah, new tanks appeared in Stalingrad and about 12% of people care (I’m making that up but believe it’s probably more true than “everyone cares”).
Moscow? Already had Federov. Who cares about PPS42?
I don’t expect to see King Tigers in the Pacific unless the game is in such a sorry state they they make anything possible, hoping it somehow helps (which it will not).
No… just no
Not on board with it
Listen I’m not too happy about them removing the campaign system however if the merge makes the right changes, THEN I can say it would be tolerable. I made a post regarding changing the queues and some of the weapons BR’s after.
Here it is here if you want to have a look
I’m one of the 12% who cares
Pps-42 in Moscow and Stalingrad is understandable