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.
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?
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？
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).
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.
That’s right, just like there was Pz.IV F2 in Moscow before the merge, so since this game already has so many historical inaccuracies, why not make everything possible? I don’t think this game needs to enter some “sad state” before it completely changes. Just time to look at this game with a new perspective and find some different fun, thank to the merge.
So, if I understand your argument, you are now arguing that Enlisted was inaccurate before the merge. Yet, in this thread where you are arguing that it should be made historically accurate again. This thread being one that asserts that merging campaigns is the “problem.” Was it fine before? You lost me.
Step 1. Before merging, I opposed reducing historicity, even if it wasn’t as historically correct from the beginning. I still opposed continuing to reduce possible historicity
Step 2. I gradually accepted the environment after merge and discovered its benefits, believing that historicity is no longer as important in this game
Step 3. I saw OP and replied to the poster: “We can’t go back anymore, why don’t we expect more freedom in campaigns instead?”
This is just a casual reply, I don’t understand why I have to explain so much for a casual reply, it’s like this is an academic conference.
You don’t have to quit yet. I for one am enjoying everything this merge has to offer excluding the fact that some desert stuff has appeared in Moscow and vice versa. I would wish that we could choose to play only a certain region of maps or there was a way to manipulate it to do so. However since the removal of the ‘preferred maps’ on equipment there hasn’t been a good way to do it yet. I can think of two things happening. Bringing back preferred maps on equipment to allow for a manipulation of the system, but if something contradicts then they cannot have both in there loadout. Or we can have an adjustment to the visual of the equipment like we do the soldiers. It’d be weird to see a grey Puma in Moscow but it’s better than having a tan Puma in Moscow right?
You go up a few comments and you’ll see one I made with a link to a post I made regarding making changes to a lot of the weapon BR’s and making changes to the queue system in rather one of two systems I recommended where any of the two would help keep most arsenal related timeframe organization and keep the balance I guess most people want, however I mentioned nothing about regional map organization on it as I fear people would run amok about how it would increase amounts of queues. Maybe we can brainstorm?
As to the OPs suggestions, I agree that Enlisted needs to correct its wrongs in regards to history, but going back to campaigns may not be the best option.
What they can do right now however:
remove BR 4 5 from Stalingrad
lock late war stuff like Pz IV J and MP 3008 from early war matches/replace them
introduce adaptive generic camo for vehicles so that Stug is white in USSR, yellow in Africa and green-brown in Normandy
link vehicles to preferred theaters, e.g. lineups with LVT and Seagull would more frequently go to Pacific and lineups with Crusader and A13 - to Tunisia.
Because that caused botfarming to make certain campaigns outright unplayable, whether it being one side boring due to fighting bots all the time, or the other frustrating because you never actually manage to win a game. Tunisia Axis and Berlin Allies were the worst offenders pre-merge.
Being no longer able to choose campaigns was a necessary sacrifice to make the game more tolerable.
And even other pop wasnt populated enough for most campaigns.
Not really.
Tunisia was Allies lol-cowing 95% of the time. Or Berlin switched from 50% Soviets botfarms to German 50% lolcowing the rest of the time.
These changes happened on a monthly basis.
Not really according to stats.
Orherwise the numbers would be worse.
The flavour of Zombie weapons and tanks that were not there?
And I dont stand those masses of T-50s while only one was maybe around Moscow for one recon mission and those masses of F2 that were not built by that time.
Good idea to make sure that people cant play Normandy for most part because they dont own the good stuff and get queued against Tigers agaib because that was fun.
So we have map queues AND BR queues.
How many queues do you want? 50?
