We divide the game into 4 separate battlefronts. This immediately makes it possible to combine such campaigns as, say, Moscow and Stalingrad, Normandy and Berlin, etc. - In the same way, it simply facilitates further introductions of other campaigns like Crete, Burma, Ardennes, Kursk, etc. and etc.
Everything would be broader, which would not divide the community too much into individual minor campaigns as it is now, and it would be much easier for the developers themselves to work in the future with new maps, factions, weapons etc. (sorry for my AI skills, but the point is visible)
But there is another possibility. The easiest way is to leave simple “Legacy mode” (where the server of the current version of the Enlisted game would remain) where you could fight directly against bots, where you could not buy anything for gold, you would not get xp, but you would simply choose the previous campaign, the desired map, and just play without stress for nostalgic fun (it could also act as a training mode, for some maps). I think this would leave some players who are completely against merge and thinking of quitting the game too.
Eastern front would be the same is it with the merge and HA avarage dude, would keep complain about
“TiGeR!! MoScOw!!! UnPlEyAbLe!!”
Furthermore allies and axis player get splitted to 3 different theatre instead soviet and japanese player are all clogged in one theatre and we return to the point of have one side always stomp…
The update objective is"UNIFY" the playerbase no keep remain her split, and your idea is a simple alternative version of the current Enlisted
You can play costum, as helper are keep teasing good thing are gonna happen
No. Because it would open up possibilities for a more flexible expansion of the various battles that took place on the Eastern Front. It should not be judged only by the current established standards of the game.
Again, exactly the same. Significantly more options, with their own distinct individuality and player experience. The only thing is that in this case, choosing between the 4 main fronts of the war, you will have more freedom than you do now. As a result, there are no restrictions, and your game-play is free. So it will be interesting for everyone to try innovations, instead of sitting in only one bias campaign.
First of all, if you think that people play separate factions only based on their nationality, it is quite narrow, because excluding all “wanabe” the same player plays through several factions.
Never heard of main? Or played in the past 2y because i dont know if you know but all campaigns have
1 side who always win and 1 side who always lose
Due to the fact that main and pve enjoier/farmer always stuck on their loved/easy faction and dont move from here unless a big migration of player force them
So
You are naive if you think thath your idea gonna work and
This happens in all online games. Welcome. Does merge solve balance problems by itself? No doesn’t solve it. This is a completely different topic.
It works in games like HLL.
If you mentioned “naivety”, then know that bots will not disappear anywhere even after the merger. If this is your best argument against my proposal, it is simply too weak.
These will be Allied and Axis forces. Let me remind you that not only Russians and Germans fought on the Eastern Front. As a result, it will be possible to incorporate Romania and Hungary and similar countries without additional restrictions.
Whatever… im not here for argue with you sayng the same thing again and again i already said what is the issue with your proposal accept it or not is up to you
If that merge is happening than I will quit. This is nonsense. I have been with Enlisted pretty much since the beginning but this is absurd. Tiger tank in Moscow. stalin in Ibiza, churchill in madagascar, Barrack Obama the president of Khazakstan. that type of nonsense this game will become.
and this would be different from merge exactly how? you would just split western allies in western front and north africa/mediterranean. also your idea would just add extra queue. if you have BR MM you would have even more complexity and if you dont you would have everything from pz2 to KT in the same theater.
and would increase server upkeep for devs by x fold. instead of 10 or 20 players per server instance, they would have 1 player per server instance…
omg we will have HA inaccuracies in the game. totally unplayable…
As I mentioned, my proposal is not a “merge change” but a partial merger, changing everything to the four real fronts of World War II. My goal is to preserve the essence of the separate fronts, expanding the possibilities in the future without grinding as it is now, it is much easier to introduce various battles, which are now done as a whole separate update.
I am categorically against such merge logic that the devs presented in the test server, which in my opinion is a completely lazy decision, absolutely destroying the essence of this game.
Be my guest and you can share your ideas. My goal is to start a discussion. Unless you’re totally fine with the future merge model.
I think that my proposed “Legacy mode” would be really popular - and how to do it properly is just a matter of creativity.
that is the problem. e.g. now they have 1$ (made up number) server upkeep per 1 player. if they introduce your legacy mode they can end up with 10$ or 20$ per 1 player. you are practically making online single player game that is hosted on devs server and that devs need to pay.
btw you can already do that in customs and devs have already said they will introduce something for HA people in customs
Selecting a battlefront would be a better option despite Soviets and Japan have the right to do so but not Germany or US. Germany being at the worst with the lack of an option to choose a front to fight to and optimize loadouts according to the theater.
and you would still have playerbase disparity with this kind of approach… i could already see nobody playing eastern front axis cause bunch of soviet mains are farming bots there…
Except hll has unified progression so chosing a side is a matter of prefference.
Enlisted has grind split between sides and campaigns (for now) so it’s a completely differend scenario.
btw will just post this from my topic why having fronts/campaigns is bad. look at playerbase disparity depending on day/time of day.
this ratio is number of human players on allies compared to axis
