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
I’ve considered and proposed the theatre system myself, but seeing the direction that the game is heading and the community’s perseverance means the merge is inevitable. However I feel that there is still potential to retain some of the campaign system’s benefits. One such idea is to allow players to choose a preferred campaign and/or maps which would influence matchmaking, but only when there are enough players online.
With the amount of people blindly supporting the merge and even defending it fanatically like zealots. I’m not surprised some of them try to silence dissent with some being valid reasons due to the lack of information from the devs on this matter. Even stuff like selecting map pools, map voting or map veto system, we don’t know due to no dev answer on that.
Its like at this point, the merge is some kind of messiah to the game when we don’t even have enough information.
We should then talk about whether Enlisted, as a game in general, is popular, and why it does not gather enough players to require such a drastic enough action as - merge.
Because this is not done for the sake of some kind of innovation and improvement for the future, but for existing players to play with each other more. Isn’t that exactly how the game was advertised? As squad based, together with AI.
The developers have been warned by community from the very beginning that eventually there will be a problem with bots and player count when developing such a model, if nothing innovative is invented. This happened because no effort was made to improve the core Enlisted mechanics. More was concentrated on the implementation of various “toys” and microtransactions.
So, answering you, I can say that - interesting and good updates attract new players. Therefore, it is inaccurate to decide about community suggestions from the current state of the game. (whether they will be popular or not). They have to be implemented first. But devs must do something in order to maintain immersive WW2 style as much as possible.
EDIT: or this game will eventually slowly die. Just how H&G
even if it had 10 million players, player disparity would always exist if you forced campaign system. there is no fixing a problem if e.g. for every 1 axis player in tunisia you have 2 allies players in the same queue.
ffs there are 107k unique players that on average play around 4 battles per day(considering desertion percentage it should be actually 3 battles). problem is that they are divided on 6 servers across 6 campaigns and then further into different hours.
playerbase is perfectly healthy for post merge system, but not so for campaigns/fronts.
