New progression

Suggestions
22

That’s a good idea, but at the same time, how are you going to implement that into the tech tree? You’ll unlock something, and be excited to use it, but wait, you’re getting stuck in matches where you can’t use that new unlock.

Someone else suggested having 2 match queues, one historical, one like the one they are adding. That would be the best solution imo, as 2 queues is really not a lot and honestly (I think) there are not many people who will use the historical queue so it won’t effect the other queue a lot

23

we can use mkb and Fedov atm.

I’m not talking about historical accuracy here. Only that I like choosing WHERE I play. maps should be chosen by players, armament should not do it for them. mm should only decide which opponents you face, imo.

24

Ok but if the queues are apparantly being combined then you don’t get to choose? You just get thrown into whatever match. You only get to choose which faction you
want to play. This is how they are planning on doing it yes? A faction queue instead of seperate campaign queues?

1 Like
25

Maps being chosen by the players does not work with a small playerbase.

26

Yes.
You queue as American, you can get Normandy, Tunisia, Pacific, ect

Soviets: Stalingrad, Moscow, Berlin, ect

2 Likes
27

My bad. I meant maps should merely NOT being influenced by equipment, at all. rest could be random if that’s where we’re headed, but equipment “tiers” shouldn’t prevent us from playing into certain war theaters.

In short, the ONLY thing that equipment would influence, is the opponents you’re facing. Nothing more.

1 Like
28

In that case, I agree
Ideally, we would have players pick their own campaigns (perhaps multiple) but the playerbase would need to grow

29

what about, just a map vote at beginning of game?
poll sort of thingy, surly cant be that hard

30

The maps played on would shrink to a few maps that are most popular among the community. Would just waste Devs time with making new maps if the players will just vote for something else

31

Well you would have seperate loadouts and the map would dictate which loadout you will be using.

Instead of something like, oh I only have 1 loadout, I put STG in it and only get Berlin maps.

2 Likes
32

!!

33

It doesn’t effect tech tree? You just unlock something once. Then put the item inside whichever loadout(s) will allow it. Then you may immediately get a map where you can use it, or you may get a map where the weapon didn’t even exist yet so you won’t get to use it.

You unlock Jumbo once. You put it in Ardennes loadout. If you get a Ardennes match, you get to use Jumbo. If you get a Pacific match, your tanker will not have Jumbo.

(I say Ardennes because Jumbo wasn’t used in Normandy, but Jumbo in Normandy isn’t that crazy so it doesn’t bother me much)

34

Exactly the problem.
If you unlock something, you should be able to play with it for as much as you want, not whenever the RNG gods smile on you.

35

I’d rather this than seeing everyone farming the Japs in the Pacific by spamming Jumbo and P-47

36

They won’t, because Jumbo’s and P-47s won’t fit the required weapon rating to be in the Pacific

37

But adding tier ratings to gear would essentially be the same as having divided queues? No?

If you are a player that will only use OP late war gear then you would only be playing Normandy and Berlin. You wouldn’t be part of the Moscow, Stalingrad, Pacific, and Tunisia queue.

38

Kind of, but this queue system will branch out if you can’t find a match.
The campaign system doesn’t allow that. If no one is playing a campaign you simply can’t find a match.
With the new system, it’ll try to find a match within the rating, but if it can’t, it will expand the allowed equipment level.

39

But couldn’t that lock you entirely out of certain campaigns? If your weapon rating is too low would you just not be able to get a Berlin match?

40

No, because you can be on any map. That’s the issue people have, you can be running around with Tiger2 and IS-2s in Moscow

41

well said. exactly what i think