Progression Rework Idea

[Rixas188]

totally agree with front idea

I think the problem is they’ve left it too late to change now. Too many people have fully grinded each one individually, that merging things in to ‘Fronts’ will probably cause a lot of people to get upset.

Unfortunately that’s been Darkflow’s strategy to everything:
Ignore it, hope it goes away, finally does something about it after months of players complaining - only to make things worse in the way they’ve done it.

Well actually that’s just the description of the entire modern gaming industry but I digress.

[robihr]

well they will need to change or game will die. nobody finds it fun to grind germans 5 times for same squads and same weapons with slightly different uniforms. at least in similar games (WT, WoT, WoWs) you grind tank/ship/plane once and you can play it on all maps. and with every new campaign playerbase gets fragmented and they cant implement changes that are desperately needed (like MM).

[Barendd1974]

@Rixas188

Then what new weapons would you get? It’d be the same teams, so you’d get the same standard-issue weapons and equipment. Like, already with just one Pacific Campaign they are having to branch out to non-US equipment, that the US never used, to be given to US Soldiers just so there’s something to unlock.

@Barendd1974

However, the weapons, equipment, etc. should be earned through a separate nation specific progression tree. This will unlock all the weapons that you would use in campaigns.

I answered that in the OP.

@Rixas188

There’d literally be no point grinding one pacific island campaign over another - the maps would look similar, uniforms would be the same, equipment and weapons would be the same.

Ignoring the bits on weapons and equipment, as it was previously answered, there are groupings of islands and no, I don’t believe individual small islands should get their own campaign, they should be grouped up in some capacity. For example the Solomon Islands are one group.

@Rixas188

Yes, another reason being Normandy, Moscow and Berlin has more content opportunities. A single Pacific Island can not be separated in to more than one map.

Moscow is a singular city, and so is Stalingrad. What would set the two apart other than the location of said cities? Right now, the lack of maps is due to the time developed (and partially due to a failed launch because of shitty decision making).

@Rixas188

Then again, if it’s expecting too much for them to put a good amount of missions in one Pacific, then isn’t expecting them to do it for several Pacific Campaigns even worse?

I said on launch. It’s too put into one whenever you combine mid war and late war. There should not be a strive to create more weapons and equipment in a setting that has not yet seen them invented or in use in any capacity.

[Barendd1974]

@Rixas188

Guadalcanal campaign would be the best one yet

You do know that the maps we are getting at launch are solely based on this, right? If that’s an issue, then why even play the Pacific Front? They can clearly make enough levels based off one area, and you showing satellite imagery doesn’t help your case, unless all you play is pilots.

@Rixas188

Battle of Tulagi and Gavutu-Tanambogo didn’t occur on Guadalcanal Island. They occured… well on the islands of Tulagi and Gavutu.

You mean that the Solomon Islands have multiple locations and battles that justify it being a separate campaign.

@Rixas188

The lack of iconic battles or scenery is exactly why all the Pacific should be in one campaign with one grind, instead of in separate campaigns with individual identical grinds.

Nope, i’d rather learn about lesser known battles than stick solely to the mainstream/iconic battles only like every other WW2 game. This is why i’d like to see something like the Invasion of Poland, Burma, China, etc.

[Rixas188]

I answered that in the OP.

You said that in context of merging campaigns together somehow.
I said my part in context of people wanting to separate the Pacific in to individual islands (which btw I’m pretty sure is opposite of what your original post is advocating for, the merging of campaigns in to larger groups).

For example the Solomon Islands are one group.

Or you can go one step further and just merge the entire Pacific together, as it’ll all have the same equipment and map-style anyway. There’s literally no point isolating campaigns to a single island chain.

“Moscow is a singular city, and so is Stalingrad.”

Key cities involved in heavy fighting, which also happen to be 39 times the size of anything found on Guadalcanal - hence there being more content opportunities. Not sure if you are disagreeing with that statement or trying to make a different point to be honest.

“I said on launch.”

I’m talking on launch too. If we only get 7 missions for the Pacific when it covers the entire Pacific, we’d only get like 1 or 2 missions if it focused on a single island / island chain.

You do know that the maps we are getting at launch are solely based on this, right?

How do you know that though? You are a developer? And if that is true, clearly they’ve taken some creative liberties and forgone historical accuracy because nothing featured in the Special Forces Landing Pack looked like key fighting locations from Guadalcanal/Solomon Islands.

“You mean that the Solomon Islands have multiple locations and battles that justify it being a separate campaign.”

You’ve taken that out of context of course, probably a lack of actual argument, - that is referring to robhir who said you can do it all on the island of Guadalcanal. Guadalcanal is not the entire Solomon Islands chain. That is telling him those Battles did not occur on Guadalcanal.

“the Solomon Islands have multiple locations and battles”

Never said it didn’t. But this is a /game/. Why does everyone forget that? This is a game. They have to have battle spaces which are balanced, practical, fair, available to use planes / tanks etc… because this is a game. No one is going to play Battle of Random Field 27 - that’s not a good game map.

“Nope, i’d rather learn about lesser known battles than stick solely to the mainstream/iconic battles”

Then research. Don’t use a f2p first person shooter game. Because it’s a game… which means it have to take liberties, it has to do things differently than real life in order for it to be fun.