I doubt how many people will use this option. Many player doesn’t even finish one campaign, why will they use this feature since this game is about grinding, to keep grinding you need to stay in one campaign. There are veteran player who had finish multiple campaign, but their amount is so little, there will be little help for the situation.
Player base is too low for this to be implemented.
If the default/incentivized by XP boost MM option is “any campaign”, there will be enough players.
Another major point is not disbanding lobbies after each match and not creating a new one every 60 seconds - just keep the maps rolling with the same/slightly shuffled teams.
How bout 3 rocket premium squads? All for around 60 euro (240 ZL) - And call it a major update!
Hell i wouldnt use it.
Do you think i want to play Tunisia, Normandy and Stalingrad?
No chance
bombs only did FF if the bomber died before bombs could go explode, outside of that there was no FF also mortars never had FF on
How many boost will it require to let player bare the price of progression spreading across 10 faction?
Bombs had FF, didnt matter if you died or no.
Mortars were rare af back then. Dont remeber, so yeah they didnt i guess, but they should
Idk I spread it now across 10 factions alreday, I care more about variety and balance than being the sweatlord of one faction in one campaign.
uuum no, bombs NEVER had FF unless the bomber died (IE suicide bombing) not even back during CBT did bombs do FF
Hell i aint gonna argue.
I think they did, but maybe they didnt.
This game is for your PvE needs and the perfect fix to feel like a good, or even great, FPS-player. It has very low skillbase, it’s easy to approach, everyone should get kills and XP. If you’re a busy dad with limited XBOX-time Enlisted is a free, low-treshhold game to go in.
Even if you’d suck balls, no-one could be sure if you’re a bot or a human anyway, and as there’s no chat there’s very little risk of toxicity - this doesn’t include forums, naturally.
BFV has a higher skill-ceiling - not very high but fairly high - and you’ll can get your ass stomped even if you’d be “an average” fps-player quite easily and thus people calling so much hacks in BF. I’ve literally seen only few obvious hackers, but again, I’m probably not your average FPS-player in BF-environment.
I mean, how many players in BFV example play actual competitive matches in fps-games? Like real clan-matches in CS:GO, compete in Quake Arena in tourneys, or play or have played competive BF? Comp.players in BF-V - the 30 of 40 of them - stomp pubs where-ever they go, solo or not.
Anyway this game lacks one big thing:
Continuity. There’s absolutely none of it. There’s no reason to win a game or to lose a game, as the campaing victories don’t scale, there’s no Axis vs Allies board here - I mean look at H&G. It’s total bullshit and been for ages, but the RTS-side makes every game mean something.
Not a single enlisted-game means anything if you lose or win, whatnot some XP. Unless you have 300% golds tho.
because there is no argument, bombs never had FF on outside of suicide bombing or the failed attempt to revive LF
It is not doable for most player, They will have not enough order to buy weapon or soldier.
Then how they gonna progress the level normally if they cannot play one faction in one campaign, since you call them sweatlord?
Of course they still can. I’m talking about an (incentivized) option.
I am just saying that if the boost is not super big, little non veteran player will use that option.
If I were the game dev, I would make it a default, so that new players joining would be dropped into random campaigns, at least making up the numbers of real players and eliminating the clueless AI squads.
Then, as they enjoy the fast progression across all campaigns, maybe they would choose to untick the “play any campaign” option, but the player numbers would still be filled with new players.
Besides, realizing that variety and fastr progression across all factios is better than slower maining of just one faction/campaign and playing the same maps over and over again, maybe they would prefer to play “any” again.
I’m envisaging this also based on BF1 experience aong others, where it had Mixed servers, meaning that the first match might be Fra vs Ger in Verdun, then Brusilov’s offensive Ru vs A-H, then Zeebrugge raid UK vs Ger, then Sinai desert UK vs Ott - the scenery and athosphere was always fresh and changing.
new players are just as clueless as AI perhaps even worse, much like soviets at forums about history.
& Newplayers were never the problem, problem is them thrown in games with late game stuff & teams being imbalanced due to other team having nothing but bots & other team is full of bots or “new players”
I’m not sure how flooding the new players with random campaign experience would help them to settle in. It would take them more time to unlock gear, unless gear would universally unlock-able which would just nullify the meaning of individual campaigns.
Also new players would be even more clueless for a longer time as they’ve got more maps to learn. Most of survivability is map-knowledge anyway.
The campaign locked experience is the bigger issue here tho. Also BF1 there’s not much gear or vehicle difference, so a level one player has equal chances of winning a fight gear wise then a higher level player.
Stock weapons in BF are usually adequate enough to fit every situation. In Enlisted they are not.
Not really. I earn way more xps in matches against simikiar strong enemies.
But in matches where we are stronger, I earn 4k at best which isnt much grind-wise, same goes for getting sealclubbed.
I am by no means an MLG player but after playing FPS games for years Enlisted wasn’t rocket science even on the first day.
To sum up, I strongly believe that the issues behind “this game is complete shit because steamroll” are: