The merge is good but the Preffered/Undesired system ruins any positvity the merge brings

Mess Room
1

The game faces two challenges pre-merge:

  • The campaign system fragment the playerbase, spreading it thinly across multiple instances, leading to a population issue. The campaign system is basically a game within a game, that cannibalizes it’s own player base.

  • The slow progression grind results in player burnout, with repetitive experiences causing disinterest. This is exacerbated by the monotony of farming identical weapons for different campaigns and playing the same map/scenery/battlefield over and over. Lack of variety.

The merge update aims to address these core issues by making the grind more accessible and unifying the previously dispersed player population, while also giving access to a more diverse experience in therms of maps to break down the monotony.

It was all good on paper until the implementation of “preferred and undesired maps” system. This system aggravates even more the issues the merge tries to address.

  • The player population will be further dispersed.
  • Limited variety in maps/settings/scenery will result in increased monotony.
  • The system contradicts the game’s spirit of progression.
  • Progressing feels punitive rather than rewarding.
  • Intentional handicapping and abandoning hard-earned progression become necessary.
  • The system presents challenges for newcomers.
  • It instills a sense of devaluation for the effort, time, and money invested before the merge.

Despite the development of impressive maps and battles, the current system results in underutilized content.

The developers anticipate players will intentionally handicapping themselves and abandon previous progression to explore different maps, but this expectation may not align with player behavior.

Players will want to play with good equipment and in return they will be put in “Berlin/Normandy jail”, potentially prompting players to eventually discontinue their engagement with the game.

The merge is commendable, yet the new system’s implementation introduces numerous issues and undermines prior improvements from the merge.

I hold utmost respect for the developers, this is a really hard issues to solve, although it’s evident that the new system introduces more drawbacks than benefits.

8 Likes
2

I fought you in the test server. Gare de saint lo

1 Like
3

The outcry for accuracy really screwed up the development of the merge. They are all openly still displeased with the direction whilst everyone else gets shafted with tiny map pools and horrific balance.

2 Likes
4

In regards to accuracy everyone draws their line differently. I am basically semi historical. I want there to be some levels of integrity, but I don’t mind prototypes and stuff. In regards to balance, I personally don’t think there are any issues. I’d argue the competence of a team is the bigger deciding factor. And this is all in a complicated balance where we have to juggle historical accuracy, balance, and gameplay. It’s like some sort of weird chart or graph.

To give some examples from my perspective, I wouldn’t want the Panther in North Africa because it was not there. I don’t mind if we have prototypes or whatever if they are just in whatever period is closest to them.

I would want KVs in early Eastern Front battles because they served there, eventhough they are particularly strong. And there are various ways of dealing with vehicles that I don’t think anything is truly OP or insurmountable

I don’t want Volkssturm weapons in Moscow or Tunisia just because they were arbitrarily branded as early game campaigns. I don’t mind seeing PPSH in every single Eastern Front battle because they were there

All I will say is that I am glad the devs are putting in a lot of work as they and us continue to debate how exactly to overhaul the game. Personally I hope this update isn’t for a good while because there is still so much to discuss and work on

1 Like
5

There is no balance. Deciding that maps are where you draw the line but MP-3008s in Moscow are okay is completely arbitrary.

1 Like
6

I think you misunderstood. I said I DON’T want the MP 3008 in Moscow

Unless if I misunderstand your point

7

Except it IS in Moscow. No one is happy.

9

Hopefully it will change. And frankly a lot needs to change in general

24

Battle. Ratings.

1 Like
37

Topic reopened please refrain from derailing and using inappropiate words.

38
39
40

@ChristIsKing〸 feel free to continue discussing

41

I share your concern regarding historical accuracy. It is essential to avoid a scenario similar to Battlefield V, where they had brits fighting in Norway as an asian woman paratrooper, where everyone looked like homeless people, no uniforms or Japan using M1 and Thompson smgs.

But do I really care if they give The Pacific Campaing, the Browning M1919A6 when we already currently have Browning M1918A2 and M2 Carabine? Or perphaps does it matter if Axis get Stg44 in Moscow when they already have access to MKb 42(H) ? Personally I don’t really care for minor issues if it means getting access to play more maps/scenery/battles and the game is not the same 3-4 maps spam over and over.

Vehicles can see some annoyances here and there, but in terms of weaponry they should be far less restrictive.

42

She is not asian she is sami.
Northern scandinavia has north eastern asia like phenotypes
Look at björk, she is fully icelandic descent

43

Not talking about single player.