I personally think that the merge is a bad idea because it will ruin the historical accuracy and the whole idea of private matches is bad because there will never be enough of them. Overall, I think that a better solution would be to implement the tech tree but not the campaign merge instead in the campaign selection tree you could select to play with the merge. That is my personal opinion but I´d love to hear all of yours!
9 Likes
I’d say a single tech tree is good so we don’t have to unlock everything over again
I’d say one negative of the merge is it will clutter everything when we have dozens of squads to manage
I almost say they might as well remove all individual squads and instead we get just 10 basic squads, so one riflemen, one Assault, so on and so fourth. And then we’d have multiple presets. But then the issue is how BR will affect matches
I am not opposed to any major overhaul, I just think it’s a constant tug of war between us players and the devs.
I’ve said before that I think the first crucial step should just be that campaigns remain BUT everything is in a single matchmaker, if the amount of human players per match and campaign is truly an issue. You click play and maybe it’s Berlin, Normandy, Tunisia, etc etc
i think theoretically if they fix the economy and the perk system to not be abrasive to players, and specially new players and F2Players testing the waters, it could work. anyway, game cant evolve as it is now.
anyway, before doing this tremendous amount of work with all that BR mechanic, i would have gone with +100% xp for join any side, and another +100% for joining any campaign…3 times the xp sounds pretty nice, it could have balanced the sides a little perhaps.
But another issue is the accessibility of content. For example, the Panzerwerfer 42 is a Normandy premium. Now what would they do for all the other various battles. Market Garden, Battle of the Bulge, Eastern Front, etc. What would they make you spend for individual premiums for different campaigns. There would be a riot
I’ve suggested before basically pseudo-campaigns where content is set for specific battles. Everything is in a single tech tree per faction and the vast majority of content would be usable anywhere, only specific things would be set.
I’m just gonna post it,
Theoretically the merge could work but I’m not entirely sure about it
2 Likes
why not just use search?
overall campaigns bad cause they divide playerbase and you get ~40% of bots on average entering the match (significantly less if you are playing popular campaigns in peak hours) and with deserters you get ~50% of bots at the end of the match. not to mention playerbase disparity in different campaigns between sides, e.g. tunisia has 2 allied players for every 1 axis player.
3 Likes
If we want enlisted to live and not dying we have to accept some compromise
1 Like
One thing I forgot to mention was I was originally a war thunder player but I moved over to enlisted to escape the grind and I feel like the merge would just turn enlisted into war thunder with infantry.
2 Likes
Merge is a good idea, regardless of whether the BR sucks or not. necessary. Will we lose out in some areas? yup…but thats just how it goes.
2 Likes
There never was historical accuracy. The thing that sets each campaign apart is the maps.
It doesn’t matter what campaign you’re in, if you’re playing against the Germans, you’re only seeing MKbs, STGs, Tigers, FGs, etc. Same thing applies for US and Soviets but different set of meta weapons.
The only thing that changes is the maps, and those aren’t going away.
That’s a flawed comparison for multiple reasons. But bottom line, the grind is being reduced a staggering amount. For Germany, the grind is essentially four times less in the new system, and three times less for US and Soviets.
The flip side is that it’s far easier to unlock stuff, but more expensive to buy stuff. Currently, in the test, it’s far too expensive. But it will almost certainly be changed given the amount of feedback people have left.
5 Likes
There are other elements that already ruin both historical accuracy as well as game balance, predominately when it comes to defensive tactics and fortifications (and the lack thereof).
Fortifications SHOULD be a way to help balance out lobbies even against higher grade equipment, but the issue is that with how fragile it is, and the lack of knowledge where the fallback point will be, the defenses are extremely scarce, leading to a major historical inaccuracy and balance issue.
So instead, they are trying to balance through the ways described for the merge. It won’t be perfect, but it will be better than it currently is (hopefully).
The campaing system is in long run bad for enlisteds health its like smoking tobacco and remember tobacco kills
3 Likes
Thank you all for your opinions even though some of them weren´t the most respectful.
Dude, this merge sucks crap. The battle rating was absolute garbage. I loaded in on a game in which it was an 11 vs 18 player match.
The enemy used all their forces against our small force. Much of team rage quitted and so we were fighting against 15 with our force of 9.
Please fix the matchmaking and take out the battle rating.