We chose this format for another reason. this will make it much easier for matchmaking to put together battles filled with live players.
The condition of separating weapons and equipment according to ratings introduces its own limitations and splits the queue. The more restrictions, the more difficult it is for matchmaking.
We do not want to complicate his work, because this is one of the goals of changes in the game: fast and convenient progress, access to all COOL ENLISTED MAPS, fights in balanced battles.
Does this “nation tech tree system” mean smaller Nations can be added to the game?
Also, will this mean that there will be more content for each side?
Because there will no longer be campaign level limitations preventing the addition of new content.
Obviously the Research Trees will expand with new content just like the old campaign system, but will they always be a never ending power creep or will new content that fits particular “levels” be added to the tree
For example a few days ago we had a thread about adding more bolt actions to Berlin since the Volkssturm used a wide variety of weapons, but some people didn’t want any more because they didn’t view them as “worthy” content
So battles will just be 20 guys running around with assault rifles because they all unlocked them?
The “To battle” idea is good, but the rules need to be carefully looked at. Sometimes I like to run bolt-action squads and try my luck against opponents with auto weapons. Is this not going to happen now?
One player got Fedenov in Berlin, but I got it in Berlin and Moscow. This means that I have done repeated grinding, will I get the corresponding compensation?
Yeah, shifting to WT’s style enable branches for tech tree. (Of course it can be better).
And I see this can help you directly transfer current player progression into new tech tree…
But War Thunder is already famous for extreme unfriendly grinding to new players.
I straight up give up begin to play WT because I know I will NEVER finish a single nation.
The stalingrad campaign was a highlight. But those F2P players let you gave up on it. And the aftermath, is still pay to play players like to to swallow.
(If the game is what I want) I will always pay my money to game. But now, it’s like I have to pay for those F2P players, and pay for long grinding*. Pay for unreasonable prices (F2P price options are always overprice than proper pay for once, or even DLC games.).
*F2P games even if you pay, will still get much grinding process than pay for once games.
OMG the research point… I personally hate this.
I do personal research for my interested game content.
I play metro and railway simulator and do research for tons of documents/news/events. And why do I need game offer me “research” to it.
Let alone this inflation rate. Anything is dozens to millions point of research points… It will make player feels direct grinding pressures and the evil from dev team. If only couple points, like several tokens, can slightly make players shift away from direct grinding “threat”.
16.2k… Of course I know this is campaign XP. But… Dont you think this is too much of its number?
I personally like the current match making that throws everyone together because it allows us to experience so much varied content. What, am I never going to see a Springfield or Stuart again because everyone in my level don’t use them anymore? I like the sandbox chaos
Fedorov and AVS, I spent millions of experiences in Moscow just to play what I already had in Berlin, so those millions of experiences just disappeared? The infantry weapons in Moscow and Berlin were not very different, the main difference being the vehicles.
ALL these changes are in the right direction. We cannot wait to playtest them. Thank you!
But please, and I mean PLEASE. Don’t forget you will be releasing this game in less than 12 months.
The timelines are super tight, factoring in the current state of the game’s AI.
I can assure you that most players who have been abandoning the game did and continue to do so, chiefly, for two reasons: neverending grinding (which I assume will get significantly better after these updates you have in mind) AND, even more so, the atrocious state of Enlisted’s AI( pathfinding, body positioning, soldier behavior et cetera). Calling it brain-dead would be a compliment.
If you publish the game while you haven’t significantly leveled up your game’s AI, I am afraid it will be a massive failure. I love this game, and it has enormous potential, yet don’t neglect this. Most players, and reasonably so, became very excited after the release of your roadmap. I can’t say I am not one of these blokes. It is just that I know AI=depth, new campaigns after that point and on = decoration. Don’t trade off this game’s depths just for releasing new content. New campaigns and all are great. But ensure you check in to assess the core priorities first. Please.
