currently not a problem, the division of campaigns as a chapter
(moscow, normandy, berlin) but in the future it will be a big problem,
let’s start with the first point
GRINDING
grinding in enlistes is not even evil the amount of battles fought to level up allows you to grind a lot of bronze orders that allow you to use them to save silver ones so it’s pretty balanced and from level 12 it just takes from 15-25 battles to level-up so from 15 to 25 bronze orders (if each battle gives you only one) but the problem arises when for each campaign you have to get the same things back (I’m referring to you Germany) discouraging many even just to do it because there is no stimulus to do this, and so we come to the second point
CAMPAIGNS
the campaigns have a progression system destined to fail, excessively focused on getting back what maybe you had in a previous campaign, it excessively damages the duplicated factions for different campaigns, for now it is only Germany but if they added after the Tunisia campaign, the rest of the eastern front we will also find the Soviet Union copied and pasted in different campaigns, where the same things are always taken back, but you are thinking “sure that you don’t unlock the same things there will be much different to use” okay the campaigns for now are level structures each level allows you to unlock new soldiers, weapons, vehicles to use in the game and if for now with the 29 levels available per campaign there is a certain limit to what you can get, with confirmation of the developers that there will be over 50 levels per campaign this makes me think that many campaigns will always have the same things, and will not vary at the end or to bore the players and damage the game itself.
so we come to the third point as well as my idea.
THEATER OF WAR
it is simply a campaign-like grouping of many small campaigns where the same weapons and vehicles are used, for example one could group moscow and stalingrad in the “operation barbarossa” campaign and exploit a war campaign system similar to heroes and general (only similar) to ensure a correct representation of what was the eastern front in 1941 and allowing the battles of the players to have an impact on the game leading to many victories to win the campaign to Germany or the Soviet Union, this will reduce the impact of grainding because it will be possible to add new maps without having to create a separate campaign and guaranteeing an excellent level of long-term replayability.
Personally, I would split factions based on year. So we can have german tree of 1939-1940 (France, Poland and Norwegian campaigns would be super great, they are so rare), 41-42 and so on. Same could be done for other factions. We could also allow multiple factions to join same side in a campagin. So we can have both brits and US in normandy for example.
It would somewhat limit problems you mentioned, as germans wouldnt have to grind again for lets say market garden campaign. It would be in the same year section.
This theater of war thing would be great, but it would also require some kind of lobbys, to progress campaign, so I think it could be done, but later.
Well is a suggestion for later now the game have at least 20 maps to low for an huge campagni like this, year based is not a bad idea for huge mega campagni!
For brits and usa in normandy i agree for now merican are ok but with the game expansion sub faction are needed
Maybe they simply don’t expect the game to last. Fixing this would require a massive overhaul and probably a progression wipe. Somehow I don’t see either of those happening.
This isn’t something new either, people have been asking for better progression since alpha. Developers even promised to do an overhaul during closed beta. This shut everyone up for a while, except that no details followed and they didn’t test the new system with the playerbase. In the end the game released and all we got was a battle pass with silver tickets.
I’m not sure if it’s worth the effort to even gather suggestions here. Everything’s been said many times over and personally I’m not about to go writing an entire thesis that would be ultimately ignored.
we must at least try to point it out I do not despise the current grinding but in the long run with the addition of campaigns always equipped with only 4 or 5 maps and always with the same things to unlock, the game will end up dying, enlisted unlike other similar games has a potential capable of making it absolute f2p for the next 10 years at least if not more, this speech is not for me who threw 10 euros for the battlepass, if tomorrow the game closes ok "I spent 10 euros for 2 months of game im satisfied “, this speech is for those who have spent the price of two or maybe 3 triple AAA supporting it and have not yet gained their trust back, this is not an attack on developers where I tell them” you don’t know how to work "it’s just me that I tell them “hey you can do better and this is what the community wants” we have to at least try to keep telling them we don’t lose anything to keep trying
i still belive that so many divisions on the playerbase will be an issue down the line.
i still belive that without an endgame (for example a war strategic map) the game will have no meaning and will get boring as we play it.
right now, its a repetitive game, with no much in return. games dont mean nothing , a win or a loose either.
bf6 will come with tools to do custom matches right from the start with all kinds of weapons , match setups or whatever.
we cant even select the game mode we want to play or with who we want to play. max is 3 other friends on a random map on a random mode.
for players without premium or extra slots, knowing what map and mode they ill play next could influence alot on the squad decision, and not runing around with a flametrower squad in hopes that the next map and mode isnt an openfield.
Devs already said a system speeding up the grind is in development… They said it will resemble this: if your most advanced campaign reached for example lvl 15, all other campaigns will receive big xp bonus to speed up until they also reach lvl 15. Meaning we have interest in focusing on one and getting it as high as possible. I don’t worry too much.
True, bf6 is coming, but it’s from EA. And frankly if there’s a gaming company that is legitimate to hate it’s this. Snail is a saint in comparison…
however i wanted to point out (in addition to grinding and levels) that having a new campaign mode in the near future is not a bad idea, dividing players into 15 different mini campaigns this is not a good idea
apex legends/TitanFall 1 and 2, may be some of the few good games by EA or with EA behind it.
played 3 seasons (6 to 8) , competitive on apex (game from respawn, published by EA), loved the game, ranked diamond there 3 times, but wanted something less competitive, (i m getting old). sadly i miss my lifeline and her heirloom eheh x)
nothing to point against respawn or EA on that game (imo), devs engage alot with the community , there are alot of dev talks, the videos they make on the lore are amazing, game have a sick movement and its polished enough to have an amazing experience even on low end computers,.
i have read about it, apex legends its if i recall correcly the game that gives EA the most profits, a game that only sells skins.
I think you’re on the right track here. All the points you raise are valid, and the best thing about a Beta is that they can do large scale changes if necessary.
I think a Warthunder-esque approach to the game may not be a bad idea.
So you essentially have a national tree split by campaign years as siera97 suggested:
1939 - Sep to Dec
1940 - Jan to Dec
1941 - Jan to Dec
1942 - Jan to Dec
1943 - Jan to Dec
1944 - Jan to Dec
1945 - Jan to May/Aug
These 7 periods would set up the Nation based equipment / tech trees, so perhaps one for Germany (including minor axis countries as premium squads), Poles (for the 1939 campaign), French (Incl any colonial troops as premium squads), British (incl Commonwealth and minor allied country forces as premium squads), Italians (Including any colonial troops), Soviets (including their continental representatives), US, Japan, and China.
Equipment could be focused on what was initially issued and then progress to spending points on making it more reliable, durable, etc… Including upgrades to the rarer and more esoteric equipment.
Most importantly, all equipment would now be tiered in a historically correct fashion for a given year relative to each nation.
Vehicles and equipment would be made available on the basis of in-service dates or where specific pieces of experimental or LRIP equipment were undergoing combat trials (to expand the options and allow for some esoteric weapons)
This would now allow Gaijin to focus on the campaigns from a more narrative based approach and could include or exclude elements of the tech tree relative to a given battle and historical context. The money they could make on cosmetics alone for each campaign is significant as everyone would like to adapt the basic uniforms to a given theatre, and that’s not even touching the current Battle Pass concept or any of the other esoteric weapons/ personalities awards.
These are not huge changes to the game from the actual game perspective as the core game engine and effects remain extant, there might be some changes to the equipment that becomes available. It would require a back end re-shuffle and adjustment of which equipment goes into which campaign.