a terrible idea as
i dont want to see king tigers rolling around on normandy beaches
and the idea for the future ones is a waste of breath as it would only add maps and nothink else and not many people want to jsut grind out the same shit for the 6th time
no.
As the campaign increases, the users are dispersed, and the game goes on a more and more ruinous path. No matter how many games you play, it will match the ai, and seeing a person will be like finding a needle in the desert.
Nice suggestion, but currently “Pacific War” campaign seems to be treating whole the Pacific War 1941-45.
“Pacific war” that I meant is not island warfare on south pacific but the Pacific war (aka Asia-Pacific war) that include whole battles in East Asia, South Asia, Southeast Asia, Oceania, Pacific Ocean and Indian Ocean.
I havent written about anything to unite campaigns einstein. Read it again.
We only need progress/unlock/tech tree unification for nations.
But every campaign will have its squads to grind their experience/perks
Like: If you unlock 1944 weapon then you can purchase and give it to all german squads in 1944 maps.
So where is the grind then right ?
Well, grind is now about trying to fully equip and upgrading multitude of squads in different fronts.
Not unlocking same thing over and over again. BUT
when you get your new toy, if you want to use it extensively you have to earn a lot of silvers to purchase enough of them to equip your soldiers.
You dont like the grind ? Then bear your message to gaijin(which will not work) or dont play gaijin games.
what is the point of adding “theaters” then? just giving them new maps? even inside current campaigns there are maps that need to be added. like reichstag.
why would you even have second campaign grind inside first technological grind. that is absolutely stupid. it is better to have generic squads (like assaulter 1,2,3 etc) that you can equip and they can just add content as new campaigns with new maps and uniforms/designations for those generic squads to keep historical accuracy.
btw i dont have a problem with grind. i have problem with grinding same equipment over and over again. once i unlocked weapon, i really dont want to grind again same faction for same weapon. i would rather that they increase grind 5x for that weapon and then be available globally rather then having me grind 5x for each individual campaign.
Hey! I’ve seen this one: Campaign rework idea
It’s nice that I’m not the only one thinking it should be done that way.
biggest problem with this idea is that playerbase is still divided. without united playerbase, you cant implement MM. without MM you will get lots of bots and big equipment disparity between human players (like stuart vs tiger, BA vs mp43, etc. ). also it still doesnt fix the problem of multiple grind for same equipment.
with this idea you just get new maps in existing campaign and historical inaccuracy with different vehicles/equipment on some maps.
I have already said. Unlocking weapons and vehicles will be in same tech tree. Difference is; you have to decorate multude of squads in multiple campaigns. This is how to protect grind.
Like: you unlocked mp40, you can give mp40 to any squad in anytime but you have to purchase a lot of them to equip all your squads
and you still have multiple queues… and that is why this is bad.
Bad ? Games are funny when they are both challenging and rewarding.
Grind is love Grind is life
No, you don’t - in my suggestion I’ve implemented a mechanism where if you have let’s say, a Königstiger equipped in your current lineup you can’t get into any maps of the Invasion of Normandy and Market Garden map sets, only in the Battle of Hürtgen Forest and Battle of the Bulge sets.
But how does limiting the amount of grind split playerbase?
this is not about grind. they can make grind 10x harder if they unify it in nations.
problem is that game has low playerbase and then you have 6 separate queues (10-15 with your idea). that means that you will get games with mostly bots in your team or bots in enemy team or bots in both teams. also you will get games with severe seal clubbing where fully grinded player just destroys newbies with his end game equipment. that is not good experience for new player and can make negative feedback loop for playerbase growth.
that is why idea is shit. you basically make the game PVE at that point. and i (and many other players) dont play multiplayer games to farm bots.
cause even situation now is bad. so you need solution that is better than current situation. any solution that is implemented needs to unify the playerbase and not just expand the map pool for current campaigns.
I’ll repeat myself, how does limiting the amount of grind split playerbase?
There would be literally half of the grind we have right now, so why would the playerbase be more split up if instead of grinding:
they would grind just:
well in linked topic you mentioned eastern front 1941-1943, eastern front 1944-1945, western front 1944-1945 etc. according to that logic you wont have 4 fronts, but 6 or 8.
@olek_z17 Not worth arguing with him. I remember arguing with him over the exact same thing (nation tech tree with campaign trees being about unlocking squads) and he’s too stubborn to understand, concede, or agree to disagree.
Overall, I think OP has the best categories i’ve seen so far, better than the example I posted before on the forum too.
then tell me what is the point of expanding into 6,8 or 10 theaters? you will still have split playerbase. but you will have it less split than if you had 20 campaigns like game could be split now. game doesnt have problem with campaigns or theaters, it has problem with divided playerbase and multiple grind of same thing. expanding campaigns into theaters doesnt fix any of those problems.
so any proposal that doesnt fix those things is shit proposal. you are just calling masking the problem with another name.
The campaign and grind should be split. The matchmaking could include multiple campaigns when queuing. And once again, TECH SHOULD BE DONE BY NATION, NOT BY CAMPAIGN! It is literally impossible to have “multiple grind of the same thing” if all the grind for equipment is done through a nation progression tree, which could then be used to buy the weapons in the campaigns where they are present for the squads unlocked in the campaign progression tree.
and this is all good, just get rid of campaign progress tree cause it is pointless. except engineer 2 which gets extra MG nest, everyone else is pointless to grind. difference in rifleman 1,2,3 is minimal cause you can get maxed out soldier with rifleman 1 and get all perks you want. rifleman 3 just means tons of grind for almost no benefit.
also i suggested something similar 3-4 weeks ago. but most suggestion topics lately just is focused on expanding map pool on existing campaigns and naming them theaters. grind remains the same, playerbase is still split etc.
You’ve just listed our argument you’re supposedly against for this whole topic as yours. That’s exactly the point. Instead of splitting the whole WW2 into 16 campaigns:
You could split the WW2 into 5 theaters:
That would be 10 grinds instead of 32. Now tell me how the hell does reducing the grind over three times split the player base?