This is really hard to read and understand for me, not sure why.
Not saying anything against you, as you did not actually state your actual reasons for leaving, I am not sure on that, though the devs are listening to feedback, but for major changes there obviously has to be a consensus on what to change it to otherwise there is literally no point in doing so.
In reference to this, the devs have been communicating more recently, but it is impossible, especially as a small dev team to both work on the game and actively engage in discussions, I myself have lost over an hour in single threads before, so understand that such really is not possible on a large scale, but that they do read all feedback on the forum.
To you perhaps, but almost everyone else has said they immediately got bored of it (playing simply for the novelty), there has to be a progression system or else there simply is no longevity to a game, now if the devs make the campaign level universal to all campaigns as they’ve said they might, that would be good.
But in terms of everything else, enjoy, I hope you come back to the game eventually since the devs are working hard on it and are listening to community feedback as proved by several recent posts, such as the Normandy News update.
(Sidenote: the devs are extremely unlikely to remove you from this forum since they want as much feedback as possible and you still have access to the game which will not change.)
literally every content creator I know (which is ~20 people) and I have talked to during normandy campaign said they had way more fun.
On top of that, I have never seen as many players in Enlisted as I have seen during Normandy.
Only a handful mentioned getting bored.
That’s because it is a new, completely different campaign with a limited play time LMAO and content creators play for their community (interactions) and the money so they have entirely different reasoning to the average player, especially as they usually get full access to all units for free LOL. Progression is a basic requirement of keeping a game interesting and varied and giving you a reason to do it.
Enlisted is a new game, so less viewers and less money.
I guess you never watched any content creator play enlisted? We get 0 free tickets here.
Except for CBT access without having to buy the premium squad. But we don’t get the premium squad.
Still does not change we had a lot of other people come into our chats saying they really enjoyed the new campaign, as well as have a lot of people here on the forums saying they enjoyed.
You really need to start reading, first, it means content creators are used to it, second, the purpose of playing is to interact with the community, so they have a reason to play, the average player does not, it is not enticing to most to not have any progression so please stop trying to say it would be a good thing. Secondly, Enlisted will be getting precisely that eventually.
Note the word new there, it is a new campaign, a new experience so of course it is going to be initially more enjoyable than a campaign that has been played for months LOL, don’t be ridiculous.
Also, again, this is not the place to be discussing this, nor do I want to continue it in a new thread.
Normandy being enjoyable or not has nothing to do with progression. Moscow is fun too.
But without progression, there is nothing in the campaign to retain players. Hell, this game can’t even retain its player base with progression. This is not a competitive game and will most likely never make it to main stream. The sense of getting closer to another squad/upgrade is all there is in this game to play for.
I did not play Normandy until the last two days. And after playing about 10-15 games, I found it rather boring and un-rewarding.
Yup, exactly my point, because it is new and a short lived test, no conclusions can be drawn about it’s longevity without progression, it is simply not in place so everything can be tested in such a short window.
it’s kinda ironic…
people during the first alpha always complained about not having the ability to test everything with the lack of time, and for this earlier test in normandy, people complain about having nothing to unlock.
maybe… it’s because it’s not meant to be unlocked? as you are there. to test? and give feedbacks on the actual product of what you see, rather than what’s going to be eventually added?
but i do agree with you that mr tcat does not understand that this game without progression will not survive.
just coz none says yes do not mean no…can’t you even get that lol?
If you really want to find the number of YES/NO people create a poll until then don’t try to attack as a mass communicator
BTW I also agree with no progression none will stay in game
The game is dying already with the current vertical progression. A LOT of people loved Normandy for not having bullshit RNG progression, while others complain about having nothing to unlock. A horizontal progression system is the solution.
define it better. it’s not enough saying, horiziontal progression.
1 Like
Horizontal = choices, sidegrades.
For example, unlockable armor pack that gives +30% damage resistance on torso but weighs a considerable ammount, slowing you down by 30%.
Vertical = upgrades
For example, +35% more health.
Consider horizontal/vertical the way your combat power scales.
In a horizontal system, your combat power does not go up, but it gets broader, more choices, more options, more personalisation. In the end, a lot of players will have a unique setup to suit their playstyle as it does not matter too much in terms of meta.
In a vertical system, your combat power goes up. A lot of players will end up having very similar setups later on as there is a clearly defined meta.
1 Like