I’d suggest a different unlocking/progression system than what we have now. I feel like tying unit types to squads and even weapon modifications feels a bit restrictive. I’d like to see a split progression system, where you’d have separate progression systems for each class and maybe even each weapon type. For example:
Playing trooper class, would allow to unlock trooper upgrades, better perks and other trooper specific upgrades currently tied to first squad.
Submachinegun progression would be tied to actually playing the submachinegun. Specifically, you’d get weapon xp for specific weapons and unlock better variants of that weapon that way. Even the workshop upgrades should be tied to that weapon class specific upgrade tree.
Keep squad levels and xp, but make sure it only upgrades that specific squad, namely, it’s size, composition, amount and types of troops you can have in that squad, maybe even tie cosmetics into that system by having players unlock better uniforms or specific types of equipment for that squad at certain levels.
With this system, the only thing people would unlock by main level, would be new main troop types and new squads.
A great example of a similar system would be the game Heroes and Generals. The game was way too grindy, but I think certain parts of it’s progression system would work perfectly here.
I agree. I don’t like current campaign rewards system because sometimes you get squad you don’t need. I think there must be three different trees: for infantry, for ground vehicles and for planes. For example, if you are playing infantry only, you are unlocking only infantry squads, playing tanks - unlocking tanks etc. Infantry tree should be the biggest one, of course. And developers must get rid of lootboxes and make special firearm tree for infantry squads.
Personally, I don’t mind the random weapons system in and of itself, I just wish there was a way to exchange tons of redundant rifles for a type I’d actually like to have. Cause eventually, I end up with tons of Kar98 which I can only turn into parts to upgrade other Kar98s while I’m missing 1 or 2 Machineguns or Submachineguns from my squads.
At this point I even wouldn’t mind a currency system where I could directly sell equipment I don’t need or care about and buy equipment I want.
uniforms and other appearance items should be locked behind a paywall, in my opinion. It would be a much better way of monetizing this game than anything else.
I agree that when you unlock the ability to carry a weapon on a specific squad (for example, the MG34 for the MG squad), you should immediately be able to get that weapon from crates.
Having to progress with a specific squad to unlock upgrades for a specific weapon also hurts, for example I can’t upgrade my gewehr 41’s without playing the radioman squad, which is pretty much bugged as the arty they call doesnt accurately drop where you aim it.
My personal proposal would be:
1: make weapon, squad and personnel upgrades 3 seperate trees with their own XP bars. Playing a specific squad would give XP towards that squad’s squad tree. Playing a specific soldier type would give XP towards that soldier type’s personnel tree and lastly using a specific weapon would give XP towards that weapon’s workshop tree.
2: Give orders at a guaranteed/set rate. For example, 1 weapon and 1 troop order every 5000XP.
3: Allow players to directly buy weapons / soldiers with orders, based on rarity. 0* weapons would be 1 order, 1* weapons 2 orders and so on. Equipment would cost 1 order each. Troopers would cost 1 order while specialized soldiers would cost 2 orders.
4: Allow players to “sell” weapons/troops back to the depot for oders at a reduced rate: 0* weapons can not be sold, 1* weapons would be 1 order, 2* weapons 2 orders, etc. Troop value would be troop level -1.
5: Change the weapon upgrades into sidegrades. For example, a lightened bolt would increase the rate of fire for the bolt action weapons, but would lead to increased recoil and lower accuracy. Weapon rarity would still increase by 1 for each upgrade installed.
6: Allow players to install said sidegrades in any order they want, instead of forcing accuracy/fire rate first, damage after.
7: Make weapon disassembly consistent. No random a-b ammount of spare parts.
8: Remove random upgrade failures. They only add frustration.
i do agree on the uniform appearance should be behind microtransation in order to support the game, and not paying for advantages in order to mantein the balance behind the experience.
but i sorry to say that i disagree on many points.
also, making separate trees with their own XP.
from what i see, and experienced, it’s better having people forced to make upgrades in order to proceed with weapons and other gadjets.
example, if you don’t upgrade the g41 from the radioman, of course you cannot expect to use a better g41 right on the bath. because this would make progress system unbalance and most of the players running with metas by skipping almost every gun.
doing so, most likely people will have to use almost every weapon so they can upgrade them and not get the meta right by instant.
why?
i don’t think market system for weapons it’s a good idea at all. it would break the balance of people already having best weapons in the squads almost by the instant.
same reason above.
upgrades in my opinion should be removed. or at the very least, remove the provability to fail.
again, for the same reasons, why would you pick the stronger upgrade skipping the pointless one? it’s just kills the fun and the reason to play the weapon in order to upgrade them gradually.
I agree that there will have to be done some balancing to avoid metagaming.
Guaranteed rate because if you get unlucky, you get less orders > less loot. Don’t let luck play a role in progression.
And the market system should be expensive enough that you can’t get things instantly, just at a rate sufficient enough to get the stuff you need.
Currently, some squads are either buggy (radioman arty not dropping where it is supposed to) or just very, very weak (flametrooper squad). Not being forced to play those to improve weapons would be nice
but if you think about it, sounds just about right:
adapt, overcome. improvise.
if you think about it, enlisted it’s all about becoming something, by improvisations of who you will bring in the battle, and which soldier will get that specific weapon that i just got by the drop, and most of all, adapt. adapt during the gameplay due to location and placement on the map, trying to deal what you will face.
and yet again, i think the market ruins things.
if you see have been managed in crossout and war thunder. where rarity it’s randomic and you might get a lot of something rather than somethign else
with crossout you can trade with other players and choose what you craft. the only random things are the commons and basic resources you earn, but even those have consistency, based on your score.
war thunder pretty much same thing, with the exception of the crafting events. You earn RP/SL based on performance.
If lootbox system & RNG is bad enough that it requires another system beside it to somewhat rectify it’s behavior is not telling you anything I don’t know what would. I’m advocating for the developers to at least experiment on this area how to gain both weapons & soldiers (weapon upgrades are on the side they can fiddle with them later). It’s really all that hurting further for being the pinnacle of the progression system (power up) anything else to test would be better regardless.
It wasn’t till now that I’ve noticed the actual effect & to what degree (before the accounts are reset), playing my LMG squad & trying to lvl it up was really painful even with the 100% squad exp increase I was barely making any progress due to only 2 soldiers contributing to squad exp (to who don’t know playing LMG squad only exp gain with LMG soldiers are counted toward the LMG squad exp, this apply to all squads).
I don’t believe that would help, basically what they have to do is to let all soldiers regardless of type to contribute to the exp to the squad they are in. Why is that?, since the squads have restrictions on the amount of soldier type they could have early on & even when upgraded this has to be taken into consideration, further more the RNG of getting the needed soldier type to get them into their respective squads.
What they should do?, first let all soldiers regardless of type contribute to lvling that squad they are attached to, then see the progression rate of unlocking the squad perks. Later on, depending on that would tell wither the other soldier types should have the 100% increase exp gain to squad or only the respective soldier type would only have them.
Personally I don’t see it happening any other way as the lootbox system (Logistics) AKA the RNG factor is really huge that by itself diminish other factors contributing to the ““Artificially lengthened grind -intentionally or otherwise-””. Please, respected developers, we have to see another system to gain weapons & soldiers other than lootbox mechanism (Logistics).
Furthermore on the matter as I see it relevant to the title, progression in one faction i.e. USSR/Germany should be carried over by a rate of 50%, means that 100% exp gained to the campaign will go to the played faction at the end of the match & 50% replicated in the other faction. For the “Join any team” functionality this should bring that to 100% exp to both factions.
Why?, basically the players that would help to ease the Que time via such functionality are the one that suffers since the progression is being spent at one faction than the other, this fundamentally suggests that it would take the player double the time to be on pare with others that are playing strictly one faction, this is on the bases that on each match he will play one faction & the other match the other faction (this is the extreme case). Even without this, the squad progression should be taken into consideration & before the exp gain, the acquisition of both soldiers & weapons should be the factor.
Actually I don’t know if it behaves like this or not since I didn’t try it, if there are other benefits for the players that are using such functionality I would like an icon next to it so players can click on it to see what benefits it gives if any.
I am torn on that 100% XP to the faction used and 50% to the other. I don’t consider the campaign long enough for such a measure. The alpha has been on for a little over a month now and there already players who’ve finished both campaigns.
Also, other than levelling up each squad, there is little to no motivation to continue playing one faction after their campaign.
I like the idea though but I find it unnecessary in the current state of the game. Good idea for the alpha period tho as people tend queue up on a single faction depending on their region.
Regardless there has to be reward for people who bite a bullet, some people would regardless just play one faction regardless as after completing the campaign you will still be progressing through power-ups (lvling soldiers, getting weapons, lvling different squads). To me the progression isn’t that fast & unless you part toke in the old mortar gameplay it is long to degree, mind that till 9th November now the campaign exp is doubled as they wiped the accounts.
The idea here is that the player if he decide to stick to a faction at one point or switch it will be a lot easier as he would already have the squads unlocked, squad progression doesn’t carry over thus the player would need to grind the power-ups in each faction individually, still consider that the player is splitting the lootbox (Logistics) currency in both trees instead of one both for weapons & soldiers that means he is always at a disadvantage when it comes to power, getting a soldier in USSR but you might be playing Germany next & such thing carries on for the weapons as well.
It’s more of an incentive as this functionality would help Que times above all & those who are welling to help should be rewarded.