A letter to Developers and Players About Desertion

It’s nothing new to know about players deserting, but implementing punishment against them without fixing the problem will drive players away.

Here’s my proposition:

  • Looking at:

what really is a desertion? Did someone disconnect because poor network quality? Or did they actually quit? If so then why did they quit?

There needs to be a system in place to deem what happened and distinguish between true desertion and network disconnection then respond accordingly. It is understandable that this can be tricky to implement and would require ample development time.

Alongside this these changes will not only keep a healthy balance for the game and a long life but to also provide a massive quality of life change to matchmaking in general for the better.

Stacking
  • Player Stacking:

This has been a long time issue with the community, and has been fought over since the games inception. A system should be put in place to prioritize 4v4 stacks, 3v3 stacks, and 2v2 stacks playing together. If it cannot find enough players within a certain time it opens to regular matchmaking. Players in a stack should have a clear indicator on the scoreboard that ALL players can see, This can be either changing the color of their name or putting an icon next to their name. It can also be something else to distinguish a stack of players.

This system will also allow multiple stacks on one team, so a full 10 man team consisting of:

  • 2 stacks of 4 and a stack of 2
  • 3 stacks of 3 and a single player
  • 5 stacks of 2
  • 2 stacks of 3 and 2 stacks of 2
  • A mix of 4 stack and 6 single players

Ect.

Another added thing stacks have to their advantage is voice chat, This should be a feature available to ALL players even if they play by themselves. This way a group of solo players can coordinate just as well as a stack of players.

Tech Tree
  • Adding equipment to the tech tree:

When a piece of equipment is added it needs to not just be in a single tier, equipment needs to be added to at a minimum Tier 2, Tier 3, and tier 5 for example. This would effectively stop most if not all players from leaving a tier to farm a new piece of Tier 5 equipment that was just released for example. Instead it would create a more blended and balanced release schedule for equipment and also smooth out matchmaking, between all tiers, due to players being spread across tiers utilizing and unlocking the new equipment.

It would be understandable since more equipment would be added at a time that there would be larger gaps of time between getting equipment for the factions. But this is a better alternative than getting say, a single tank and a plane for a faction. It is also understandable that not every faction had a large amount of equipment or it may be difficult to find ideas on what to add, but what they are missing needs to be looked at.

A good recommendation would be 3 pieces minimum of equipment per faction per equipment update spread across multiple tiers. Not every faction has gotten a fair amount of equipment, in some cases it may be a tank while other fractions are getting 3 or 4 items. This further pushes people towards one faction or another, only increasing the instability in matchmaking.

This would also more evenly spread players across multiple tiers, reducing the time needed in some cases to connect to a match. Players have seen times were it takes 2-3 minutes to find a match in tier 2, but the second they go to Tier 5 they immediately find one, and vice versa.

The added equipment would work the same way for all factions, to fill the gaps lend lease, purchased equipment by that faction, and other equipment not yet added that a faction has created can fill this Role.

  • As a secondary point to this, equipment needs to be looked at from a standpoint of “what is missing? What is this particular faction at X tier lacking?”

If nothing is lacking then it would be acceptable to add whatever piece of equipment that was decided for that tier. If something is lacking that should be added in at a higher priority.

Permanent ±1 implementation
  • The recent change to matchmaking allowing the soft rule ±1 needs to become a permanent rule. It has already widely proven itself successful. With the steam launch incoming, The amount of players will increase. So as a middle ground many players wouldn’t mind waiting 15-30 seconds longer for a match as long as it means it is more balanced. The added steam players will help reduce these times. This only makes ±1 move further in the direction of being a permanent rule.
Desertion and specific maps
  • There has been many ways proposed on how to go about this, Some have proposed the desertion rule kicking in after 15-30 seconds.
    While this is not ideal from a developmental and programming standpoint as there are too many variables, I believe we already have our solution.

  • Preferred maps

This needs to be a system that doesn’t allow just a few maps to be removed from the pool, This needs to allow blacklisting ANY and ALL maps A player does not wish to play on. This also needs to be extended to preferred game modes. Allowing players to choose what modes they want and don’t want to play.

While this would likely permanently remain a soft rule, it still needs to be heavily emphasized on the weight it carries, and must be carefully thought out.

What if que times become too long with preferred maps? What happens if preferred modes are added? How long will the que become then?

Preferred modes and preferred maps need to be PTS tested for effectiveness, and the communities input needs to be collected on how they feel the time, execution, and stability of the change would be with an implementation such as this. This would allow the game to continue as normal without causing any sort of damage to the long-term, while also testing this feature. When the system fails to find enough players within a set time that’s when it can default to regular matchmaking.

With the implementation of the steam launch, given a little bit of time the time it takes to que for a match will lower as player count rises. This will only help preferred maps/modes.

And if it was to become a permanent rule, modes should come first. The reason why modes would come before maps is because we have a large number of maps set within each “campaign”, and only a handful of game modes. This would further help keep que time to a minimum compared to the time it would take to filter through every player and finding out what their preferred maps are. When the system can easily look at if a player only wants to play invasion, conquest, or other modes and make a faster decision on who to pair.

As disappointing as it may sound to players who only want a map preference, it would take longer to filter through all those players who are currently logged in to the servers.

Accidental Match Joining
  • More often than not players will hit the join button and find a match relatively quickly, sometimes this button is hit by mistake. Adding a 2-5 second delay before it begins to matchmake would help cut down on people accidentally joining in matches and deserting as a result.

During this time the game can be looking at whatever it needs to, such as what BR a player is in, what their preferred maps/modes are, etc.

Bug Fixes
Implementation of Mouse and Keyboard
  • This is already become something that has attracted attention quickly, to further aid and combat desertion players not using a controller need to be locked into matches with other non-controller users. This is something that can be done in one of two ways:

  • Lock the player not utilizing a controller into matches with everyone, full matchmaking permanently turned on While mouse and keyboard are detected.

  • Lock the player into matches between just consoles using mouse and keyboard while it is detected.

Either way that is chosen if mouse and keyboard is detected, Auto aim and any sort of aim assist needs to permanently be set to off during connection. This will stop console players from effectively having “Aim Bot” with a mouse and keyboard. Yet again further aiding and combating desertion.

These things must be dealt with BEFORE any sort of punishment for desertion is implemented. Many players agree punishing deserters is necessary, there is no mistaking that desertion is a huge problem that is harming the overall health of the game. But desertion reasons need to be looked at and solved first. There has been a lack of care towards asking, why do players desert? This refusal to acknowledge the problems and fix them could result in potential, and quite serious damage to the state of the game.

There is only a finite amount of people you can use as a replacement when players leave, and once you anger enough of them and cannot replenish them the game will begin to die.

Enlisted was and still is an amazing game, developer and player alike no one wants to see their hard work disappear.

4 Likes

You don’t need to leave a tier(I think you actually mean br) to farm certain equipment. You can just farm any equipment from any br.

we need proper and latest equipments for fighting in suitable br, u dont like to see pz 2 or t60 in br v battle or a player with kar98 against avt 40 guy. i see many players like this they are like free kills for me, and idk why players dont understand if u have tier 3 smg unlocked ,its ok but u need to have more stuff from tier 3 like rifles ,tanks etc. bcoz u know u will also going against br v guys

My problem with stacking is that game with 10vs10 matches allows to create 4 stacks.

It’s extremely inadequate that one stack is making 40% of one team. That’s extremely strong and impactful.

Players in match should be either increased to least 15vs15 or stack should be reduced to 3 people, maybe even just 2.

3 Likes

bigger matches! he said it! bigger matches! we’re not shrinking the stack limit so lets get bigger matches!!!

Would kill a lot of enjoyment for Pugs. It already restricts you to 4-man squad and sometimes you just have more guys online you wish to play with, but have to make separate groups. Making even smaller groups would make the game even less appealing towards group-based players. Sure it ain’t fun losing with randoms against a coordinated group, but such a thing happens everywhere if you encounter a premade group. Look at any other FPS or any team-based game overall. Groups just have an advantage, but that is just the benefit of socializing.

1 Like

this is one of the issues i’ve found with group play in its current state. If you have more than 4 but less than 10, you essentially have to countdown to drop … if you have more than 10 you can do a custom, but due to customs being A) poorly optimized atm, and B) being reward / challenge restricted for events, its not optimal. You also have C) where you have to back out of it to do any real upgrades / updates to your lineup outside of presets.

If they updated it so that:

  • Servers were optimized at least on par with standard matches
  • It wasn’t restricted where you can’t gain progress on events (i get with mods, so if no mods is fine here)
  • The gap was closed where instead of needing 10 players for max xp rewards, it was set to one more than the party function

Then it would just fall under you can play and queue with up to X players, but if you have more, just make a custom game.

I would also still like to see the option to rent a standing server … this would also help players that are farther away from the main 3 servers … ie a group in SEA could rent a server in SEA.

That’s why clan stuff should be supported.

But I really don’t understand why majority (solo players, that’s the fact) should suffer terrible in game experiences just because minority (stacks) are too spoiled.

It just doesn’t make any sense to allow 4 men groups in 10vs10 matches.

2 Likes

Reworking rule for group are teased in the road map, it should come with the already announced enforced group Vs group matchmaking rule

4 Likes

Calling someone spoiled cuz they enjoy a chit-chat whilst playing is a bit rude. I am mostly a solo player, but even I wish to socialize once in a while with a Pug on discord. Sure we do not aim to stomp opponents, but I can not exactly lower my and my fellows ability to out-perform the average braindead player.

Maybe one should look into the matter of why 90% of players can not coordinate nor work together and fix that. I do not see a reason I should suffer a terrible gaming experience because I wanted to solo run and my team is filled with players the intelligence of a brick, so no wonder I wish to get actually competent people to get in-game with.

Anyone can search for a Pug either through Enlisted discord or Clans. So it is a question of being pro-active, rather than blaming others for your own incompetence. You choose to go solo of your own volition so do not blame others, when they decide to go together instead.

  1. I’ve been playing a lot in a stacks lately, although I used to play more solo.

  2. Stop focusing on unimportant things. It doesn’t matter if I think someone is spoiled or not :slight_smile: It’s definitely not worth 3 paragraphs answer.

You should rather focus on the main thing I was talking about :).
Which is:

If you wish to focus on stacking, might wish to also look into the matter of why it is such a problem for regular matches to accomodate them. Also 4 men groups are completely valid, the only reason as to why they have the impact they have is as previously mentioned, the lackluster skill ceiling and coordination of the regular playerbase.

If what accounts for 40% of team’s manpower can wipe the floor with most of the enemy team, I do not see the problem in those 40% being together, I see the problem on the other side.

This statement is SOOOO important!

1 Like

This is the exact reason I said it should prefer placing stacks as an entire 10-man team versus another entire team of stacks. This way it’ll prioritize putting solo players together more.

But I’m definitely all for 15 man maps, The only issue with that is map boundaries on some maps would have to be increased. Like the Berlin bridge map, Lehrter Bahnhof or the ministry garden map for example. With that cover should be reworked a little bit to either add or remove things in a smart manner for 15v15 player teams.

Wait so does that mean 5 man groups? Is that what you’re saying?

I said versus=Vs

yea but why is V capital while s isnt it make it look kinda weird (to me anyway)

That’s the exact reason I questioned it I was confused :thinking:. I wasn’t exactly sure what was being said, so I tried to get clarification.

1 Like

My phone dictionary like it with the capital letter :man_shrugging:

1 Like

ah ok

weird phone quirkyness