Surely not. If the new MM only considers equipment, it will be even worse. I can’t control where I end up right now. I can equip myself with junk weapons, but that doesn’t make me one of the new players. What if I also put basic equipment in the new MM? We will be on the same level according to MM. But I have thousands of battle experience. I will destroy the beginner players, you can believe it. Has anything changed from their point of view? Absolutely no.
There was no mention of a skill-based MM. And if it really won’t be, It won’t get better, it will get worse, as I can deliberately farm new players into the new system. And right now it’s a matter of luck where you put them.
2 Likes
I recently discovered the game; this is the first significant change I have witnessed. I have also spent time not only in the game but the forum, news feed, related youtube channels, and reviews. I feel there is a good opportunity as a community to be influential in the outcoming of the game, so here´s my feedback:
Gameplay
-
There are some technical issues like AI, animations, etc but those have been addressed in the roadmap so I’m not gonna talk about them. I rather say I prefer the “realistic” slow pace instead of being an all-mighty parkour tank, but there are a few things that could be improved to make it more immersive: like adding more weight to the animations and improving the “rest your weapon” option, making it lightly snappier to the surface while leaving room for aiming, maybe some movement options like peaking from behind covers or shoot blindly. Since you are actively working on these aspects, try to find a balance between immersive and mobility (going too far in the realism could make it hard to control so we can afford a few cheats) after all, these are trained people. I would like to clarify that refining what you have would be always better than adding new options.
-
Explosions and wounds should also have some physical feedback, maybe add a fall animation in this kind of situation, losing control over your character doesn´t sounds fun but it is in some cases(trying to recover quickly and return the hit…maybe I´m too into roleplaying).
-
Regarding squads, I was very pleased to see you will revamp the commanding interface, it would be nice to interact with your squad more often and be creative with this unique feature. There could be more tweaks to it like the squad taking cover when you mark a vertical surface, or a stealth stance for when you want to sneak. Some visual cues like gestures when commanding could make clear what you just told your squad to do, your friends could also see what you commanded and follow along.
-
For the map, I would like more detail, with a grid and measurements, topography, the possibility of adding notes, drawing paths, and marking objectives. This could be shareable with your friends.
-
For interactivity, allow players to heal each other if they have the equipment, and light heals so that the medic squads won’t become useless.
Meta Gameplay
- The Campaign progression system wasn’t flawless but it added to the theme, I understand is a hard constraint toward matchmaking and could eventually kill the game thus the necessity of making it more open despite the polemic “historic accuracy” drop. However, there are many concerns about mismatched scenarios and it is fair to say it may hurt the appeal for many players. I have read many suggestions like restraining the use of specific equipment per period or the auto-wardrobe that was announced to avoid flipflops wearers in winter, but I think that level of granularity is hard to maintain. On the other hand, I think squads are better units of measurement, I would rather split squads into groups for each period than adjust the equipment and wardrobe (if not, the equipment presets someone suggested sound like a good alternative).
My Suggestion
- You could have squad groups within each army or nation. From a pool of squads, you would have to fill groups that correspond to the stages of the war in which that army participated in (doesn´t need to be 100% accurate just close enough). Upgrades and equipment are handled by group, each group would have equipment options and modifications according to the equipment available at that stage. Not all squad types will be available in each group so you can try new combos and experiment. You can call it companies or something that contributes to the experience. This is also scalable as new content could go deeper into stages of the war and add more specialized equipment and experiences, even reinforcing a certain period with maps people don´t enjoy that much, making playing in those scenarios more satisfying. If not, future campaigns would be reduced to more maps to go shoot some baddies. For new players, there should be predetermined squad groups like there are currently per campaign. There could be a random toggle to skip the group selection and jump into whatever is available. Nonetheless, if skipped, it will always pick from the correspondent group.
Regardless of what you devs ultimately decide, consistency is and will always be way more important than historic accuracy or unhinged gameplay. We can all use some suspension of disbelief as long as it is coherent with what the game has been trying to offer. Don´t make changes for trends or for what you believe will be a quicker sale, there is plenty of mindless shooters out there and an in-game custom match option to go nuts. In the long term, it is more profitable to stand out for authenticity and competence than to be the next hot thing. Getting people to care about something takes time and effort but always pays off.
It is clear that this game has enough potential of being a stronghold in the genre, but so had many other titles, this stage of the development process is critical not only to the studio but to us as a community to make sure we make responsible use of the communication channels they have provided. If you have made it this far, thank you for your patience.
2 Likes
The ability to block certain missions/maps in matchmaking must be made free and unlimited. If I want to play as the Germans, I have no interest in playing in any of the Moscow or Berlin matches. If the game expects me to pay in order to avoid certain missions/maps, then I have better games to spend my time and money on.
T50 was used in Moscow, and Fedorov Avtomat was taken out of storage and reissued to troops in 1940. However these were rare weapons then. MKb is the only time-travelling weapon you listed.
5 Likes
I fear it would mean that we’ll see STG-44s in Moscow.
1 Like
Excited
Why dont we get a checkbox on what campaigns we want to queue and play much like choosing servers we want to play while the “play all campaign” group wont have to use the checkbox option at all? This issue needs to be addressed before any potential disaster to veterans for messing up the implementation of the new system.
12 Likes
I hope this will open the possibility for minor nations like War Thunder. However, rather than trash all the progression systems so far and have just one tech tree, split it up by era. Here’s a post I made a while back:
"Maybe they could take the current campaign progressions and put them into separate trees by era, Early/Middle/Late War, and have available maps based on your loadouts and eras. Example with Soviets: Early (Moscow Progression), Middle (Stalingrad Progression), Late (Berlin Progression).
Say you pick Early War Germany, you have the potential to play on maps against France, Belgium, Dutch, etc. Say you picked the Dutch, you’d have maps against the Germans and the Japanese. Having nations instead of campaigns will create a healthier player base."
It’s important to split up by era because at the end of the day, some people don’t like some of the campaigns. A lot of people despise Berlin’s urban rubble combat and would be very annoyed if they had to quit every time it came up.
"Then on certain maps they can mix the nations, just like Tunisia having Brits/Americans/French on one side and Italians/Germans on the other. A lot of people complained there were no Romanian or Hungarian units in the Stalingrad campaign. Rather than worry about how to fit them into the campaign progression system, just make them their own nation. Sometimes they’ll show up on the map sometimes they won’t.
They could have a pseudo battle rating system (maybe like a history rating instead?) where you can’t take units above or below the rating by a certain point kind of like in War Thunder Naval where you can’t take a plane 0.6 BR higher than any of your ships ratings. A rating system like this would cut down on the problem of Volkssturm in Moscow while also opening new possibilities such as letting the Volkssturm fight the Americans like at the Battle of Aachen or Operation Lumberjack."
I get you’re doing the uniform to the map thing, but I think certain parts of progression needs to be addressed. How are you going to fit Volksstrum guns into your new system? Are you really going to make people run around with Kreigsmodell and MP3008 as starter weapons?
"Maybe premium squads would limit which maps you could participate to whatever front they’re a part of. I’m not sure. If Premium Squads were limited to maps, maybe they could make them a free squad slot for maps where they are present. This might make purchasing premium squads more attractive.
Units might be worth sacrificing a bit of historical accuracy for the sake of gameplay, but a few units saw action in almost every theater so maybe they could do some clever renaming of the units in game. Each unit could have camo/uniform loadouts for each kind of map (winter/continental/desert) and could maintain a form of the current customization system that way."
It seems you’re already doing something like that for the customization.
@1942786
Here an proposal how historic accurateness and this idea could go hand in hand.
Introduce “Theatre of war” or “Timeframe”. (In the further text I call it Timeframe)
After the player has chosen a nation he has to pick a timeframe he/she wants to play in.
Each nation get only timeframes th choose that make sense.
Each weapon/vehicle is tagged for certain timeframes that make sense.
After choosing a Timeframe the items that are not available turn gray in the progression view.
Mark the maps for certain timeframes and It may work.
Just a rough idea.
2 Likes
So lets say Ppsh 41 is nearly god tier, BR 9. Does that mean every time I equip my Moscow Soviets with Madsen, Mosin, BT-7 and Ppsh 41 I have an equal chance of being put in Berlin because Ppsh 41 is so good? Sounds like bollocks.
Or where does MP 3008 fit in in the BRs? In Berlin it’s unlocked before MP-40 so it will probably be a lower BR, and since MP-40 is a Moscow weapon, anything lower will be Moscow too - so MP 3008 tome travelling to Moscow? Disgusting.
10 Likes
Considering this post has received more likes than the initial post regarding the update itself is telling that they shouldn’t abandon accuracy. (At the time of this post 60 likes for the replied post and 55 for OP)
2 Likes
This is the most horrible thing i saw you upcoming with, just make it Enlisted Thunder and merge both games. I know it wont change because i gave my 5 cents. Before you guys hating i bought enough stuff with € to say i supported the game max. i could. thanks for sharing and the “will” to improve <3
dito
Hello
So for eg i have a good infantry 1 squad with their unique set ups in berlin and a different one in normandy ( one has sniper guy added one has at soldier added)
Have different equipments, different set ups perks etc…
So you will delete all them and jıst give us 1 infantry i squad for whole german army ?
But i want to hold them
Then can yuu just give multiude of squad like 4-5 infantry squad per faction ? Or 4 smg squad per faction ? Since we have lots of weapons from different periods and just one squad is not be enough to experinece all
As a newbie on Moscow it was like the greatest feeling to finally take out some t50 with explosive packs. You are forgetting this is not War Thunder. Here you might have the mighty tiger, yet one noob with a panzerfaust will still destroy you if he plays smart.
So yes equipment based MM would make the game much more boring. It would kill the magic of enlisted.
Edit:
Also a weighted average would probably be ok for me. If at least one could bring a handful endgame stuff with a lot of early-midgame equipment in a mid BR battle.
2 Likes
That’s not true. There was some limited control afforded. My father used these types of chutes quite a lot during his time with the 101st.
1 Like
Yeah just because they werent all the maneuverable doesnt mean they cant have some form of control. Doesnt need to be a glider but the current system doesnt make sense, you just glide in a random direction even if your momentum should technically move you forward.
I agree on your assessment, it really is loud minority that cares about historical aspects at a fanatical level, most others enjoy it as fans of the WW2 genre or don’t care at all and enjoy other aspects enjoy other aspects of the game instead
Balanced well matched lobbies filled with actual players should be the priority. Historical accuracy can always be tweaked in over time.
Give the love and advertisement that custom games deserve with official mods being released for particular historical battles to give it a foundation. Then the community can fill the gaps.
I can understand people’s concerns about certain equipment/vehicle match ups but there is still a lot we don’t know
2 Likes
why not simply bind maps with battle rating? Like if you are low level and only get to use bolt actions and basic SMGs, you get to play on Moscow, while having full FG and STG squads makes you play on later period maps?
That should work just fine with the new system, while also keeping historical accuracy - and even making it much better. Like we already have some massive inaccuracies, this could even completely fix that,
so that “battle rating” is indeed deeply connected with the time period.