Comprehensive List of Reasons why players quit out of Matches

[robihr]

@tommyZZM

I agree with some players that this game is closer to some RTS elements, and similar games about infantry do not use BR, they use other resource mechanisms to achieve the combination and balance of weapons. This one is about infantry vehicle aircraft.

and similar games about infantry dont use locking mechanism behind grind. if every player had access to every weapon i wouldnt be against any other way for MM or resource management. problem is not k98k vs fedorov or drum ppsh41. problem is that one player is forced to play that rifle, while other player has freedom of choice to bring whatever he wants. and fedorov/drum ppsh41 will be 5-10x more effective than k98k, specially when you need to go into cqc.

that is what i find as unfair advantage and why BR MM is needed to fix or at least mitigate problem.

if my first campaign was allies normandy last year when germans had overwhelming advantage, i would just uninstall the game after few matches, specially after learning that tiger cant be penetrated frontally by any allied tank before i invest hundreds of hours into the game.

@tommyZZM

They used to assume that in the battle of Stalingrad, the player would enjoy the battle faster by getting 4x the experience to unlock the weapons, which didn’t happen, the game never became replayable, it was more of a monotonous repetition Combat, these problems do not come from the weapon.

BR isolates the weapon without changing the game mode, which you also mentioned. But at the same time their merged tech tree will also lead to more PvP.

you know that he isolation wont be tight or fixed? in most cases it will work to prevent extreme disparity between weapons (like matching pz2 vs IS). my predictions is that it will work on ±2 to ±4 MM in peak hours. so check their table and see what you would be matched against. even if that table is bad it can still work as reference. if you play on t5, sooner or later you will get every weapon/vehicle with or against you. just that it wont be in same match.

@tommyZZM

Now you have PvP and PvP and sweaty combat, but does that keep players?

yes, it keeps them. but do you know what is driving away newbies? extreme seal clubbing, playerbase disparity between sides/campaigns, bots masked as players, uncountable bugs that arent fixed, bad game mechanics etc.

@tommyZZM

BR is a major game change and I highly doubt it has any positive effects.

we will see after they implement it. i am hopeful and could theoretically see good points in it.

@tommyZZM

As we talked about the SPAA example, when I throw this example, I see it as the same thing as 10 t-34-76 vs 1 Tiger in the Kursk field. Then the BR forbids the t-34-76 to meet the tiger. It also doesn’t allow the heroic narrative of the 1x t-70 defeating the not spamming 3x Phanter to happen in the game.

game also forbids 10 tanks so there is no problem in that regard

[DNAmodsNP]

@robihr

if game cant guarantee that you have vehicle capable of destroying another vehicle in match

it could though with proper MM without a BR system based on tiers

for example a system that makes an effort to find players that have sufficient gear, and if it’s not possible because none in the pool currently available, they could develop a decent system of ai bot support to help in such situations to compensate, all part of advanced game development and planning for such situations, something that is clearly missing in this game and instead we are being guided by people who think csgo is a good game, you lost all my respect with that comment, sorry

There are other possibilities, a failure to look at that, is a dev failure, sorry to be brutally honest

it’s like trying to put out a fire with fuel, that isn’t smart, but you seem to think it is

@robihr

there are loads of bad solutions.

and if you only focus on them then the result is a bad solution being implemented such as BR, which as we have established is not a good solution, and it’s not a solution either, since we also already established it’s bringing more and other problems, ergo, fuel to fire

@robihr

and other player has choice of 50 other weapons then that is the problem. this is bad game design

not necessarily if the game can still do adequate job balancing players into matches and it hasn’t been bad design so far, the game has been quite ok because even in worst case scenarios you can just quit and find a new match, and I know for a fact I have enjoyed this version of enlisted and will not enjoy a limited BR future that this game is going in, so BR is bad game design. I rather have a match where there is potential of 50 weapon variety than say 5 weapon variety

@robihr

but you know what? Nuke is fair cause i worked hard for Nuke.

There is no such thing as nuke in the game, and anything that has wide area of destruction/killing power such as bombs and rockets do so because the map design and objective design insists on pushing tiny areas to fight over, which again is a side issue, design/game planning issue. So you make pointless arguments again, reaching for straws as all your arguments that make an honest attempt are

@robihr

no. you said you wanted war. and in war soldiers dont always have brightest and shiniest toys.

I never said that they should always have the brightest and shiniest toys, which is why the diversity currently works so well, and it will be ruined by BR, it’s very obvious to anyone with a brain

your BR at top tier will be that, only the shiniest end game toys, so you are the one that wants that

@robihr

if you can guarantee plane in every match with tiger

there you have it, the actual solution

which can be achieved various other ways without this nonsense BR system

but bare in mind that as I said, even in the new BR system, if you have a pnz3 and nobody on the team wants to play pilot or only has low end BR tank and nobody can reach the PZ3 in grey area, like I said, problem persists, and you are still left with having to quit the match, so BR didn’t solve the issue

@robihr

you want

you don’t know shit about what I want because you don’t pay attention and only select what is convenient and then it shows in your arguments, already explained thing, but you don’t understand them

@robihr

and you are twisting words again and again and again

just indulging in some of your tactics back to you, to see how you enjoy it, it’s fun isn’t it?

easy to argue that way and avoid the subjects, you do that, I will do it to you

@robihr

is it unfair for one player to have access to fedorov and other player not to have access to fedorov in same match? yes? or no?

Both players can have access to it, you however want to blame the poor matchmaking of the game on the player that has worked hard to unlock the higher capacity weapon.

So what you should be blaming is the game for doing that in the first place and for the game not having an adequate MM for all 50 weapons instead of splitting the match making into say 10 gun tiers for example

We just have different ideas on how to fix the MM, yours is shit, mine isn’t.

@robihr

and you would be crippling game experience for newbies. this is combined arms game

And BR is already crippling that experience not just at the entry level BR, but throughout the entire BR tier list, so it’s essentially ruining the game for all players, which is far more severe than having an entry point for noobs

and yes agreed combined arms, which means the entire variety of a campaign or theatre of war widely available in battles, not just extremely fake tiers that the BR is doing

@robihr

campaigns are trash when you have

1. big playerbase disparity between sides

That is not necessarily true, I can have a good time playing in uneven matches sometimes, not always, but sometimes, some unpopulated campaigns are actually fun for a section of the player base, and ruining that is likely going to push those players away, as they thrive in those environments and enjoy the more casual pve experience or extra challenge of being outnumbered

@robihr

only games with PvP can guarantee longevity

nope, I have played populated and non populated, and both essentially suffer from the same uneven fights problem and quitting problems, longevity comes from having more extended goals to achieve such as completing extra campaigns in the future, with that removed from the game, no longer have those long term goals because they were merged all into one tree so there is very little left to achieve or do, especially in a limited game format as BR, so game instantly dies for such players as me, as not even the battles will be as interesting to play anymore due to the limited BR setting taking over the entire game

also some big successful games like POE have longevity and nobody cares about PVP, it’s all about PVE and a lot of things to grind and try different things

@robihr

and i agree. but they can solve those issues without at least 2-3 years of dev time even if they are willing to do so.

well this is stuff that should be thought of ahead of time especially when we are so deep into first person shooter games and there is already a history of these issues, a good team needs to prepare for these things when launching such projects in the future, let this be a lesson to future devs that plan on doing a proper game, and not ruin their game. It’s not too late though, there is still time available to work on things, what is the urgency to ruin the game right now with this BR nonsense?

@robihr

also you are wrong in many of your assumptions

no you are wrong about them being assumptions, most of what I have said is just how it is, so you can’t disprove it, unless you literally invent a fake story, which I have caught you doing already a couple of times and squirming around with ridiculous comments

@robihr

do you think all those issues werent raised years ago? and do you know what we got?
nothing. absolutely nothing.

I can see that, but at least the game now is in a better state than it will be after the BR idiocy, unless of course the goal is to make this into another trash game, then we are heading in the right direction

@robihr

only chance that this game has at surviving is to implement BR MM

Not by splitting it by Weapons, Gear & Vehicles tiers, it would have to be done differently

@robihr

only your game is “ruined”. many people are happy with the changes.

Many people are also happy with many other rubbish situations in the world, doesn’t make it right or the best way of doing things, so that’s not really a good argument to stand on

But That’s fine if I’m only one guy even, but many other people aren’t happy with the changes either, and if we are all to be sacrificed, so be it. I will move on, was just looking at a game called Graviteam Tactics Mius Front, they seem to have a proper handling on Military History and making a proper WW era game and really know their stuff and aren’t turning their game into some arcade joke. Just saw one detail which really stood out to me, where guys in the tanks will actually throw grenades out their hatches, never heard of any game doing that.

@robihr

AT guns can penetrate it

Yes, I have seen them also penetrate and kill a Tiger, but in grey zone mostly planes have to deal with it, just like in the new BR system

@robihr

like i said i want to have ability to carry. i cant have that ability if team is full of veterans with end game equipment and i have low level equipment.

some campaigns you can pretty much still do that, and in the ones you can’t then you are getting the challenge you wanted, so win win. I played some game on Tunisia where I carried with only using a rifle, was actually really surprised how dominant a player can be with a rifle in some campaigns. But I see your point you want these limited modes, and I am not against that being available in the game, just not as the only mode and ruining what we have now.

@robihr

but it will nerf them.

it will barely be noticeable, perhaps it will be more noticeable at the very lowest BR, but if you play the other games by this group that run this tier system you will see all their games are mostly unbalanced stomp fests, despite using this BR tier system, because the players are the big determining factor

@robihr

you are obviously ignoring all the issues game has with campaign system.

Ok what issue specifically do you want to focus on? Because I’m ok playing the campaign system in Enlisted as it is now. I don’t really care if some are more populated than others, I see that as part of the interesting part of the game. For example you talk about wanting more of a challenge, and not wanting to use your end game gear against weaker opponents. So Why don’t you go play on the low pop campaign on the side that has the least players? Then you don’t have to feel bad about using top end stuff, you will need it. And you would be helping to be part of the solution instead of being part of the problem, why aren’t you thriving in that challenge? It’s there right now waiting for you.

@robihr

no grinding is never satisfying

Well speak for yourself, I enjoy being rewarded for my time. And then enjoying something I worked hard to earn. Enlisted was one of the most rewarding grinding games I’ve played, finally having access to the top end stuff was a very satisfying pay off for my hard work and dedication.

@robihr

also why dont other similar games

they are not similar games, and there is a reason why I don’t play them same reason I won’t play this one when that shit is implemented, they are totally different games and we already been over this with totally different eras of war, of course we don’t want Modern day equipment in vs WW ERA stuff in Enlisted, you are just reaching for more straws, just stop, it’s embarrassing

@robihr

this is stupid argument. if you talk about immersion then we should talk about HA and you dont want to go there.

It is not a stupid argument, especially when you yourself want to further destroy both Immersion and HA, you are the last person to judge, go play csgo

@robihr

it will actually solve numerous things

and each one we discussed is not actually solving anything, and your strongest argument is something that could be fixed another way, not by ruining the entire game, so you have nothing

@robihr

if veterans are forced to use lower tier weapons

thought you weren’t about forcing players to do anything, so much for that

@robihr

you will tell me that the weapons and vehicle are not actually segregated by campaign

I’m ok with the correct weapons being available in each campaign as per history or close to history, but not completely removing weapons from those campaigns or breaking it down into a tier system where some weapons will rarely share the same battlefield anymore, the current system doesn’t do that, the BR will be extremely focused on doing exactly that

@robihr

so you are saying that having multiple queues with not enough players is not ruining the gameplay? when MM needs to often put lots of bots in the game even without players quitting?

I looked at your stats, they are all quit ok by me from my own gameplay experience in populated and not populated campaigns. I have no issue with it as it stands. What problem are you having with it?

@robihr

in beginning campaigns served as ±BR MM and they were balanced in first 20 levels or even somewhere in first 25 levels. but shit show after 25 levels in all campaigns ruined them. and new BR MM will more or less restore that balance cause it will not be strict ±0 or ±1 MM.

Sure I can understand that, but surely that would be easier to just have a tick box with a cut off and the players decide if they want to queue into late war or not? Wouldn’t that be much easier without ruining the entire game?

@robihr

devs as well as me think that your opinion is shit

Well that’s why we will be going our separate ways after this, it’s just tragic that this game could actually have gone the right way and instead it’s just doing it the wrong way

It’s only pointless to argue because you have no clue about quality gaming, you think csgo is a good game ffs you should go play that instead of being here helping to ruin this game

[DNAmodsNP]

@tommyZZM

WT、WOT、WOWS . These games using BR or similar to BR, they are all monotonous vehicle games, you have air, sea, underwater submarines and aircraft carriers, but they only have one very main vehicle element.

They’re not about infantry and combinations of different types of vehicles.

This is an inappropriate association, and why BR is questioned, many players have mentioned that BR on vehicle combat will not work well here.

exactly, you would think that would be obvious

One the reasons why I played this game was exactly that reason, the infantry side is something that is missing in those other games and I had long yearned for a good combined arms game once again

and splitting this game in this tiered manner is the absolute worst thing they could have done, It’s extremely disappointing

[tommyZZM]

@robihr

you know what is driving away newbies

@robihr

extreme seal clubbing, playerbase disparity between sides/campaigns, bots masked as players,

This doesn’t explain the fact that players who are consistently victorious still leave the game, in fact almost all players have an average win rate well over 50% due to the extremely high PvE combat rate.

So why didn’t they stay here when they kept winning.

So the first few propositions of your answer are misleading.

Because you assume that novices leave because they lost the battle. In fact, many players still leave even if they win, because of the boredom of the battle, not only the boredom of PvE, but also the boredom of sweaty battles.

The game is full of newcomers with a lot of starting weapons, they fight each other, and there are also a lot of pure PvE battles. It is equivalent to a low-level BR battle, but there are still only a few of them left in the game with such low-level battlesssss. many of these players just leave.

I’ve seen a lot of players claim that it’s an infantry version of War Thunder, that it’s a first person COH, that it’s a BF replacement that combines hardcore and entertainment.

Even you can still search for these videos introducing this game from a few years ago on YouTube.

But these players, almost all of them ended up silent and immediately

---

This game has changed from a certain history-oriented and hardcore style a long time ago to a deformed fantasy World War II PvE style FPS, PvPvE like L2D, Starship Paratroopers, and Deep Rock Galaxy

Of course, the remaining high-level players are already used to the “fun” of PvE and “pinch the rookie” (Not fun for me always), but now BR wants to change this habit to some extent. It is useless in every way.

BR didn’t change every bad game mode, but it may take away a certain game style, although this PvE feature may not be what the development team wanted in the first place. This is how I understand a lot of players think about BR and merging tech trees.

The development team spent a lot of work here, but I regret that the gains brought about by this work may be pessimistic.

They should probably focus on adding a whole new mode to try what they want to try.

Things have come to a point where BR is already a pre-determined option.

But I think they should add as few BR levels as possible, such as level 5, to minimize this effect.

At the same time, transfer their limited workload to other more effective game content development as soon as possible

[robihr]

@DNAmodsNP

There is no such thing as nuke in the game, and anything that has wide area of destruction/killing power such as bombs and rockets do so because the map design and objective design insists on pushing tiny areas to fight over, which again is a side issue, design/game planning issue. So you make pointless arguments again, reaching for straws as all your arguments that make an honest attempt are

this is not strawman argument. this is about p2w or grind 2 win weapons. when you have weapon that severely outperforms anything that other player in match could have it is bad game design. do you know that universally p2w games are hated and they die fast.

@DNAmodsNP

there you have it, the actual solution

can you guarantee that the player with only plane in the game will use that plane? can you guarantee that the player with the plane wont quit?
solution must be implemented so the player himself can have counter. it was suggested numerous times that they introduce second vehicle slot for f2p players, but it was shot down by DF cause it could cut into their profit margins.

@DNAmodsNP

but bare in mind that as I said, even in the new BR system, if you have a pnz3 and nobody on the team wants to play pilot or only has low end BR tank and nobody can reach the PZ3 in grey area, like I said, problem persists, and you are still left with having to quit the match, so BR didn’t solve the issue

only starter tanks cant penetrate later pz3 tanks. and if you have pz3 tank there should also be numerous players with tanks that can penetrate him. also grind past first tank is fast, unlike grind to get high level tank.

@DNAmodsNP

Both players can have access to it, you however want to blame the poor matchmaking of the game on the player that has worked hard to unlock the higher capacity weapon.

in same match they cant.

@DNAmodsNP

We just have different ideas on how to fix the MM, yours is shit, mine isn’t.

@DNAmodsNP

also some big successful games like POE have longevity and nobody cares about PVP, it’s all about PVE

cause that is mmorpg. different audience than FPS. if people want PvE in FPS they will play single player game.

@DNAmodsNP

It’s not too late though, there is still time available to work on things, what is the urgency to ruin the game right now with this BR nonsense?

it is too late. game is loosing players and they diluted playerbase too much across campaigns. why do you think they suddenly decided on merge and BR MM. this is last ditch attempt to save the game.

@DNAmodsNP

no you are wrong about them being assumptions, most of what I have said is just how it is, so you can’t disprove it, unless you literally invent a fake story, which I have caught you doing already a couple of times and squirming around with ridiculous comments

it is pointless to argue with you on this. i see logic in my arguments and you dont.

@DNAmodsNP

I can see that, but at least the game now is in a better state than it will be after the BR idiocy, unless of course the goal is to make this into another trash game, then we are heading in the right direction

you are deluded if you think that game is in better state now. ffs crossplay off is botland, crossplay on is on good way to get there. new player retention is shit. out of 300k players only less than a third plays 1 battle daily, with quarter of them playing 1 battle in little over a week.

whole last year there were dozens of rework ideas cause people recognized that game was dying. people begged DF to stop adding new campaigns and to focus on fixing the game.

@DNAmodsNP

Not by splitting it by Weapons, Gear & Vehicles tiers, it would have to be done differently

and game currently doesnt have split weapons gear and vehicles across campaigns cause they dont represent early, mid and late war? BR MM will more or less represent half of the current campaign in peak hours.

also if you could have done it differently, why didnt you make suggestion on the forum? explain exactly how you would solve merge+new MM+fixing the problems and that it is viable and that people like it. btw hint… keeping current campaign system is impossible.

@DNAmodsNP

Yes, I have seen them also penetrate and kill a Tiger, but in grey zone mostly planes have to deal with it, just like in the new BR system

AT gun in normandy cant penetrate tiger frontally. it can only penetrate it from the sides. also with new BR system tiger should be matched against m4a1(76)w, m10, m18, jumbo 76, firefly, t-34-85, su-85M, is-1, su-100, is-2 which can penetrate it.

@DNAmodsNP

I played some game on Tunisia where I carried with only using a rifle,

you managed to carry in tunisia
how did you mange to do that? did you use cheats?
or maybe just play against team full of bots?

@DNAmodsNP

Ok what issue specifically do you want to focus on? Because I’m ok playing the campaign system in Enlisted as it is now. I don’t really care if some are more populated than others, I see that as part of the interesting part of the game.

well i am not ok with current campaign system as well as many other people are not ok with campaign system. rework idea is popular idea that was highly requested on forum cause campaign system sucked.

@DNAmodsNP

For example you talk about wanting more of a challenge, and not wanting to use your end game gear against weaker opponents. So Why don’t you go play on the low pop campaign on the side that has the least players? Then you don’t have to feel bad about using top end stuff, you will need it. And you would be helping to be part of the solution instead of being part of the problem, why aren’t you thriving in that challenge? It’s there right now waiting for you.

already did it. played normandy allies at worst time for them, playing berlin allies sometimes now (overall i dont like berlin maps), played pacific axis when everyone was on allies, even played allies when everyone was on axis. but i simply dont have time and am currently grinding moscow allies.

@DNAmodsNP

Well speak for yourself, I enjoy being rewarded for my time. And then enjoying something I worked hard to earn. Enlisted was one of the most rewarding grinding games I’ve played, finally having access to the top end stuff was a very satisfying pay off for my hard work and dedication.

i dont find any grind satisfying cause it is ultimately work. you should play games to have fun, not to have second job. i understand why you like this cause of gamification and sense of achievement are rooted in psychology.

@DNAmodsNP

It is not a stupid argument, especially when you yourself want to further destroy both Immersion and HA, you are the last person to judge, go play csgo

yes it is. there are so many things wrong in HA and immersion aspects of this game that goes beyond topic of weapon/vehicle inaccuracies. from squads, tactics, weapon distribution in campaigns, meta spam, nation/squad insignias, game mechanics, weapon usage etc.
this game is just another arcade shooter with ww2 theme. there is no immersion nor HA. ffs from what i saw in cbt it had better immersion cause of gore.

@DNAmodsNP

and each one we discussed is not actually solving anything, and your strongest argument is something that could be fixed another way, not by ruining the entire game, so you have nothing

no you didnt discuss. you declared that it doesnt fix anything. i disagreed. your strongest argument is that it could be fixed in another way, but you dont provide solution nor timeline in which DF can implement it, neither do you provide negative effects of those fixed solutions. tell me solution for grey zone? there are 128 maps that you would need to fix and how would you deal with spawn protection? can you tell me man hours for this to be fixed? or when DF could approximately fix this? can you think of any other negative effects that this change would bring?

@DNAmodsNP

I’m ok with the correct weapons being available in each campaign as per history or close to history, but not completely removing weapons from those campaigns or breaking it down into a tier system where some weapons will rarely share the same battlefield anymore, the current system doesn’t do that, the BR will be extremely focused on doing exactly that

and everyone has different vision what is or isnt ok.

@DNAmodsNP

I looked at your stats, they are all quit ok by me from my own gameplay experience in populated and not populated campaigns. I have no issue with it as it stands. What problem are you having with it?

bots masked as players, big difference between start equipment and end equipment on campaign, fictional weapons/vehicles for certain campaigns, playerbase disparity, veteran disparity.

@DNAmodsNP

Sure I can understand that, but surely that would be easier to just have a tick box with a cut off and the players decide if they want to queue into late war or not? Wouldn’t that be much easier without ruining the entire game?

no.

@DNAmodsNP

It’s only pointless to argue because you have no clue about quality gaming, you think csgo is a good game ffs you should go play that instead of being here helping to ruin this game

yes counter strike is trash game that somehow survived 24 years despite almost no change in gameplay and weapons balance. and cause it is such trash it had tens of millions if not hundreds millions of players.
but i could understand why you specifically think it is trash. after all to be good in it you need skill and brain.

[robihr]

@tommyZZM

This doesn’t explain the fact that players who are consistently victorious still leave the game, in fact almost all players have an average win rate well over 50% due to the extremely high PvE combat rate.

So why didn’t they stay here when they kept winning.

do you know why? cause playing against bots is boring. numerous times i have met players that quit when we had roflstomped enemies simply cause game was shit. roflstomps are boring when you are on winning side or loosing side. and roflstomps often happen when one team is full of bots.

@tommyZZM

Because you assume that novices leave because they lost the battle. In fact, many players still leave even if they win, because of the boredom of the battle, not only the boredom of PvE, but also the boredom of sweaty battles.

The game is full of newcomers with a lot of starting weapons, they fight each other, and there are also a lot of pure PvE battles. It is equivalent to a low-level BR battle, but there are still only a few of them left in the game with such low-level battlesssss. many of these players just leave.

wrote before paragraph without reading this… and i agree completely.

@tommyZZM

Of course, the remaining high-level players are already used to the “fun” of PvE and “pinch the rookie” (Not fun for me always), but now BR wants to change this habit to some extent. It is useless in every way.

BR didn’t change every bad game mode, but it may take away a certain game style, although this PvE feature may not be what the development team wanted in the first place. This is how I understand a lot of players think about BR and merging tech trees.

The development team spent a lot of work here, but I regret that the gains brought about by this work may be pessimistic.

before they announced the merge i was contemplating leaving the game cause game is just filled with lots of veterans stacked on one side pummeling bots and newbies on other side. i am good player, but not good enough to stop 5-10 veteran players armed with end game meta weapons. community is giving good suggestions, but DF is not capable enough of implementing it. ffs even now they are implementing some minor suggestion someone suggested 2-3 years ago.

i hope that BR will change the game cause it was dying before.

@tommyZZM

But I think they should add as few BR levels as possible, such as level 5, to minimize this effect.

BR levels dont matter. ±1 MM on 5 levels will be the same as ±2 MM on 10 levels. game will not have fixed ± MM for it to ultimately matter.

[DNAmodsNP]

@robihr

do you know that universally p2w games are hated and they die fast.

so if this game was pay2win it would be dead already and this forum would be closed

all games have things that outperform other things, it’s in all games. If you want perfect balance, then you have to literally play with just bolt action rifles only, and even then you won’t get balance, because the players are still different, so your point is dead in the water, sorry

@robihr

can you guarantee that the player with only plane in the game will use that plane? can you guarantee that the player with the plane wont quit?

of course not, this is what I am saying, you cannot balance the actual player himself and what he will do, only way is to just have bots, that could probably achieve balance, then the player can spectate, fun balanced game

extra slot of f2p is clearly digging into their profits, whatever. But there are other ways, that could be explored, I tried to hint at some, but you bypassed them completely, shows where your mind is at.

@robihr

only starter tanks cant penetrate later pz3 tanks

yes, that is why in my comment that is exactly what I said and why the example was used

@robihr

there should also be numerous players

same applies now, there should be, but if there isn’t then you are out of luck, as I already said, other solutions or in current way, quit match and search new match

@robihr

also grind past first tank is fast, unlike grind to get high level tank

this is true, but again, other more creative solutions could be available if only someone was prepared to think outside the box

but also I did mention that at level 4 you have access to a plane that can easily pop a tiger, or you still don’t want to acknowledge that?

@robihr

in same match they cant.

again, not a player fault if the game stages poor matchmaking from the outset, can’t go blame the one guy that has an STG because the other guy only has a grease gun, makes zero sense

@robihr

if people want PvE in FPS they will play single player game.

wrong, there is a coop mixed mode that clearly has a hungry market

@robihr

this is last ditch attempt to save the game.

if saving the game means destroying the game, then we are on track, you win

If your logic is so great, then I wouldn’t be here

@robihr

you are deluded if you think that game is in better state now

that is how bad it’s going to be after the BR merge, says a lot doesn’t it

@robihr

BR MM will more or less represent

it’s going to be very throttled, anybody with brains can see that, it won’t be anything like the wide open game it is now

@robihr

also if you could have done it differently, why didnt you make suggestion on the forum?

to be honest I don’t pay that much attention to the forum normally unless something really needs to be said, so I am not regularly up to date on things, but this, this is huge and will ruin the game for me

My suggestion is to try drag player into the queue with more even spreads and give players options with presets for queue options, so if they are happy with a wide spread, they choose, if they want a tighter spread, they choose. player choice vs being forced, remember you said you didn’t want to force players?

@robihr

tiger should be matched against m4a1(76)w, m10, m18, jumbo 76, firefly, t-34-85, su-85M, is-1, su-100, is-2 which can penetrate it.

I see that happen right now

@robihr

rework idea is popular idea

many fads are popular, doesn’t mean they aren’t actually junk

@robihr

(overall i dont like berlin maps),

well you going to have them thrown into the rotation with the BR system, enjoy

@robihr

i dont find any grind satisfying cause it is ultimately work. you should play games to have fun, not to have second job

Of course the core is fun, so the extra reward is just extra, I would be ok even if the core game remained fun.

But to take away a key component of that fun is ridiculous. When I play these WW games, one the key components is immersion, and to segregate the weapons, gear and vehicles like this is a complete destruction of that core fun and immersion for me. So yes, the game currently will be better than the future merge. Will be a good memory in time lost forever.

@robihr

there is no immersion nor HA

there clearly is, and that little it has, will be significantly reduced with the merge, and you are ok with that. So says how much you know about immersion

@robihr

no you didnt discuss

How many times I have to repeat things for you? I also made a suggestion for better enlisted mod or mode that addresses various issues, since this BR merge will be no good for me.

But yes, you could have a better system of matchmaking by being more considerate about the players put in matches together, you can have different modes for specific limited experiences as you want as side modes that don’t destroy the core of the game.

But as I have said, no matter what you do, if you don’t address at the core of issues, you will still have players quit and creating the imbalance, which will persist into the BR system anyway. Funny too, that they will finally introduce increased quit punishments after I’m gone and stopped caring

@robihr

and everyone has different vision what is or isnt ok

yes and we have hit a cross roads here, this merge is not ok with me, if this is popular good luck, not for me

@robihr

bots masked as players, big difference between start equipment and end equipment on campaign, fictional weapons/vehicles for certain campaigns, playerbase disparity, veteran disparity

agreed with bots masked as players and playerbase/vet disparity, that could be handled better than the merge direction

@robihr

no.

well that makes perfect sense, great argument

@robihr

but i could understand why you specifically think it is trash

you don’t understand, it’s trash because I don’t enjoy that style of game, I was always more attracted to the grander style of games like initial battefield games that had various vehicles and a more accurate, immersive & enjoyable portrayal of a mixed arms battlefield

[tommyZZM]

@DNAmodsNP

it’s trash because I don’t enjoy that style of game, I was always more attracted to the grander style of games like initial battefield games that had various vehicles and a more accurate, immersive & enjoyable portrayal of a mixed arms battlefield

this

[robihr]

@DNAmodsNP

so if this game was pay2win it would be dead already and this forum would be closed

all games have things that outperform other things, it’s in all games if you want perfect balance, then you have to literally play with just bolt action rifles only, and even then you won’t get balance, because the players are still different, so your point is dead in the water, sorry

this game is grind 2 win, making it marginally better than p2w.
balance point is pointless to talk to you. i am talking that game needs equality in balancing, you are constantly pushing equity to balance.

@DNAmodsNP

yes, that is why in my comment that is exactly what I said and why the example was used

and how long does it take to get past pz2? and how long it takes you to get to any 76w? also in BR games there is overwhelmingly higher chance of multiple other players in your team of having tank that can penetrate pz3. not to mention AT guns can all penetrate pz3 unlike tiger. so tell me how is this same with stuart vs tiger situation?

@DNAmodsNP

same applies now, there should be, but if there isn’t then you are out of luck, as I already said, other solutions or in current way, quit match and search new match

like i said you can also destroy pz3 with AT gun and same doesnt apply now.

@DNAmodsNP

but also I did mention that at level 4 you have access to a plane that can easily pop a tiger, or you still don’t want to acknowledge that?

and what if f2p player hates planes/wants to play tank? he can only take 1 vehicle. plane is not counter if you cant have it in battle when you have tank selected.

@DNAmodsNP

again, not a player fault if the game stages poor matchmaking from the outset, can’t go blame the one guy that has an STG because the other guy only has a grease gun, makes zero sense

is this confession that current MM is broken and that BR MM will fix this thing? i will take it cause this is closest thing i can get from you that we need BR MM.

@DNAmodsNP

wrong, there is a coop mixed mode that clearly has a hungry market

and they should make separate mode for people who want pure PvE. i know that lots of people play multiplayer games to actually play with and against other players, not pure bots.

@DNAmodsNP

My suggestion is to try drag player into the queue with more even spreads and give players options with presets for queue options, so if they are happy with a wide spread, they choose, if they want a tighter spread, they choose. player choice vs being forced, remember you said you didn’t want to force players?

and that is why you arent dev. you clearly dont understand programming and math, so you dont know why this is impossible to implement. you are basically giving players control over hard MM rules which creates more queues which thus in turn must be populated with more bots basically turning this game more and more into PvE. just like your suggestion to give players control over the maps they want top play with hard choice and not by popular vote.

@DNAmodsNP

I see that happen right now

do you really? i see those american tanks like 1 out of 10 or 20 games on normandy. nobody except newbies is taking tanks in normandy. all veterans learned not to take tanks and to just take planes.if i am destroyed in tiger on normandy, 99% chance what destroyed me is p47 or p38 (sometimes a20) and not any 76w tank.

@DNAmodsNP

well you going to have them thrown into the rotation with the BR system, enjoy

map selection system should be in works after merge update. well at least they said they will consider it and i have idea how they can implement it without affecting hard MM rules.

@DNAmodsNP

But to take away a key component of that fun is ridiculous. When I play these WW games, one the key components is immersion, and to segregate the weapons, gear and vehicles like this is a complete destruction of that core fun and immersion for me. So yes, the game currently will be better than the future merge. Will be a good memory in time lost forever.

@DNAmodsNP

there clearly is, and that little it has, will be significantly reduced with the merge, and you are ok with that. So says how much you know about immersion

so when you play those games you always have all weapons ready no matter the year of the war? you seem to not understand ww2. ffs in early war germans were mostly equipped with kar98k and only squad leader had mp40. you needed 2-3 people to carry and man MG. in d-day most soldiers had either garand or m1 carbine, with only snipers using springfield m1903A4.

do you know what happens to my immersion when i see squads of people equipped with mkb42 in moscow without any kar98k in whole team? or when i see solo MG running and gunning everywhere? or when i see springfields en masse on d-day? or m2 carbine that went into service year after d-day? or when i see tanks on d-day?

i treat this as any other ww2 arcade game, just that this one has slight gimmick with squads. it is neither immersive nor HA if you are actually somewhat knowledgeable about ww2 history.

@DNAmodsNP

you don’t understand, it’s trash because I don’t enjoy that style of game, I was always more attracted to the grander style of games like initial battefield games that had various vehicles and a more accurate, immersive & enjoyable portrayal of a mixed arms battlefield

just cause you dont like it, doesnt mean it is trash. game is almost unchanged for 24 years. they only updated graphics and changed smaller settings. now it is more popular then ever (record was 1.8 million concurrent players in may). look and see where the battlefield is today. how many people play original battlefield or its sequels.

[tommyZZM]

@robihr

concurrent players

You got a concept wrong, maybe I got it wrong, it’s not concurrent

@robihr

how many people play original battlefield or its sequels.

But I like digital battles, come on.

Display how success of Enlisted or some what.

[robihr]

@tommyZZM

I like digital battles, come on

i like grand battles also. i liked playing original battlefield and also liked playing M&B:NW.

@tommyZZM

You got a concept wrong, maybe I got it wrong, it’s not concurrent

[tommyZZM]

I realized I was mistaken, I thought you were talking about some F2P-WW2-FPS game from gaijin

[robihr]

what is that chart? seems like enlisted concurrent players chart at certain points of time in day.

[DNAmodsNP]

@robihr

this game is grind 2 win, making it marginally better than p2w.

I would call it grind or pay to get ahead, which doesn’t necessarily result in winning, since winning still depends on your team and the other team

@robihr

balance point is pointless to talk to you

only because you are mind locked

@robihr

and how long does it take to get past pz2

how long does it take to get to p38?

@robihr

AT guns can all penetrate pz3 unlike tiger.

that is the one valid point as long as AT guns are at the same BR, however you are still ignoring the fact that most matches nowdays are seeing tigers get flattened, and it wasn’t because suddenly people had nukes

this focus on tigers like that is the one reason to have a br system is a joke considering how badly tigers have been getting it lately, showing it’s a non issue, just in your fantasy

@robihr

is this confession that current MM is broken and that BR MM will fix this thing?

It is an admission that MM needs work to help players have better chances at better more balanced matches between players and skill levels. However as pointed out, that would be based on pre battle player controlled sliders of what they would accept in their matches and wouldn’t accept in their matches. Definitely not the forced manner you support that gives players zero choice, and will ruin immersion for those players.

I don’t necessarily have an issue with a rough MM or BR, but this is not a true MM or a true BR, it is just cutting the weapons, gears and vehicles into fake tiers and then using that as the strong limitation on matches, which isn’t a live time MM as per the available pool of players at that moment and what they want to tolerate in their match.

@robihr

so you dont know why this is impossible to implement

It’s not impossible to implement if you do it right and take into consideration the amount of range on the selections, just like you currently squeezed the playerbase from campaigns into one unified country and then into tiers, you could do it differently. just because there isn’t a willingness to do, doesn’t mean it cannot be done different, also mathematically, and maintaing integrity of numbers and managing bot numbers…though again, some players don’t even mind that and even prefer it, and that system would benefit both types of players that like and dislike bots…player choice, remember

@robihr

not any 76w tank.

it is still the most common to use planes, but like I said Tigers been getting flattened, so your entire argument is old fake news

@robihr

i have idea how they can implement it without affecting hard MM rules.

great how you managed to figure out a way to implement map selection, but cannot figure out any other types of selections that would be preferable to this type of fake BR system

@robihr

so when you play those games you always have all weapons ready no matter the year of the war?

Well the game made me unlock them with xp, so I always just pretend I am a vet as I progressed in the war, just living kind of a groundhog day over and over on the same maps over and over again

If they want to set up some more realistic scenarios in the game to play, I am ok with that, and I am ok with a more realistic hardcore mode where squads have as you said more realistic gear, but the BR isn’t doing that either. At all.

@robihr

csgo

regarding the game comparison between csgo and bf2, csgo has a metacritic score of 83, user score 7.2, meanwhile battlefield 2 has score of 91 and user score of 8.4

But I don’t care about popularity. I care about what I like and don’t like, if those were the only two games available to play in existence, I’d still play bf2 over CSGO anyday and everyday

So if something is trash, then I can only say why it is trash for me. Another mans trash is another mans treasure all that jazz

[robihr]

@DNAmodsNP

I would call it grind or pay to get ahead, which doesn’t necessarily result in winning, since winning still depends on your team and the other team

pay to progress is games like WT, WoT or WoWs. you pay to accelerate grinding, but there is no inherent advantage in progressing aside from getting new toy in you arsenal cause there exists BR MM to limit the advantage.
enlisted is grind to win cause there is no BR MM and every new weapon/vehicle gives you big advantage.

@DNAmodsNP

that is the one valid point as long as AT guns are at the same BR, however you are still ignoring the fact that most matches nowdays are seeing tigers get flattened, and it wasn’t because suddenly people had nukes

this focus on tigers like that is the one reason to have a br system is a joke considering how badly tigers have been getting it lately, showing it’s a non issue, just in your fantasy

and you are ignoring whole past years where there were almost no planes at normandy and allies were getting pummeled almost every match. it is not like there was big change in planes between then and now.
i showed you topic typical d-day match. this is not only my experience, but experience of numerous other people. do you think that normandy will be ok when axis mains get back to it and allies main switch to something else?

@DNAmodsNP

It’s not impossible to implement if you do it right and take into consideration the amount of range on the selections, just like you currently squeezed the playerbase from campaigns into one unified country and then into tiers, you could do it differently. just because there isn’t a willingness to do, doesn’t mean it cannot be done different, also mathematically, and maintaing integrity of numbers and managing bot numbers…though again, some players don’t even mind that and even prefer it, and that system would benefit both types of players that like and dislike bots…player choice, remember

if you can make algorithm that works, then go ahead. it is easy to say it can be done when you are not the one that needs to do it.
here is easy flowchart tool in which you can make simplified algorithm without knowing how to program. Easy Flowchart Maker | Free Online Flow Chart Creator & Software
just draw how your algorithm should work.
or you can do napkin math about how many players your algorithm could theoretically require for every minute to be viable.

dont just say it is possible. do some work and show that it can be possible. till then i dont believe it.

@DNAmodsNP

it is still the most common to use planes, but like I said Tigers been getting flattened, so your entire argument is old fake news

like i said did anything change in normandy between last year and now? why were there no planes last year? what changed and could that variable possibly change again?

@DNAmodsNP

great how you managed to figure out a way to implement map selection, but cannot figure out any other types of selections that would be preferable to this type of fake BR system

i found solution cause it interested me. non BR MM doesnt interest me, so i dont want to work for it.

@DNAmodsNP

regarding the game comparison between csgo and bf2, csgo has a metacritic score of 83, user score 7.2, meanwhile battlefield 2 has score of 91 and user score of 8.4

cause metacritic is relevant site. why dont you include steam reviews of CSGO? 88% with 5.7 million reviews.
or CS 1.6 that is even now more popular than enlisted with its 24 years of age. with 97% score and 137k reviews.

[DNAmodsNP]

@robihr

advantage

advantage is for a single player, enlisted is not a 1 vs 1 game

@robihr

past years

current situation is not the same as past years

@robihr

when you are not the one that needs to do it.

true, but that is not the same as impossible

@robihr

till then i dont believe it

same mentality as people had when they didn’t believe in aircraft, now look at them go

@robihr

what changed

same thing that will continue to change with players that behave like a flocks of birds

BR will also have that, so you aren’t fixing that

@robihr

so i dont want to work for it.

at least got some honesty from you at last

@robihr

CS steam

go play cs then, I don’t care about cs or steam for that matter

[robihr]

@DNAmodsNP

true, but that is not the same as impossible

you dont understand problem. it is possible to make such thing but playerbase requirements would be immense.
whenever you add hard MM rule you are increasing playerbase requirement for such to function normally and have human vs human matches.
you can make whatever you want MM if you are making PvE.
also you are ok with having bots in the match but DF and gaijin arent. do you understand server costs? do you understand player cost per server? do you know that for every bot that enters the match DF and gaijin costs are increasing. you dont believe me? here is aws calculator

AWS Pricing Calculator

idk their server configuration, but i will put 1 game session per instance cause of complexity of the game and c4.xlarge server (4 virtual cores with 7.5GB memory) and 12000 peak concurrent users and 50% average CCU per hour on just 1 region (for ease of calculation)
if you have 20 players every session your cost are ~44k $ per month. for total of crossplay on and off there are ~40% of bots that are entering the match and total of 50% of bot at the end of the match. i will use just bots that are entering the match for calculation cause that is value that BR MM will affect. that means you are serving 12 players on average for every session currently. cost goes from ~44k$ per month to ~69k$ per month.
if you made PvE where every player would have its own instance cost of servers would get to ~777k $ per month.

this is just quick server cost math and it is inaccurate cause idk what are the server requirements for enlisted, number of game session per instance and what host they are using. but it shows clearly how cost can increase rapidly with less human per game at their current peak CCU.

[DNAmodsNP]

all I suggested is to look at alternatives that can remain within the restraints of player and bot balance and obviously server balance

if there are enough players to have 3 server locations and 3-4 nations/factions and split among however many tiers in the new BR system, then there is also enough players to balance with a more balanced MM that doesn’t ruin the actual baseline of the game

for example, you like to harp on about the Tiger

So the question with that scenario, why is it that one team has a Tiger, and somehow the MatchMaker didn’t consider to find players that have equipment to handle it?

Or why wasn’t enough other ideas implemented, for example man the gun on a ship on Invasion on Normandy map at Beach and use that as emplacement to clear the vantage points of defenders, or is only available if a Tiger is indeed spawned

there are a multitude of other game balance considerations that aren’t considered

I understand what you are saying with what can be done with a limited amount of players at any time of day peak/off peak etc…but that doesn’t excuse breaking the game

there has to be other ways to program MM to consider that if a player in the game is going to possibly bring a Tiger, that then the Match maker try to find some players that also have access to other gear that can counter it, or the stuff has to be available in the battles themselves or through other classes, like I’ve seen mods that have powerful artillery buildable pieces for another example

think outside the box instead of just spreading this limited thinking nonsense that is the usual corporate BS

[DNAmodsNP]

How about this for an idea

Making it so that inside the grey zone, there is a safe circle (maybe 20 metre diameter) around the tank where paratroopers can drop on it, and they are then limited to that area, so they cannot violate the rest of the grey area, but they can at least take out the Tiger and establish themselves in that limited circle?

This would force the tank to displace if he notices that paras dropped on him, which would disrupt his grey zone camping, and if he doesn’t notice, he might get taken out by the paras

[DNAmodsNP]

here is another free idea

how about if there is a trigger condition that if a Tiger scores an “x” amount of kills or score within a certain time window a bot hit squad can spawn nearby and come harass the tank, not necessarily destroy it, but harass it and perhaps disable it, and if he does not displace, then they will eventually kill it