Firstly - I know a lot of people have various gripes but this is just what’s holding the game back in my opinion. I’ve played a few hundred hours across all campaigns and on both console and PC.
It’s a lack of a matchmaking system.
Enlisted does an awful lot really very well - the gameplay itself for me is brilliant, the graphics, the gunplay, sounds, maps, variety, etc. I even like the progression system. When you get a close match where both teams are really competing for every point, when you’re counting tickets on the last couple of points, even some chat or just quick chat going on with people making an effort - it’s fantastic. I don’t even mind the grind when the games are this good. Problem is especially recently this doesn’t happen enough.
Now I don’t blame campaign balance - this to me seems all skill based. I think - possibly unpopularly - that for the most part, the game itself is balanced. The problem is the players aren’t. I’ve recently started Berlin again (pc switch) only as far as level 5 or 6 each side and am still usually able to compete individually. But far too often it’s either a walk over or you can’t get anywhere close to the first point.
The answer is matchmaking. I don’t even mean keep new players and experienced players seperate - but balance the teams.
Obviously for this to happen we need a few things.
Currently the pool of players for any given campaign probably isn’t big enough. So some campaigns need to merge together OR better yet, we need a mixed queue, for example choose several campaigns and sides to be thrown into whichever can be filled and balanced the fastest. Id personally happily play almost any campaign for at least one side, chosen at random.
Secondly the ranking system would need to be reworked. It should be more skill based than time based. You should have a limited number of people at the top end and it shouldn’t be just through grinding the time out. Certain criteria should be met for each level - the lower end would be simpler, matches played, kill count, exp, etc. Mid range would be more based around battle hero/top 3 in team/engineering scores/captures/attack & defence kills - i.e. team work/objective play - maybe even incentivise quick chat/text chat to encourage people directing newer less experienced players or even the whole team somewhat tactically. The top few ranks should be capped, i.e. only the top 5% of players can be Marshalls or something, make it meaningful - players who would actually lead the team.
You could then populate the teams with an equal number of each. It should also consider how many players on each side are solo or together in a group - coordinated teams are near impossible to beat.
This would keep old players interested and on their toes and get new players involved and just generally improve the game no end.