Era-based progression and matchmaking is one thing, but you’re also talking about “gear score”-based matchmaking.
I don’t think the latter is a good idea for a game where you have to arm dozens of men for battle. Meanwhile the former can lead to eventually all battles being fully or partially mixed, just like in WT (outside of themed events).
Mixed battles may be an inevitability, though, if the game wants to survive for more than 2-3 years. It’s a horrifying thought, but current campaigns system does not look feasible in the long run. It’s too annoying for people playing multiple campaigns with the same nation, and will inevitably lead to certain campaigns continually bleeding players to a point of becoming nearly unplayable.
No, I do not want mixed battles. This system is made to allow crossovers between different campaigns to give the developers more freedom with minor campaigns etc.
I disagree - it comes from the basis of BR’s themselves - as long as there’s something at BR 4.0 from the 1970’s that will always face BR 4.0 from 1943 that’s the problem right there.
I think your idea avoids this by setting up the campaigns - something that WT could really use IMO - so looks like a good place to start.
Wasn’t this once called year-based match making or something like that?
Also - your all capitals ERA had me stumped when I saw the title - what has Explosive Reactive Armour got to do with Enlisted??!!
Perhaps you don’t want mixed battles, but it’s the logical next step. The smaller the campaigns / nations and the more granular the matchmaking, the more necessary mixed battles become. You aren’t solving the problem of having too many separate campaigns by adding just as many (or probably even more) matchmaking groups instead.
On a separate note, personally I don’t think this game needs matchmaking that is based on equipment effectiveness and especially upgrades. Seeing how we already have bots in matches (hopefully there won’t be any with the start of OBT), I don’t think it’s a good idea to separate players in the matchmaker into even smaller groups. Furthermore, we have somewhat realistic combined arms combat in Enlisted. In that environment it’s possible to have good gameplay even with drastically different weapons and vehicles.
P.S. If weapon upgrades are so terrible that matchmaking needs to be overhauled just to make them fit in, maybe it’s the upgrades that need an overhaul.
I can guarantee player size will be larger when OBT launches. Currently the community is only like 3k or so players (based off forum tags). Lots of people are interested they just dont want to pay $30 or more for access. The big question is will these players stay around after a few months?
Enlisted is enjoyable for 3 months at best. After that it’s the same process over and over again. The equipment that you get after about 1 month of playing requires no skill whatsoever to use. You can easily wipe entire squads of players. Grenade spamming is still a thing. Most engagements happen in close ranges(meaning no challenge at all once you have the end SMG). And the devs idea of making the game better is to reduce size of rifle squads and keep the SMG squads as it is. Promoting even more use of automatic weapons. It gets tiring very very fast.
I hope things change after OBT. But seeing how devs have been completely blind to rational suggestions on the forum, I seriously doubt any good things to come off of it.
I am. Neither artillery nor the anti tank rifles works very well at the moment. Least they could have done to makes these squads relevant is to let them stay as they were. Same goes for the sniper squad.
No clue whatsoever as to why SMG squad gets to remain the way they are and make their counters worse. Unless of course you purchase the premium squads and extra slots. Now it kinda makes sense. Just another way to frustrate players into buying.
I hope they plan on buffing them. For me the anti tank was fine in normandy until they changed the piat model from the bazooka to the actual piat which has a terrible sight that makes it impossible to hit anything. When it was the bazooka I could typically take out any tank in 1-2 shots
Moscow at is weak until you get the 5 round at guns. Don’t really know how they can fix that though without making the one round at guns completely unrealistic though
I’ve read the spreadsheet. Still can’t wrap my head around radiomen squad becoming max 5. It was the most flexible squad available. Removed the engineer and it kinda sucks now other than the ability to have a mortar and an assualter. There will be no point to use it once the max squad size becomes 5. I can use the riflemen squad and achieve the same things until I unlock the mortar which is far up in the campaign.
