Because then you split the playerbase in 3 x amount of campaigns, if that is set in the current system.
It will result in matchmaker taking too long and prevent the devs from making more than maybe 6 campaigns max before things start to get too widespread.
This proposed era system does have spreads for the campaigns, which allow you to see a “2 star Moscow” match or a “4 star Moscow” match, giving the different power levels, but not split. It also allows for the introduction of better gear within a campaign, for example preventing T-34s from stomping newbie tankers, while still occasionally getting into the high star Moscow matches.
And for the record the uptiers are not intended to be common. They are only last resorts for the matchmaker to make a match if it would otherwise take too long.
We can implement the map like/dislike system from War Thunder for campaigns.
it cannot work for reasons that i’ll explain in a bit.
first of all, why the devs should even keep up theathres that are just for few. meaning that only a few are gonna play.
it’s expencive to maintain.
from what i can tell, you are basically introducing some sort of war thunder matchmaking based on the BR.
right?
right. so, if i reach level star 2, i will be basically locked behind high tier campaings because of my equipment, i won’t be able to play higer campaigns.
which again, it creates issues as you basically lock content behind levels even more than the current way.
no.
but not seal clubbers though.
first of all, for the reason that i " teased " earlier, this would require huge ammount of moneys that we do not have.
second of all, along side money, it requires lot of needless work.
because the main reason why people play enlisted, is because they can play what they like. and grind to get better. i don’t think that they want or even like the idea of being forced to play until they get enough equipment just to enter let’s say kursk.
nope, never, nyet, nein.
i don’t like this idea at all.
as it would require too much in terms of everything.
Tbh it sounds like nightmare to ballance. Each weapon must be as good as upgraded previous weapon but also as “bad” as not upgraded next weapon.
And whole this have to be balanced against enemy weapons.
Also certain weapons (like for example DP27) that were in service for almost entire war would have to be equal to low tier weapons when when not upgraded, and equal to the end tier weapons when upgraded.
Map like/dislike only allows you to “lower” (I specificaly used “” characters because it doesn´t actually work too well) chance to get this or that campaign, it does not guarantee you to play campaign you want.
Also this solution just does not fix another problem I have with such system… that is no matter what I choose, I will always be barred from certain campaigns simply because I lack the inferior/superior gear to even access them in the first place.
That brings me to another possible fear… that is yet another WT syndrome (aka advertising certain content and then locking it behind literally years of additional grind through “lower years”, making upper content so exclusive that painful uptiers above certain br is almost guaranteed into the point where entire “higher bracket” is being ruled by compression clown-fiesta. (That is not only caused by poor implementation decisions, but also by thinning number of people who have access to that content into the point where uptiers are unavoidable every time for anything below)
@47094123 I added the trial squad stuff as a solution to the issue you raised. Give it a read ^^
Those campaigns would take significantly less work to make than the current campaigns, being much cheaper. After content creation, they wouldn’t need any “maintaining” either. They would be drawing players that would for example want to play Finnish WW2 stuff to the game, as this would be the ONLY game that has them. Also, premium squads for those nations could pay for the work put into those nations as well.
Trying to solve that with demonstration squads, see eloros stuff.
Skilled players seal clubbing can never be prevented without an ELO system, which would most likely not work no matter how you implement it in Enlisted.
Is the current balance managed any better?
You could have the upgrades be more minor. +3% reload speed. -4% recoil. Etc. Spread it that way. Also certain weapons are already excluded from low level campaigns because they’d be too powerful otherwise. This system is trying to make those inclusions possible without screwing balance too much.
Similarly, in the current system, you cannot guarantee to get your favorite map either. If you want to play Tunisia as Germans for example, you would still be using the same guns as when you would be fighting at Stalingrad. Only the maps and enemies you face would change.
Note that certain nations, such as Canada, would start out at the higher level because they only participated at that stage of the war.
What balance problem? This actually solves at least some issues with balance we have right now.
No it isn’t. That’s why I advice to not give the developers even harder system to balance, as they can’t manage easier one. They can’t manage to balance game with 20 weapons per campaign, and you want to give them weapons from whole war to balance it at once.
This system would actually be easier to balance as if a gun is too powerful, all they have to do is raise its star by 1, and vice versa. Currently, they have no way at all to balance weapons outside of their stats, which cannot be adjusted much without screwing with historical accuracy.
The only alternative is completely removing the upgrade system for guns and soldiers and replacing it with sidegrades, which the developers do not seem to want to do, while that wouldn’t fix the “splitting the playerbase” issue.
So instead of messing with historical stats, they can remove it from the low tier campain (because that’s what adding a star is) even if it was used there?
Yes, sadly.
In my opinion it’s like tilting at windmills. Some players will just grind to their favourite campain and stay there, just like it is now.
The star change would be a last measure if the weapon turns out too powerful. Again, it’s not perfect, but it is at least an improvement over not implementing the stuff (looking at you, T-34/KV-1) in the first place.
While yes, it will also expand on it by allowing them to play on maps they otherwise would never see in game in the first place.
On paper this sounds good, in practice nope. See BF1, bunch of different campaigns, only 2 are popular, always have been, the rest have been practically dead.
Nope, looking at the disaster that is WT with downtiers and uptiers, just nope. Also raises the problem for old players accessing every piece of content. Most people wouldn’t be happy having to dump equipments they spent months gathering only to play on a map they like. It’s a choice between gear you like and a map you hate, or gear you don’t like but a map you do like. Choices like these are always bad and should never exist.
This would quickly turn in a case of: Whichever team has less new players is the one that wins. Cue flaming towards new players to get out of them and stay to “noob” campaigns until they learn to play.
Waaaaaay too many. Also this creates 2 problems with monetization in mind. One is immediate, the second is later.
The immediate problem is why would anyone spend money on getting their gear up if that will only raise their star rating and make it almost impossible to find a match? We’d be paying to NOT play the game essentially. Hard no.
The later problem, what happens when the majority of the playerbase has moved out of low ratings and we’re in high ratings? Who plays with the new ones then? They’d either be forced to play with a lot of bots, or in very tiny matches, or pay to upgrade their gear enough to access the more populated part of the game. Also, given that we don’t know how popular this game will be, there are so many campaigns it would cause a hell of a lot more problems than good.
This is more of an issue with the current system that it would ever bee in the suggested system. Crossover isn’t possible in the current system, but would be possible in the suggested system.
Again, max uptiers would be stock squads vs less than max what we would see in the current campaigns. It can never get worse than what we already have right now.
We can always fine-tune these squads if they prove too weak. Again, it can only get better than how bad it currently is with how newbies get stomped.
This is a suggested list. Not all have to be implemented. Pick and choose. A single “campaign” in this list might only contain as much as 1 map as well, as the weapon progression is no longer tied to it.
This is only an issue for the first 5-10 days, similar to how we currently will have the issue where the whales will absolutely stomp all newbies after the wipe. And if the playerbase is large enough, there would be enough whales to skip to the later stages. In addition to the demonstration squads, this shouldn’t be too much of an issue.
I would hope we get enough new players coming in every month for this to not become an issue.
See
The main thing hated on here (uptiers) is literally an improvement over the current system. I honestly don’t understand how so many people hate improving over the current system just because it isn’t perfect. This is as close we will ever get to getting stuff balanced with weapon upgrades which the devs clearly will never remove.
How excactly is this system worse than the current lack of matchmaker at all? Even the “full uptier” with this system would be more balanced than the current matches.
The difference between a stock level 1 squad and a premium squads would be at least 3 stars. The maximum spread in a match is 2 stars with this suggestion, but may be less if possible. I only suggested +2 to make this suggestion more appealing to the devs. Ideally, the matchmaker would take equal star players, with it slowly expanding to +2 if matchmakers takes 30+ seconds to make a match.
It’s not needless, it’s absolutely critical in order to prevent every campaign from bogging down into a predictable one-sided matchup nobody wants to play like Moscow was.
Forcing the community to matchmake unpredictably against eachother will avoid absurd win-loss ratios.
Crossover is part of why i’m saying no to this, why should I be forced to play on maps I absolutely despise? As an example, I only play normandy because I despise moscow. I want nothing to do with any of the maps there. Forcing me to play on moscow would do nothing but drive me away from the game, resulting in financial loss for the game. Same for other people.
More importantly, forcing me in campaign X and Y because of my gear, I can already tell you I will quit the second an update like that goes live. Enlisted is fun partially because you can take any gear in campaign and just go at it.
It can’t get worse, but the matchmaker can get longer. I don’t have the time to sit here in matchmaker for 5 minutes to find a match because no one is in my upgrade range.
The squads aren’t the problem, players being trash is. Someone who has been here for 100 hours will almost always be far better than someone who played the game for an hour. There are exceptions there, but for the most part it stays true.
See, this is why I have a problem with these ideas, we Hope it will be X, we HOPE it will be Y. We need actual facts before implementing major overhauls like these. We need to know if the playerbase will be large enough to sustain it, because if not, that’s a lot of development time and resources gone down the gutter.