Nonsense, this is to protect the interests of other players from deserters. Even if deserters are punished, it cannot change the situation where other players find it harder to win. They need compensation.
Otherwise, why should I stay? Let’s just be deserters together.
1 Like
How is that nonsense?
Why should I care about any economic incentives when I have already researched all the TTs and am in no hurry for exp/silver?
That’s why many veterans who systematically desert are pushing this incentive nonsense.
Because they’ll just ignore them and continue to happily desert like they have been up until now.
It’s all just one big dishonesty that solves nothing at all.
Real penalties for desertion are needed. Incentives won’t solve anything. Especially in relation to veteran players.
The game needs to make impossible to systematically desert. That’s the only real solution. Everything else is just PR solution.
I’ve said it before, this kind of compensation will encourage people to stay.
As an old player like me, I only care about winning or losing. I need more help from my teammates instead of running away with a few deserters. For new players, they need silver coins and experience, and now they are unwilling to take the risk of failure to continue the game, so if they are rewarded, they will be willing to stay.
In addition, deserters make it harder for other players to win, so why can’t they receive more rewards?
Your game difficulty has increased, so your reward should also increase. It’s a simple principle.
1 Like
To be honest, when someone says things like “We don’t need incentives” or “We should only care about individual performance,” I have to ask—who exactly is “we”? Was there some vote I missed? Because that’s clearly just your personal opinion, and pretending to speak on behalf of everyone actually weakens your argument.
Also, it makes me wonder if you’ve really played the game in the same way as others. The so-called 50% bonus to XP/silver for winning, for example, is limited in practice. In reality, it often discourages players from trying in matches where they know they’re likely to lose, since they’ll get little to no return for their effort. For many players, it feels like a system that forces them to stay in clearly unbalanced matches, rather than one that meaningfully prevents desertion.
But more importantly, your argument fails to address the actual causes behind desertion. Let’s break this down:
The fact that Enlisted is a casual game doesn’t justify unfair punishment
I know Enlisted isn’t a ranked competitive game. But that doesn’t mean I should be forced to endure severely imbalanced matches. Saying “it’s casual, so deal with it” is like selling a broken product and then saying “well, it’s cheap.”
If the real issue is individual skill differences, then fix the matchmaker
If the maps or equipment aren’t the problem and it’s all down to skill, then why not improve the matchmaking system? Why should I be punished for being matched into weak teams? Even casual games benefit from fair and logical matchmaking and rewards.
Asymmetrical design is not the same as unfair experience
Claiming “the game was always asymmetrical” doesn’t excuse one-sided games where one team gets steamrolled repeatedly. That’s not intentional asymmetry—it’s poor balancing. And I don’t think any player should be expected to endure that without fair compensation.
I’m not justifying desertion—I’m pointing out what causes it
I’m not defending desertion out of malice. What I’m saying is: “I’m working hard, but I’m getting nothing out of it.” That’s not excuse-making—that’s feedback. Ignoring that is the same as ignoring reality.
“If you don’t like it, don’t play” is the most toxic take
Finally, telling me “don’t play Enlisted if you don’t like it” is incredibly counterproductive. That attitude is a fast track to a dying playerbase. I’m giving feedback because I want the game to improve. Shutting me down like that helps no one.
3 Likes
Irrelevant to the point of discussion.
But I will correct it to “I think we need” or “I think the game needs”., literally just a figure of speech.
I myself do not like when someone is speaking for others.
There is very few severely unbalanced matches as long as people doesn’t start deserting once the first objective is taken (which is the case for majority of systematic deserters)
Systematic desertion is literally fueling the imbalance.
Yes, making it impossible to systematically desert matches in the first few minutes would greatly improve MM.
As systematic desertion is nothing more than bypassing MM => effectively undermining its whole existence and any future improvement of it.
Making impossible to systematically desert is where we should start, not where we should end.
Every further improvement should be built and based around it.
I remember my suggestion was to provide rewards to players who stayed behind based on a percentage. If you didn’t do anything, you would still receive almost nothing, and the rewards clearly didn’t include veteran players who were willing to become deserters.
On the other hand, even veteran players care about profits, as they still need silver coins after box gambling.
I already have everything I want from the box. All vehicles, all squads.
So obviously not all veteran players. And there are definitely some other that would be completely unneffected by ecomic incentives.
I have also obtained everything, but I still want more swords.That’s why many veteran players will always need silver coins.
And even if it’s just getting all the squads, it still requires a considerable amount of silver coins, and there are still very few players who can do it. They run away just because they’re cowardly, but other brave players shouldn’t get an unpleasant game because of cowards.
I am not saying there shouldn’t be incentives. I am just saying they’re not fixing or preventing the core issue.
That’s why I think they’re not needed. Needed are only true means hat will make impossible to systematically desert.
It’s difficult, you can’t tie these guys in front of the computer and let them finish playing the game, so the punishment effect is always limited.The most practical way is to provide some compensation to the players who persist in fighting, which will reduce the anger of many people.
1 Like
That’s why I think this is the only proper solution:
To prevent them from joining matches after continuous desertion within a short period of time.
It works perfectly against systematic desertion, meanwhile classic desertion from time to time is basically not punished.
A necessary prerequisite: a perfect map selection system.
Exactly.
Unless you have reliable data to prove, I will say this is bs. I believe most veterans can tell the outcomes of 75% battles just based on the performance of teams 2min into the battles. Instant loss of the first objective can be a good indication but it isn’t all. Sometimes it is just bad luck and bad map design. Good players understand that. Mass desertion happens as ppl realize there is no hope of winning because of team not working/worse than bots/stacks. In other words, severely unbalanced team.
You are making it more complicated than necessary. Players desert because they are not having fun. Making the game fun to play is the first step.
3 Likes
It’s funny that you want data from me. Instead of whoever made this “argument” first.
As uno reverse card can be easily applied. 
Data where? Otherwise BS.
That’s just not true. They exploit the system because it is beneficial to them.
It’s like saying people steal money because they’re not happy with working.
And then demand to make work fun instead of punishing the thieves and fixing the fundamental problems of the system.
A truly naive and bizarre approach.
I demand data because it is impossible unless you are the devs themselves. You simply can’t classify ppl as “systematic deserters”, at least not on a large scale. Or you are bored enough to track repeated quitters and make a list?
Do you realize this is a stupid analogy? Desertion happens when players think it is not worth their time playing. They are not slave to DF and owe no responsibility to you. You claim ppl exploit the system but what do these quitters want? A more comfortable matchup/map. I doubt it is just for perfect stats/bot farming as you imagine, otherwise they will all be in stacks.
1 Like
What? I don’t think there’s actual penal in WT
It’s just lock ur crew for a few minute if you didn’t deplete ur spawn point
Just use other crew or other faction and you are good for next battle
And based on WT’s gameplay, if you enter a bad match, you will die fast, got no SP and be free to leave the game. This is essentially different from enlisted, where they trying to make you suffer the whole game or get huge income penal
Lmao, surely I can’t. It’s not like some of them are boasting about it here on the forum
I have no interest to even argue with someone who’s downplaying such a major issue such as systematic desertion.
That’s simply not true.
Many of them got to the point where they’re literally just cherry picking matches they deem to be good enough (meaning, easy to win) to play, deserting majority of matches overall.
You are either dishonest, trying to cover up this behavior. Or totally naive, thinking it’s all about “not having fun”.
…it’s really interesting that so many people are not having fun once first objective is captured. Truly fascinating… Very crucial element in gameplay overall…
People who can’t cope with defeat and find it unfun. First and foremost, shouldn’t be playing multiplayer games.
Again, what percentage of players? Did I deny the existence of mass desertion? I say it is difficult to label ppl as “systematic deserters” unless you track those players’ records and calculate the percentage of deserted matches and “systematic deserters” of the entire player base. Otherwise, it is entirely based on your metrics and feelings. Sure, those ppl do exist, but more ppl desert because of more valid reasons. The question is, should we blame the devs for the broken game more or the players? It is obvious that your suggestions are on the same page as the devs’, prioritizing punishing players than fixing the game. I mean, there is a degree of desertion, and you are only addressing the extreme.
A similar analogy would be arguing stacks are ruining the game while in actuality, it is the tryhard 4-8 stacks vs randoms that are ruining the game.
Again, you go tell those stubborn players. No amount of punishment can deter them, better not playing at all. It is infinitely better to give players fairer matchmaking and actual map selection, so it will encourage players to stay in matches.
The thing is, it is more complicated than you make it sound. It really depends on the quality of the teams and game balance. Like, back in the Berlin days, it was perfectly normal for the Axis to lose the first objective instantly, and people would stick to the game knowing they could still consolidate from a bad start. How would you feel if you were playing Japan br5 attacking on the Pacific maps, and got half of the team instantly wiped out along with two tanks and all the apcs when they just spawn in? Sure, you can recover easily, but not everyone could keep a good mood.
Many of then leave due to maps or game modes they dont like.
2 Likes