Implementing optional HA into the future "map preference system"

To please all, why not simply implement next to the preferred map system, a second option:

You can either vote for maps you want to play OR you activate the “historically accurate match making”, which removes the ability to choose your maps - but in return will only match you according to your BR.

As such this setting would force:

Moscow = BR1 - BR2
Stalingrad = BR1 - BR3
Rezhev = BR2 - BR3
Tunisia = BR1 - BR3
Normany = BR3 - BR4
Belgium = BR4 - BR5
Berlin = BR4 - BR5

Considering that this HA setting would still make you play with people who use the ability to choose maps - just not the “incorrect HA maps”, this shouldn’t negatively influence the matchmaker at all, potentially pleasing both sides.

6 Likes

its not going to be historically accurate with volkssturm guns in stalingrad or chinese volunteers in normandy and tunisia

historical accuracy is impossible in enlisted, and it will continue to forever be impossible

4 Likes

90% historically accuracy is better than 0% historically accuracy. Stop using fake arguments.

Also not many players use Volkssturm weapons to begin with, VG2 is the best bolt action rifle in the game but VG1-5 is still being used much more often by players.

I have suggested a buff to VG1-5 in the past, its main problem is that it shoots much slower than other semi auto rifles, if its rate of fire would be increased to 380 rpm it could easily be powerful in BR4 and fit there much better anyways as basically a semi auto MKB.
BR3 semis really shouldn’t have big magazines with quick reloads to begin with.

5 Likes

if it was 90% historically accurate then you wouldn’t see like half of the guns in this game being used at all and pretty much everybody besides the USA would be spamming bolt action rifles. Literally the only thing Enlisted gets right about WW2 at this point is that german-speaking people are shooting russian speaking people.

comparing the VG1-5 to other BR3 semi autos isn’t really a fair comparison. It’s more like an M1 carbine with better stats and just fires an intermediate caliber bullet, it’s not on the same playing field as the SVT-38 or whatever.

unless you think we should also put the M1 carbine at BR4 because it has “a big magazine with a quick reload”

1 Like

Yet you are the one complaining about this.

Why dont you simply recognise that a step into the right direction is just that, a step.

You are indirectly advocating for less HA because its a lost cause in your mind - well for me it isn’t, and the change that I have proposed would actually be very appreciated by me - someone who cares about HA.

M1 Carbine and VG 1-5 currently fill similar roles, but why bring this up? This isnt about M1 Carbine but about your argument that HA is impossible because VGs are low BR - I literally gave you an example how to fix this.

3 Likes

because it absolutely is a lost cause, the developers themselves are not interested in historical accuracy at all, at least not in these current times

The latest event is providing the Alectro, and even the description states the vehicle wasn’t completed until June of 1945, but we’re still going to see it in Tunisia

your vision for enlisted is directly clashing with the developer’s vision for enlisted, so I’m sorry to say it isn’t gonna happen

1 Like

I dont believe this, there is obviously some aspect of HA that is being utilised by the devs - but again why do you even care at this point?

Well again, I argue that there is a difference between a techtree gun and an event vehicle. How does the Alecto change the fact that my proposed OPTIONAL match making setting would please players that like more HA?

Your reasoning is illogical, a Tiger tank in Moscow also wouldn’t justify M16 and Abrahams tanks in Normany. Lack of HA doesn’t mean total lack of HA, again we are talking about degrees and steps.

A KV2 that never saw combat in Berlin is less hurtful for the overall WW2 feeling of the game than laser and plasma rifles.

Or in other words:

We still dont have 0%HA, so that statement is false.

2 Likes

Is this a offical definition?

Here is the weekly HA pla thread. We have to fullfill the quotas somehow

Its important to me, why should I not talk about this.

Also again, my suggestion aims at pleasing both sides, why are you against it?

1 Like

Its both ahistorical and limiting.

How that?

BR1 SU could only play Moscow.
BR1-2 Allies could only play Tunisia against Germany.
BR4-5 SU could only play Berlin.

Also nice to see that the historical T34s and KV1s will never face Moscow again but th3 ahistorical PPS and T-70 tank will stay.

1 Like

At most hard BR locks to crappy matchmake and preferably some sort of skill / elo / what ever based option. ( Which is highly unlike )

So I think better option would be to DF finally grant proper modding tools.

And honestly, for some odd reason Ive got more faith in playerbase making proper mods HA, competive, inf only or what ever, all could be done with proper tools.

You realize that this is optional right?

That would make it worse because you could alter the way how you get matched and make other people suffer who didnt choose this.
E.g. If you queue as BR3 SU, you would only get lower BR MM because you crafted it in a way that Soviet BR3 and BR4 do not get matched together.

Tbh volkssturm guns should be recalled from the TT and inventory and replaced with symmetrical foreign guns that’s more universal across the war timeline.

I love how the original post us suggestion an OPTION to enable an HA matchmaking if YOU want to.

And yet some people are getting butthurts, what are you afraid of, that no one would play with the “any map any BR” option ? Or maybe you are just selfish and don’t want people to enjoy what they want to enjoy ?

Because BR altering shit can corrupt the MM especially since HA is a flimsy definition.

1 Like

I don’t mind waiting 2+ min if that means not getting sent to BR5 Tunisia to get exploded by planes and tanks over and over

1 Like