Many say that The “Old users” who have been playing games for a long time easily could kill Newcomers with Automatic Weapons so Bolt-Action Buff is the Right thing to be done, and It is Partially true. But Not only because of the Weapon gap, The biggest matter between Newcomers and Old-Users is also at skills.
There is a Big gap in skills between Old and New users, too big. Even Old Users with Bolt-Action could easily deal with Newcomers, Even if they are armed with Automatic Weapons. The matter is not whether the bolt-action to be Buffed or Nerfed.
Still, After The Bolt-Action Buff and Automatics Nerf Newcomers are still Easy to deal with, nothing much has changed in their skills so.
What is Truly needed For both Newcomers and Old-Users is the MMR system.
among active players, relatively low-skilled players are killed unilaterally by old users, so they quit because they don’t have fun in the game. And when this is repeated, there is a problem that only a small number of users remain. Therefore, to alleviate this problem, MMR is created to measure players’ skills to score matches, and players with similar scores can compete against each other and Learn the game by matching and competing.
Then Newcomers will learn how the game works, How camping leads entire team to Defeat, and will develop their own Trick and Tips. Newcomers against Automatic rifles and High-Level Vehicle Spam would be a less problem than. And For Old-High-skilled-Users, They won’t have to see and deal with their entire team of Newcomers camping far back and doing nothing.
Since Enlisted itself isn’t that well-known game, only few people are entering and Trying this game, we need a way to keep Newcomers from leaving. MMR systems need to be added to make Newcomers not to leave the game.
Even though that might me a bit different with actual numbers, but Compared with other games, now R6:Siege for example, They got about 30-40K players on average these days. But they still have their own MMR system working well, without a fuss.
Since enlisted has about 30K -live player count average, there is no reason for us to not add the MMR system.
Firely November Event had 14 levels while Battle summer had only 8.
and even there were more Tasks which became harder than before.
At the Video He compared PPK-42 to Charlton Squad, But actually, it needs to be compared with P-47.
So, I Rather would say Enlisted’s Playerbase is Surely growing slowely, and that amount of users won’t be that bad for the MMR system I suppose.
And R6:Siege has 9 different Independent Servers, MMR Ratings not shared, and blocked by location.
It is hard to change Server in R6, not like Changing Factions in Enlisted. it means they are completely divided.
As I said above R6 is divided into each 9 independent servers. it means, Roughly there are about 3.5K Users in each servers. and Since R6 is a 5v5 Team match, they are divided into 2 Again. So user numbers wouldn’t be that much problem.
Well, we have 10 freely selectable sides.
3 servers. Which of course can be selected at the same time, but does not change the essence.
And again, we should have twice as many players in battle.
When was the last time I played rainbow six (around half year ago) was waiting for games for a couple of minutes.
So there must be matchmaking, but it will delay the search a lot.
yes, and R6 has 2 sides in each 9 servers. so there is like 18 sides approx. And also R6 got both Casual and Ranked matches, which multiplies 2. So I suppose it won’t affect as bad as R6.
There’s a key difference between R6 and En+snicker+listed is that the former is highly competitive round based S&D game with fixed five versus players, and the latter - Enlisted - is an arcade shooter, a derpy mushroom-version of BF with actual bots in the mix.
I recall (some of the) playerbase screaming for MMR in BF since BF3 but they face this very same wall:
Elo here is not easily measurable. Do you reward tank-kills as high as plane kills, do you punish from infantry deaths less than tank deaths, or does one just take WR% as a measure of ELO? (Any idea what this would do? Any idea?)
MMR doesn’t belong to arcade games. If there would be always fixed teams (it would be punishable to leave the game and impossible to join in later) - or if Enlisted would be in any measure a competitive game an ELO-based MMR-system could be applied, but it’s not. Not even close.
You boys don’t know what you’re asking. It’s ok, you mean well, but MMR isn’t the fix you need.
What about calculating mmr based on four factors: kills, engineering points, ratio of ‘kills near the point’ to the total kills, and win rate?
I chose the number of kills, not kda, as the first factor because having more death counts than others might mean one have played more aggressively for the point.
Engineering points shows how much the player uses engineers to change the tide of the game.
Ratio of ‘kills near point’ shows how aggressively one plays for the objective. As Enlisted’s game modes are mostly about capturing the point and holding it, this will be an important factor in terms of MMR.
Last, but not least is the win rate. The other factors doesn’t matter if one’s win rate is way too low. A good win rate means the players knows how to win games, using different strategies.
Just because I am relatively good at the game, doesn’t mean I want to sweat every match with 10v10 marshals, all maxed out with PPSh and FG, 3 explosive packs on each soldier.
What the game needs is not MMR or SBMM but Team Balancer: ensuring that both teams are more or less equal on their average skill/KD/xp per min/rank/etc.
But with that ensuring that both teams have X high tier players, Y medium level players and Z beginners so that everyone has someone to kill and be killed.
Under the rating system, which only reflects wins and losses, skilled players will rise to the top over time. Some users win by luck, but if the number of games increases, there will be no problem. Essentially, the game requires a mmr system because it allows only good game players to speak in forums, preventing those who do not play hard from discussing balance in here. when a user finishes the season with a high rating, it is sufficiently motivated to receive player icons and golden tickets in order of grade as a reward.
What you actually want is just a team-balancer which would ensure both sides have equal amount of total players and filler bots. That’s a realistic request.
Arcade public FPS-experiences with no competitive elements aren’t just mixable with ELO-based systems by core. Enlisted would have to change from it’s core - an arcade public bot-shooting game - into a measurable competitive FPS-game. And that is something this game will never be, and what it’s playerbase surely wouldn’t want.
And then we would need to talk about actual balance too, whee-ee, even that goes complicated as there are separate non-interlocking assymmetrical factions with different winrates over different campaigns. (Axis WR% vs Allies WR% across campaign platform colliding player WR%, is Axis 66%WR = Allies50%WR or AxWR=AlWR or what?)
Honestly I think you all would have much more peace when you think it about this:
The game is an analogy. You are with Gameshadow992312 and g_lle34g - three meakly gulags suffering from diarrhea and yellow-fever facing *CUNTBLASTER69 and lmaogitgut_1, the notorious German: 27. SS-Freiwilligen Grenadier-Division “Langemarck” (flämische Nr. 1).
Yet another horrible day in the Eastern Front…
EDIT:
And this brings me back to H&G and - a horrible clusterfuck for an FPS game - how it got it’s analogy set. The campaign mode, RTS, was ingenious and overlooked by many game-makers and studios. It was amazing. The RTS gave everything a frame and an analogy.
Unbalanced fight? Well, you’re platoon was full of rookies and got stomped by elite-veteran forces. Better send out your factions elite to counter em and blast their tanks!
Absolutely a brilliant way to overcome the (ancient) Arcade FPS-game balance problem.
