Greetings, commanders. In the last few days our community has been actively discussing huge changes that are coming to Enlisted. We’re keeping an eye out for your feedback that’s been both and .
It’s really great that you care about our game, and if you criticize our plans, you clearly do it because you wish it well. In this thread I’d like to, let’s say, reset our discussion, and so I’d like you to pay attention to a simple request of mine.
I’d like to ask you “why?” Why do you like or dislike ideas that we’ve listed in our recent dev diary? Knowing your answers, we’ll be able to provide more detailed feedback for the dev team and, perhaps, solve some of the problems you’ll mention. Or, maybe, some of those issues will prove to be insignificant as we discuss them.
About the map pool
So far we see that you like the idea of incorporating research trees in Enlisted, as well as the new matchmaking rules that will create sessions based on the strength of your weapons, but uniting all the missions in a single pool that each new battle will draw from seems to be the point of contention.
I’d like to clarify some rules that definitely were misunderstood:
- Will I meet a Tiger II on my BT-5?
No! Well, you won’t if two simple conditions are met: there are enough players in queue who have weapons and vehicles similar to yours (we don’t doubt this will be true if we merge the campaigns) and you don’t enjoy suffering so much that you’d equip late-war machine guns, rifles and SMGs and then take the most basic tank into the battle.
Meaning, in an updated Enlisted the battles will be more balanced than now!
- Will I be sent to Normandy on my BT-5?
Also no. Even though the maps will be united in a single pool, they will remain tied to participants of the battles that took place there. Playing as the USSR, you won’t find yourselves in Normandy or Tunisia, but instead will fight under Moscow, in Stalingrad or Berlin. Against the German army, of course.
- Will I be able to join a battle under Moscow on my Tiger?
Sometimes you will. You’ll join a balanced battle against your historical opponent, the USSR, who will have vehicles that are meant to fight against yours, such as IS-1. And also many soldiers with powerful anti-tank weaponry, that will be balanced against each other as well.
You’ll be fighting a historical opponent in one of the historical war theaters with weaponry that’s historically accurate. The only thing that may not be accurate is the ground beneath your feet.
We’re not saying it’s perfect. We were being completely honest with you in the dev blog: “We believe the advantages of the updated Enlisted outweigh the abandonment of complete accuracy.”
That said, there aren’t that many options. Any small rule added to the process of matchmaking can severely harm all the advantages of the new system and make the changes meaningless. Burdening the matchmaking with additional rules will basically return us back to the campaigns, just presented in a slightly different way. And the problems associated with spreading our player base across campaigns will return as well.
But how can this do any harm?
Let’s say you’ve got the most modern setup of the German army and queued up with a 1000 of other players.
The matchmaking has analyzed your setup and excluded 600 USSR/Allies players who have weaker weapons and vehicles and thus do not qualify as your opponents. In the updated Enlisted it’ll still have a pretty good selection of 400 players (100 as USSR and 300 as Allies) to create a few interesting sessions on one of dozens of historical battlefields (or even hundreds if we’re talking about missions and not maps): vs USSR in Moscow, Stalingrad, and Berlin; vs USA in Normandy, vs Allies in Tunisia.
But suppose you’ve added another rule: “Matchmaking can only send players to the map that’s historically accurate for their weapons and vehicles.” Then you’ll have to forget about Moscow, Stalingrad, and Tunisia, and will be left with just Normandy and Berlin — as long as you’re using your modern setup. That will make the updated Enlisted quite similar to the current one that’s limited by the constraints of the campaigns, but will also make it harder for the matchmaking system that’ll have to take into account both weapon power and maps.
That’s why during the first planning stage we decided to make that small sacrifice in favor of a game that’ll be well-balanced, diverse (hundreds of missions!) and always full of players.
Let’s discuss
My question is: “Why do you like or dislike the new direction that we propose for our huge project?” Try to give an answer for yourself first and foremost, evaluate the benefits and possible drawbacks.
And then leave your opinion. We’ll be sure to read it.
This thread is not an announcement. Here I just want to tell you about the possible future of the game, clarify the upsides of the updated Enlisted and try to figure out if the downsides are that big of a deal.