Who says, that is contrary to what @1942786 has said…
I understand these things could take absolute ages but as a proof of concept could you guys slap together event of how it would be if
A) we sacrificed historical accuracy for 1 month in favour of fuller lobbies and see if people are okay with that (ask them after game quick questionaire?) [with stupid fast progression but delete it afterwards]
B) take less extreme measures that the historical accuracy enjoyers are suggesting (like that join any battle for any faction for increased XP gain) in these comments again as an event for a month and actually see real player retention play time and see what keeps players wanting more?
Many players that play don’t go on forums. Seeing the numbers would help.
I am worried that the vocal people may not always see the bigger picture that you are developers that want their platform profitable and enjoyable by as many as possible.
For those who say will leave if enlisted does the less historically accurate steps. Which game will you go to, should that happen, and can you also please explain pros of the other game in your opinion?
And also how long sessions do you have on average when playing enlisted?
I’d love to try the changes mentioned in the blogpost few days back and maybe the immersion break may be enough even for me and I’m open to try all sorts. But without trying I reserve my judgement.
I am saying thats how this “Seperate Loadouts” idea would be implemented, not the devs proposal.
i am one of the players who are actually happy about this change. it was needed to keep the game alive. also some suggestions and questions.
-
you can fix this by adding a rule to MM when choosing campaign/map.
if current weapon rating is on scale of 1-10, moscow will be primarily be matched by players who have rating 1-4, stalingrad and tunisia will get matches up to 6, normandy up to 8 and berlin up to 10. you can also add chance multiplier so that people with low lvl weapons (rating 1-4) are 5 times as likely to get moscow than berlin/normandy and 3 times as likely to get stalingrad/tunisia.
that way you can guarantee some historical accuracy on maps (not perfect, but at least there wont be tiger on moscow). it wont add complexity to mm, but would make some compromise to historical accuracy. -
also can you add opt out for certain campaigns/maps/modes? way to avoid MM complexity in this case is that if current MM queue for his rating doesnt satisfy the player condition, you put him in following queue for that rating that will satisfy his condition and make disclaimer that removing campaigns/maps/modes can significantly increase queue time.
-
also how will US pacific be regulated considering japanese weapons/vehicles? will there be possibility of getting m5a1 into pacific?
-
will you be matched by ±1 or ±2 BR in default? or will there be ±0 BR at start and then loosening of criteria?
-
how is the grind in new weapon tree going to be compared to current campaign grind? will unlocking 1 campaign worth of weapons going to cost same amount of xp as 1 campaign or will you increase the grind?
1 Like
Maybe that could be the starting point and see where people go with that before forcing the new as a norm? I’d love it if custom games got more attention!
i think you should be placed against people with stg44. clearly you have that weapon unlocked and it is only your choice that brings you in that battle with weaker weapons. if you use average rating people can easily abuse OP vehicles in those situations to seal club newbies. if you want “historical” feel you can easily bring mp-40 instead of stg 44 and be rated significantly lower.
can you tell me what model of p-38 did this? from wiki
A little-known role of the P-38 in the European theater was that of fighter-bomber during the invasion of Normandy and the Allied advance across France into Germany. Assigned to the IX Tactical Air Command, the 370th Fighter Group and 474th Fighter Group and their P-38s initially flew missions from England, dive-bombing radar installations, enemy armor, troop concentrations, and flak towers, and providing air cover.[92] The 370th’s group commander Howard F. Nichols and a squadron of his P-38 Lightnings attacked Field Marshal Günther von Kluge’s headquarters in July 1944; Nichols himself skipped a 500 lb (230 kg) bomb through the front door.[93] The 370th later operated from Cardonville, France, and the 474th from various bases in France, flying ground-attack missions against gun emplacements, troops, supply dumps, and tanks near Saint-Lô in July and in the Falaise–Argentan area in August 1944
no they are not. historical theater of war is eastern front. historical opponent is germans vs soviets. weaponry is historically accurate for ww2 as both tiger and is-1 were used in ww2.
equality over equity. i dont care about skill of the opponent if all sides have same starting condition. you dont need to shield people from skill.
let the magic of stuart vs tiger and pz2 vs t34 go away. i will not miss it.
you could also use weighted average, so bigger difference between tiers, more weight highest tier has. e.g. if you match 3 squads of kar98k that has BR=1 and tiger 2 that has rating 10, you make tiger 2 score carry 90% of the weight in calculating average and those 3 squads of kar98k only 10% that way you would get 9.1 BR if you try to cheese the system. this could be interesting system for diversity. but i am ok with max BR.
it is completely different. you can skip some weapon branches completely and can start researching semi autos or smg-s immediately without having to grind 5 bolties, 3 tanks and 3 planes.
then just have one soldier bring high tiered weapon and your prayers will be answered.
keo: we have problem with current queue cause we dont have enough players, so we are going to simplify queue.
certain players: you know what will work? having both old campaign queue and new queue simultaneously. there will certainly be enough players to populate them both…
does this sound like a good joke?
yes it was an example. player count per server that is looking for match is much lower than that. you can simply see it when you queue for a match. they match between 10-20 people in average waiting time for match (unless waiting time is over minute and half, then it forcibly creates game no mater how many players there are). so if you wait for minute before match is created that means you get max 20 players in one campaign per minute*6 campaigns and you get approximately 120 players per server. if you wait half minute it is ~240 players per minute on server. just napkin math. little oversimplified but you see low playerbase problem from match waiting time.
no 6 campaigns, 6 queues. both sides get matched in one queue. you dont need to bring servers into this cause they are separate and they all have different peak times
no it is axis vs soviet queue, us vs axis, jpn vs us. so 3 queues and depending on BR and waiting time it is flexible and can be anywhere between 3-30 depending on number of players (assuming ±0 BR spread if there are enough players). but cause of jpn low BR it would be more realistic to assume 3-24 MM queues. you have 3 MM queues when there is absolutely no players and 24 queues when there is big player population.
and ffs stop spamming the topic so much… i was reading it for too long cause i missed when keo posted it…
1 Like
But they won’t be when the progression system swaps to the research-tree like one. All German weapons will be available to research. All Allied weapons… etc. It wouldn’t be separated per campaign.
Unless you also are going to come up with a new progression system and implement that in to your campaign-merging system?
Yes. And? This seperate loadouts idea doesn’t touch tech trees. You research a weapon, you unlock it once, and stick it in whatever loadouts that will allow it.
My proposal is a Faction merging system. You select faction, you get any map that the faction was involved in.
The devs proposal is more of a campaign merging sytem, as the gear will all be merged in some way or the other. You will select Germany, throw a king tiger in your tanker squad, then show up in Moscow (Whether this will happen occasionally, often, or all the time will have to be seen[its going to happen all the time because most people will want to unlock the highest BR stuff, and eventually they will not be only confined to Berlin])
2 Likes
It will surely get in the future.
Have you seen the content I sent you privately?
And still we are back to MM tags and create code for it(longer ques and dev time to complete coding it), don’t forget that everything you telling is easier on word then in code for such enormous game.
3 Likes
Matchmaking is a very serious debate and I’m sure it will continue to be worked on in time, this game is still being worked on in the first place, but I think a lot of us can agree the single faction tech tree is a good step in the right direction
Exactly. I don’t think these people realise but he still needs to manually come up with a way to separate the guns, otherwise his loadout system won’t know which weapons are fine and which weapons aren’t allowed.
I think people think these sub-points just automatically resolve themselves when the bigger picture is laid out.
Like “Oh well the loadouts will just reject guns not allowed”
Ok how? How will it know which ones?
“Oh it’ll just automatically reject guns not allowed”
Again… how?
As harsh as it is to say this, it’s like talking to a brick wall sometimes.
What about splitting the game in an arcade mode (the one you proposed) and a realistic mode (a REALLY weapon and vehicles acxurate one)? Wouldn’t this solve a lot of problems?
If we can’t pick, why not doing both?
2 Likes
So they can create a system that will be able to select campaign appropriate uniforms for each match, changing between matches, but they can’t create a sytem that detects your different weapon loadouts and selects the accurate one?
Sure.
1 Like
Thats a hard one.
@James_Grove @Ungorisz
Thinking about something like this:
Let’s say todays “Battle of Tunisia”.
DF create a server(s) named “Tunisia” and load in all suitable maps.
I suggest that you create a squad managment feature in customs (apart from the regular one).
It’s like moving todays squad management code from the main game to Custom. More or less.
If you have a premium squads from Tunisia you will easily in-lobby be able to pick and use these (a great argument for those who fears their premiums will be abundant now).
But lets say someone sold all their Tunisia gear?
Maybe we should therefore give everyone a opportunity to use default squads (like those from the “even event”) if some ppl lack weapons/tanks for desigated “campaign”.
This would need a investment in coding and huge UI-update.
But should work excellent.
Why? It will be easier instead, depending on the logic behind the new matchmaking system.
If I understand correctly the new matchmaking will create lobbies where the level of each teammate is more or less the same. Not a good idea in my opinion. Berlin will be a sweat fest all the time while Tunisia will be always chilling and slow.
A better idea would be to divide the team in different tiers, according to the equipment used, so that every team has a certain percentage of high , mid and low ranked players.
By creating loadouts for different campaigns any player has the same probability of playing in said campaigns. With fewer conditions, the matchmaking system will find the best suited match more easily.
2 Likes
people with 0 coding experience that expect easy solutions cause they want them. i already said in multiple topics that you need exponentially more players with more rules you add to keep the MM queue populated, but people just refuse to accept that and want to keep either status quo that is unsustainable or magical complicated solution that requires 100x more players than enlisted currently has.
Customs don’t work now, we have 25 customs with 3-5 players in them, ideally we would have preset customs by the devs (broken into campaign) which match exactly what we have now, to stop the person removing the k98 rifle or other custom restrictions…
We don’t earn enough xp, we only use customs in my clan events. Mainly to play a new map mod or gun game as warm up…
1 Like
So they can create a system that will be able differentiate soldier uniform for each campaign, but not weapon loadout?
Sure.
That was your idea too… it was your idea to include uniforms being differentiated.
You were the one who also wanted to include uniforms in defining what’s an acceptable loadout or not…
At this point you’re telling yourself your own idea wouldn’t work…
“The loadouts would have restrictions on weapons and uniforms” -You.