Let’s Discuss the Meta Changes

[Silmary_fr]

@ProO08

what should the American do egainst a king Tiger

Simple ! Call US Air Force

[_fi_nal]

He’s correct on the balance of probabilities. And that’s really all that matters.

[Conscript_Joe]

The day…

The day my mannlichers became the new meta, and the bane of new players.

Dunno if I should laugh or not. Oh well.

Ppl wanted this

[ProO08]

Wont be enough

[HeyQuadro]

@ParaDivision

let people chose/exclude maps from matchmaking

@Keofox

Any small rule added to the process of matchmaking can severely harm all the advantages of the new system and make the changes meaningless.

this is what Forlorn is talking about. If you allow players to choose maps, youre just creating more rules for the system that ultimately nullifies the entire point.

[ProO08]

Simple make a prioritise Button

[gastanofrizzi]

@VonuhLikesCake

division between campaigns is a good thing and it should be kept?

my honest opinion on this (not referring to OP only to the mentioned topic) is that enlisted was set up badly from the beginning the progression rework should have arrived at the end of 2021 before stalingrad, what we see here is simply the result of a messy management of the development team that requires efforts and compromises to be fixed, one would have to make a clean slate and start from scratch but that is not even possible and therefore this roundabout is generated which always brings us back to the same point.

[Blegh2022]

How? The game isn’t so unbalanced that having better weapons = win.
Skill trumps everything, even in Enlisted. And it isn’t SBMM, it is just a “BR”, like War Thunder.
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve run circles around people with a better tank. Because I was simply better

[VonuhLikesCake]

Literally the main purpose of a new system is to unite the playerbase, and people actually come by and say “nah how about we don’t”

[_fi_nal]

Higher level players have a higher chance to be also better. There might be some that suck, but on average he is right that those matches are likely to be very sweaty. And that’s just how it is.

[MajorMcDonalds]

Just because you have late war equipment doesn’t mean you’re good.

Correct, but let’s face it, if people have stuck around for this long to grind for it, it’s not because they’re “bad”.

And the current system is bad for new players. No one likes having that one guy running around stomping your team. Well, except for that one guy having the “casual” experience

Correct again, but I was not advocating for keeping the existing system, nor making this a thing. This should be prevented, and any “standard” matchmaking (let’s assume a ranked mode did come into play for a second) could have a very basic form of skill-based matchmaking to prepare for this, which could be from win rates, kda, military rank score, etc (I know all of these have a few flaws and shouldn’t be used as simply as that, but you get the idea) to somewhat “balance” the AVERAGE of each teams. Sure, you’re still gonna unfortunately get some stomps, but greatly reduced from what it is now, where about 80% of the games I play are an easy stomp for one side.

(This is just an example, I’m not advocating for this exact method, but something along these lines)

[Blegh2022]

@MajorMcDonalds

Correct, but let’s face it, if people have stuck around for this long to grind for it, it’s not because they’re “bad”.

Fair point.

@MajorMcDonalds

Correct again, but I was not advocating for keeping the existing system, nor making this a thing. This should be prevented, and any “standard” matchmaking (let’s assume a ranked mode did come into play for a second) could have a very basic form of skill-based matchmaking to prepare for this, which could be from win rates, kda, military rank score, etc (I know all of these have a few flaws and shouldn’t be used as simply as that, but you get the idea) to somewhat “balance” the AVERAGE of each teams. Sure, you’re still gonna unfortunately get some stomps, but greatly reduced from what it is now, where about 80% of the games I play are an easy stomp for one side.

I don’t think this is possible right now due to the low playerbase, but perhaps in the future they could make it a thing.
If they did add something like it, I think ranked should be the default, so new players don’t unknowingly match into battles with high-skilled players and get curb-stomped.
I’ve quit many games due to this reason.

My apologies if I came off as hostile, I just don’t like it when top players whine (not saying you were) for a “casual” experience, but in reality they just don’t want to be bother to play against people who can beat them; rather playing against bad players they can easily stomp

[ProO08]

And playing egainst will be more difficult

[RedHarlow94]

So they’re fishing for Call of Duty and Battlefield players now? Sad to see where this game a heading honestly.

[James_Grove]

@ludwig6018

I don’t get it, I realized the campaign splitting is a issue but why not have people be able to queue to say only Normandy maps as US or only Tunisia

Because it will not solve a problem at all, the more you adding restrictions to MM the less it will be useful for bunch of ppl it’s really good writed by keo in this topic:

@Keofox

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.

[Silmary_fr]

@Blegh2022

And the current system is bad for new players. No one likes having that one guy running around stomping your team. Well, except for that one guy having the “casual” experience

Oh so cute you think things will change ?
Tell me real try harders are like what ? 1% max ? we are pretty rare among the flow of casual (to not say anything else)
If MM dont find any of us to counter … ull get rolled exactly the same than before
The thing casual dont understand is : if ure bored to get rolled just git gut thats all

[Rixas188]

Am I the only one confused here…

For years the community have been begging for changes to the Campaigns System… they do it and people complain.

Like… what? No one is offering an alternative system either, everyone’s just saying the change they wanted to happen is now bad and shouldn’t happen

[James_Grove]

We trying to provide better MM and balance, community is asked a lot about it.

[Blegh2022]

@Rixas188

they do it and people complain.

And complain about the devs taking away something that was never a focus of the game in the first place.

[RedHarlow94]

By having Tigers and IS-2s in Moscow, STG44s in Moscow and Stalingrad, Fedorovs in Stalingrad, LADs in Moscow, FG 42s in Moscow and so on?