This is the only good “middle ground” that can be accepted by everybody.
Its only cons are making loadouts, but COD and other games have had loadouts since 2007(MW,16 years ago!).
I think gamers can figure it out.
Its better than the alternative that is “last ditch” vg1-5s and kriegsmodels in a volksturm unit in africa.
5 Likes
My system doesn’t restrict you to any campaign. You queue for all campigns your faction is involved in. You have seperate loadouts for your squads. The map you get dictates which loadout you use. The only playerbase split that would exist is between the factions.
2 Likes
No, it’s not.
It just caters to the historical fans
1 Like
Still, you surely gonna get balanced and interesting match in many ways, plus learn new maps that you doesn’t play before… or just leave the match
I’m on the fence right now when it comes to these changes.
“In the updated Enlisted, we’ll move away from linear progression to a research tree format. You’ll be able to choose which weapon or vehicle you want to unlock first — or skip entire branches if you simply don’t need any of them!”
This I don’t mind so much as it is not much different than what we have now.
“Many commanders will discover new theaters of war which they may have previously avoided, due to the prospect of long development from scratch.”
I’m torn on this. I see what they are trying to do, and it’s a positive thing. But, I am a person who plays Normandy almost exclusively. Simply because I like playing either US or Nazi troops. Period. I also have little interest in the Pacific campaign. So, will I be able to bring my US troops into any campaign? With the weapons I have leveled up all this time? If yes, then I’m okay with this. If not, I may not continue playing.
“Rating based Match Making”
I have been playing FPS games for over 20 years. And I have yet to see a successful rating system. To be very honest, I prefer being under geared and going against better geared players and working my way to the better gear. It may be frustrating at times, but you WILL be a better player because of it. I promise you that. It forces you to think, learn, and grow.
Historical Accuracy
I totally agree that historical accuracy needs to remain. But, after playing FPS games for many, many years I also know from a developer stand point it’s not always feasible. To be honest, as long as they remain as accurate as they can, I would be happy with that.
I truly hope the changes are for the best. Enlisted is the only FPS game I am interested in. I love WW2 shooters and I love the base set up of the game. So here’s hoping!
1 Like
Major the problem with a ranked and a standard queue is that you double the amounts of main queues from 12 to 24.
The original idea:
4 queues - 3 servers (and then possibly at least 3 “soft queues” based on BR).
So initially all queuing players are divided in to 36 queues (12 main coloums of which every coloumn contains at least 3 soft ones).
With your proposal it would be 72. Not doable.
Summary
From what I understand there are 4 queues and three different matchups:
- US (+Commonwealth) vs GER (+ITA) - > Battles take place in maps of Tunisia and Normandy
- USSR vs GER - > Battles take place in maps of Moscow, Stalingrad and Berlin
- US vs JPN - > Battles take place in maps of the Pacific.
If you queue as US you will etiher fight GER (+ITA) or JPN and be sent to maps of Tunisia/Normandy or The Pacific
If you queue as USSR you will only fight GER in maps of Moscow, Stalingrad or Berlin.
If you queue as GER you will fight US or USSR in maps of Tunisia, Pacific, Normandy, Moscow, Stalingrad or Berlin.
If you queue as JPN you only fight US and only be sent to the Pacific maps.
This is correct. Vonuh’s idea is the “historical accuracy” side, the proposed DF solution is the “simplicity” side.
Both valid, but both also have problems.
2 Likes
So you can use the same 6 dudes in a squad to time travel to various fronts? For example Karl, Hans, Gustav, Gunnar, Klaus and Johannes can go to Moscow, Stalingrad, Berlin. Tunisia and France??
Okay… that’s still the same thing though.
It’s still pairing a map with certain equipment.
If you’re given Normandy, and you’re given the Allies, you’re going to be restricted to your loadout that has the top-tier equipment, no? Thus, restricting what you can do again.
And if it allows you to pick all your lower loadouts, why? What would be the difference in playing Normandy Allies with bad equipment, and Tunisia Allies with bad equipment? The only thing that changes is the map… the exact same ‘only’ thing that Keofox claims changes under his plans…
1 Like
if they plan to reduce squads then i think yes
Okay, but if the only variable you care about is match making efficiency, then why not just drop all the sides and throw you into any random match? But you dont.
Because you probably care about some other things than match making efficiency?
If people play less, does that impact match making efficiency?
Even restricting the current proposal slightly, should still end up with match making that is better than currently. So either way the argument is a strange one because you can still always manipulate the match making rate the same way you do it currently, add bots (which have not been so far i noted been slated for removal).
1 Like
Yes, because it’s a germ faction who is presented in every single campaign except Pacific.
1 Like
You don’t have to use top tier gear in Normandy? You can use only M1 Garand if you want? If you want to spam PPSH in Moscow you still can? If you want to use MP3008 in Berlin you still can? Berlin matches won’t only be high level gear, and Moscow only bolts.
1 Like
Jesus, what about uniforms? Can germans with winter uniforms go to Normandy and soviets with winter uniforms go to Berlin??
Only reasonable solution/middle ground I’ve seen is having 2 queues. 1 normal queue and 1 historical queue. But depending on how many players are left and how many historical fans there are, this could harm the MM process.
Plus, if they ever add a ranked queue like Maj. McDonald proposed, there would have to be 2 ranked queues, making it 4 queues.
It’s just a sticky situation that Darkflow has to figure out.
I honestly think they are going the correct route. Historical accuracy is nice in a WW2 game, but at the end of the day, it’s just that. A game. They need to do what is best for the game itself, not worrying about history
No, they already said that
Well, because if you throws japs+usa vs usa+ussr on berlin it would be looked cool but you will be confused a lot, that’s why place for this is on some custom battles.
Then how the hell will customization work, lol??
What will happen to the british and italians in our squads?
1 Like
You customize for each campaign and the game automatically loads the customization that goes with the map you got
1 Like