@1942786 , @James_Grove
Some big improvments of customs needs to be done after these big changes that are coming.
Custom battles will be a key to keep all players happy.
Can we expect some kind of love from your side to custom matches after the update?
Today ppl tend to think about custom battles as chaos, inhistorical hodgepodges and all kind of mods.
My suggestion:
You guys need to make some constantly pinned lobbies (with some authority) that resembles of todays campaigns. These lobbies (actually more like servers) will be made by DF and would works excatly as todays campaigns.
It was partially addressed in the blogpost, there will be improvements.
we will keep the Custom Matches mode with the ability to create battles with unique settings and even expand its functionality by selecting specific campaigns and the list of allowed weapons (as you requested) About the new progression and matchmaking - News - Enlisted
Can’t say anything here but thanks for idea, rn there is already planned improvements to restrict some weaponry and campaigns to create a fully historical experience for some players.
Can you not see all sides will just become blurred, Mg42 on Moscow, KT Moscow, IS2 will be all you see, Berlin meta for axis…
I hope I get full compensation for all my premium vehicles I will no longer be using too, because there will be Berlin equipment choices which are faster, better more powerful…
Really surprises me, if you need to spend more time on algorithms for matchmaking then do it please, unless you want to give us players full gold / monetary compensation for our newly redundant squads.
Restrictions on certain vehicles would maintain your customer player base wishes and also preserve some historical accuracy, all logic needs to do is say:
Player has Tiger allow in Berlin, Normandy
Player has F2 allow Tunisia, Stalingrad, Moscow
KT can only be in Berlin, Normandy(?)
I’m so surprised that you can see what people are going to do with these changes…
The main thing for me is time of day, if I play Europe cross play in AM now, Tunisia has some very tough fights against high level, if I play Tunisia evenings it is a ghost town if Europe. We are going to have no choice.
Maybe my bank balance will be better off after these changes as I won’t be forking out money any longer.
Diversity is good, immersion breaking isn’t. Why not make soviets vs americans and germans vs japanese why you’re at it too then, since the game it going to be a generic WW2 Call of Duty inspired shooter soon?
There must be some kind of separated levels no? Year, Tier, Length of the Barrel, How many bullets it holds, it’s all some arbitrary thing done to give each weapon a status and position in the hierarchy. If you’re not separating the weapons how will you identify which ones should be allowed in to each campaign or not?
Weapons are already seperated. You do not have access to IS2 in Moscow. Once you unlock IS2 you just won’t be able to place it in all of your loadouts, only in the loadouts of the campaigns(map sets) that allow for it.
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 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?
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 MarshalGünther 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…
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?
how one would track the gear to what campaign? .