random matchmaking is the only future for this game, the ability for players to stack one side is killing the game. Where is the fun when you just automatic win because you picked the stacked side, where is the fun when you have zero chance of winning playing the other side. When a brand new player in Normandy Allies have to face full team of stg44, fg42, and tiger game after game, how long does that new player stick around?
6 Likes
I think this is the way to go, with a small caveat.
I think it’s fair that if , in the future, players won’t get the chance to choose which campaign to play, let them have their best equipment for late war battles from other campaigns they have already maxed out.
With the new matchmaking a Moscow/Tunisia veteran who has never played Berlin/Normandy will experience extreme disadvantage fighting against players with late war weapons. So lets give the possibility to bring the best Moscow/Tunisia unlocked equipment to Berlin but not vice versa.
A new player in Berlin will be given automatically entry-level vehicles like Pz4 or T34-85 so the chance of seeing a T60 or Pz2 in Berlin should be non-existant.
2 Likes
Why don’t you use a preference system where you can select a campaigns set of maps and say “if there are multilple games starting, put me in the game that has my selected campaigns maps if possible”. That way I don’t have to play on shitty maps I don’t like if there are other games going like you said there will be with the combined playerbase. Or even just add preferences for maps or let us add an option to not play on a map before we queue? I say this because if I get a shitty map I will likely just leave instead of get stomped, there are too many unbalanced maps in the game and now that the possibility of getting one of them is higher because I assume the servers will try to rotate map selection instead of putting every game on the same few maps, it just might kill the game for me to be honest. I dont want to be forced to play on maps I dont like and Ive never had an issue queuing for a match on any of the campaigns so Im not sure why this kind of system is needed unless the game is dying.
TLDR: Highly suggest adding preferences to map selection like selecting a campaigns set of maps or even specific maps or adding preferences against maps when queuing if there are possible games starting with those maps because I will just leave the game if I get placed on a one sided stompfest of a map or map Im not equipped for at all.
So does this mean there will be Tigers in Tunisia or P-38s in the Pacific, because this overhaul does allow the opportunity to add a lot content where it should/will be
Sure plenty of early war gear was still being used in the late war.
1 Like
Here’s what’s gonna happen with this new matchmaking
If the the highest gear used is what determines the BR matchmaking, then players are gonna spam lets say FG42 for example. They have no need to pick anything higher than that or anything less than that. Also the devs are gonna do this off of 1 star 2 star 3 star? That’s not gonna balance anything.
So essentially you need to maximize your BR level or get wrecked.
This is becoming WT and I hate that.
5 Likes
Exactly, now imagine if they introduce early campaigns like the Battle of France (1940). What’s the point of using older weapons when you have already stg44s and Tigers ? There’s no sense and no incentive to use older weapons, plus the unique flair for each campaign goes out of the window.
4 Likes
Exactly there is no incentive anymore to use low level gear. Before it wasn’t actually required to upgrade anything, but now if you decide to diversify your army you suffer because you bring a single stg44 and now you’ll be facing EVERYONE who spams everything high level.
3 Likes
The real suffering doesn’t even come from the guns really. You could have the best guns but be a horrible aimer and get rekt by a vet using nothing but bolts.
The real suffering comes into play with vehicles. Some vehicles are just not capable of dealing with other vehicles. .
3 Likes
I’m fairly new to Enlisted and I absolutely HATE the idea of a “required” algorithm deciding where I play. Here’s why:
-
MAPS: Sometimes I’m in the mood to play a small, fast map; other times I’d rather play a larger, slower map. The current campaign selection model somewhat allows me to choose my options. But not really. I’d much rather have the option to choose a specific map within each campaign. Most games that I’ve played allow me to do this. Why not just let people choose where they want to play? List each map under each campaign and let people join wherever they choose to play. Make the matchmaking changes that you wish to implement as an “option” for people who don’t care or just want to get into a game quickly.
-
BATTLE PASS DAILY CHALLENGES: As an example, there’s a challenge that requires me to kill 30 people with an SMG. Most of my SMG’s are in Normandy. So I usually go there to complete the challenge. If I can’t choose which campaign to play in, it’s going to take forever to complete this challenge with a random map with the new matchmaking system you propose.
-
SPECIFIC WEAPONS: Sometimes I just want to play specific weapons (say a new gold weapon from the Battle Pass); this one specific weapon is located within a specific campaign. If I can’t choose the campaign, then once again… I’m forced to do something I don’t want to do: Join a random map and get whatever I get in the new “required” matchmaking system.
-
OPTIONS: In my opinion, it’s never a good thing whenever you take options away from players. Let people play where they want to play. If I’m constantly forced onto maps I don’t want to play, then I simply won’t play. The current system is already frustrating enough. There are plenty of other games that I can play if this one becomes too dictatorial. Given the option, players will congregate onto specific maps where other people are already playing—or want to play. Thus your"divided" player base problem will correct itself with the option to choose specific maps. If it doesn’t, then you have a different problem you haven’t identified.
IMPORTANT NOTE: I’m not sure if you’re aware of this or not—especially since you’re completely familiar with the forum—but, as a new player I find the forum confusing and completely disorganized. I learned about this post on Youtube when Quadro posted a video about it. When I tried to find this post in the forum it took a frustrating amount of time to do so. Here are some suggestions:
A… There should be a search function in the forum to quickly find posts by subject, by author, by date, or by key word. Scrolling through the forum to find something is extremely frustrating and time consuming.
B. There needs to be more categories for topics. There definitely should be a section where only developers can post a message. Break that section down listing each developer. Now I can quickly find a post such as this.
C. Also, for all posts in the forum, there should be a column showing the specific author of the post with a specific and date and time, not 1 hour ago or seven days ago. Then people can search for a specific person or date for a specific post. It shouldn’t take 20 minutes to find something in the forum.
Sorry for the rant… But I’m about to stop using the forum for these reasons. These are simple implementations that would make the forum much more functional and enjoyable.
And I just realized that both the game (the maps) & the forum simply need to be better organized to increase player enjoyment (and decrease frustration). That’s the biggest problem I see with the game right now.
Thanks for your time!
BB
ps I do like the new tech tree idea regarding progression in the game. I think it’s a big improvement over the current system. Why? Because it gives players more options, as I’ve listed in the suggestions above.
4 Likes
But do you know all games, or even public service suffers in off-peak hours? And your game already get >20k DAU meaning in peak time, >2k active player online during peak time, and mostly in one region. You can’t let players dont sleep and work to play during off-peak hours.
Isnt current peak time playerbase not enough for 6 and more campaign?
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/enlisted/i/1Fq9YaEFru04
EU server overload to 765% in peak time.
Just filled less populous campaigns with more bots, like what you used to.
Even subways give up on off-peak hours service. 30 trains per hour vs 6 trains per hour. 5x difference. Still overcrowding during peak hours, empty trains in off-peak hours.
And with BR, you still get unbalanced BR in off-peak hours, not matching, or even completely unbalanced faction playerbase.
In extreme conditions, newer matchmaking can get you even worse equipment difference. What about off peak hour in NA server (which is really empty), Tiger II vs M13 ? At least for now, we have campaign partition to prevent this.
For example, in moscow evening time, soviet factions no matter what, newer or older game matchmaking system, will always have more players than german, thus unbalanced match.
I never ask you to do a completely e-sport style balancing system. But you failed at providing basic even player count for both side.
12vs10. (even if latter one filled with possible ai squads.)
But by introducing BR system. You completely GIVE UP on historical balance. Completely shifting towards e-sport. Am I correct?
Also, dont you think BR will split player base even harder?
And most importantly,
Is it hard to calculating based on player performance?
You’ve already done that
Some match filled with marshals, while other filled with beginners.
So, what if I’m suck at the game, in current matches, I still get only marginal “PRO” players per match. But in newer system, my unlocked better equipments are useless, because they will lead to a certain death for higher RB? Because better equipment guarantees lots more “pro” players. To stay away from those who bother to use mines on enemy rallypoints, endless white phosphorus grenade spamming. Literally only play using any possible advantage in game.
Also the reason why I hate e-sport. Is because it’s no longer game for recreational purpose at all. Like WT. You dont get fun at all. All kinds of disgusting grinding and “balance” that only bring much more boring to gameplay. After playing a whole match, you can even lost in-game money.
A good historical aspect game, should use IMMERSIVENESS not kills and get killed for fun. (Which, I think you have gave up on.)
4 Likes
Ok finally somebody close to the mark here
So stacking is not new, was very prevalent, during Tunisia being released
But then you go and introduce rankings, to make matters worse.
So no Gold high ranking player wants to play on a green team, so they abandon, and just restart another game, as there is not penalty for just leaving.
also the case when you have 8-10 Gold high tier one side, and you get 2-3 on other side, they see they out numbered and leave, as there’s more gold on other team, and don’t wish to loose, or use excuses i don’t want to play sweaty game.
or i payed to have fun, i can leave a game as it wont be fun.
or stacking due to only playing one side of the campaign.
What about a penalty for abandoning matches,
ie like at the moment, what is it? 1 point of ranking, when you loose /abandon
how about making it, if they in a game, and they abandon,
it should be like 5 points off there ranking, maybe this would encourage them to stay and try and play for the win, more incentive to play for a loss of 1 point, than leave for a loss of 5 points, wont be popular, then again nothing is.
What about removing the option to not join any team, or have it permanently set to join any team, as you play, ofc, would need a way to not always be thrown on to same team allies or just axis game after game.
Wouldn’t just making all play join any team, sort of solve the so called MM issue, everything stay same, and hysterical/historical 
peeps be happy, all be happy, as nothing would change, no loss of anything???
And considering, XP coupons/vouchers are auto applied now, why is customs still nerfed?, should def give customs back its XP.
PS, give f2p another slot or two, so they can have tank/plane, and four squads?
I don’t need them as i pay, but if i was to play just f2p, it would be nice to have a tank and plane slot instead of either just a tank or plane, and at least 4 inf slots, so one can spade them, as 500 points into game, you have your 4th inf, but still lvling the other 3
A SEA Server, please, playing with over 200+ ping to closest server is annoying, is very hard to mass kill with 200+ ping
And then being told that engineers are useless in the game/waste of time, and that one should go play Minecraft, if we want to build stuff,
because all that counts is kills, and running around like Rambo on steroids, just zerg rush,
If this is DF/Gaijins view, on the game???, please remove engineers, and refund all my money i put into game.
1 Like
I like new system grind but MM is need to work in it a lot. this is my suggestion about system for MM and adjust you squad in game with this kind of idea of grinding tree.
-
You need to rating you weaponry(vehicle and weapon) and because of this is most likely more rating mean more powerful and also more late war weapon. So MM system will match with same rating together. And rating system will easy for balance weapon power like improve their stat or fix their rating.
-
In “adjust you squad” menu you need to have filtering about your weaponry with 2 thing rating and campaign. Yes campaign can still exist but from pick directly like now it picks by weaponry rating that like more rating point more late war campaign to be match (and please tell us what year you gonna make that campaign to place is better to less confuse and balance game). Also early war weaponry can go thought most campaign mean you need these 2 filtering anyway to make less confuse and easy to adjust what campaign (map) that this squad are gonna meet.
-
For faction that will mean nation in future you need to give player a “loadout slot” that setting a bunch of squad combined and leading to calculate for MM system and give player like 3 slot at least to make like early/mid/late war setup and for premium player they will get more. These slot of loadout will give player easy to adjust squad and easy to begin battle.
-
And before beginning the battle you need to have UI or notification that show what campaign that you can/will participate. This system needs for make it clearly about match that player will meet.
-
I suggest you must implement this kind of idea after or with open beta with Ads for increase Player base. Cause Player base is the most reason to prove that kind of idea is work or not.
-
Premium squad need to fix every weapon now to set their rating(era) properly and every mean primary secondary and side-arm. And this is thing that I wish for premium squad, cause you lest focus on historically correct you can collab some stuff like “Fury squad” or “Saving private Ryan squad” to add more verity stuff to the game these unique didn’t feel likely force player to buy because their OP but buy because is unique is not make game lose balance and also lower the price please. Cause even their OP if price is high lest people are not gonna buy it anyway.
this is all my suggestion about MM for new grind system.
ps. for the fun part if more player base are rise in the future add “all random” that truly random campaign for loadout this will be fun like tiger 2 in pacific is will be fun. Is not historically but is have more variety to the game.
Also if player base is rise you a lot you must considering about player base skill after rating MM this will helping a lot about balance player.
It’s only benefiting you and those arcade players. Not those OG players who come because this is not with WT BS eco system. And delivering a reasonable balance between historical feeling and playability.
If I want pure historical aspect. HLL/PS/ARMA with mods are all better than you.
If I want pure arcade, why not go play BF CoD instead? They are much cheaper than Enlisted.
There’s a huge market that want game with some historical aspect, but also playability. RO2 is already 12 years old. But is still a classic.
RB (merging+RB ranking) is not the main problem. The problem is, Enlisted’s trend of ignoring history aspect, and switching to e-sport.
You know how PUBG BF’s esport failure right? Because it’s deviate from OG playerbase.
Let alone the infamous War Thunder eco system. It’s no longer a game anymore. It’s an extractor for DAU for statistic, from players.
Paid to work for game.
And with RB, you still do not fixed the nearly impossible grinding tech tree for new players.
Actually making it looks even longer. Also blocked the possible way to play for cold war equipment at begin. What if player dont interested in WW2? There’s a bunch of people only do cold war reenactment.
You have tried to “merge” them already.
Weapon transfer system. What I want is, with minor cost, take weapons everywhere, thus simplified campaign barrier. But you, again, be so greedy that make it useless to break the campaign barrier.
4 Likes
Actually, the new system is only grinding friendly at first.
No more repeated grinding for same weapon. And enable branch system (but it can be added up to existing campaign system).
What you get:
A WT style, infamous, infinite, no way to skip to play the period/campaign which you want to techtree.
You still failed to address new players despair towards hundreds of hours grinding and equipment difference between veterans.
What veterans shows to new players, new players can never get them within reasonable time and money.
Like, I want to share this game to my friends. But as long as I show them the price:
40USD per level.
The XP requirement:
Millions of XP, which you only typically get 1k per minute.
What I want is:
If players are willing to PAY MONEY. At a REASONABLE price. Can get a pre-set of mid-low, mid, mid-high tech tree unlocks pack. Or Stalingrad, paid to get a reasonable grinding speed.
Those F2Pers are literally letting paid players to pay to grind with them. Is it fair???
Why I still have to grind with you if I already spend a reasonable amount of money?
You already get a much better treatment than those trial version software.
With a reasonable amount of money spend, you should be able to stop grinding and enjoy the game. Try the things you’ve get.
If keep grinding, of course only the strongest weapons will be used. Because you are in desire of XP!
I’m now having time to try snipers, mortars, fighter planes, all kinds of things I dont want to use before. Because I dont need to grind at all!
4 Likes
It’s even worse than you think. There is no incentive for players…
to use BETTER gear, thus to grind.
Before the new system, players usually grind better stuff because… they are better. they’re supposed to give an edge, they are worth it, they’re rewarding to use. You know, the same thing as all similar fps.
After the new implementation, considering the fact that everything you face will mirror exactly your best equipment piece’ BR, there just won’t be any necessity to grind or get “better” things… since they just won’t be better than older stuff to win.
I maintain this equipment br mm isn’t the solution. But that won’t matter anyway.
7 Likes
Seems like an overall positive change. My concerns are, what if you play high tier German (FG42, Tiger 1, Panther) but want to play Normandy/fight America instead of USSR. Also what if you wanted to enjoy the Fedorov with the T50 and T34(1940/1941) or the AVT-40/PPSH41 in Stalingrad with KV-1/T34STZ against PZ IVs, are the high tier weapons just going to shove you in Berlin with with Panthers and Tigers? The air support is also pretty tame in these campaigns compared to others giving a funner experience.
Saw a screenshot that said high tier weapons/tanks are going to be more in late war maps like they already are. A King Tiger in Moscow would be unlikely and only occur if there weren’t enough high tier players searching for a match at the same time.
Ok let’s put this into perspective, purely looking at one of the countries - axis
Why against: one new combined super meta
The games will be all about highest level stuff wins, anything low level will be pointless now.
New axis meta:
Axis squads will no longer be varied, they will all have Engineers from Stalingrad FG42 from Berlin, Offenrohs from Normandy, MG45s, King Tiger from Berlin or TigerEs from Berlin, Jagdpanther from Berlin, ju188 from Normandy or Fw190 D from berlin, Bf109G10 premium.
Why against: Makes my premiums pointless
It won’t matter what campaign / map you play on, it totally negates the use of my various premium squads, I won’t use them because the other bought premiums and the above line up is all I need.
I recently bought P40, 2002 in Tunisia, where will they go? When will I use them? (Currently I can chose I fancy a Tunisia flight in my Hurricaine MkIV and p40)
Why against: Every game will be against try hards and sides will never get balanced as I won’t be able to help weaker side.
I played this game daily because it was fun, I don’t want to sweat in every match just because I’m end game and I used to go to the losing side and try and help balance out with one of my premiums, ie M3 on Moscow, or Stug III
Why cant you invest more time with certain restrictions on MM, if at very least matchmaking logic is split into Early, mid and late war Time periods it would stop this blurring and there would be 3 meta axis squads not just one.
Why against: Not properly Alpha tested
Something needs to be done, but making decisions without proper user testing? I thought there was a call for Alpha testers and then we hear nothing? Alpha test proposed changes, there are plenty of end game players here.
Why: My choice is being taken away and will never meet new players again
I play this game for the freedom, when soloing I help out, I fly and practice bombing, I go on certain campaigns Allied Normandy, Berlin Axis, Pacific Allies to help out, even meet new players offer them guidance and invite into our clan, won’t have that opportunity any more and will be likely put against same players over and over again.
Why: You will lose an income source when the players like me leave
I have spent well over 2k GBP since CBT on this game, I have / had a monthly premium budget to buy the new stuff that is released especially, I had no hesitation as this game was going in the right direction and I loved it’s historical battles
I guess we will have to see, bottom line Alpha test this before rolling out another game breaking change please
5 Likes