But why would you spawn a high BR lobby into a Moscow map anyway?
If the game tries to create a King Tiger lobby with comparable enemy vehicles, it should be something like IS or 76 mm Sherman, right? So just auto-select a Berlin/Normandy map.
What is a King Tiger supposed to fight in Moscow, if there are not enough players for comparable BR? T-50 and T-34/76 neither of which can even scratch it?
Seriously, if the main goal of this overhaul is uniting the playerbase – sure, put all German players into pool A and all Soviet players into pool B, but simply don’t allow spawnig ahistorical weapons and vehicles for certain maps/periods.
Or is the main goal of this overhaul not just uniting the playerbase but “fUN and dIVerSiTY” as James put it (i.e. King Tigers in Moscow)?
What I really like about Enlisted: it gives an opportunity to play in unique and underrepresented historical cicrumstances.
Every other WW2 game (BF, COD, even HLL) just lets you use the best gear (STG, Tommy, PPSh, Tiger) and use it wherever and whenever.
While in Enlisted we actually have some really interesting scenarios, for example:
Desperate defense of Berlin where German forces are using crappy last ditch equipment like VG 2, MP 3008 and Pz IV J without electrical turret traverse because IRL it was too expensive – in the new system, why would anyone ever use any of this if they’ll have K98, MP-40 and Pz IV with power traverse.
By giving unrestricted access to all weapons and vehicles on all maps, Enlisted loses its charm and uniqueness.
I already quoted keo answer above, it will bring more restrictions to future MM(the more restrictions you add, harder it to code) and it’s will be same like campaigns again.
What you propose is mostly same campaign system that didn’t quite work. Plus in this case you still need to wait while this players is gonna gather up, so it’s more queue time(and plus different queues for it)
In making the campaign system, you developers made very distinct gameplay styles. Because they are so distinct, not everyone likes all of them. So forcing them to play the maps they don’t like, or forcing them to leave over and over to get a map they want will kill much of the playerbase. Plus, you developed with historical accuracy in mind. So by abandoning that, you’re killing even more of the playerbase. By going to research tree, you cut down on the grind but limit yourself like War Thunder in that you lock people out of your game who have an interest in playing possible future Cold War or Modern Times scenarios.
So what can you do?
DISTINCT TIME PERIOD GAMEPLAY - Early War is very Bolt Action centered. When early Moscow was like this, the game had a shitload of players. Late War on the other hand, is very hectic and characterized by the most advanced equipment of the war. Berlin has some die hard fans that like the janky last ditch weapons and the cool prototype shit. People like different things. LET THEM CHOOSE FOR THEMSELVES. Also, don’t worry about running out of content to grind. People are still playing the same maps on Red Orchestra, Post Scriptum, and Hell Let Loose even when new stuff occasionally pops up. If the game is good, people will continue to play it. Keep the gameplay experience consistent and the population will return. You may even wish to consider removing some of the higher tier weapons and moving them to later time periods as compensation for players but that’s another issue entirely.
VEHICLE SELECTION AND MAP LOCKED VEHICLES - Let vehicle squads select the vehicle in the match and change vehicles mid match. If this was the system you had, you could lock vehicles to certain maps. This way if say, you added maps where the Russians fight the Japanese at Khalkin Gol, you don’t have to worry about a T50 murdering the entire Japanese team for the whole match because it wouldn’t be available on maps with Japan. You’d have to take a T-26 or BT-7 instead. This satisfies possible balance issues and history autists.
PREMIUM SQUADS - Much like above, you could make Premium squads map locked as well to resolve any autistic history issues and keep the austistic history whales throwing money at the game. A benefit you could make is that the squad would always be a free squad slot on whatever map they were present.
NATION MIXING - You can be more proactive with the content you add in the future. Like adding maps where multiple different armies were present. So Italian players can fight alongside Germans in Russia. French and British players can fight alongside America in North Africa and Normandy. Romania and Hungary could fight alongside Germany in Russia and against each other in the late war. Things like that.
FICTIONAL BATTLES - In Red Orchestra 2, the most played map is probably Bridges of Druzhina which to my knowledge is not a real battle. But it plays good. People still play it right now even though the game is 99.9% dead. It’s ok to make shit up as long as it’s authentic and fun.
I had more in mind but it’s 12AM and I forgot lol.
And again it’s bring us to HUGE filters and waiting queues, and more harder to code MM(don’t forget everything you writing is a lot easier then code it)
All German playres are now in 1 pool instead of 5. All Soviet players are now in 1 pool instead of 3. => much more players to matchmake.
Why?
If I have a King Tiger and my opponent has IS-2, create a Berlin map, and if there are somehow no more players with “Berlin” gear, start adding “high level Stalingrad” players.
Isn’t this the same system that is proposed now, just without randomly creating King Tigers in Moscow map?
No, same queue for all Germans and all Soviets.
The only real issue here I see is with something like German and Soviet players queing up with Moscow-only gear.
Personally I will not tolerate any Tigers or even Pz IV F2s or MKBs if they again appear in Moscow maps and just leave the game => the game has lost a player who was ready to play, but only without time travelling.
Well, that’s why we told in devblog about custom battle, they will get feature to restrict campaigns and weapons to make fully historical battle experience.
Any solution that allows players to split queues based on weapons power levels or map preferences is not a solution, because it still creates split queues, which is the main problem that needs to be fixed.
Where was this poll at? I never took anything to present my stance on it. Even if they went through different platforms, they can’t read everyone’s minds in order to draw a conclusion of what is important in their heads. There area also players that do not voice their opinions on what they like and will or will not play the game without giving feedback.
That is no way indicative of what players WANT. Playing meta based off of necessity in completing other events/challenges they put forward, which are time-limited. This also doesn’t mean that people who do play meta (me at times) would oppose historical accuracy.
Also, after seeing so many people express their opinion because of this update, we might not be as much as a minority as previously thought. There are still more likes on the historical accuracy post compared to the actual announcement regarding the changes.
