as explained its quite obvious that such topic draws mostly people to discuss about the changes they dont like.
Well, so far I havent exactly seen any prove of historical accurated ppl being majority of this game either.
Other than few topics that hardly resembles even fraction of entire playerbase.
People who choose to play with low gear will be stuck with worse teammates. Compared to how it works now where they have them set to campaigns.
My main point is that this is basically skill based matchmaking, but with equipment.
But your gun level dont match your skill, for example almost all german player in normandy have endgame gun but them are noobs they farmed bot 24H 7D at week they dont know fight a battle, and because the game end see them as veteran because rank and gun they end in almost all matches with other noob like them aganaist veteran player with endgame gun and now they cant even switch campaign for avoid get stomped each time
Instead
Add a separation between high and low equipment grade let them switch to weaker gun for find better battle for them
Maybe. I play with meta gear and I m trash.
Lol
But, always teamates, never enemies.
And i think it isn’t only equipment that will be based on mm. As far as I can understand. But we need more details. Let’s wait…
I don’t remember you being too bad the last time we played. I think that was during the Stalingrad event or the Berlin event? Regardless was a long time ago. I hope things improve or look brighter in this second devblog. If it doesn’t prepare to have to try a lot harder to get wins, lol
But what is the likeliness that someone that sucks at the game but has lots of high power gear is going to swap it back out for low power gear just to maybe find more relaxed matches?
as explained its quite obvious that such topic draws mostly people to discuss about the changes they dont like.
That’s a hypothesis which might be true. However it might also be that the changes are more controversial than they seem - after all the marketing i have seen was based around historical accuracy or authenticity, which was no small part in getting me in.
Well, so far I havent exactly seen any prove of historical accurated ppl being majority of this game either.
Other than few topics that hardly resembles even fraction of entire playerbase.
That’s fair. I was just replying that nobody participating in the discussion has provided proof of the contrary either. So just saying “we’re the majority” might not be true either.
Fuck, unless the devs have extensively surveyed the player population in a representative manner, even they might not know for sure either. Esp. Since “historically authentic or accurate enough” is anyway highly subjective and context dependent.
High, because people like relaxed battle is a fact that the actual unbalance between faction in the campaign show it, people stick with the winning faction because they want relaxed battle
Maybe this one is enough.
These changes sound fine but I disagree with your matchmaking premise. Do not judge relative strengths of players by their weapons but whether or not they regularly build rally points.
No doubt false marketing sucks regarding historical accuracy. But EULA grants them right to turn this into farmville mariokart if they wish.
What comes to authenticity, I never had that experience in this game just because of AI.
Quite sure none of the forum users have numbers to either way. Keo? In some previous post said the historical accuracy group is the minority but not forgotten.
And after all, I guess majority or very least many can agree upon that some DF decisions now and in the past has been absolute shit.
But regardless what a punch of wieners DF as company is, quite sure they wouldnt shoot themselfs in the leg and doing these changes if the historically accurated group was massive majority among playerbase.
Not proof. Have you ever done change comms to a large group of people? The last thing you want to do is to make it look like the majority oppose your idea, because doing so would just embolden anyone who opposes it to be difficult.
The devs have sadly an incentive to lie or misrepresent and to downplay the size of the people who care about this.
Anyway, you can of course choose to believe them.
Somehow still more proof than the other way around.
But OK…
Well, while being WT player i know how gaijin handles things.
They always chosse the worst option.
They try to convince you it is good. Then they pretend for some reason they want your feedback. They ignore it, they read only posts from their trolls/bots.
Then they implement the worst option anyway.
So this is my idea what is the REAL reason (or one of real reasons) for messing with campaigns they are going to implement:
Modern warfare event. That’s it.
They saw how popular it was, a lot of my friends who didn’t even like WT at all or Enlisted, played this event and they really liked it.
So if they just make a modern warfare campaign, all players (or vast majority of them) will play solely this campaign. Which is fine from the point view: hey, they still play this game, right?
They’ll like it, they’ll play it, so… This is why you have to rip them off HARD before it happens!!! 
Make them pay for that semi realistic bloomy models with random damage physics (Hello WT!) or make them SUFFER!.. khm.khm… GRIND eternally!
I guess they are pretty sure that all those players who liked modern warfare event will definitely grind to modern stuff through all those WW1 bolt action rifles.
No gaijin, they won’t. As well as they wont do the same in WT. A lot of people interested even in that boring and empty stuffed hight tier WT battles. Same will be here. People will not grind, people will leave. And that is good 
Yea, but there won’t be an update for us for like another year if taking into account how long it takes to fix certain things like the bipod/mounting system
But Shiv, that’s not entierly true:
From last news post:
Meanwhile, new campaigns will keep appearing in Enlisted.
They still use the term
If this kind of thinking makes ppl feel better, sure …
But you know there are links between maps and historical places.
Not only obvious ones like Berlin and Stalingrad but even maps in Moscow.
This location we have created is inspired by the building of the real Chernyshevs’ estate in the village of Yaropolets.
PPL knows that, so why imagine anything else? To make things feel better?
Off the top of my head, some feedback for the development team on the issues at hand. @1942786 @James_Grove please take notes. I hope my recommendations as a “whale”, die-hard player, and Chief of Growth by trade would help your genuine efforts to improve the game there.
Reimagine your Feedback System
Or feedback on your feedback system. I have been playing this game for a long time, and I can’t recall when I got an e-mail or any other survey form requesting feedback on the game. This is not good. Player input and feedback are super important, not just because they will help you to improve the game in accordance with what your player base want from it, especially those who pay to/as they play and at the end of the day the ones who can sustain the game. But it is a great way to make your company more friendly and appease angry customers before their frustrations get out of hand (i.e. Quadro’s boycott incident -could have been avoided if that gap between the community and the development team had not been so large). You do it, finally, now -but you could streamline it even more.
Recommendations:
a) Before pushing any major upgrades, now and forever, request feedback from your player base. Segment your players properly into different groups and subgroups (e.g. monetization: non-paying, paying, whales), (experienced vs inexperienced etc)
b) Create surveys and feedback forms that correlate with what you want feedback on. It is important to touch on as many topics as possible.
c) Release Feedback forms IN-GAME. I cannot stress enough how important is to do it inside the game, and not just by way of email or through your forum. You need the results to be statistically significant and touch even the iciest fringes of your player-base. Make it EASY for them to input by reducing the necessary steps to almost zero.
2. Matchmaking - Progression System
Stricto sensu, Enlisted is not a pay-to-win game. I would better classify it as a pay-to-progress faster game. Premium squads can either be worse than late-level squads or in some cases may offer a tiny, just tiny advantage (which can be neutralized by skill). This is super hard to nail because most f2p games are pay to win in essence. And it is one of the many things Enlisted got right. That said, late-level guns and vehicles make a huge difference. And thus the game is not merely “skill-based” either. In that light, makes sense to base a matchmaking system on weapons instead of “skill”. It also creates some kind of “variance” in that not every single effing game has to feel like a pyrrhic victory. I love competition (which is why I hate playing with bots). But it is also true sometimes, most players, want to relax. It is ok sometimes to find a not-so-competitive human opponent and, well, kick his posterior off.
Also, many people claim the grinding will be as much if not more. Not true. Even if it takes an age to level up a weapon. At least we’d be able to choose what we want to grind. Something we’d actually make use of. We’d have control. It is also great for gameplay variety. Because we would be able to access many more campaigns or maps as different factions just because we would have grinded the weapons already.
Recommendations:
a) Right now, we cannot play against friends (minus custom games). Sure, we can try our luck to “sync”, but with the current system it gets random and the whole process is not intuitive. Please ensure we would be able to play against our friends if needed (and they have the same high-tier weapons). This would create less unbalanced games, as players would spread out across more evenly than stuffing one side (btw, you can add this option even with the current matchmaking system).
3. Campaign consolidation - Historical Accuracy
This is tricky. Many pros and cons. Personally speaking, even if I fancy historicity in games, I don’t approach them as simulators. Having fun and subtly changing the direction of history or reality is more important than being able to witness a recreated event. I don’t say I like it that the proposed changes come with that cost, but the pros far outweigh the cons. People who bitch about leaving the game because of that, are significantly less than people who leave and will leave the game because they play against… bots. If you can find something game-design-wise to keep both groups happy -awesome. Otherwise, IMO you have to go with the gameplay group (unless your in-game surveys show you otherwise, which would be a pity -*make sure you phrase the question right “if you had to choose between a historically accurate match vs braindead bots, and a partially historical accurate game vs competitive human players, what would you rather do?” That’s the stake, and they should know). That said, I am going to miss the ability to choose which campaign to play in. But ok
Recommendations:
Minor nations matter. Gameplay-wise, Marketing-wise, Sales-wise. And when I say minor nations, I don’t mean “GB”. I mean all these nations like Finland, Greece, Poland, New Zealand, CZ Republic etc. There are tons of these that can diversify and enrich the game itself and bring new people in. You don’t necessarily need a campaign in these countries, where applicable. But at the very least please consider creating “factions” (premium or not) to play as some of these countries (which can use the same equipment as the major factions in order to not split the player base-as I said, historicity is not everything). You could use unique battle cries and commands in their native languages, unique insignia, and flags, names, etc. → . Oh, Now that I raised flags. Can we have PLEASE some flag system in place during capturing and defending? I will not mention the name of the competitor. But it is just SO cool when capturing the objective, to see your flag waving… (imagine if, for instance, a future Greek Faction in Tunisia captures the point first compared to, say, a British one. And you would be able to see the Hellenic flag waving in the objective. This would add some cool competition between players of the same team) .
Overall, I am very happy with the announced changes. There are some concerns, and hopefully, other players would propose cool ideas to balance things out or work some bottlenecks around. But, personally speaking, I see the game moving in the right direction. AI (which needs a MAJOR rework), few squad options (we need more tactical commands that make sense! Come on, it is a squad-based game and we hardly have any commands at all), and playing against bots are my gripes.
Uhm, well if we use “topics” as some sort of measurement.
Theres
20 results for historical accuracy in:title
50+ results for matchmake in:title
True like “new normandy map”
Like I proposed, just rename to generic names kinda like wt does would go a long way.
But EULA grants them right to turn this into farmville mariokart if they wish.
That’s for sure.
In some previous post said the historical accuracy group is the minority but not forgotten.
And imo they have an incentive to not be truthful if this was not the case, and in any case to downplay the size of this group. And said, i have my doubts on whether this can ever be accurately measured even by them.
And after all, I guess majority or very least many can agree upon that some DF decisions now and in the past has been absolute shit.
But regardless what a punch of wieners DF as company is, quite sure they wouldnt shoot themselfs in the leg and doing these changes if the historically accurated group was massive majority among playerbase.
You’d be surprised by the wacky shit companies do. 
but of course they don’t have that incentive. It might just be hard for them to actually scope out the real size of the problem.
