Then can we choose which battle map to join? For example, I just want to join the map of Moscow. Are there any options to keep me from being thrown into Berlin?
1 Like
From what I’ve heard, no. they say it would make the matchmaking too complicated and or it would nullify the changes they want. I hope at least with this talk about custom matches we’ll get actual XP from it and we at least have something like a dedicated server option like how some old games have. (hopefully if enlisted get announced for steam)
Here are some positives, negatives and questions I have, they are in no particular order.
Update Positives:
Not having to re-research already unlocked weapons/classes
Having balance between notoriously unbalanced factions (Normandy allies VS Normandy Axis)
Greater variety from match to match (from fighting the Nazis in Normandy to battling the Japanese on Guadalcanal)
Giving the developers an easier way to add new equipment into a campaign, now they don’t have to make a whole new level and they can add equipment that isn’t top tier.
Giving the developers an easier way to add new nations and armies into the game.
Having the ability to skip equipment you wont use.
New players will no longer be destroyed by equipment that is hard for them to counter, possibly increasing player retention.
Update Questions:
How is equipment being rated? is a weapons rating solely based on when in the war it came out? if so, what will happen to late-war low-quality weapons like the MP 3008 or the Kriegsmodel? or is weapon rating based on how the developers judge its effectiveness to be? if so, that would be an even bigger blow to the loss of historical inaccuracy.
Will Vehicles now face vehicles of the same effectiveness i.e. no more Stewarts vs Tigers? (Very positive if true)
Will we have map filters? say if we really don’t like a map or a campaign will be able to choose not to fight on it?
Will the Italians have their own Army? (Very negative if not)
Update Negatives:
With all the weapons being divided by tier you will see less variety in the weapons of allies and enemies depending on what weapons you are playing with. (this could also be seen as a positive)
Sometimes I only like to fight in urban settings, in the present version of the game I can just choose the Berlin Campaign, but in the future I assume I wont be able to. (this is more a of a mild annoyance)
Vehicles being played on maps they weren’t designed for. for example the Ju 188 in Moscow where there is less cover.
The new historical inaccuracy will be a downside to the update, although I do understand why it is being forgone.
These are my notes as of now, I am sure I will have more as we are given further information, but, overall I am very excited for this update, and I am confident that it will be better for the game as a whole.
1 Like
they will eventually, but not at start.
yes. in most cases you will not see this scenario anymore. only way this will be possible in new MM if there are absolutely no players on server, you are waiting x amount of time in queue and they are only 2 players that can be matched in battle. now idk if it can be made to prioritize bot matches in those cases, but either way you will have stupid match.
1 Like
Ok, I’m not even a coder, but if you don’t want this division of opinions for and against.
Here is my proposed logic;
Keep campaigns from a loadouts perspective, but merge the actual campaigns into fronts…
Eastern, Western, African etc
So any new campaign falls under these categories, but MM will simply choose a front and campaign randomly, which technically can consist of multiple campaigns, within that front.
Africa:
Tunisia, El Alamein? Italian African campaign? +++
Western:
Bulge, Normandy, Berlin +++
Eastern:
Moscow, Stalingrad, Leningrad? ++++
Asia:
Pacific, Korea? Philipines?
Yes it still splits mm but but by only three not the X multiple you are staying we need to have if no changes,
Pros: it keeps historical accuracy as just fronts, keeps our own squad loadouts, combines multiple campaigns by fronts, keeps the majority of player base happy.premiums not affected as loadouts still matter.
As for other things:
How do you do the same weapon stuff is if it’s unlocked in a front, then that is now selectable simple
As for bonus for going on weaker team, give us a button, these campaigns
@James_Grove best I can do after hours, days of thinking 
1 Like
Fronts have been suggested multiple times already in this topic, it’s literally just renaming the campaigns to something else, but mechanically in the end it would still cause the same issues and wouldn’t solve the matchmaker split problem …
We can call campaigns as Fronts, or Years, or whatever, the underlying mechanic is still “divide the players into fixed number of queues”, while the proposed changes use a more flexible (tho wider) matchmaker that wouldn’t have that many fixed restrictions.
2 Likes
So I have been suggesting this idea of adding a “PLAY ANY FACTION/CAMPAIGN/MAP” matchmaking option for years:
So how about this? @1942786
As long as the goal of these changes is to bring playerbase, balance and diversity:
Let’s make a small sacrifice in the form of campaign/faction selection instead of the last bits of historical immersion!
Roadmap:
- All players are combined into 1 pool . “Play any” is the default play button and always creates 10x10 real players lobbies. Grind is simplified thorugh +~300% XP, MP-40 is unlocked just once and becomes available in every campaign. Balancing is based of the average team skill/level/gear/KD/XP-min, etc…
- If there are enough players → introduce the choice of Allies / Axis.
- If there are even more players (for example, upon launch on Steam) → introduce the choice of campaign as well (optional, without a booster to XP).
In my opinion this approach (while just a blueprint) is miles better than destroying Stalingrad with RPDs, ASs and King Tigers.
4 Likes
But its merging campaigns into less options - 3-4 not 8, it’s not just renaming campaigns. What is your proposal then?
If you don’t get a good match you get bots like now, we maintain our historical accuracy and the pools, although multiple are bigger to pick from!
Developers can compromise a little and see the benefits, this would be much more sustainable ongoing too.
1 Like
" * Will I be able to join a battle under Moscow on my Tiger?
Sometimes you will…"
I do appreciate the clarification here. I am hoping that in the future, be it due to increased player count or something else, that this can be temporary.
I’d like to see a system that locks out early maps with late equipment eventually, though if the MM can’t handle that right now I get it. I hope there is the chance for this down the road.
Otherwise, I am pretty happy. I am very much looking forward to using the Churchill in Tunisia, or the P-40 in the Pacific. To me those are the setting that come to mind first for that equipment.
I also appreciate that this system will account for player skill level in addition to weapon development level if feasible. No reason players should be matched randomly if there are enough players for a more fun match.
Overall, pretty happy. Just really hoping that down the road more and more steps can be taken to reduce late war equipment on early war maps. Though what I had in mind was more of a cap on certain maps. Maybe more maps or more players or something can make this viable later if it isn’t now, idk, but really hoping further mitigation of such things is a major consideration moving forward.
Because to me, the background is everything when it comes to having a nice, cinematic replay. Part of the reason I left War Thunder was because on the rare occasion you actually get something like a Chinese P-40 VS an Oscar, it’s on some stupid map like American Desert. While I still really appreciate the equipment lining up in time period, and generally pretty historical matches, the wildly ahistorical locations could still be an eyesore.
It wouldn’t though, because the places in Moscow are actual real places in Moscow. Believe it or not, the Monastery in the game is a real building in Moscow.
1 Like
i m aware of the places game used as inspiration for the maps. multiple posts in this forum were done with that info and where the real map is. but much appreciated either way
but i was more into, its a game, map named “something - winter” or anything generic and wouldnt be “moscow” anymore.
Seems fine really. There are lots of questions that could be/have been asked, but overall I think this is a better plan.
Do we have any idea when it will start?
While merging progression to be nation-based or via a tech tree might be an interesting idea, abandoning the separate campaign system doesn’t seem like the right move to me. Matchmaking should have 4 choices, theatre of war (map pool/time period), faction, map, and gamemode. Statistics based on these should tell you what people prefer to play. You are also setting the game up for unfun metas to be spammed at middle and higher levels. What will a new player, who spent the time to get middle- or end-game equipment, think when they get to higher matchmaking and all they face is heavy MG spam, triple phosphor nades everywhere, grayzone camping with end-game tanks, and grenade launchers? This change feels like you are just making the entire game a custom game with all maps on. The different campaigns are what make Enlisted stand out from other games, sometimes you want the bolt-action slower gameplay of Moscow, sometimes you want faster-paced Normandy. Each campaign feels unique and is very immersive; making each campaign’s map pool into “just another map” is harmful to the atmosphere of the game as a whole.
5 Likes
TL DR:
-Excited to be able to choose progression and the possibility of balancing based off of equipment levels and not player rank.
-Equipment presets
-Like/Dislike Mission functionality based off personal preference.
My friends and I are really excited for the progression changes. A ton of them didn’t want to play this game due to the grind. I have no life so it wasn’t a problem for me but understand how most people couldn’t reach the really good equipment playing only an hour or two a week. With this, they are going to try the game again since they will be able to reach what they want more quicklier.
The preset thing has been stated a few times now, it will be tedious to swap equipment from my high level stuff to their early war gear on a daily basis. Setting presets using whatever the equivalent of a Battle Rating is for early, mid and late equipment will make it was easier on us.
Will there be the ability to favorite maps to try to get them more often or exclude ones we really don’t like? I did enjoy the campaigns for their different looks and feels and would like to be able to still stay out of certain missions if possible, even if this results in a longer matchmaking time. Example: Tunisia fan likes the open desert maps. Under new match making, they only see a Tunisia map one in every three if Allies or one in five Axis (I don’t know if this is even accurate just guessing) missions or even more depending on however the maps are actually chosen. In War Thunder, you can favorite a few to get them more often and restrict like 2-3 to make sure you don’t play them. This way it doesn’t turn into the existing campaign system but just in reverse.
Thank you and can’t wait!
1 Like
God bless you, well said
1 Like
So I’m watching a random video on YT and hey, Enlisted sponsorship!
So no.
Think again and sacrifice something other than immersion please.
4 Likes
Limit weapons and vehicles per map. (Have several battalion presets per year)
I don’t want to see STG44 & Tiger2 vs M18 & Firefly in Tunisia.
P.S I hope you add tech trees by country, there are many very good examples on reddit.
My answer is - how can I know until I actually see it??
The devil is in the detail, and there is no detail - the matchmaking might work, or it might be a total disaster - I hope it works, and the stated aim seems laudable - with the caveat “if it works”.
I’m not the sort of person who can read a broad outline and come up wit ha firm conclusion - there are far too many potential fishhooks for anyone to be able to do that IMO.
So what user testing are you doing?