Let’s Discuss the Meta Changes

[Dregomz]

@Blegh2022

capabilities of the vehicles in the game are in line with historical facts

i didn’t knew that Tigers 2 and IS-2 can time travel to Moscow (we all know that Panzer 4 f2 already can time travel but just few months into future), so when are we able to drive T-90MS vs m1a2 Abrams in Moscow campaign?

[Conscript_Joe]

Question:

• are squads type taken into account with battle rating?

Situation: I am a veteran, I unlocked all squads. I will use 3 assaulters squads, but equip them all with starter smg.

Concern: this would prove unfair for new players, as they cannot use 3 smg squads.

Suggestion: doubt. Make meta weapons worth more in battle rating? Limit meta squads amount? Make higher lvl squads, cost more battle rating?

Second question:

• I bought the maximum slots, for all campaigns. How many slots will I have, once campaigns are combined?

Thanks.

[Blegh2022]

I didn’t know this was real life. I thought it was a game made for entertainment

[GiltBurrito7238]

Enlisted’s uniforms and customizations are extremely immersive. The games aesthetics is one of the main reasons I got it. Unlike other “WW2” games these days,

[Veekay45]

@Blegh2022

If you prefer historical accuracy over gameplay and playerbase health, I don’t know what to say.

You’re strawmanning here.

I advocate for balance within plausible suspension of disbelief under historical context.

I can tolerate Pz 4 F2 vs T-34 if we just rename Moscow to “Barbarossa”, if we need it for balance.

King Tigers in Stalingrad are not needed for balance or gameplay. That’s crossing the line. That’s becoming a clownfest.

And if I was one of the artists who recreated the city for it just to be mutilated like that, I’d be very upset.

[VoyoMayPL]

We are geting closer tbh. With equipment at least. Just one step more.

[Blegh2022]

@Veekay45

I can tolerate Pz 4 F2 vs T-34 if we just rename Moscow to “Barbarossa”, if we need it for balance.

It’s not about balance, it’s about not being able to find matches in a reasonable amount of time.

If they keep equipment locked to certain campaigns, there will be a point where they can no longer add new campaigns to the game, because the playerbase would be spread too thin. Even if it grew in size.

[Shiivex]

@Veekay45

we just rename Moscow to “Barbarossa”, if we need it for balance.

thats what i did propose.

just no more “moscow”
but generic 1 fits all maps
so this nonsence can stop and game can actually benefit for the masses and not a niche group.

[CaptainSebekel]

So how should we understand in line with historical facts?

[CaptainSebekel]

If people dont wanna play against mid Soviets now, they wont bother with in the new system as well.

[Blegh2022]

@CaptainSebekel

So how should we understand in line with historical facts?

It’s a WW2 game. All the weapons are from WW2, soldiers uniforms and appearance are from WW2, vehicles are accurate to how they performed in WW2(kind of, not 100% otherwise the game balance would be shit)

[Veekay45]

@Blegh2022

It’s not about balance, it’s about not being able to find matches in a reasonable amount of time.

All German players are in a single queue, all Soviet players are in a single queue, a Moscow map is found within reasonable time (10v10 real people) but “hey it’s a WW2 game” and the best assaulter weapon you can use is MKB and not STG, and the best tank is F2 and not King Tiger – what’s wrong with this?

Personally I’d actually prefer one big button PLAY ANY – all players are grouped together but weapon/vehicle limitations are still in place. Everyone happy?

[Dregomz]

It’s hard to enjoy the game if it lets you drive tanks from the distant future that were never supposed to be there. Months in future is fine but not years. Honestly at this point you should add Battle of Leningrad to the map pool and rename everything as Eastern Front, then i will forget about those inaccuracies and just enjoy the game.

[Blegh2022]

As @VoyoMayPL proposed a few days ago, have 2 queues.
One historical, one normal queue.

Those who want history can use the historical queue, everyone else can use normal queue

[Veekay45]

@Shiivex

thats what i did propose.

Stalingrad still can’t have King Tigers and Berlin still can’t have T-26s.
That’s just laughable.

[Shiivex]

the idea is to stop dividing the player base. and people that want historical settings can do it on customs

that will be open for others to join if they please.

1 single main queue for what the game should have bn since day one
1 server selector (customs) with settings bases on what a niche group want.

easy.

[VoyoMayPL]

@Shiivex

to stop dividing the player base

[proposes to divide players not to 2mm but to one mm and 10 custom lobby rooms]

[Shiivex]

its just,… another virtual map inside a videogame for me under ww2 weapons and soldiers.

so i dont care much.

will be fun? Yes. for me it will . i cant speak for others.

[Veekay45]

@Blegh2022

As @VoyoMayPL proposed a few days ago, have 2 queues.

Someone else has also proposed this:

Start matchmaking an actual WW2 experience and hopefully do that, but if there are not enough players the game tells you “Hey I found a lobby but it’s ahistorical clownfest - wanna join or keep searching some more”?

Or, a settings tick for those who actually care “Only put me in historical battles”.

[Blegh2022]

@Veekay45

All German players are in a single queue, all Soviet players are in a single queue, a Moscow map is found within reasonable time (10v10 real people)

No, it’s not.
Like Keofox said, it becomes increasingly harder to make matches if you lock equipment to certain campaigns

@Keofox

That said, there aren’t that many options. Any small rule added to the process of matchmaking can severely harm all the advantages of the new system and make the changes meaningless. Burdening the matchmaking with additional rules will basically return us back to the campaigns, just presented in a slightly different way. And the problems associated with spreading our player base across campaigns will return as well.

@Keofox

The matchmaking has analyzed your setup and excluded 600 USSR/Allies players who have weaker weapons and vehicles and thus do not qualify as your opponents. In the updated Enlisted it’ll still have a pretty good selection of 400 players (100 as USSR and 300 as Allies) to create a few interesting sessions on one of dozens of historical battlefields (or even hundreds if we’re talking about missions and not maps): vs USSR in Moscow, Stalingrad, and Berlin; vs USA in Normandy, vs Allies in Tunisia.

But suppose you’ve added another rule: “Matchmaking can only send players to the map that’s historically accurate for their weapons and vehicles.” Then you’ll have to forget about Moscow, Stalingrad, and Tunisia, and will be left with just Normandy and Berlin — as long as you’re using your modern setup. That will make the updated Enlisted quite similar to the current one that’s limited by the constraints of the campaigns, but will also make it harder for the matchmaking system that’ll have to take into account both weapon power and maps.