I’m not entirely sure that some kind of matchmaking is not going on. Even so I agree the game needs better matchmaking.
They have also mention they were working on game customization lobbies as well. So lets wait and see what they deliver …
I would rather they fixed this by changing fundamental features of this game instead of adding more cumbersome systems to compensate for lack of forethought. The features I’m talking about have big problems and aren’t worth preserving in their current state anyway.
The way progression works is deeply flawed. The way you construct and use squads is deeply flawed. It’s possible to fix these issues and make matchmaker changes unnecessary at the same time.
1 Like
Meh. Some vehicles aside, I personally don’t think a mm is that necessary. When I joined first in Moscow, I was, like everyone starting, lvl 1. I met a t28 on my first match ever on foot. I quickly got my ass handed by it ofc (I was on foot) but I found those matchs simply exhilarating.
I find matchs where nothing can really hurt you more than you can hurt em simply boring. So. I learnt. I learnt to use my BA rifles to great effect, something I would never have bothered with “proper” mm, that would just turn the game into some cod storm the points fu**fests. I would never have learnt every tank weak points either without having to deal with them tactically using t60 or pz2.
Edit: Another good example of what could not be learnt with a mm: In Tunisia, there’s a lot of city terrain with 1 big large main road and buildings side to side. I have a Grant, so taking the main road is relatively safe (til a cheesy kamikaze bomber arrives) ALL THE TIME I meet some AB thinking they are invulnerable taking the main road instead of the small alleys between buildings. They try to face the Grant head on… I teach them it’s a bad idea, that they can maneuver on the flanks (JUST FLANK ME!), that the nimble AB is a fantastic vehicle for sneaky play. They would never know with mm. It would only, always be two braindead sides slugging it out in the middle of the road, every match…
Let ppl learn and grind, they will enjoy what they unlocked much, much more.
(Also Normandy is a real mess, it’s not a very good background to base a MM on.)
8 Likes
Would like to see a matchmaker based on what equipment you are using to be honest the current way it is especially with the tanks is just broken.
1 Like
I think that it would become highly exploitable, I already immagine all the high lvl ppl put shit gear and destroy noobs doing 20000 xp a game.
possible i mean i was getting a shit ton of xp even when i was new.
1 Like
also your always gonna get that skill gap no matter what you do really >w<
they could match making by the hours of play, like 100 hours with the 100 and less.
and after that 100 hours experinence open matchmaking
maybe 100 is to much but thats the idea
Honestly I would rather deal with skill gap over equipment gap.
Skill gap can be narrowed with time, effort, and luck.
Equipment gap just leaves you helpless. That bare bones rifle squad won’t be able to compete at all with a kitted out, veteran assault squad on the point.
In a more extreme example: early game tanks can’t compete with late game tanks and worse yet infantry have few hard counters to late game tanks.
Engineers get slaughtered while building AT, the AT can’t be moved if the tank just decides to get out of your field of fire, and only the actual engineer squads can build AT it seems.
Explosive packs can work but unless you’ve got cover or multiple squads supporting you have a big fat chance of just getting sniped by infantry covering the tank, they also seem random in their effectiveness.
AT rifles (Moscow) have to literally snipe the crew within the first few rounds before distinct sound and vapor trail gets you gunned down by the tank or supporting infantry.
This all also means that a single high level tank can take almost a whole team’s effort to knockout. Which is alot of effort not on the point/objective.
Over in battle of Moscow entire matches are being centered around which team has higher level tanks/crews and whether or not the under powered team wants to dedicate all of it’s resources to AT.
It’s just not fun.
2 Likes
Why not make both game modes really?
A casual one/quick play all ranks are there like they are right now
And Ranked/Match making were players with similar stats are matched against each other - can add some rewords for playing this one, so high skilled players have some incentive to go there instead of seal clubing poor stuarts on beach 
That way both sides would be happy and if one mode is played less or waiting for game is too long you just go for the other one.
Also we still dont know how custom games will work, what options they might give players there, maybe there will be option to disable some thing there like for example: this match rule sets are: only level 26 and belowe, no vehicals, no full auto guns.
Something like that.
1 there arent enough players
2 the devs dont have time/they are lazy
3 why add another mode splitting the playrbase even more?
custom lobby surely will not permit levelling / the will give a 75% less experience
it could also be cause they don’t have the game on other stores (Epic,Steam,ect). Hopefully they’ll do this for the full release.
1 Like
As @38883009 stated (and I agree):
Player count is an issue, the game feels bigger because of the squads mechanic but there aren’t many players realistically as is.
Splitting the player base is a bad move , especially in such a niche game type: The “historical shooter MMO Gacha”
As is, games like Enlisted shouldn’t have a “casual” section because it’s not really meant to be played with a casual mindset. Not that you can’t relax and have fun, but if you don’t take the game seriously enough you’ll just constantly die and bring your team down.
It’s no ARMA but you really need to have a solid understanding of tactics, movement, weapon lethality, combined arms, and team fighting to not bring your team down.
Games like overwatch and call of duty do well with having Casual and Competitive modes because a wide range of players are involved in those games and splitting up their player base doesn’t hurt the core experience in it’s entirety.
You can’t say the same about enlisted.
1 Like
Two solutions, one of which may already be on the way:
With the removal of the academy, depending on how squad progression and soldier progression are handled this might almost solve itself
Re-scale the grind. Yeah, it sucks being new and having four man, barely equipped squads facing guys with all the hotness, but if the xp requirement for levels 3-12 or so were reduced by as much as half, the time spent as a no-equipment, no-troops noob goes down significantly.
Queue times are already long enough, and its tough to balance this game between “fun for the new guy” and “not alienating the playerbase with five minute queues.”
Another de facto solution that I believe is coming: custom matchs. It will probably be possible to add lvl restrictions in those, thus satisfying those who wish to face opponents with similar loadouts.
It will then be ok to let “vanilla” matchs remain as is, so ppl like me who like to see a bit of everything will also be satisfied 
Why? I see pletntifull players and queue times are very short (for me its on avarage 5-10s of waiting EU servers) I doubt that population is this game issue right now.
Adding game mode dosent take much time especialy that you can copy paste most of the ideas from other succefull games.
How that would really split player base? WT for example started right away with three modes - Arcade, Realistic and Simulator. And people played all, though Arcade and Realistic were much more popular then Simulator. People that liked one or another game mode stick with that one, and others played all of them. Also by this game will appeal to more players, not everyone wants to be forced to play MM and other way around. I know i wouldnt play WT for example, if it had only Realistic game mode and i know people that wouldnt play that game if it had only Arcade. Enlisted has Squad and Lone Fighter and that didnt split player base, people played the game mode they wanted.
Every team based game if you are doing worse then avarage player you will bring your team down, and as long as this game is F2P it will be casual, no game that tried to be only for competetive players succeded since it dosent brings money or people really - in competetive game being a new player is horrible experience and its getting only worse the longer game is.
And people with gear can still get your team down eaisly, since they can be overconfident, play recklessly or simply pay to get to high tier toys and still have no idea how things work in this game.
There arent really that much tactis right now on most maps you either flank hard, build rally and then attack constantly from that flank until you succeded and go for next objective, throw grenede (with difference that experience player will probobly cook it instead of throwing right away) to building or if you see a blob of people somewhere, as defender you pretty much attack attacker since game allows you to be reckles and spawn speed is same for defender as a attacker - tactis also dont work with random lobby players to get 10 strangers work together is almost impossible those who will want to camp will camp, those how will want go only through one flank will do it no matter what and guys that want to kamikaze with plane just to kill one guy also will do it.
Movement is simple also really, you can run, you can crouch, you can crawl, you can peek through corners using Q or E, that pretty basic in most fps, there isnt even aim shaking after your guy gets tired from sprinting
Weapon lethality is also simple every thing above 10 dmg can down you with one shot and every thing below might need 2-3 shots, they arent really paterns of weapons though they plan to implement it but we will see how they will do it, right now with some weapons its more of rng on some distances like i can have 8 rounds from thompson go perfectly where I aim and other times i can shot entire clip and maybe hit 1 or 2 times
Combined arms are overrated - if your team is too diverese you will accutly lose for example team that attacks and has 2 planes (pretty useless, only situatinol), 2 tanks, 1 sniper (again very situational) , 1 engie , 2 assulters , 1 machine gunner and 1 radio man will lose way often then team that has for example 2 tanks, 3 assulters, 2 radio man - for arty rotation, 1 machine gunner and 2 engieers - not to mention most f2p people are limited with what they can go into match.
Those are one of the most competetive games, even in casual modes, you will for example get vote kicked if you didnt choosed meta classes in overwatch or didnt took what team requiers since almost every body there is a sweaty gamer, in enlisted i see that almost no one rages, if they dont like the team/map they leave and go for the next one, dont call entire team names just beacasue they lost or if someone took for example stuart even if guy in his team had sherman or something better or in case of moscow took t-60 when few people had t-50. Most people dont care and just play, enlisted players are one of the most chill ones in fps games.
And last thing, enlisted will never be competetive, to have game competetive both teams need to have same chance to win as it is right now thats no where near that level and probobly wont be, with how different both sides are, be that Germans vs Russian or Germans vs Allies, game cant be really balanced, though that dosent mean it cant be fun, games like CoD, Overwatch or CS:GO are competetive beacuse in case of CoD - everyone has access to everything, same with overwatch when it comes to classes and in case of CS:GO you play both sides in match so no one can say that one team had some advantage.
This game wont appeal to really competetive players, only semi-competetive and casuals.
I play on all the server e my que are 30+ second, and usually half the enemy team are bots
This is not wt, is another copy pasted fps but with tanks and planes it will never have the success of wt.
You don’t know what you’re talking about, coding is extremely time consuming even for simple things.
It’s true the player base is rather “tame” in Enlisted. A good thing.
Yesterday I was even surprised to see a dumb kid blaming the team because he though someone broke the team rally point. Quote “I hope you die by fire”… pretty intense, and insanely dumb considering the enemy team was in fact smart and kept cally arty strikes where they thought rp were, and constantly flanked to destroy them…
It’s not like in some csgo or cod or others where everyone and your mother insult each others for petty reasons…
I can give you other examples, Heroes of the Storm is good one, people still play it to this day (quese arent long for both ranked and casual), even though Blizzard almost completly abandond it, and game had one of most played competitors on market, Dota 2 and LoL, the only reason is why they stopped developing game is that it didnt made crazy amount of money, just good amount and they preferd to focus on thiere money makers like cod. So point is as long as game is fun for people, the population wont be the issue, and for f2p to have population problems means that game must be really unfun to play.
You really think that making basic MM system would be crazy hard to do or time consuming? I doubt that for example doing match making based just on win rate or something else would take half of the year, it dosent need to be AAA game level and even those have more often then not are poor, simple one would suffice, and in worst case they could asked gajin for help, WT has matchmaking i know that from expirence when i see my team there having on average 40-45% win rate while mine is 63% and if you do the math combing every one win rate from both teams, math says chances are similar to win for both teams
I vote no for level capped match making
I vote yes for skill based match making
Would post a picture but someone would say im just showing off,
Good players can win with bolt action rifles, its just that lobbies are imbalanced as hell
2 Likes