To the fan boys, Im not complaining about the army of bots.
Im playing with Axis in 2 campaigns. Normandy and Berlin. And, all the time (and no matter what time), i have only bots in my team. BOTs. And, in the allies team, only real players.
Why not more balanced teams? Ok, theres the pathetic idea that axies are bad and allies are good. But we talking about a game. Why not more balanced teams? If theres bots, put more bots in the allies team.
Sometimes there is an underpopulation based on server and time of day so that can affect how many are queuing for each side. Now if you ask me I would rather have bots than real players since I know bots will play the objective
u can just quit the game if u see many bots on your side without penalty. if both sides are balanced, it will be easy win or easy lose like Stalingrad event.
I think they should simply do away with the bots as well as the ability to choose which side you’re playing on.
Thus, you have a much more stable game because player count per team then becomes a non-issue. Repeatedly, the game ends up in ruts where one side gets a winning streak due to minor imbalances introduced in the latest patch and then most players flock to the side that’s mostly winning, which massively exacerbates the problem. It’s the biggest pitfall of the game that pretty much killed it in its Alpha phase before it was launched into Beta.
There’s nothing more boring than easily winning and losing hard. That’s why balance stability matters.
Do I need to explain on why this is a horrible idea? So how about we don’t do that and instead provide an incentive to play the underpopulated side instead of taking about free choice
Not a terrible idea. Maybe they should give an XP bonus for enabling to be put on any team instead. This would achieve a similar stabilizing effect while still letting those with preferrences can still play their preferred side.
Yeah. I believe that each side should have the same amount of similar level players.
Attempting to carry a team of lvl5s against a 4 man squad of max level tryhards is just getting old.
If only… I lost count of how many ppl, myself included, who tried to suggest the devs that giving a lil bonus xp to those clicking the “choose any faction” box would go a great way to help and be stupidly easy to implement… Yet they never even acknowledged it
Its impossible farm EXP if you have only bots in your team. I have played with allies and is amazing the number of real players. But if you play with axis, its ridiculous.
Im stuck in level 26 because I cant win a single game to get EXP to rank. To get level 27, I sould play 10 hours per day to get a few EXP.
Playing with mainly bots (as most MP fps games turn out to be) is not a fun game at all unless it is a campaign SINGLE player experience.
What this game (and most like it) lacks is cooperation amongst real players. In war soldiers do not run as fast as they can to a certain point and start spraying and praying until they get killed and another squad member gets picked.
I haven’t seen a coordinated attack yet on any map. I never see people trying to chat in game to get something going .
Maybe folks don’t realize that the more players in the zone leads to a quicker take down of the objective. And when defending, what are you defending when you run way out in front or to the sides just to get kills?
Well the thing here is, that Gaijin, while offering very high quality free-to-play games, the snail is notoriously stingy when it comes to its ingame economics.
This is supposed to incentivise players to fund its ambitious high-quality content. It is a risky strategy that can outright kill a player base and bankrupt a game. But let’s face it, the titles that Gaijin brought to market, namely Enlisted and moreso War Thunder, while at times buggy & hard to balance, are revolutionary in their scope and realism and theoretically free-to-play on top of that. You can’t get something for nothing, though it may at times seem like that. That being said…
In this case it is my sincere advice to them, that they should make an exception and offer some kind of bonus for enabling “choose any faction” or in the worst case make it mandatory.
This would stabilise the faction win rates
→ easing the dev’s work by getting equal amounts of feedback from players on both factions
prevent a feedback loop of boredom and/or frustration causing players to stop playing
→ We saw the player base die in the closed alpha for that very reason
Psychology shows that nothing creates more excitement than a 50/50 chance of winning. In my experience:
→ This creates creates an overall satisfying gaming experience, regardless of game outcome because you feel like your contribution to your team’s effort actually mattered.
→ The lack of gratification over the anticipation of this type of gameplay fun may result in compulsive gaming behaviour. To turn this addictive frustration feedback loop into a monetization strategy is unethical to me as it can incur toll on a person’s time and quality of life.
It would make the player base less toxic and nationalistic
→ Just consider, how much smoother and more fruitful the atmosphere and cooperation would be between the player base and your staff if we can combat systemic frustration and erradicate tribalism from our community.
It’s only a game, Y U heff to be mad?
In short, this change would make Enlisted a better place!
Sniper, my question is: the players know they can chat in the game? For beginners, the games interface is weird. In a game i said “press enter to chat” and voilá, some players start to chat and the game was more coordinated.
If you can’t choose which side you are on then what’s the point of grinding a particular side so you’re max? Grind both sides and double the time commitment to get to max? Nope. This game takes long enough as it is. 5 campaigns turns into 10 if you can’t choose your side. Hell no… Game killing. You need to be able to choose.
But would it really be that bad to have to wait a max of 2-3 minutes to hop into a game with a much higher likelihood of having real players? Sure the whole 45 seconds thing is nice but this is a game many of us repeatedly sink many hours into. That 2-3 minutes makes no real difference. A way to opt in or out of conquest would likely be needed to do this though.
