I don’t care about seniority in a video game, and I’ve pulled out my wallet to support this game as well. What I do care about is healthy numbers and less bots. And the older players are the ones I see complain the most about any sort of change to the current system of them just pub/bot stomping and nitpicking historical inaccuracies.
And you achieve that by kicking out the current playerbase of people who have stuck with the game for so long and hope that the new players will stay?
So the people who were promised something and want to maintain the promise alongside making improvements to the game? Why could there not be two modes to cater to both crowds, or making that “soft rule” more firm in the system? Therefore maintaining 100% of the current population rather then a reduced number.
Just because the devs proposed this solution, doesn’t mean there aren’t more options and ideas that would be better suited for the game and the playerbase. The whole “pub/bot stomping” thing could be done by making later game gear, or gear by weapon class, be more taxing on reinforcements. Therefore teams that auto spam, which is just bane to new players with bolt actions, would lose faster on death compared to if they used the thing most prominent in WW2, rifles.
1 Like
Yeah but most people already quit Train mode anyway.
1 Like
Say that to Tatooine map.
Train definitely sucks I won’t deny that
I like it
The AI apparently not.
1 Like
idk who is arguing against that. people were only arguing that BR vs HA would split playerbase or make MM worse.
your idea is unusable. it will split MM if you try to force pairing. MM needs to first pair BR, than HA (if possible) and now you want hard pairing of mode/map.
this could be easily be solved by soft veto system. every player could just mark maps/modes that they dont want to play and then MM would choose map/mode with least amount of veto votes. sure it would sometimes match you on modes/maps you dont want to play if majority dislikes your maps/modes, but it is much better solution than random map/mode MM or force pairing.
some maps/modes deserve to die. i will be happy if assault and train never gets played in this game ever again.
1 Like
Thats fair and I agree.
Bro, read the first reply.
So instead of catering to both groups, we just reduce the playerbase, got it. Also, I don’t know how the auto spam meta being fixed by including more HA, which is an improvement for new players, would be considered as “worse”.
If it’s not hard, people will still desert. Splitting the playerbase isn’t the key issue, it’s player retention. You can’t have an actively developed game if all the players leave. “Splitting the playerbase” is only a placebo at this point and isn’t a fix for any long term issues like player retention.
people are not arguing against choosing maps/modes. they are arguing against his idea of choosing maps/modes that would split playerbase even further. same as HA. if you force hard HA like people wanted it would split playerbase. that is why devs did soft HA when it is possible to do that.
this is not war thunder with 100x or more playerbase. if you had war thunder playerbase i wouldnt be against splitting playerbase with different hard rules. but we dont have it so we need to be satisfied with next best solution.
and i dont get your argument. how will auto spam meta be fixed by including more HA? automatic weapons were made prewar and were available to all nations. highest BR auto weapons were prewar weapons. e.g. fedorov, thompson. only nation that will be f****d with this would be germany cause they wouldnt be able to use stg44 and would be left with mp34 or mp40 vs fedorovs and thompsons.
btw this argument is just for arguments sake. i was commenting on BR vs HA discussion that happened after first announcement when people wanted different queues for BR and HA. not after announcement of soft HA.
and you have better idea? what if someone wants to play assault but nobody wants to play that shit game mode? shall that player be in queue for 10 hours till he finds 19 other players to play with? soft veto is best compromise that picks most popular map/mode from 20 players pick. if someone wants to quit MM could easily find replacement.
it is an issue when you have small playerbase and have problem filling both sides of match with human players.
and that is also a problem. hopefully it will be better now that better MM is introduced. playing with bots against fully maxed veterans is shit experience for new player.
This is a worse problem
If people have freedom to play what they want, you can be sure some maps become unplayable
2 Likes
i dont see this as a problem. some maps are just bad and should be removed from map rotation (or at least reworked). with soft veto system you wouldnt be able to play same map 24/7, but would get least hated maps/modes from 20 players. so e.g. if 20 player vetoes d-day and rest of the maps have 0 veto, you would never get d-day, but you would get rest of the map pool. if there are no maps with 0 veto then MM would choose from maps that have 1 veto vote etc.
more or less this is system of least hated map from 20 player choice (my mistake calling it most popular earlier)
By creating an artificial scarcity in game through reinforcements. Bolt actions were the main weapons of usage throughout the majority of the war. Weapon classes could also be more strictly tied to soldier classes, right now we have some areas where these bleed into one another. They need to fix bipods so MGs can be used more defensively. I meant it more so in the sense of HA and Realism in gameplay, rather than solely just weapon representation.
Yes, because if the devs really do have data on what is considered good or not by the playerbase, that should be a cue for them to improve upon it. This applies to both maps and gamemodes. Once improvements are made, they could then make an event surrounding the item of which they changed, that prioritizes that map or gamemode, to receive player feedback. This could end up making people view the mode or map more positively if the map/mode actually improved.
The big issue the devs have are improving things. There is a huge laundry list of improvements that need to be made through bugfixes, mechanics, QoL changes, etc.
It’s not a permanent solution though, it’s simply a placebo to make it seem like it’s better. This doesn’t change any of the actual issues with the game or makes it better or more enjoyable for people to stick around.
As an example, if the game has an average of 100,000 players now, split between 12 queues, that’s a little more than 8000 people per queue. Now you have the update, people will leave for a variety of reasons, or simply won’t support the game, which is just as bad to the devs for something active development. They have the “compensation” for Stalingrad and Pacific, the changes within matchmaking with maps and the new desertion rule they set forth, they have the issues with HA and the fact that it will become genericized, plus if the update does turn out to ruin the balance and makes things worse or stick out more, or is simply just a poorly done update overall with the new progression system, merged customization, compensation of previously obtained/purchased items, etc. That dent on that 100,000 might be large, if not on the playerbase as a whole, then on the playerbase that actually purchases content and supports the game.
1 Like
-
This is a game. If you can’t choose what you want to play and how you want to play, what’s the point in playing at all? Filling a quota so the player base doesn’t split? Sure, let me spend the next 3 hours playing on maps I don’t want to be on to keep the player base together as one cohesive group—because that’s the most important thing. Do you even hear yourselves?
-
Allowing choice with the combined systems as outlined DOES NOT—I repeat DOES NOT—split the player base. Again, you’re not thinking about what you’re saying. You end up with the same end result whether people choose the maps or an algorithm chooses the maps. Period. I can’t explain it any simpler than that. If you don’t get it, you never will. And stop inventing fairy tale reasons why this won’t work.
-
For those who do have the capacity for abstract thought, reasoning, and drawing logical conclusions… When the new matchmaking system is implemented, if you end up in games you don’t want to be in—then just leave. There’s nothing wrong leaving a game you don’t want to play. This is your time and your enjoyment—and your money if you chose to support this game. And ultimately it’s your decision. Make your own choices and don’t follow the crowd like a herd of sheep—I’ve found in life that they’re usually wrong.
1 Like
Allowing me to lets say hard filter out every Tunisia map because I don’t like Tunisia would negatively impact that playerbase. You think I don’t understand what you’re saying. I’d say the same thing lol
Isn’t that ironic though? Having the people playing Tunisia without a little longer load time (still around a minute) is more important when compared to the playerbase having a choice over what they want to play? If anything forcing people to play what they don’t want would damage it more, due to them not wanting to try the RNG system of loading into games.
When the mech event was ongoing, I spent over 30 minutes trying to get onto the campaign and side in order to take SS of everything to document for the wiki being made. Imagine having to wait that long just to get a map/campaign you want. Funny enough, it would take even longer since the mech event had two campaigns. Germans have five and Soviets have three. You’d honestly be better off qutting than hoping to get a specific map you want within a specific campaign.
Yeah, you’re probably right. It’s much better to have half your team desert so the game can be filled with bots anyway… instead of preventing desertion in the first place.
Yes you’re right, luckily they are adding desertion penalties and those players that aren’t any help to their teams anyways will go to whatever other game.