Says who? Your hopes and dreams?
There is a direct correlation between length of queue times and people quitting the game. The longer the queue time the more likely you are to quit waiting. There isn’t a single game out there that deliberately makes queue times longer for players. It’s a potentially suicidal move.
What?
I launch MM and wait for the game to load, then maximize and play.
Where’s quitting here?
I don’t know any other game like this either that wants to MM under 60 seconds.
I’ve waited for 15-20 minutes for matches in other games.
You logic is seriously backwards.
A game should rather lose a player instead of offering them a way to play? tf
Which games?
People who autoquit matches are toxic. Yes. Getting rid of toxic players is in a game’s best interests.
Age of Empires, older FIFAs.
Thanks for your input.
I wholeheartedly disagree.
The better option is giving the player flexibility to matchmake as they prefer and not quit.
I don’t want to be disrespectful but you are forgetting that realism doesn’t mean the same to everyone.
Right now you want late war equipment such as G43, Pps43, IS 2,Tiger tanks to only appear in their respective campaign maps, mostly Berlin and Normandy even though there are folks like me who want to see those weapons In Stalingrad and Tunisa too.
Because you see, realism to me is very different, to me it means little to no UI, realistic gun play, rocket spread, equipment reliability (jamming guns, dud grenades), friendly fire.
The devs did mention alternative history campaigns as well, lets hope they implement them to satisfy everyone.
I personally prefer a game which is both historically and physically realistic, but I respect different opinions aimed to make the game better and satisfy more player, so different level of realism is definitely the ultimately solution like different game mode options in War Thunder, and also improved custom games which bring more possibility.
If you read carefully, you might find that I am suggesting a compromised and simplified solution which give a option to people do not care queuing time so much, and that option should be default off so it do not annoy players who care queuing time above realism, and more importantly new players who do not know this feature of the game. I am not here express sharp opinion but to give workable solution to satisfy more people. So thank you for your criticism and I may revise my solution and improve its feasibility.
It’s very interesting how we’re still having discussions about how Enlisted should be historically accurate, when it demonstrates again and again that it isn’t.
We already have equipment in campaigns that isn’t supposed to be there. It’s nothing new. You just cannot be selective and say MKBs/STGs in Stalingrad/Moscow is wrong and that Jumbos in Normandy is fine, Federovs everywhere in Berlin is fine, pretty much any of the Japanese weapons is fine, the fact that Germany even has planes at all in Normandy is fine, etc.
I’m sorry, but this would be more useless than lone fighters. The overwhelming majority of players will opt for fast queue times, especially console players who don’t have the luxury of just clicking off the game.
That’s not a good thing, certainly not for this game. Enlisted is a pick up and play shooter, and the devs know this. They need to make MM as quick as possible because they know the average player is not going to wait 20 minutes for a match that will could even end quicker than that.
That’s not the same thing. And besides, what qualifies as a “historical match” when none of the campaigns we have now are historically accurate? Consider these examples:
If I queue as japan and hit that switch you’re proposing, am I only allowed to match with players who only have type 38s and type 100s? If I queue with a type 2, am I excluded from every map since it was never standard issue?
If I queue as the US with a Jumbo and hit that switch, am I excluded from every map in the game since none of them are where the jumbo historically fought?
If I queue as the US with M2 Carbines, am I excluded from every map since we don’t have Okinawa (the only place where the M2 saw service)?
If I queue as the Soviets with the AS-44, am I excluded from every map since the AS is a priceless prototype that was never completed and issued?
If I queue as Germany with a Volkssturm rifle squad armed with FG 42s, am I excluded from MM entirely since the FG was a rare paratrooper rifle that never would have been issued to a poorly trained, last ditch milita squad?
That doesn’t sound like fun to me.
The more pressing issue is having stuff like the Moroccan March being allowed to fight in the Pacific. That’s far more ahistorical than having Tigers and whatever else in Stalingrad, and actually goes against what they said they were going to do.
They admitted some accuracy (keyword: some) would be lost. But they explicitly said that factions would only be allowed to fight where they historically fought.
Exactly this. Enlisted is in a fragile state right now after the last few updates just flopped. They need to tread lightly.
So for those of you who still desperately need map choice or campaigns, it’s already been explained so many times why they’re doing this and it’s just annoying at this point. If you still don’t understand why the merge is necessary then I can’t help you. The devs have literally said in this Q&A they may experiment with map choice but only after the games health and player count is stable.
And for those who still, in this day and age, ask Enlisted for historical accuracy, there’s not much else I can say. I don’t play this game as a milsim, I don’t play it for accuracy, I play it for fun and to have a general vibe of WW2.
We don’t have AKs, we don’t have M16s, we don’t have G3s, etc. As long as those don’t get added to WW2 MM, I could care less.
They are wrong. By matter of years. And unnecessary.
It’s wrong. But by the matter of weeks. And might have been needed to counter Panther. Now it will not be needed if Normandy BR excludes Panthers.
It’s wrong.
It’s wrong. But I can see how probably no one would want to play only Arisaka vs Springfield.
That’s obviously for gameplay balance.
How is it useless if it would allow me to play the type of match I want to play instead of quitting a type of match I don’t want to play?
Exactly why default MM can be fast and people like me would willingly opt for longer “no BS mm”.
From the devblogs we can guess that weapons and vehicles will have “native” maps which will be prioritized. For example, Tiger II will be stronger linked to Normandy and Berlin.
And random maps will be loaded only when there is not enough players to find a “native” map under ~60 seconds.
With that in mind, if I have a Tiger II in my setup I just want the game to skip me if it’s creating a Stalingrad map match (I won’t play that anyway), I’ll rather wait till a Normandy/Berlin map match comes up.
I would expect the game at the very least to not put me in theaters where Jumbo never was.
Jumbo in a French/Belgian/Dutch countryside doesn’t look weird, however Jumbo in North Africa is eyesbleeding hazard imo.
Same for M2 – the pacific.
AS-44 should prferably be deleted the f out of the game, but since that’s not happening, at least keep this monstrosity to Berlin maps.
FG-42 was used in Berlin; potentially in Normandy and North Africa as well (I’m no expert on the western front)
That’s the beauty of it – if you’re fine with Tigers in Stalingrad (ew) and Moroccans in the Pacific (ew), just don’t mess with MM settings and launch “fun” games instantly.
It’s ALL about gameplay design and balance.
Because, like lone fighters, an insignificant amount of people will care about it.
Because it is not in Darkflow’s or the vast majority of player’s interest to do it. Basically, in a game where you will never make every person happy you seek to make as many people happy as possible.
You just keep missing the point.
and that opinion, while you are entitled to it, is such a minority opinion it doesn’t matter.
No. Adding fantasy weapons like AS-44 to Berlin of MKB to Moscow is neither design nor balance.
Balance is giving planes to Normandy Germans because Normandy Americans have planes.
Gameplay is giving rally points and magic hammers to engineers.
That’s called “potentially unpolular”, but far from “useless”.
You don’t have the data that “vast majority” of players will fall in love with Tiger IIs in Stalingrad.
Exactly, so make “casuals” happy by instant MM and make “grown-ups” happy by giving them a chance to not see Moroccan boys in the Pacific.
a) every substantiated opinion matters, ortherwise it’s a dictatorship;
b) you don’t have the data, the ~50 regulars here at the forums don’t represent “the playerbase”.
Actually they kind of do.
Well, we here represent a tiny fraction of a) English/Russian speakers who b) care enough to communicate at the forums.
Even subrereddit posts get hundreds to thousands of votes/reactions while we here are lucky if we get 50.
In any case, unless the game introduces a poll at the main hangar screen which you can’t skip where it asks something like “Do you want Tiger II and RPD in Stalingrad?” and “Do you think Moroccan boys in the Pacific are ok?” and we get landslide “yes”, I don’t see the point of talking about “vast majority”.
Vast majority will play whatever is under the “play button” and if it’s more historically accurate than now, vast majority won’t mind at all.
I just came up with an idea that it is possible to play a trick to bypass the disabling of historical accuracy constraint if the options we suggest are not implemented. This trick bring certain drawback, but it should still work if this group of players like you really do not want to play random match.
Let me assume 60 s is the threshold queuing time before enter random queue. By playing at peak time, it is more likely to get a match inside 60 s. The trick is if you did not get a match in 60 s, just quit the queue and start again. One major drawback is if you play at less peak time, you may not get a match forever. How considerable is this drawback really depend on personal preference, I would believe a number of players who weight immersion like you may go play custom matches or other games instead of compromise in that case.
This trick is at least responsible to teammates and game environment unlike deserting.
At their simplest, they should allow players to gain grind experience from historically accurate or historically atmospheric mod combat.
In this way I don’t have to waste time playing games with uninteresting random queue games.
And they also need to allow players to complete monthly quests in modded games.
No. It’s a self selecting sample. IT is not random At all.
I hate to break it to you but irl samples are also biased since ppl have to agree for them.
So it’s as close as it gets.
Ofc not. Too easy to cheese.
Uh. They try and give both sides equal capability. If they don’t (which is what happened historically btw) then players will ONLY want to play the side with the best stuff.
This is very basic in game design
You don’t want players doing inappropriate experience farms through this, you can design it with the proper mechanics
For example time constraints. A player who plays a mod game for 1 hour can only get 1W experience at most.
It all depends on proper design.
I don’t want to argue with you about this, you can dislike custom mod games, but as a dev team they shouldn’t be snubbing players who like this game
Again, I’m not here to argue with you, You don’t have to pollute advice that you personally don’t like by opposing everything… I’m used to this forum.
The reasons you have stated do not refute this suggestion at all.
My suggestion is to answer a question, how to let players who like HA grind the game in their favorite mode, and enjoy the game itself.
I think you missed the point.
I’m aware. The point was that if Enlisted was historically accurate, the Germans should not be able to field them to the extent they are in game.
Because nobody would use it, for the reasons I listed in the original reply.
Also, that’s exactly the problem. Who gets to define what is a historically accurate match?
Who decides what is a BS match and what isn’t? Because if it’s like what we have now, it’s already a BS match.
That’s still a BS match, because the Tiger II was not present in Normandy, even if the dates add up. So therefore, it’s not a “historically immersive match” and this theoretical tick would not place you in Normandy with a Tiger II.
Also, you’ve just explained why the devs are not going to add something like that right now. They have this native weapon soft rule, and as the player count rises, the rule becomes more effective since there’s more people available to MM. And therefore….
… you won’t have to skip because the MM will have already put you in a Normandy or Berlin match. Maybe 1 in 10 times you get somewhere you don’t want to.
I agree, but the Jumbo still wasn’t in Normandy, even if it was in Western Europe. That’s no different than a Tiger in Stalingrad. Neither of them were there.
I guess, I mean the Federov and AVT are both statistically better than the AS44.
I’m aware. My point was that they would not be issued to a Volkssturm rifle company which is something you can do in the game.
Yes and no. I can suspend my disbelief and deal with it because I consciously recognize that Enlisted is not historically accurate. I don’t like it, but I can deal with it.
That’s the real beauty of it. You can use your imagination and come up with some alternate timelines for different weapons.
Stalingrad was between the USSR and Germany. The Tiger is a WW2 era German tank. So I don’t really care. It’s not like the Leopard is being added to the game. I will play HLL if I actually want to be immersed in a WW2 battle.
That’s the exact opposite of what I said in my original response. Allow me to refresh your memory:
That’s extremely misleading, because it completely ignores the reason why we might see a Tiger II in Stalingrad. Which again, you are only going to see a Tiger II at all if you bring an IS2 or something to counter it.