this doesnt makes sense because
1-the devs make the game and its metas players only play
2- devs can fix this issue whenever they want but they decide not to because the community doesnt care about it
Literally have fullstacked lobbies where the enemy team has full BRII stuff even down to landmines, tanks and the strongest SMGs/MGs, and my team has its dick in hand and cant even leave the spawns. “steamrolls” are 100% a result of Gaijin’s dogshit balancing system that puts a team full of Privates-Sargeants with BRI vs a full team of Generals+ full of BRII.
This happens the most on the USSR-Axis conflicts, with the USSR being absolutely busted. I’d love to see the “faction-by-faction” win rate, cause this is not the playerbase’s fault.
2 Likes
You are aware that the literal only thing rank means is how many matches you’ve played this BP? I could wait till the last week of the BP, be unranked, and run a whole lobby full of generals+. Stop using the fact you didn’t play enough as an excuse. Your rank is 100% entirely influenced by YOU as an individual
As for MM…so? I ran against every level of development of Axis possible in Normandy. From bots, to beginners, to end gamers and often all in the same match! I killed Tiger’s with PIAT’s and used Springfield’s against FG 42’s. You beginners got it so easy now. Coddled and handheld. Just rush the SMG and LMG lines and you’ll be fine. If you can’t compete with Bolties then go with full auto’s. Not like you can’t choose what you research
2 Likes
It’s the playerbase’s fault for stacking a single faction and leaving matches the second they see any resistance or fight being put up by the enemy team
1 Like
1 Like
I try and play as much with the Allies as I can since being an American myself, having a sister that spent 24 years in the US Navy, and myself and my oldest son spending some time in the USAF, I MIGHT be a just a wee bit bias. 
1 Like
I wont betray Germany.
Actually sounds kinda bad saying it like that.
Well I am a Wehraboo after all.
Actually I leave alot of matches, however I know pretty well by now if I join a unwinnable match, so I leave in order to help people win, that are actually trying to win.
Its actually helping my faction.
this is war game
It is correct to kill the enemy effectively at high speed and destroy the opponent’s morale.
Rather than letting casual gamers and humanitarians condemn experts and people who work hard to win
in addition
Flame guns, white phosphorus and anti-aircraft guns existed almost at the same time (anti-aircraft guns were revised earlier)
And their tactical positioning is also different.
Why do you mix them up?
Suicide planes are just because there are too many bad infantry nowadays
Force some players to make choices in order to afford more work
I don’t think there’s been a problem of only playing with a fixed faction before.
It’s been like this from before to now
I very much doubt whether you have ever experienced the previous environment.
I’ve only been playing like 3.5 months or so. I feel your pain.
I noticed that when I started (pre-Steam, post-Merge version) and for several months, I saw nothing but “gold ranked” in German matches and lost more often then I won as an Allied player. The new Steam players (which seem to be playing a lot on the North American servers, since everyone else on this forum claims to never have seen any) are all low ranked.
My take on this (on an East Coast US, North American server player, in BR2) is that the very newest players are gravitating towards the Allied and the German sides, Particularly since some players claim not to have seen any increase in population, but I’ve personally seen a ton of it.
However, I have seen some new Steam players do extremely well, and yes, on the German side with little to none of the purchased equipment. But, I will agree - that’s the exception to the rule. There’s usually a couple of really sharp new players (corporals or the like, who have a few dozen games under their belt) tossed in with some who obviously have never played a match.
Fact is, this game has a HUGE learning curve that a lot of the veterans who have played have seemed to have forgotten. Darkflow (the developer) has recognized that and have put in their recent road map that they are going to work on their tutorials more.
People who try to say that a few weeks of play by someone will put them in the same league (whether with skill or equipment) as someone who has 150 wins (or more) under their belt is absolutely full of crap and their opinion should be disregarded completely.
That’s true of ANY game anyone ever plays, whether it’s Checkers, Call of Duty or Football (American or World).
The fix for some of this is already being worked on - e.g. the aforementioned Darkflow putting more game information available for players/tutorials. The “play random faction” will work as long as DF puts enough incentive into it - I’d say at least a 50% XP bonus per game.
Darkflow absolutely has to institute a rank based limiter as well. No more than a 2-1 balance. If one team has two “gold ranks” then the other team needs at least one. If one team has 6 gold ranks, the other team needs at least 3. Even that kind of balance makes it hard, particularly …due to my next point.
The penalty for quitting a match has GOT to increase. At this point, Darkflow is essentially incentivizing quitting matches. The new players haven’t quite learned yet that it’s so easy to do. I’ve seen some bran new players stick to the end on steamroll games and I actually had to sit back and be impressed for a minute. They haven’t learned yet all the bad habits of our more “seasoned” players.
I’ve never, in my 25 years of online gaming, EVER seen a game where there was so little penalty for leaving a match. And you all are going to try to tell me that doesn’t have on impact on the balance of the matches now?
If you do, you are beyond crazy.
Enlisted gets a fair bit of recognition for the immersion level of the game. Well, in the real world, you can dang sure bet if you deserted your fellow soldiers, there’d be hell to pay. In this game, they are practically patting you on the back.
1 Like
Well, giving out harsher penalties will only result in further migration towards the more popular and winning factions. Desertion is a one way to escape from a stomp game or a game filled with bad teammates. Sure it might be bad if a good player deserts, but would you rather see him afk or grief his own team just to speed up the enemy’s win? Because that is also another method to get out of an unfavourable game.
Nobody can be held responsible nor be required to carry/stay in a game with close to no chance of actually winning due to clear team disadvantage, especially not in their free time.
In real life, you also would not see constant suicide bombing and magical greyzones.
1 Like
Today matches are insanely easy i guess it’s the influx of the new players especially since it’s a weekend. I’m winning literally every single BR2 match today and i feel like i’m the master of the Dnd game and can decide fate of the match just on my own.
1 Like
rusky also have them at the same time?
first two armed APCs were the m3a1 and hannomag premiums, then we would get the carrier and 75 hannomag as events, currently only US and germany has armed event APCs while all nations have premium armed apcs
Italics in Leviner’s quote added by me.
You don’t know that. Everyone keeps arguing about the chicken or the egg, which came first. In this case, are people deserting matches causing all the horribly sided matches or are the horrible matches making people desert.
I call B.S. on this. EVERY OTHER GAME makes it harder to desert and they don’t have these problems - at least not all the time. We cannot control perception: not the players, not forum members and not Darkflow. But Darkflow CAN control whether people flee from matches.
If people are forced (unless they take a pretty severe penalty) to stick it out, then they will have a stake in the match. I know there are still bad maps, and I’m not saying that they should take deserting away completely - but they absolutely have to make it a distinct disadvantage. It’s better for BOTH sides if matches are more competitive.
And it’s ONLY the veterans who are going to bounce around from faction to faction.
I want to repeat this - ONLY THE VETERANS can even afford to bounce around from faction to faction. I’ve put $600 (meaning, I have premium units AND a premium membership, which means I get 200% more XP than a FTP player) and around 130 hours into this game in the past 3.5 months - and I am at best, an average player who has managed to mostly fill out TWO factions (Rus/Allies). This idea that people can just bounce around any where there’s a new meme is ONLY TRUE FOR VETERANS. And Pre-Merge ones at that.
So, again, just like any other game whether it’s Fortnite, CoD or whatever - if you put a penalty on abandoning a match, it will mean people (particularly the veterans who have engineers who can make rally points, or tanks, or skill at planes or whatever) stick in the matches and they can easily make the difference between a win or a loss.
But, I will add, that can’t be the only thing that changes - maps need to continue to improve, silver needs to get more plentiful, and XP bonuses need to incentivize playing in other factions.
1 Like
For a rank based MM, you need an actual skill based rank to MM with. Enlisted doesn’t have one of those. Enlisted has a “how many matches have you played this BP” ranking system. It literally mean nothing but how many matches you played this BP
Then stop deserting so much and turn those steamroll defeats into a victory. Not that hard, the rest of us who actually play the game do it all the time
1 Like
Issue here is this is casual, not competitive. Taking look at LoL, Valorant, CS is a wrong way to look at this issue since those are highly competitive. Look more at TF2, leaving casual matches only results in not gaining the useless XP.
The current model of punishment is a clear replica of a similar old game named Heroes and Generals. I came from there. Basically for leaving you got a negative multiplier with none of the end-match rewards. I believe it was exactly the same as in Enlisted (Only your score * multiplier 0.7). Except that game required you to pay for used weapons/vehicles/ammo and accesories so there was something at stake for every player by leaving. This however did not translate to Enlisted as such the same penalty does not have the same impact on the decision-making of leaving a match.
Current “meta” heavily leans towards casual gameplay since the most used weapon is SMGs requiring close to no effort while effective. Unless that changes, the gap between vets and casuals will only increase.
I do not know, this sounds kind of one-sided. You force vets to stay, because they (can) have impact, yet there is no punishment for performing poorly or being selfish. Sure vets have impact, but we also have a limit and breaking one’s back and waste time in a most likely a lost match is not our job. This is a free time activity. A person underperforming is not punished for wasting others time, so why should saving yourself a pain be seen as wrong either.
3 Likes
Progression to BR III happens to fast. All these newbs getting their first M1 Garand or Pz IV and getting tossed into III-V with I-II equipment. There should be absolutely 0 Pz II’s in III-V, but guess what? There’re in there. I-II could be cheap and easy to get through, but to get into BR III should absolutely be a monumental task that takes match after match after match so that these newbs turn into average players by the time they reach III-V matches. They need slowing down, not speeding up. They also need to wait till they have BR III set ups, which takes time and a lot of ES as it should