Testing expanded BR for maps

News
680

you’d have m1 garands making germany and japan cope and you’d have mg42s and STGs making americans cope, people would get frustrated and leave

I just checked steam DB and Enlisted has over 1000 more players right now than Hell Let Loose does, and HLL is more authentic than Enlisted currently is.

I’m going to tell you something. The majority of players (or gamers in general) do not give a shit about historical authenticity. Your opinion about historical references, while not incorrect, is in the minority when it comes to this game. And the developers need to chase the money, and favoring the minority group of players isn’t going to do that

5 Likes
681

As much as we all enjoy arguing about “Historical Accuracy” (which I’m against for this game), I think the devs still need feedback about the map changes. They’ve already made their decision about HA and it is far secondary to gameplay.

To reiterate, I’m for all maps for all BR’s. I understand there are concerns for tier V (and maybe IV) for Tunisia as top end tanks can really dominate on a lot of those maps. I’d personally recommend just not using the problematic maps for Tier V but still keep viable Tunisia ones. (Mostly the caves).

Diversity is the lifeblood of good gameplay. Diversity in weapons. Diversity in uniforms. Diversity in game modes. Diversity in NATIONS (Fix Britain and Italy FFS and add France to allies and Hungary/Romania to Germany). And, as to this discussion, DIVERSITY IN MAPS. The more maps the better.

5 Likes
682

ive been having a lot of fun zooming around in tunisia with my jagdpanther, i very much enjoy the extra variety

2 Likes
683

Maybe, but overhaul many people are against the addition of all the maps to all BR. Otherwise this wouldn’t be as debated as it is.

Personnaly I am not thrilled by the addition of vast, oepn maps (such as Quary and most of Tunisia tbh) to high br. And I also like the current “immersion”, which sure is far from perfect (and KT in Tunisia won’t make me quit the game) but is still a point of interrest for me.

As far as the devs manage to make a good “preferred map” setting, I won’t be opposed to “All maps for all BR” as long as people can choose to ban campaigns from some BR for instance. Otherwise, I would be annoyed.

2 Likes
684

Although I understand the majority of you don’t like this, in my honest opinion, it is a necessary change that will help drastically reduce matchmaker wait times.

685

According to our CM, that’s not true.

From what he said on his twitch stream, basically only forum are those unsatisfied villains.
Meanwhile the overall approval is more likely pro this change.

So we’re entering an era where the future of the game will be decided by a few upvoted posts somewhere on reddits, backed by closed coordinated discord groups.

Individual opinions are irrelevant now, apparently. All that matters is which opinions have the most likes and the fact that they aren’t on the forum.

I recommend to check his last stream.

7 Likes
686

First, do not think the forums represent the majority.

Second, even here it’s a pretty evident most people don’t care.

1 Like
688

“I’m going to tell you something. The majority of players (or gamers in general) do not give a shit about historical authenticity. Your opinion about historical references, while not incorrect, is in the minority when it comes to this game. And the developers need to chase the money, and favoring the minority group of players isn’t going to do that”

Encouraging devs to always chase the lowest common denominator, because their income would go up by some arbitrary amount is not something people who prefer quality would usually get behind. How is Assassins Creed doing these days? The Battlefield franchise, how is its reputation faring? When people talk about Fallout, which is considered the height of the franchise?

Do you seriously believe that’s an argument whose end result would be a net positive for the industry, and this game. The past couple of decades being dominated by corporate interests to the extreme, has had a horrible impact on this hobby.

8 Likes
689

well, this is a WW2 shooter, and many players specifically play it because of that reason - the degree of HA can always be debated, but if we had M16 in Moscow and Star Wars Tie fighters in Stalingrad I would argue that much less of us would actually be here.

Do people care about small details? most dont even know in what year which tank was build.
But people will know something is off when you see Jets fighting in 1940.

8 Likes
690

Though you may be fine with these upcoming changes, and view them as overall insignificant, I would remind you it was a long time getting here, with many small changes along the way. The same exact thing has already occurred in Gaijins other titles, Crossout, and War Thunder, the changes never stopped, more and more small chips were made to the original texture of the game, until we got games that were almost unrecognizable in relation to their origins (which people put money toward btw).

You say it’s small details now, but those add up, Enlisted is already radically different in nature from its release, if the game lasts for five more years and there is never any successful push back, those small changes will likely completely warp the game you enjoy into something totally different. Do you think the devs will just draw a line in the sand, and say “here’s where we stop homogenizing everything”?

How are my bomber cockpits coming along in War Thunder, it’s been how many years now, but we’ve got a bunch of shoddy Merkava’s to die in, and a naval mode that runs on autopilot, so I guess I’m supposed to be happy?

4 Likes
691

Well, tbh it is mostly argued between the same four vs four people as of right now. Dunno about reddit or Discord.

5 Likes
693

Nerds debating over this and that to the point of bringing out TO&E poster and mentioning player counts while forgetting that all this bullshit made up drama is simply because dev is too lazy/incompetent to add new maps to fill low/hi BR map pools.

Maps are the backbone of WW2 shooters because there’s only so much weapon/vehicle that can be added and yet these distinguished fellas over DF/Gaijin decide it’s cooler to add filler guns and recycled vehicle skins than adding tons of new maps each new season.

13 Likes
694

I have not been on this forum as long as many of you. But in that short time, there have been many recurring topics. One being the issue of certain maps being stuck in low or high BR. This topic has not been the most popular but it sees consistent attention from newcomer and veteran alike.

If this issue is finally resolved, I doubt we will see a recurring topic, especially from new forum dwellers, wanting Moscow/Tunisia forced into a lower BR. And though this suggestion is sure to pop up from time to time, just like we still see suggestions to a revert to the pre-merge style Enlisted, this will come from a few loud veterans and it will not be seen at the same frequency of the “all maps, all BRs” type of requests/conversations.

The reaction to this change is definitely not overwhelmingly negative. Hopefully the devs choose wisely on whom to listen to.

2 Likes
696

I’m okay and even happy with the fact that I can play all the BR on all the maps, which doesn’t seem to help anyone, but since the appearance of BR, I’ve found it a shame to be restricted in terms of maps AND weapons. I find it boring to play the same maps all the time, with the same weapons. It’s a game, and either it’s 100% historical, or it isn’t. And then, in wartime, your enemy doesn’t care if you know how to fight back with equal weapons, he’s still going to slap you on the wrist! One or two solutions for everyone would be to be able to tick off the campaigns you want to play:

1: completely exclude campaigns you don’t want to play
or
2: check off the campaigns you want to play first, which would still leave you some chance of playing a campaign you don’t like as much.

But actually, I had a BRV game in Tunisia, against the Germans, it was impassable, maybe you could make some small modifications to the terrain, add some cover or a bit of relief to reduce the open fields. as has already been done on various Enlisted maps.

French (Belgium) Translated with Deepl

2 Likes
697

Well, Moscow and Tunisia maps (with some exceptions) plays like shit in high BR. That was expected, I guess?

By the way, was this necessary at all?

In my opinion, it would’ve been better to focus on creating new battlefields than allowing non-suitable maps that will only temporarily satisfy bored/burned-out players. The recent map changes are just a quick fix for the increasing craving for new battlefields. The question is essential in my opinion, especially since it will upset a portion of the player base that cares about history and only temporarily satisfy the general yearning for new maps.

Let’s not forget: a lot of players are here because they’re interested in WW2 not cuz of they heard of this game-breaking FPS game called Enlisted with amazing and groundbreaking gunplay/features. Don’t get me wrong. It’s an amazing game. I love Enlisted. Probably one of the most lovable games I’ve ever played. But most of us aren’t here because we think Enlisted offers a unique and great gameplay experience.

And I must stress: I’ve always preferred gameplay/fun over historical accuracy (HA), but they have never been mutually exclusive. The recent changes make me think this game has progressively lost its identity and charm, unfortunately. At the moment, Enlisted just feels very uncharming; a generic WW2-themed shooter, without anything unique to offer (Besides a sadly undeveloped and unused squad mechanic)

You might be able to correct a few more maps to make them playable for high BR, but what is that worth?
I can accept these changes if you make the new map selector/exclusion work; you need to make it on a “campaign” basis, and not a single map basis.In other words: In order to make this work, you either need to rework every single map of these campaigns (and upset ppl) or nail the new, upcoming "map preferred system by making it possible to exclude camping and not only maps. (But here we have another concern: Do we have enough players for a campaign ban? I don’t want to fight bots like pre-merge).

What’s also kinda contradictive: the original post-merge BR/map bans have always meant somewhat freedom for players to choose what campaign to play (remember you also advocated the upsides with merge, talking about this). But these recent changes mean I have no freedom or ability to select maps I wanna play what so whatever.

Nevertheless. This gaming is very uncharming at the moment. It’s time to decide what path you wanna choose. Enlisted has never been historically accurate, and should never strive to be strictly accurate. But at least it was somewhat historically authentic, (in decline). This is another big blow.

What I said before about "HA"

So what’s the difference between historical accuracy and historical authenticity?

Basically this: Historical authenticity is more soft-ish and about being faithful to the time period being portrayed and historical accuracy is more hardcore and about being faithful to the historical facts.

it is possible for something to be historically authentic and historically inaccurate at the same time. Enlisted have always been historically inaccurate in several respects, but still conveyed a sense of authenticity or realism.

This latest changed just made it even less authentic in every way possible. And it’s just a quick-fix, ad-hoc solution for ppl asking for a new experience/map variety.

This just feels like a desperate move, a mascara to cover up for the ever-decreasing content in this god forsaken game.

19 Likes
698

well i think that this is probably preparation for preferred map system. this way they can try to balance maps for high BR based on this test result and let map choice be on players. but i could also be wrong and this is just brainfart from devs.

2 Likes
699

That’s what was my thought as they have map selection in their roadmap so i dunno why people got so insanely mad when they will be most likely be able to disable those campaign maps from their playlist.

If not then we will complain, they will refine it further and then we will be one happy family again. I think we are going in circles and repeating same steps every time.

Insert definition of insanity.mp4 clip.

2 Likes
700

depends on how they implement map preference. it could solve everything or do nothing. i am afraid if they implement WT model that is shit.

11 Likes
701

If it will be like WT then it will be really useless as dislike doesn’t do anything and maps are very limited and mostly used by premium players. So yeah better ready yourself to complain (as always), so they will rework it again (as always) and then be happy (as always) for 15 minutes before we will complain about something else.

2 Likes
702

Yeah it does - the trouble with the system is there’s a LOT of maps - each different game type on the same map counts as a different map you have to dislike separately :frowning:

And you have a very small number of dislikes.

But it does work within that small number

1 Like