After reading the recent Q&A, I’d like to share the following, inspired by question five and its answer to write on some thoughts.
In a way, Enlisted has always been “two games in one”. Squads. And Lone Fighters. There is no need for consistent PVE content, resources shouldn’t be dedicated to encourage players to battle bots instead of actual players, but there has been for a while a real need for certain improvements to the LF experience.
The first set of issues I will mention have to do with server creation. There are three most important settings; max AI soldiers, armies, and missions.
The max 50 AI soldiers option, and 40 and possibly even 30, needs another look. There is usually at least one Lone Fighters server always up, and when the match doesn’t get fully populated, allowing the possibility of a high number of bots in LF can and does ruin battles. There is a Squads mode for fighting bots, so I’m not sure why they are even options, especially since 30-50 is disappointingly most often chosen by server creators. I’m almost certain that 40 and 50 didnt even used to be options, if so then it definitely needs to be reverted. Low populated battles that otherwise would have been good, player only fights become pathetic bot battles, with players having to try to first identify and target the more dangerous enemy players among the bots, instead of rightfully treating all enemies as dangerous players. Enemy attackers rushing APCs then adds to the number of bots and it’s not a LF battle anymore. Players go to LF expecting to fight other players.
I suggest the armies setting also be reverted. Previously, the option was a simple one, between either standard armies or mixed armies, with creators choosing them about equally. Since this has been changed to include the options to select any of the four armies for either side, this has negatively influenced created servers. The amount of times some sort of mixed armies variation is currently chosen over standard, historical armies is very lopsided. Beside taking away from the historicity of Enlisted, allowing these options often results in absolute abominations. I cant remember the last time I saw a successful hardore Lone Fighters server, and since the campaigns update I have seen only one struggling one, nothing to do with the creator choosing mixed armies as well! Either they were trolling, or they were challenged, because all that would result in is team offing, but the point is, it shouldn’t be allowed. Now there is even less chance of experiencing the more mature, hardcore setting. A return to how it was before and a restriction on pairing hardcore with mixed armies seems appropriate.
The answer to question four mentioned the desire to avoid “restrictions”, related to players who grey zone camp, but based on the results I’ve mentioned, I believe the additional freedoms given to creators, allowing extra max AI soldiers in battle and allowing the creation of unnecessary/inappropriate armies, needs to be taken back. For the integrity of Lone Fighters.
The third problem is the amount of maps that creators choose. Arguably, most often creators choose all or most missions. This is ok I guess, the battles aren’t likely to be repetitive, but it is often way too many, as most missions wont be played by the time the server fades. A cap on how many maps can be chosen would hopefully encourage creators to give more thought to what they choose. However, the bigger issue, and the one I think needs to really be considered, is choosing too few maps. For much of last week the only available decently populated server to join had only 3 maps. If they were all the most balanced Lone Fighters mode, Confrontation, it would have been just passable, but beside one Confrontation, it was two unbalanced Invasion maps. I dont think many players if asked would have honestly said it was a decent server. (If I have this correct, all or most Invasion maps are doubled, with one side always attacking or defending based on specific map variant chosen. So when a low number of Invasion maps are chosen, and all of them are the same map variant, one side is always attacking, the other side is always defending. Beside the fact that some creators might exploit this to join the side that always defends, which is the advantageous position in LF, players who join the server and notice this can also take advantage of this at the expense of team balance. Why always attack, when they can always defend? Therefore, disallowing an unbalanced number of the two map variants might be worth considering.)
This is especially a problem with the other arguably most chosen mission option, of just a single map, or two. I highly doubt that any creator who does this has the peak Lone Fighters experience of other players in mind. (The only exception is an example such as the two D-Day maps together, which would indicate that the creator has decided on a limited yet specific theme, but this level of thoughtful creation I have yet to see associated with limited map creations, so I don’t see the point in further allowing no minimum limit for this reason.) I do not think that the argument can honestly be made that the times this sort of server gets the most populated is due to players actually wanting it. Like most servers that kick off, it’s most likely that a few players joined it at the time of day when a decently populated server wasn’t up, and once it got a bit ahead, that’s the server most players who then joined LF initially gravitated towards, as is normal, and often stayed on. The point is, a cap on the minimum number of selected missions benefits LF players, because if one of those servers gets going, it can be the only one populated for a while. No one particularly appreciates the server, few want to leave and play on an almost empty server, and even less want to leave and create a new one themselves. Creating a successful server on ones own seems to have to include proper timing and a degree of luck, so the point shouldn’t be to force a player seeking a decent and populated LF server to rely on such, but to minimise pathetic servers being created. If some selfish creator thinks that they really, totally, seriously must have the right to create a one or three map server! …so what?
The second set of issues have to do with team balancing.
The battle start conditions for Lone Fighters matches could use an edit. I recently saw an especially bad example, with the battle starting with three times, or almost, the number of players on one side. It seems that once the countdown initiates, the battle will start no matter the numbers, and no matter even the “unbalanced teams” notification which pops up, which is apparently supposed to stop the battle from starting. What used to happen with the servers a while back, at some point the battle wouldnt start at all, even if the numbers balanced. Then the server depopulated when eventually everyone got tired of waiting and left. I havent seen that happen since an update, but now the battles always start quickly. What will go a long way is delaying the go until teams somewhat balance to avoid lopsided starts (crucial in Confrontation) and unfair battles, while still ensuring the battle starts in a reasonable time. Delaying the start time has the added benefit of giving players enough time to quickly edit a squad if they need to and still catch the start of the next battle, not to mention those who dont like being rushed through battle results.
The other detail that needs some attention is dealing with those who like to take up team places in lobby and not join the battle, often battles in a row. It’s not even just those who sit in battle results for whatever reason, often these liabilities leave battle results and just idle. Not only are they unbalancing teams, especially if there are more of them on one side, but they are denying others the chance to join the fight, as this often happens and is most damaging on full servers/at peak times. There is no good reason to idle for extended periods in the lobby, in battle results or not, while your team needs soldiers. I suggest that a certain amount of time after the battle has started, a timer kicks anyone idling, AND doesnt allow them to rejoin the server for a certain amount of time. This is to ensure that on fully populated servers/at peak times they can’t immediately rejoin, and a player who actually wants to fight gets the chance to. If they dont intend to join the battle, they shouldnt be allowed to take up places.
The answer to question three mentioned possible player base fragmention if right now the number of servers was expanded, and I agree. I also agree that it’s possible that Enlisted has too many players… in Squads mode, at the expense of the more… honest… Lone Fighters mode, due in part to lack of support. From reading Enlisted’s discord, reading the forum and comments, and following all the news and updates, one could be forgiven for thinking that Squads mode is all Enlisted is, and perhaps even where all the skillful congregate… but for all the names that have so much to say (about Squads mode XD), why are you rarely, if ever, seen supporting the more authentically competitive arena?
Appreciative, Lothur.
