3 Likes
thats mathematically impossible.
if the amount of players scattered within the map on more natural spawn points gets increased, it also increases the amount of a) occupied space and b) friction between both teams, meaning more fights per second. this also automatically leads to less time wasted running around.
and it also reduced greyzone camping.
and unlike random from the forum i am sure at least someone working at df understands this, but their servers are too weak right now and they still wait to rent better ones.
This is what you should be playing with.
2 Likes
False assumption.
All those new players will use more or less the same paths to fight in more or less the same places.
Area of fights won’t increase, density will.
Why? Because everybody will go to the point (mire or less).
There is no reason for ppl to fight over currently unused parts of the map. And that would be required in your scenario.
1 Like
i specifically stated: “more natural spawns”.
a bit of intelligence applied to the current maps will easily create new and more paths.
also more paths done right nicely correlates with more enemy contact.
when the game was made the designers falsely assumed players will build rallies, which they dont and never will under the current rule set of the game and since they still havent increased the amount of rallies allowed per player, they need to do the rally building work map-intrinsic and just put more natural spawns as a compromise.
lack of rallies is the biggest issue currently. even while staying with only 10vs10, more close objective-rallies solves the issue of running around.
What happens now:
What will happen accorging to you (from what I understand):
What will happen according to me:
(I hope pictures are easy enough to understand.)
Why? Because players have 0 reason to fight in other places than the objective.
Players will clutter around the point like they do now. And fights will happen in more or less the same places they do now.
Because the goal of the fight doesn’t change.
6 Likes
As Enlisted is a game played with a relatively small number of players (10 vs 10), each individual’s actions have a significant impact on the outcome of the game.
However, when playing the game, it is noticed that most of the players either do not understand the objective of the game or do not intend to take actions that will lead to victory…
Most matches are run by a small number of people who understand the rules of the game. However, they which team and role they are in is random.
If there are three people in a match who understand the game and they are allocated one defender and two attackers, the defenders will have a very hard time. Perhaps the match you are complaining about is such a match.
Your suggestion would be to increase the number of participants per match so that you have just a few more players who understand the game.
Even if only 10% of the total number of players understand the rules of the game, if there are 40 participants, you might get two defenders who understand the rules…this is you hope may be.
In fact, when you play Battlefield, for example, most of the participants are dumber than bots, but because of the large number of participants, 5~6 players can run the game.
However, again, I think the game is designed to be played 10vs10, which means that purely increasing the number of players would not be comfortable. The maps will need to be redesigned and the servers will need to be increased.
Instead, I would suggest an improved score system and enhanced rewards that would make people play more actively and play stronger.
A while ago Reaper suggested that give tanks a base control/defence assist. This was a good suggestion. More such things need to be introduced.
In an idea I just came up with, Broken ally sandbags don’t disappear immediately, but can be repaired by a fellow player, in which case they get a big score, for example…
We don’t believe that rewards will make all those who play stupid wiser, but they will at least reduce the proportion of stupid people.
2 Likes
14/20 players are human
15v15 or 20v20 human player battles
14/30 or 14/40 human player in battles.
and this is only for crossplay on… data for crossplay off is even worse…
I agree with the majority of all the stuff you just said the only thing I have a problem Which is the majority of matches you gotta lead an army of bots than actual players so increasing the player cap gives you a better chance of having more players instead of having a legion of bots at your back
1 Like
Well, I think I finally understand about 30% of what you are proposing.
If the guess I POSTed is in line with what you wanted to say, then I can agree with you.
A lot of improvements would be needed to reduce the number of uncooperative players and make it easier for solo players to have fun matches.
1 Like
And the post right here unfortunately sad to say it’s real or kind of someone made a game mode called the Ukraine war which dominated custom game Servers for a little bit and it was nowhere as good as what you have right there But they had something similar
you used straight lines, the spawns need to be 2 half circles around the objective to create more interaction.
Then it will even further encourage ppl to slam themselves into a point.
So my point stands even stronger.
1 Like
the 2 half circles is literally how the best players in the world build rallies and play. and its fun and helps weak players to get more done. the current state of the game regarding rally points and pathing is a trainwreck.
1 Like
I like idea of 20x20 or bigger. I just have doubt if server can suport it. Since when game allow 50 players custom mode is lonewolf.
That’s good and all but I want it in official lobbies to get XP to level up
1 Like
Believe me or not but I’m not interested what pro masters in bot hunting concider to be the meta.
I want to have fun playing a game. And your idea simply deletes all playstyles other than mindless zergrush. Thus it limits my fun.
2 Likes
Also your comment further strenghtens my suspition that your idea will only result in even bigger meatgrinder.
I though you want to increase the number of places where the fight takes pace but this comment contradicts it.
my model increases the amount of fights because an eliptic spawn distribution brings people closer to the objective and also creates many fight zones around the object AND reduces grey zone camping.
the system you defend creates grey zone camping, forces players to run around half of the game and leads to the one sided stomps most games are because 90% of this playerbase will never build rallies.