As an extremely useful game mechanic which will always be in the center of your attention, we thought it would be good to keep you updated as to upcoming changes involving rally points.
In the last “Making Enlisted a Better Place” we set out our goal of correcting a situation where rally points could be built too close to capture zones. This occurred due to an incorrect calculation of the minimum distance at which the game allows you to build the rally point.
Unfortunately, our fix affected not only the capturing of zones with complex shapes (which was the initial issue) but it also affected all capture points in the game far too much.
WHAT WE WILL DO
Right now, we’re going to cancel the implemented distance increase and, in one of the future updates, we’ll fix the distance calculation errors for capture zones with complex shapes. In this implementation, the improvement will fix some problematic spots that upset the balance of the game and, for the majority of the remaining points, the allowable distance will remain the same.
We thank the players who promptly noticed the problem and reported it to us!
The most unbalanced thing in this game is not rally points or whatsoever, it’s the unbalanced matchmaking that makes one side has many more real players than the other side, which happens every day in Berlin Germany, and Tunisia Axis. You cannot fight against 10 real humans with a team full of bots no matter what you have. The adjustment of distance of building rally doesn’t make the victory of the stronger side harder, only to make the victory in the situation impossible
during fix some problematic spots that upset the balance of the game
pls Adjust the corresponding shelter position/the Occupation time / the manpower feedback。
and Conduct simulation test。
Good to know. Not sure how or why you all rushed it out the first time though? Test it then release it! There was no need to boot it out the door before trying it just to see how limited it made rallies on some maps
I think it would be best to review each map and design zones individually per map and since it would be harder for players to judge where to build - mini-map overlay is needed when you select rally for building. Making global value for all maps doesn’t work well. Sometimes there are plenty of great spots within 50m but I know several where just getting in 1m closer would allow defenders to have spawn in the building instead of behind building in the open and vulnerable to arty and bombs.
I get the feeling that most of the critics of the change didn’t understand what it was trying to accomplish, and they’re still going to complain that they can’t build in those “most problematic spots”
“Improved”
Even the developers have acknowledged it was far too much and it needs to be tailored more. Call us low brow crybabies or whatever you want to but there were some very glaring issues with it regardless
I honestly dont care as long as DF finally realizes that they have to be more precise with certain issues (and maybe test their stuff before releasing it).
I think this is a deeper problem. What you are describing is due to how the campaign system is implemented, basically each campaign is like a different game of it’s own, that splits the player base very thin unfortunately.
This is very worrisome especially with new campaigns that will come. If this continues some campaigns will die out due to lack of players as new ones come. I don’t think it is very good for someone to invest time and money into a campaign, only for that said campaign to die due to no players. It will drive people away from the game at some point.
The campaign system can actually damage the game a lot, because nobody wants to be stuck with bots.The campaign system, is a very harsh system, that cannibalize it’s own player base, it is only a matter of time until we will see severe repercussions. I hope they are thinking of ways to fix this, I want this game to do good. They should unify the campaigns somehow, I think it can be done by simplifying progression, unifying it into ONE BIG campaign for all maps/scenarios.
I think certain considerations need to be made just because attackers can put rps down close to objective, so can defenders, obviously some obstacles may hinder ideal placement.
But also I never usually put too close to enemy flags, as otherwise you get active battles and unable to spawn, or artillery comes in and nukes your rp, so noone uses it.
But I’m sure it will be better if you involve us the community before making changes like that, we all have something to contribute, me on Normandy, someone else on Berlin etc
Thank you for reverting the rally point restrictions. It was almost impossible to place any rally points on most conquest maps, and it was hell for the defenders (who literally had no places left to place rally points).
It appears I might be the only one who found something positive in the change for spawn points:
I liked the fact that both sides have to travel farther to get to the objective. Why?
At first you are forced to look for alternatives to traditional spawn point spots. But this also allows for more creativity, because the increase in distance makes you think which (potentially totally new) route would be best to make sure most fighters make it safely to the objective.
Also when being on the journey, you take much bigger care for your fighters to ensure most of them make it, because it really matters to lose a good deal on the way - it will take a good while to try again with a new squad, when you fail.
Once you make it to the spot, no longer will you have to face 3-5 squads firmly in place, but often the enemy will need to travel themselves, so once you overcome 1-2 squads on the objective, you are about to capture.
To top it off, with these larger travel distances, it pays off to look at the map more closely to intercept the shortest enemy route.
Much more exciting than hordes of players spawning only 50m from the objective, as you get to see action on far bigger areas of the beautifully designed maps!
