BR V needs to be its own matchmaker, PERIOD. There is no argument. It’s not WW2 when everyone has automatic rifles and 155mm cannons.
2 Likes
I mean, if DF/GJ can really bring themselves to have longer and larger matches/maps, I’m all for it.
1 Like
Elegantly put. As it is, I have a friend I tried to introduce to the game, and while he felt pretty competent even after a few games, it’s been hard to get him to come back. (We played together as low tier Allies and constantly losing matches to over-powered Germans is a hard sell.)
Breaking up the tiers would help - I like the suggestion of I-II, III-IV, and V. Also, giving (significantly) more silver the higher the match level. As in lowest tier gives X, middle tier gives 2X and highest tier gives 3X silver.
2 Likes
Why are prototype weapons a problem unless if you want historical accuracy. Personally I don’t see these as mutually exclusive issues, if people don’t care that you can’t even use the PPSh or AVS in Moscow or Stalingrad unless you’re also fighting with time traveling King Tigers (BR 4 and BR 5). I’m just sayin
Note that my idea of historical authenticity is that when something was made, produced, saw service, including prototypes, is when it will appear. I don’t have any problem as long as it makes sense chronologically
1 Like
Yeah. I have said this before, but I am age 60 and retired and both my kids were all playing. But them being younger got easily fed up with all the ass kickings and moved on to other games. Now my youngest (17) I am sure is done with the game, while my oldest (31) I think said he played once in the past year. So the makers if they have any business sense at all will address the matching before they worry about updating their map scenery. If the gameplay sucks I don’t give a crap about the scenery, I will be playing something else. 
Is there anyone from the actual game makers reading these forums, or is it simply players blowing off steam?
2 Likes
Wow - I too play with an adult age (21) son. He’s the one who got me into it. And, it helps the game having old fogeys since they have money to blow on the game. (I don’t even want to think about how much I blew on that “May Day” sale…)
I feel like they listen to the forums, since, and I may be crazy, but I’ve played the game almost daily for a month, and over the past week, I’ve seen a few map tweaks that I hadn’t seen before that seem to balance out some of the horrible ones. (Like Normandy). At least, I don’t seem to get my APCs blown up on the beach like I had in the past.
Of course, that may have been in the game already and maybe they have multiple Normandy randomizations that some are just absolutely brutal and others less so. Haven’t been playing long enough to know.
But yes, the game needs to be welcoming to newbies. I feel like, conceptually, it has the capacity to be THE most newbie friendly game out there (e.g. having immediate replacements when you take a headshot is a great way to feel like you’re making continued progress, etc) - but the match-up imbalance will surely kill the game faster than anything.
1 Like
In Enlisted you’re going to torture or be tortured by the lack of competitive game play, and that is on the makers of the game for not taking the time to fix the match making issues. I have only played twice tonight due to crappy internet and lack of interest, but both games were complete seal clubbing’s by my team. I felt sorry for the poor bastards because just as often then not I am the poor bastard being seal clubbed debating on whether to grin and bare it for the duration or desert.
1 Like
IMOP level one either needs to just fly solo, or at the very least they should not be matched with any level above level 2.
2 Likes
Yeah, I’m with the folks that feel like they should break it up into 3 tiers. I still don’t understand how some people seem to slide Tier 3 stuff in Tier I-II matches (and it even says Tiers I-III) on the button, but the second I put a single gun of any type on any of my guys that’s BR III - bam, I’m in there with BR V people.
I guess I’m missing something.
But, I’d like to see it I-II, III-IV, and V. Right now, I have absolutely ZERO incentive to buy BR III items. I wonder if the Devs realize they have created an entire Tier (III) that no one would in their right mind buy. B/c it will just get absolutely crushed by the BR V equipment. At least with BR I ranked stuff, it’s only grouped one level higher, so makes it semi-competitive.
2 Likes
I totally agree. I have bought weapons and squads. Mostly after I spent a year and a half busting butt to build allied squads I could play any level with, only to have to abandon them because they started getting their asses kicked and I saw no end in sight. So, being impatient I did not want to grind away to build a German squad and dropped hundreds of bucks in building self ready squads. I sure as hell would not ever do that again, but it is what it is at this point. I scratch my head when I see level 3 weapons like 3 different Browning 1918’s in the tech tree, yet they have a BP WAR which is essentially the same gun with the same specs and is the same level 3. I bought one just to check it out, but there is no difference and a complete waste of money when you can just play and get it free in the tech tree. I would say it is the same as the first basic Browning 1918, and the Browning 1918A2 is much better. If it were a level 2 gun I would have bought 4 as I don’t like the British machine guns with the mag jutting out the top like a shark fin. . Like you, if I put just ONE gun of level 3 I am stuck playing against teams that seem to all be carrying level 3 or higher weapons, so my my entire squad at the 1-3 level are carrying level 2 guns.
1 Like