Comprehensive List of Reasons why players quit out of Matches

[robihr]

@tommyZZM

Due to the existence of BR, you basically can’t make any combination, because once you bring a higher-level weapon, he will match you to a higher-level room. Unless they make some kind of more dynamic weighting mechanism.

As mentioned above, 1xFg42+4x98k and 9xFG42, there is no reasonable combination.

yeah players that combine weapons are f*** in this scenario. they will either need to play high BR, play custom or make their combination tighter in BR spread. but lot of players choose end game meta and then even more players choose end game meta to counter them. this is vicious cycle. in normandy i am constantly against stg44, m2 carbine, p47, tigers and flamethrowers.

@tommyZZM

If it’s just for novices, they only need 4 ranks of BR, the first 3 are for novices protection, all the rest of the weapons don’t need BR

it is not only novices. it also brings reusability of old weapons and vehicles for veterans. i would like to have a game with low or mid game weapons without worrying that if i take stuart i will end up against tiger.

@tommyZZM

It’s like saying some player claims he’s having fun entering the game with a SPAA, false, most players end up choosing a tank with better protection if they need to win in the game.

this is exactly reason for BR MM. this sentence. players have fun with SPAA, but they will choose tank with better protection and higher caliber guns cause enemy is also having better vehicles which they will not destroy with SPAA. with BR MM, players are free to choose SPAA without worrying too much about unkillable tanks.

@tommyZZM

As mentioned above, BR does not solve these problems.

it solves stuart vs tiger situation, it solves k98k/mp28 vs fedorov/ppsh41. in peak hours you will be able to penetrate almost all tanks that you are matched against (if they dont f*** the table again) and infantry weapons shouldnt have big difference in performance.

@tommyZZM

Since most players are playing PvE, this is just a contradictory inference.

erm… most players are playing PvP(vE). yes there are bots in the game, but most players dont even know that some players arent actually players, but bots. they are under impression that they are just playing against bad players.

@tommyZZM

In an unbalanced battle, the player joins a weaker faction, and he faces a bad gameplay experience, which basically has nothing to do with weapons.

i agree, but weapons are still factor there. you cant say that they dont have influence on bad match.
my experience from ally normandy grind from last year was particularly bad. team full of noobs and bots on allies vs full veteran team on axis. and do you know what would have really helped in those matches? that i am not against 5 players that are constantly spamming mp43 and tigers every match. if they had mp40 and pz4, experience would be much better and i could actually carry more matches.

@tommyZZM

So now the novice can’t even directly play with the weapon he just turned on right? He’ll even get a warning that your newest weapon will lead you into a bad match. Here’s another ludicrous thing about unlimited spam.

it is not warning about bad match, but about bad matchup if he only has 1 high tier weapon or 1 squads with high tier weapons. also i think you meant FG42 GL and not FG42-2.

@tommyZZM

PvE combat is a very important part of this game, whether DF wants to admit it or not, it becomes the main impression of the player.

Players who really stay here and are used to playing the random part. They’ve gotten used to playing in PvE. Most of this core player base loves the novice combat of PvE.

like i said game is not PvE. it is PvP(vE) and game was slowly turning into pure PvE cause of lack of players. idk about others, but i am playing multiplayer online game to play against other humans, not bots and DF is also at fault for masking bots as human players.

@tommyZZM

The appearance of BR ruined the game experience of those PvE players. At the same time he did not bring new things to other players

i disagree with this statement. it will bring reusability of old weapons/vehicles and this is major part of why this is good. check other topics and you will see that people usually used mostly end game weapons/vehicles and lots of people are happy to play low-mid BR.

[Elisseo]

Punishment is shit in a game, no matter what. Who says otherwise is a clown. I would drop like i did WT if that be the case(and i never desert unless connection or rl get in way, i kind of a masochist myself and i like axis tunisia)

[tommyZZM]

@robihr

with BR MM, players are free to choose SPAA without worrying too much about unkillable tanks.

nope

BR dont do this job. It not fun for players

Another mech do this

[robihr]

i found m13 plenty of fun when i was against only first 2 or maybe 3 tanks/SPAA and even used it after i unlocked other tank.

also if you were thinking about those reward squads in moscow, then i understand completely why people are taking tanks. but pacific SPAA are fun if you have restricted MM.

[tommyZZM]

@robihr

lots of people are happy to play low-mid BR.

This is another fictional assumption.

The truth is that most of the combat these days is happening at low level weapon levels, you just have to look at the weapons of your teammates that you see in the game, I doubt players are happy about this situation

Everything good about BR comes from these unfounded conjectures.

We will see the result after it comes. Generally speaking, in these discussions, whether our views are understood by the other party or not, he does not affect the facts themselves.

I always think BR is bad, he doesn’t have any successful precedent, WT doesn’t belong, because he is a relatively simple vehicle combat. And here, you have more complex weapon scenarios, infantry and all sorts of things, successful examples, based on resource and score mechanics.

I’ve said a lot about why BR fails. Including yours. there’s nothing new about why BR fails, and they don’t change the outcome of my inferences

[robihr]

@tommyZZM

This is another fictional assumption.

What will be your preferred BR to play in?

I’m curious. What sort of BR will you prefer to play in most of the time? Considering, that the proposed tech tree will stay the way it is now (it won’t but that is, what we have to work with now). I fully expected to stay in low BRs most of the time, because I enjoy bolties and not getting exploded and set on fire so much. And only play in higher BRs, when I’m in the mood for some sweat. But looking at the new tech tree, the low tiers look a bit too barebones for my taste after all. Right now…

seems like lots of players want to play in low-mid tiers. and lot of them are veterans with end game unlocks.

@tommyZZM

I always think BR is bad, he doesn’t have any successful precedent,

i found WoWS as successful precedent. with ±2 MM it is generally quite balanced even when up tiered. it would be pure shitshow without BR MM where t1 ship would need half an hour of constant fire to kill t10 yamato from short range, but yamato could one shot him from other side of the map.

[tommyZZM]

@robihr

i found WoWS as successful precedent

WT、WOT、WOWS . These games using BR or similar to BR, they are all monotonous vehicle games, you have air, sea, underwater submarines and aircraft carriers, but they only have one very main vehicle element.

They’re not about infantry and combinations of different types of vehicles.

This is an inappropriate association, and why BR is questioned, many players have mentioned that BR on vehicle combat will not work well here.

I agree with some players that this game is closer to some RTS elements, and similar games about infantry do not use BR, they use other resource mechanisms to achieve the combination and balance of weapons. This one is about infantry vehicle aircraft.

—-

@robihr

lots of people are happy to play low-mid BR.

They used to assume that in the battle of Stalingrad, the player would enjoy the battle faster by getting 4x the experience to unlock the weapons, which didn’t happen, the game never became replayable, it was more of a monotonous repetition Combat, these problems do not come from the weapon.

BR isolates the weapon without changing the game mode, which you also mentioned. But at the same time their merged tech tree will also lead to more PvP.

If players enjoyed the game modes themselves, they’re stuck by now, which doesn’t explain the player’s departure.

Now you have PvP and PvP and sweaty combat, but does that keep players?

As in the case the OP enumerated, we escaped the game, leaving one game to join another easy one. Note that those of us on the forum are high-level players, they are definitely not the role of using pz2 and t60.

BR is a major game change and I highly doubt it has any positive effects.

It doesn’t answer why players, like I don’t want to click to start the game, have this conflicting feeling. I think BR is wrongly answering what players want.

As we talked about the SPAA example, when I throw this example, I see it as the same thing as 10 t-34-76 vs 1 Tiger in the Kursk field. Then the BR forbids the t-34-76 to meet the tiger. It also doesn’t allow the heroic narrative of the 1x t-70 defeating the not spamming 3x Phanter to happen in the game.

For SPAA, he is still not fun in the new BR. Since I’m one of the players who likes to use these weapons the most, how he really does it from the player’s point of view, I don’t know how it does it, is highly questionable.

You can’t change player preferences and opinions through literal debate. Of course, these inferences will not affect the facts that are about to happen. I want to see how this all happens.

I see this as a poor replacement for the devs’ reluctance to implement the respawn score mechanic. And for historical battles and balance battles, rebirth score is obviously a more suitable tool than BR.

[robihr]

@tommyZZM

I agree with some players that this game is closer to some RTS elements, and similar games about infantry do not use BR, they use other resource mechanisms to achieve the combination and balance of weapons. This one is about infantry vehicle aircraft.

and similar games about infantry dont use locking mechanism behind grind. if every player had access to every weapon i wouldnt be against any other way for MM or resource management. problem is not k98k vs fedorov or drum ppsh41. problem is that one player is forced to play that rifle, while other player has freedom of choice to bring whatever he wants. and fedorov/drum ppsh41 will be 5-10x more effective than k98k, specially when you need to go into cqc.

that is what i find as unfair advantage and why BR MM is needed to fix or at least mitigate problem.

if my first campaign was allies normandy last year when germans had overwhelming advantage, i would just uninstall the game after few matches, specially after learning that tiger cant be penetrated frontally by any allied tank before i invest hundreds of hours into the game.

@tommyZZM

They used to assume that in the battle of Stalingrad, the player would enjoy the battle faster by getting 4x the experience to unlock the weapons, which didn’t happen, the game never became replayable, it was more of a monotonous repetition Combat, these problems do not come from the weapon.

BR isolates the weapon without changing the game mode, which you also mentioned. But at the same time their merged tech tree will also lead to more PvP.

you know that he isolation wont be tight or fixed? in most cases it will work to prevent extreme disparity between weapons (like matching pz2 vs IS). my predictions is that it will work on ±2 to ±4 MM in peak hours. so check their table and see what you would be matched against. even if that table is bad it can still work as reference. if you play on t5, sooner or later you will get every weapon/vehicle with or against you. just that it wont be in same match.

@tommyZZM

Now you have PvP and PvP and sweaty combat, but does that keep players?

yes, it keeps them. but do you know what is driving away newbies? extreme seal clubbing, playerbase disparity between sides/campaigns, bots masked as players, uncountable bugs that arent fixed, bad game mechanics etc.

@tommyZZM

BR is a major game change and I highly doubt it has any positive effects.

we will see after they implement it. i am hopeful and could theoretically see good points in it.

@tommyZZM

As we talked about the SPAA example, when I throw this example, I see it as the same thing as 10 t-34-76 vs 1 Tiger in the Kursk field. Then the BR forbids the t-34-76 to meet the tiger. It also doesn’t allow the heroic narrative of the 1x t-70 defeating the not spamming 3x Phanter to happen in the game.

game also forbids 10 tanks so there is no problem in that regard

[DNAmodsNP]

@robihr

if game cant guarantee that you have vehicle capable of destroying another vehicle in match

it could though with proper MM without a BR system based on tiers

for example a system that makes an effort to find players that have sufficient gear, and if it’s not possible because none in the pool currently available, they could develop a decent system of ai bot support to help in such situations to compensate, all part of advanced game development and planning for such situations, something that is clearly missing in this game and instead we are being guided by people who think csgo is a good game, you lost all my respect with that comment, sorry

There are other possibilities, a failure to look at that, is a dev failure, sorry to be brutally honest

it’s like trying to put out a fire with fuel, that isn’t smart, but you seem to think it is

@robihr

there are loads of bad solutions.

and if you only focus on them then the result is a bad solution being implemented such as BR, which as we have established is not a good solution, and it’s not a solution either, since we also already established it’s bringing more and other problems, ergo, fuel to fire

@robihr

and other player has choice of 50 other weapons then that is the problem. this is bad game design

not necessarily if the game can still do adequate job balancing players into matches and it hasn’t been bad design so far, the game has been quite ok because even in worst case scenarios you can just quit and find a new match, and I know for a fact I have enjoyed this version of enlisted and will not enjoy a limited BR future that this game is going in, so BR is bad game design. I rather have a match where there is potential of 50 weapon variety than say 5 weapon variety

@robihr

but you know what? Nuke is fair cause i worked hard for Nuke.

There is no such thing as nuke in the game, and anything that has wide area of destruction/killing power such as bombs and rockets do so because the map design and objective design insists on pushing tiny areas to fight over, which again is a side issue, design/game planning issue. So you make pointless arguments again, reaching for straws as all your arguments that make an honest attempt are

@robihr

no. you said you wanted war. and in war soldiers dont always have brightest and shiniest toys.

I never said that they should always have the brightest and shiniest toys, which is why the diversity currently works so well, and it will be ruined by BR, it’s very obvious to anyone with a brain

your BR at top tier will be that, only the shiniest end game toys, so you are the one that wants that

@robihr

if you can guarantee plane in every match with tiger

there you have it, the actual solution

which can be achieved various other ways without this nonsense BR system

but bare in mind that as I said, even in the new BR system, if you have a pnz3 and nobody on the team wants to play pilot or only has low end BR tank and nobody can reach the PZ3 in grey area, like I said, problem persists, and you are still left with having to quit the match, so BR didn’t solve the issue

@robihr

you want

you don’t know shit about what I want because you don’t pay attention and only select what is convenient and then it shows in your arguments, already explained thing, but you don’t understand them

@robihr

and you are twisting words again and again and again

just indulging in some of your tactics back to you, to see how you enjoy it, it’s fun isn’t it?

easy to argue that way and avoid the subjects, you do that, I will do it to you

@robihr

is it unfair for one player to have access to fedorov and other player not to have access to fedorov in same match? yes? or no?

Both players can have access to it, you however want to blame the poor matchmaking of the game on the player that has worked hard to unlock the higher capacity weapon.

So what you should be blaming is the game for doing that in the first place and for the game not having an adequate MM for all 50 weapons instead of splitting the match making into say 10 gun tiers for example

We just have different ideas on how to fix the MM, yours is shit, mine isn’t.

@robihr

and you would be crippling game experience for newbies. this is combined arms game

And BR is already crippling that experience not just at the entry level BR, but throughout the entire BR tier list, so it’s essentially ruining the game for all players, which is far more severe than having an entry point for noobs

and yes agreed combined arms, which means the entire variety of a campaign or theatre of war widely available in battles, not just extremely fake tiers that the BR is doing

@robihr

campaigns are trash when you have

1. big playerbase disparity between sides

That is not necessarily true, I can have a good time playing in uneven matches sometimes, not always, but sometimes, some unpopulated campaigns are actually fun for a section of the player base, and ruining that is likely going to push those players away, as they thrive in those environments and enjoy the more casual pve experience or extra challenge of being outnumbered

@robihr

only games with PvP can guarantee longevity

nope, I have played populated and non populated, and both essentially suffer from the same uneven fights problem and quitting problems, longevity comes from having more extended goals to achieve such as completing extra campaigns in the future, with that removed from the game, no longer have those long term goals because they were merged all into one tree so there is very little left to achieve or do, especially in a limited game format as BR, so game instantly dies for such players as me, as not even the battles will be as interesting to play anymore due to the limited BR setting taking over the entire game

also some big successful games like POE have longevity and nobody cares about PVP, it’s all about PVE and a lot of things to grind and try different things

@robihr

and i agree. but they can solve those issues without at least 2-3 years of dev time even if they are willing to do so.

well this is stuff that should be thought of ahead of time especially when we are so deep into first person shooter games and there is already a history of these issues, a good team needs to prepare for these things when launching such projects in the future, let this be a lesson to future devs that plan on doing a proper game, and not ruin their game. It’s not too late though, there is still time available to work on things, what is the urgency to ruin the game right now with this BR nonsense?

@robihr

also you are wrong in many of your assumptions

no you are wrong about them being assumptions, most of what I have said is just how it is, so you can’t disprove it, unless you literally invent a fake story, which I have caught you doing already a couple of times and squirming around with ridiculous comments

@robihr

do you think all those issues werent raised years ago? and do you know what we got?
nothing. absolutely nothing.

I can see that, but at least the game now is in a better state than it will be after the BR idiocy, unless of course the goal is to make this into another trash game, then we are heading in the right direction

@robihr

only chance that this game has at surviving is to implement BR MM

Not by splitting it by Weapons, Gear & Vehicles tiers, it would have to be done differently

@robihr

only your game is “ruined”. many people are happy with the changes.

Many people are also happy with many other rubbish situations in the world, doesn’t make it right or the best way of doing things, so that’s not really a good argument to stand on

But That’s fine if I’m only one guy even, but many other people aren’t happy with the changes either, and if we are all to be sacrificed, so be it. I will move on, was just looking at a game called Graviteam Tactics Mius Front, they seem to have a proper handling on Military History and making a proper WW era game and really know their stuff and aren’t turning their game into some arcade joke. Just saw one detail which really stood out to me, where guys in the tanks will actually throw grenades out their hatches, never heard of any game doing that.

@robihr

AT guns can penetrate it

Yes, I have seen them also penetrate and kill a Tiger, but in grey zone mostly planes have to deal with it, just like in the new BR system

@robihr

like i said i want to have ability to carry. i cant have that ability if team is full of veterans with end game equipment and i have low level equipment.

some campaigns you can pretty much still do that, and in the ones you can’t then you are getting the challenge you wanted, so win win. I played some game on Tunisia where I carried with only using a rifle, was actually really surprised how dominant a player can be with a rifle in some campaigns. But I see your point you want these limited modes, and I am not against that being available in the game, just not as the only mode and ruining what we have now.

@robihr

but it will nerf them.

it will barely be noticeable, perhaps it will be more noticeable at the very lowest BR, but if you play the other games by this group that run this tier system you will see all their games are mostly unbalanced stomp fests, despite using this BR tier system, because the players are the big determining factor

@robihr

you are obviously ignoring all the issues game has with campaign system.

Ok what issue specifically do you want to focus on? Because I’m ok playing the campaign system in Enlisted as it is now. I don’t really care if some are more populated than others, I see that as part of the interesting part of the game. For example you talk about wanting more of a challenge, and not wanting to use your end game gear against weaker opponents. So Why don’t you go play on the low pop campaign on the side that has the least players? Then you don’t have to feel bad about using top end stuff, you will need it. And you would be helping to be part of the solution instead of being part of the problem, why aren’t you thriving in that challenge? It’s there right now waiting for you.

@robihr

no grinding is never satisfying

Well speak for yourself, I enjoy being rewarded for my time. And then enjoying something I worked hard to earn. Enlisted was one of the most rewarding grinding games I’ve played, finally having access to the top end stuff was a very satisfying pay off for my hard work and dedication.

@robihr

also why dont other similar games

they are not similar games, and there is a reason why I don’t play them same reason I won’t play this one when that shit is implemented, they are totally different games and we already been over this with totally different eras of war, of course we don’t want Modern day equipment in vs WW ERA stuff in Enlisted, you are just reaching for more straws, just stop, it’s embarrassing

@robihr

this is stupid argument. if you talk about immersion then we should talk about HA and you dont want to go there.

It is not a stupid argument, especially when you yourself want to further destroy both Immersion and HA, you are the last person to judge, go play csgo

@robihr

it will actually solve numerous things

and each one we discussed is not actually solving anything, and your strongest argument is something that could be fixed another way, not by ruining the entire game, so you have nothing

@robihr

if veterans are forced to use lower tier weapons

thought you weren’t about forcing players to do anything, so much for that

@robihr

you will tell me that the weapons and vehicle are not actually segregated by campaign

I’m ok with the correct weapons being available in each campaign as per history or close to history, but not completely removing weapons from those campaigns or breaking it down into a tier system where some weapons will rarely share the same battlefield anymore, the current system doesn’t do that, the BR will be extremely focused on doing exactly that

@robihr

so you are saying that having multiple queues with not enough players is not ruining the gameplay? when MM needs to often put lots of bots in the game even without players quitting?

I looked at your stats, they are all quit ok by me from my own gameplay experience in populated and not populated campaigns. I have no issue with it as it stands. What problem are you having with it?

@robihr

in beginning campaigns served as ±BR MM and they were balanced in first 20 levels or even somewhere in first 25 levels. but shit show after 25 levels in all campaigns ruined them. and new BR MM will more or less restore that balance cause it will not be strict ±0 or ±1 MM.

Sure I can understand that, but surely that would be easier to just have a tick box with a cut off and the players decide if they want to queue into late war or not? Wouldn’t that be much easier without ruining the entire game?

@robihr

devs as well as me think that your opinion is shit

Well that’s why we will be going our separate ways after this, it’s just tragic that this game could actually have gone the right way and instead it’s just doing it the wrong way

It’s only pointless to argue because you have no clue about quality gaming, you think csgo is a good game ffs you should go play that instead of being here helping to ruin this game

[DNAmodsNP]

@tommyZZM

WT、WOT、WOWS . These games using BR or similar to BR, they are all monotonous vehicle games, you have air, sea, underwater submarines and aircraft carriers, but they only have one very main vehicle element.

They’re not about infantry and combinations of different types of vehicles.

This is an inappropriate association, and why BR is questioned, many players have mentioned that BR on vehicle combat will not work well here.

exactly, you would think that would be obvious

One the reasons why I played this game was exactly that reason, the infantry side is something that is missing in those other games and I had long yearned for a good combined arms game once again

and splitting this game in this tiered manner is the absolute worst thing they could have done, It’s extremely disappointing

[tommyZZM]

@robihr

you know what is driving away newbies

@robihr

extreme seal clubbing, playerbase disparity between sides/campaigns, bots masked as players,

This doesn’t explain the fact that players who are consistently victorious still leave the game, in fact almost all players have an average win rate well over 50% due to the extremely high PvE combat rate.

So why didn’t they stay here when they kept winning.

So the first few propositions of your answer are misleading.

Because you assume that novices leave because they lost the battle. In fact, many players still leave even if they win, because of the boredom of the battle, not only the boredom of PvE, but also the boredom of sweaty battles.

The game is full of newcomers with a lot of starting weapons, they fight each other, and there are also a lot of pure PvE battles. It is equivalent to a low-level BR battle, but there are still only a few of them left in the game with such low-level battlesssss. many of these players just leave.

I’ve seen a lot of players claim that it’s an infantry version of War Thunder, that it’s a first person COH, that it’s a BF replacement that combines hardcore and entertainment.

Even you can still search for these videos introducing this game from a few years ago on YouTube.

But these players, almost all of them ended up silent and immediately

---

This game has changed from a certain history-oriented and hardcore style a long time ago to a deformed fantasy World War II PvE style FPS, PvPvE like L2D, Starship Paratroopers, and Deep Rock Galaxy

Of course, the remaining high-level players are already used to the “fun” of PvE and “pinch the rookie” (Not fun for me always), but now BR wants to change this habit to some extent. It is useless in every way.

BR didn’t change every bad game mode, but it may take away a certain game style, although this PvE feature may not be what the development team wanted in the first place. This is how I understand a lot of players think about BR and merging tech trees.

The development team spent a lot of work here, but I regret that the gains brought about by this work may be pessimistic.

They should probably focus on adding a whole new mode to try what they want to try.

Things have come to a point where BR is already a pre-determined option.

But I think they should add as few BR levels as possible, such as level 5, to minimize this effect.

At the same time, transfer their limited workload to other more effective game content development as soon as possible

[robihr]

@DNAmodsNP

There is no such thing as nuke in the game, and anything that has wide area of destruction/killing power such as bombs and rockets do so because the map design and objective design insists on pushing tiny areas to fight over, which again is a side issue, design/game planning issue. So you make pointless arguments again, reaching for straws as all your arguments that make an honest attempt are

this is not strawman argument. this is about p2w or grind 2 win weapons. when you have weapon that severely outperforms anything that other player in match could have it is bad game design. do you know that universally p2w games are hated and they die fast.

@DNAmodsNP

there you have it, the actual solution

can you guarantee that the player with only plane in the game will use that plane? can you guarantee that the player with the plane wont quit?
solution must be implemented so the player himself can have counter. it was suggested numerous times that they introduce second vehicle slot for f2p players, but it was shot down by DF cause it could cut into their profit margins.

@DNAmodsNP

but bare in mind that as I said, even in the new BR system, if you have a pnz3 and nobody on the team wants to play pilot or only has low end BR tank and nobody can reach the PZ3 in grey area, like I said, problem persists, and you are still left with having to quit the match, so BR didn’t solve the issue

only starter tanks cant penetrate later pz3 tanks. and if you have pz3 tank there should also be numerous players with tanks that can penetrate him. also grind past first tank is fast, unlike grind to get high level tank.

@DNAmodsNP

Both players can have access to it, you however want to blame the poor matchmaking of the game on the player that has worked hard to unlock the higher capacity weapon.

in same match they cant.

@DNAmodsNP

We just have different ideas on how to fix the MM, yours is shit, mine isn’t.

@DNAmodsNP

also some big successful games like POE have longevity and nobody cares about PVP, it’s all about PVE

cause that is mmorpg. different audience than FPS. if people want PvE in FPS they will play single player game.

@DNAmodsNP

It’s not too late though, there is still time available to work on things, what is the urgency to ruin the game right now with this BR nonsense?

it is too late. game is loosing players and they diluted playerbase too much across campaigns. why do you think they suddenly decided on merge and BR MM. this is last ditch attempt to save the game.

@DNAmodsNP

no you are wrong about them being assumptions, most of what I have said is just how it is, so you can’t disprove it, unless you literally invent a fake story, which I have caught you doing already a couple of times and squirming around with ridiculous comments

it is pointless to argue with you on this. i see logic in my arguments and you dont.

@DNAmodsNP

I can see that, but at least the game now is in a better state than it will be after the BR idiocy, unless of course the goal is to make this into another trash game, then we are heading in the right direction

you are deluded if you think that game is in better state now. ffs crossplay off is botland, crossplay on is on good way to get there. new player retention is shit. out of 300k players only less than a third plays 1 battle daily, with quarter of them playing 1 battle in little over a week.

whole last year there were dozens of rework ideas cause people recognized that game was dying. people begged DF to stop adding new campaigns and to focus on fixing the game.

@DNAmodsNP

Not by splitting it by Weapons, Gear & Vehicles tiers, it would have to be done differently

and game currently doesnt have split weapons gear and vehicles across campaigns cause they dont represent early, mid and late war? BR MM will more or less represent half of the current campaign in peak hours.

also if you could have done it differently, why didnt you make suggestion on the forum? explain exactly how you would solve merge+new MM+fixing the problems and that it is viable and that people like it. btw hint… keeping current campaign system is impossible.

@DNAmodsNP

Yes, I have seen them also penetrate and kill a Tiger, but in grey zone mostly planes have to deal with it, just like in the new BR system

AT gun in normandy cant penetrate tiger frontally. it can only penetrate it from the sides. also with new BR system tiger should be matched against m4a1(76)w, m10, m18, jumbo 76, firefly, t-34-85, su-85M, is-1, su-100, is-2 which can penetrate it.

@DNAmodsNP

I played some game on Tunisia where I carried with only using a rifle,

you managed to carry in tunisia
how did you mange to do that? did you use cheats?
or maybe just play against team full of bots?

@DNAmodsNP

Ok what issue specifically do you want to focus on? Because I’m ok playing the campaign system in Enlisted as it is now. I don’t really care if some are more populated than others, I see that as part of the interesting part of the game.

well i am not ok with current campaign system as well as many other people are not ok with campaign system. rework idea is popular idea that was highly requested on forum cause campaign system sucked.

@DNAmodsNP

For example you talk about wanting more of a challenge, and not wanting to use your end game gear against weaker opponents. So Why don’t you go play on the low pop campaign on the side that has the least players? Then you don’t have to feel bad about using top end stuff, you will need it. And you would be helping to be part of the solution instead of being part of the problem, why aren’t you thriving in that challenge? It’s there right now waiting for you.

already did it. played normandy allies at worst time for them, playing berlin allies sometimes now (overall i dont like berlin maps), played pacific axis when everyone was on allies, even played allies when everyone was on axis. but i simply dont have time and am currently grinding moscow allies.

@DNAmodsNP

Well speak for yourself, I enjoy being rewarded for my time. And then enjoying something I worked hard to earn. Enlisted was one of the most rewarding grinding games I’ve played, finally having access to the top end stuff was a very satisfying pay off for my hard work and dedication.

i dont find any grind satisfying cause it is ultimately work. you should play games to have fun, not to have second job. i understand why you like this cause of gamification and sense of achievement are rooted in psychology.

@DNAmodsNP

It is not a stupid argument, especially when you yourself want to further destroy both Immersion and HA, you are the last person to judge, go play csgo

yes it is. there are so many things wrong in HA and immersion aspects of this game that goes beyond topic of weapon/vehicle inaccuracies. from squads, tactics, weapon distribution in campaigns, meta spam, nation/squad insignias, game mechanics, weapon usage etc.
this game is just another arcade shooter with ww2 theme. there is no immersion nor HA. ffs from what i saw in cbt it had better immersion cause of gore.

@DNAmodsNP

and each one we discussed is not actually solving anything, and your strongest argument is something that could be fixed another way, not by ruining the entire game, so you have nothing

no you didnt discuss. you declared that it doesnt fix anything. i disagreed. your strongest argument is that it could be fixed in another way, but you dont provide solution nor timeline in which DF can implement it, neither do you provide negative effects of those fixed solutions. tell me solution for grey zone? there are 128 maps that you would need to fix and how would you deal with spawn protection? can you tell me man hours for this to be fixed? or when DF could approximately fix this? can you think of any other negative effects that this change would bring?

@DNAmodsNP

I’m ok with the correct weapons being available in each campaign as per history or close to history, but not completely removing weapons from those campaigns or breaking it down into a tier system where some weapons will rarely share the same battlefield anymore, the current system doesn’t do that, the BR will be extremely focused on doing exactly that

and everyone has different vision what is or isnt ok.

@DNAmodsNP

I looked at your stats, they are all quit ok by me from my own gameplay experience in populated and not populated campaigns. I have no issue with it as it stands. What problem are you having with it?

bots masked as players, big difference between start equipment and end equipment on campaign, fictional weapons/vehicles for certain campaigns, playerbase disparity, veteran disparity.

@DNAmodsNP

Sure I can understand that, but surely that would be easier to just have a tick box with a cut off and the players decide if they want to queue into late war or not? Wouldn’t that be much easier without ruining the entire game?

no.

@DNAmodsNP

It’s only pointless to argue because you have no clue about quality gaming, you think csgo is a good game ffs you should go play that instead of being here helping to ruin this game

yes counter strike is trash game that somehow survived 24 years despite almost no change in gameplay and weapons balance. and cause it is such trash it had tens of millions if not hundreds millions of players.
but i could understand why you specifically think it is trash. after all to be good in it you need skill and brain.

[robihr]

@tommyZZM

This doesn’t explain the fact that players who are consistently victorious still leave the game, in fact almost all players have an average win rate well over 50% due to the extremely high PvE combat rate.

So why didn’t they stay here when they kept winning.

do you know why? cause playing against bots is boring. numerous times i have met players that quit when we had roflstomped enemies simply cause game was shit. roflstomps are boring when you are on winning side or loosing side. and roflstomps often happen when one team is full of bots.

@tommyZZM

Because you assume that novices leave because they lost the battle. In fact, many players still leave even if they win, because of the boredom of the battle, not only the boredom of PvE, but also the boredom of sweaty battles.

The game is full of newcomers with a lot of starting weapons, they fight each other, and there are also a lot of pure PvE battles. It is equivalent to a low-level BR battle, but there are still only a few of them left in the game with such low-level battlesssss. many of these players just leave.

wrote before paragraph without reading this… and i agree completely.

@tommyZZM

Of course, the remaining high-level players are already used to the “fun” of PvE and “pinch the rookie” (Not fun for me always), but now BR wants to change this habit to some extent. It is useless in every way.

BR didn’t change every bad game mode, but it may take away a certain game style, although this PvE feature may not be what the development team wanted in the first place. This is how I understand a lot of players think about BR and merging tech trees.

The development team spent a lot of work here, but I regret that the gains brought about by this work may be pessimistic.

before they announced the merge i was contemplating leaving the game cause game is just filled with lots of veterans stacked on one side pummeling bots and newbies on other side. i am good player, but not good enough to stop 5-10 veteran players armed with end game meta weapons. community is giving good suggestions, but DF is not capable enough of implementing it. ffs even now they are implementing some minor suggestion someone suggested 2-3 years ago.

i hope that BR will change the game cause it was dying before.

@tommyZZM

But I think they should add as few BR levels as possible, such as level 5, to minimize this effect.

BR levels dont matter. ±1 MM on 5 levels will be the same as ±2 MM on 10 levels. game will not have fixed ± MM for it to ultimately matter.

[DNAmodsNP]

@robihr

do you know that universally p2w games are hated and they die fast.

so if this game was pay2win it would be dead already and this forum would be closed

all games have things that outperform other things, it’s in all games. If you want perfect balance, then you have to literally play with just bolt action rifles only, and even then you won’t get balance, because the players are still different, so your point is dead in the water, sorry

@robihr

can you guarantee that the player with only plane in the game will use that plane? can you guarantee that the player with the plane wont quit?

of course not, this is what I am saying, you cannot balance the actual player himself and what he will do, only way is to just have bots, that could probably achieve balance, then the player can spectate, fun balanced game

extra slot of f2p is clearly digging into their profits, whatever. But there are other ways, that could be explored, I tried to hint at some, but you bypassed them completely, shows where your mind is at.

@robihr

only starter tanks cant penetrate later pz3 tanks

yes, that is why in my comment that is exactly what I said and why the example was used

@robihr

there should also be numerous players

same applies now, there should be, but if there isn’t then you are out of luck, as I already said, other solutions or in current way, quit match and search new match

@robihr

also grind past first tank is fast, unlike grind to get high level tank

this is true, but again, other more creative solutions could be available if only someone was prepared to think outside the box

but also I did mention that at level 4 you have access to a plane that can easily pop a tiger, or you still don’t want to acknowledge that?

@robihr

in same match they cant.

again, not a player fault if the game stages poor matchmaking from the outset, can’t go blame the one guy that has an STG because the other guy only has a grease gun, makes zero sense

@robihr

if people want PvE in FPS they will play single player game.

wrong, there is a coop mixed mode that clearly has a hungry market

@robihr

this is last ditch attempt to save the game.

if saving the game means destroying the game, then we are on track, you win

If your logic is so great, then I wouldn’t be here

@robihr

you are deluded if you think that game is in better state now

that is how bad it’s going to be after the BR merge, says a lot doesn’t it

@robihr

BR MM will more or less represent

it’s going to be very throttled, anybody with brains can see that, it won’t be anything like the wide open game it is now

@robihr

also if you could have done it differently, why didnt you make suggestion on the forum?

to be honest I don’t pay that much attention to the forum normally unless something really needs to be said, so I am not regularly up to date on things, but this, this is huge and will ruin the game for me

My suggestion is to try drag player into the queue with more even spreads and give players options with presets for queue options, so if they are happy with a wide spread, they choose, if they want a tighter spread, they choose. player choice vs being forced, remember you said you didn’t want to force players?

@robihr

tiger should be matched against m4a1(76)w, m10, m18, jumbo 76, firefly, t-34-85, su-85M, is-1, su-100, is-2 which can penetrate it.

I see that happen right now

@robihr

rework idea is popular idea

many fads are popular, doesn’t mean they aren’t actually junk

@robihr

(overall i dont like berlin maps),

well you going to have them thrown into the rotation with the BR system, enjoy

@robihr

i dont find any grind satisfying cause it is ultimately work. you should play games to have fun, not to have second job

Of course the core is fun, so the extra reward is just extra, I would be ok even if the core game remained fun.

But to take away a key component of that fun is ridiculous. When I play these WW games, one the key components is immersion, and to segregate the weapons, gear and vehicles like this is a complete destruction of that core fun and immersion for me. So yes, the game currently will be better than the future merge. Will be a good memory in time lost forever.

@robihr

there is no immersion nor HA

there clearly is, and that little it has, will be significantly reduced with the merge, and you are ok with that. So says how much you know about immersion

@robihr

no you didnt discuss

How many times I have to repeat things for you? I also made a suggestion for better enlisted mod or mode that addresses various issues, since this BR merge will be no good for me.

But yes, you could have a better system of matchmaking by being more considerate about the players put in matches together, you can have different modes for specific limited experiences as you want as side modes that don’t destroy the core of the game.

But as I have said, no matter what you do, if you don’t address at the core of issues, you will still have players quit and creating the imbalance, which will persist into the BR system anyway. Funny too, that they will finally introduce increased quit punishments after I’m gone and stopped caring

@robihr

and everyone has different vision what is or isnt ok

yes and we have hit a cross roads here, this merge is not ok with me, if this is popular good luck, not for me

@robihr

bots masked as players, big difference between start equipment and end equipment on campaign, fictional weapons/vehicles for certain campaigns, playerbase disparity, veteran disparity

agreed with bots masked as players and playerbase/vet disparity, that could be handled better than the merge direction

@robihr

no.

well that makes perfect sense, great argument

@robihr

but i could understand why you specifically think it is trash

you don’t understand, it’s trash because I don’t enjoy that style of game, I was always more attracted to the grander style of games like initial battefield games that had various vehicles and a more accurate, immersive & enjoyable portrayal of a mixed arms battlefield

[tommyZZM]

@DNAmodsNP

it’s trash because I don’t enjoy that style of game, I was always more attracted to the grander style of games like initial battefield games that had various vehicles and a more accurate, immersive & enjoyable portrayal of a mixed arms battlefield

this

[robihr]

@DNAmodsNP

so if this game was pay2win it would be dead already and this forum would be closed

all games have things that outperform other things, it’s in all games if you want perfect balance, then you have to literally play with just bolt action rifles only, and even then you won’t get balance, because the players are still different, so your point is dead in the water, sorry

this game is grind 2 win, making it marginally better than p2w.
balance point is pointless to talk to you. i am talking that game needs equality in balancing, you are constantly pushing equity to balance.

@DNAmodsNP

yes, that is why in my comment that is exactly what I said and why the example was used

and how long does it take to get past pz2? and how long it takes you to get to any 76w? also in BR games there is overwhelmingly higher chance of multiple other players in your team of having tank that can penetrate pz3. not to mention AT guns can all penetrate pz3 unlike tiger. so tell me how is this same with stuart vs tiger situation?

@DNAmodsNP

same applies now, there should be, but if there isn’t then you are out of luck, as I already said, other solutions or in current way, quit match and search new match

like i said you can also destroy pz3 with AT gun and same doesnt apply now.

@DNAmodsNP

but also I did mention that at level 4 you have access to a plane that can easily pop a tiger, or you still don’t want to acknowledge that?

and what if f2p player hates planes/wants to play tank? he can only take 1 vehicle. plane is not counter if you cant have it in battle when you have tank selected.

@DNAmodsNP

again, not a player fault if the game stages poor matchmaking from the outset, can’t go blame the one guy that has an STG because the other guy only has a grease gun, makes zero sense

is this confession that current MM is broken and that BR MM will fix this thing? i will take it cause this is closest thing i can get from you that we need BR MM.

@DNAmodsNP

wrong, there is a coop mixed mode that clearly has a hungry market

and they should make separate mode for people who want pure PvE. i know that lots of people play multiplayer games to actually play with and against other players, not pure bots.

@DNAmodsNP

My suggestion is to try drag player into the queue with more even spreads and give players options with presets for queue options, so if they are happy with a wide spread, they choose, if they want a tighter spread, they choose. player choice vs being forced, remember you said you didn’t want to force players?

and that is why you arent dev. you clearly dont understand programming and math, so you dont know why this is impossible to implement. you are basically giving players control over hard MM rules which creates more queues which thus in turn must be populated with more bots basically turning this game more and more into PvE. just like your suggestion to give players control over the maps they want top play with hard choice and not by popular vote.

@DNAmodsNP

I see that happen right now

do you really? i see those american tanks like 1 out of 10 or 20 games on normandy. nobody except newbies is taking tanks in normandy. all veterans learned not to take tanks and to just take planes.if i am destroyed in tiger on normandy, 99% chance what destroyed me is p47 or p38 (sometimes a20) and not any 76w tank.

@DNAmodsNP

well you going to have them thrown into the rotation with the BR system, enjoy

map selection system should be in works after merge update. well at least they said they will consider it and i have idea how they can implement it without affecting hard MM rules.

@DNAmodsNP

But to take away a key component of that fun is ridiculous. When I play these WW games, one the key components is immersion, and to segregate the weapons, gear and vehicles like this is a complete destruction of that core fun and immersion for me. So yes, the game currently will be better than the future merge. Will be a good memory in time lost forever.

@DNAmodsNP

there clearly is, and that little it has, will be significantly reduced with the merge, and you are ok with that. So says how much you know about immersion

so when you play those games you always have all weapons ready no matter the year of the war? you seem to not understand ww2. ffs in early war germans were mostly equipped with kar98k and only squad leader had mp40. you needed 2-3 people to carry and man MG. in d-day most soldiers had either garand or m1 carbine, with only snipers using springfield m1903A4.

do you know what happens to my immersion when i see squads of people equipped with mkb42 in moscow without any kar98k in whole team? or when i see solo MG running and gunning everywhere? or when i see springfields en masse on d-day? or m2 carbine that went into service year after d-day? or when i see tanks on d-day?

i treat this as any other ww2 arcade game, just that this one has slight gimmick with squads. it is neither immersive nor HA if you are actually somewhat knowledgeable about ww2 history.

@DNAmodsNP

you don’t understand, it’s trash because I don’t enjoy that style of game, I was always more attracted to the grander style of games like initial battefield games that had various vehicles and a more accurate, immersive & enjoyable portrayal of a mixed arms battlefield

just cause you dont like it, doesnt mean it is trash. game is almost unchanged for 24 years. they only updated graphics and changed smaller settings. now it is more popular then ever (record was 1.8 million concurrent players in may). look and see where the battlefield is today. how many people play original battlefield or its sequels.

[tommyZZM]

@robihr

concurrent players

You got a concept wrong, maybe I got it wrong, it’s not concurrent

@robihr

how many people play original battlefield or its sequels.

But I like digital battles, come on.

Display how success of Enlisted or some what.

[robihr]

@tommyZZM

I like digital battles, come on

i like grand battles also. i liked playing original battlefield and also liked playing M&B:NW.

@tommyZZM

You got a concept wrong, maybe I got it wrong, it’s not concurrent

[tommyZZM]

I realized I was mistaken, I thought you were talking about some F2P-WW2-FPS game from gaijin

[robihr]

what is that chart? seems like enlisted concurrent players chart at certain points of time in day.