But what is the cost of such uniqueness? Players simply leave the factions that don’t have the advantage they want. The balance mechanism you mentioned don’t really work well.
Imagine having a favourite faction and your own favoured play style. Of course people flock to the faction they prefer, be it due to weapons or vehicles. Yet it’s not like they’re not interested to try the others, specifically because they offer something their own does not. Take that away and there will never be a reason to migrate across factions.
So you think catering to each faction so eventually they are all the same is the best way to do balance? How long do you think it’ll take a person to lose any interest in the game, if he’s fed the same slop, regardless of which faction he chooses to play, I’d love to see that player retention, if that were to happen.
Why even have factions at that point? For “historical” feel and different weapon/uniform skins, yeah gl with that. Might as well just be Red VS Blue or whatever simplification we can come up with.
If that is the case why most of the campaigns were one sided with one faction have significant more players than other faction?
Lol it is funny that you are talking about player retention when the previous balance method literally cause players to leave certain factions.
Because not everybody migrates immediately? Like you do know people stick to their main, unless they lose interest or finish the whole TT? Or they just stay, since they just like the faction’s feel of weapons/vehicles?
Migration of players is/was often either:
- Forced en masse via balancing - making something clearly OP for a while, thus attracting players to flock to said faction.
- Or it is a slow process that the player does only partly - finish his TT, start TT of another faction, but he’ll still play with his main favoured faction in the end.
Most average player’s are easy to influence by the 1st option.
Vets are more keen on the 2nd option. I do it myself - main Soviets, have their TT finished, yet did occasionally go over to GE to get their TT done and now I am also almost done with US. Can’t seem to get interested in Japan though, don’t offer much and being locked to Pacific maps is ehh.
But they still stayed with the game. Unlike the situation right now which is bleeding players slowly each month.
The only increases as of late are updates with new maps/TT weapons, yet even those only last to boost the count for a month or two, before the players lose interest once again.
Why you are talking about tech tree? I though you were talking the first Enlisted balance before Japan? That was before the merge.
Do you have actual player count statistic before Japan was added? Or else how do you prove they stayed with the game?
And how do you prove this is because of the current balance method? In my opinion the lack of content released and slow efficiency of dev is more likely the cause of this.
I didn’t mention Japan, because I did not play Pacific campaign. Can’t speak of something If I have no experience or knowledge of it. Though I did mean campaigns pre-merge.
As for numbers. Robihr had a post about it, here Enlisted stats- postmerge edition. If you have access to any recent player counts data mined, then you can compare the counts.
How else other than with numbers can you prove a bland balancing method is partly at fault here. True, add to it slow updates, game features still not working as intended and I think most can guess where it’ll lead to, especially with WT Inf around the corner.
And if you wish to ask, how I am sure of it happening, let’s just say a certain other predecessor WW2 shooter tried doing the same. Enlisted’s current development/balancing methods quite mirror it.
I didn’t mean you play Japan or what. But you said the method of balancing change after Japan was added.
The data is from May 2023. Japan was added on September 2022. So it didn’t have the data to show the player base number difference between two balance mechanism.
So your point is other game do the same so it loose player? Fine, what about War Thunder that uses br matchmaking like Enlisted and add a lot of copy paste and prototype to the tech tree for balancing? Why is its player base growing?
There’s quite a difference between a tank simulator, and an arcade FPS.
First, BR in WT does not mean the matches and tanks within them are balanced. Additionally they are BR +/-1, so that goes against the overall idea of people wanting BR locks. Quite the opposite often, so that goes more against the all-same style of balance you’re trying to defend here.
As for copy paste and prototype’s?
Copy pastes are there to cater to whales who want to play a roster, yet use a tank of different nation
Prototypes are there to allow for new vehicles each update. WT can do it, since it rarely puts them into tech trees, unlike Enlisted.
Thirdly, WT is one of a kind game that started the genre of tank sims. Enlisted came into FPS genre long after it was established and even with it’s unique features, not even being F2P is enough to attract attention any more.
Dragtyaretz
1 Like
I think I’ll add that.
1 Like
There is more cold war material xD
1 Like
Done 
1 Like
Balance is literally the point of the br. It might not be perfectly balance, even Enlisted br is not perfect.
Enlisted is also BR +/-1. Why you are talking about a br lock system that hasn’t been implemented yet? According to you isn’t Enlisted already losing player because of balance mechanism? Why will a system that is not in game have anything to do with our topic?
So you simply ignore the fact that certain factions in War Thunder have a lot of copy paste and prototype or else it has basically no vehicles at certain br range? This is similar case for Enlisted.
I don’t really see how WT started tank sim game have anything to do with it.
It’s called having a monopoly in a genre, look it up. And since there’s no competition in said genre, it’s easy to attract players, despite all the flaws they might have.
Enlisted does not have such an advantage however, since the FPS genre has been long established and competition is rampant.
It is for now, won’t be in near future with how every 2 weeks there’s a suggestion to lock them and there seems to be enough people eager to get them into the game.
Secondly, it is indeed. Add to it the slow updates and uninteresting content and you just speed it up.
Thirdly, why does that have anything to do with our topic? You defend a balancing method making weapons/vehicles bland and then you don’t see the connection when, same kind of suggestion proposes to basically do the same to the matchmaking system.
Why do you think WT’s BR system works despite it’s flaws? Because even if unfair, it challenges the player to just play better, makes it enticing to play, even through the grind. And the balancing isn’t even fair if you consider the same BR, some factions just have advantage or better roster, so others have to play better in response.
In WT, copy paste vehicles are done to allow for ease of grinding from low BR to high BR across all the BR levels. Great example being China/Japan. Who have many of such vehicles and it makes sense, since they’re needed to fill out roster. As for prototypes, among major nations, they’re premiums, as most have been removed from TTs, unless needed to fill-in a roster lacking more than 1/2 vehicles. Minor nations also don’t have many of them as even Japan only has two or three, I believe, most prolific being the late war TD, in it’s TT.
In Enlisted however, there’s little need for copy paste weapons or prototypes in TTs across the 3 of the 4 factions, except for the revenue from prem squads or as event/BP rewards. The need for prototypes is only relevant for Japs to balance them at higher BRs, since they lack any real late war weaponry that could stand up to anything the Soviets/US could field.
You remain blinded by fanaticism and refuse to see the utopia your Factions are living in. Germany doesn’t live its utopia the way you want to see it.
It’s called an equal playing field. You should try to disprove my points instead of whatever this is.
I did it and gave examples above. But you only justify the PROTOTYPES.
Examples of what? That fermany used some weapons that the allies didn’t? Let me fill you in: That doesn’t matter.
It doesn’t matter, because we’re going for balance, you’re going for german supremacy. You’ve only listed ways in which germany would be better.
If you want asymetry, list examples in which the other factions would shine.
But I don’t see you asking for KV-1s to face panzer III Fs and 38(t)s, you only want germany to shine.
1 Like