It's not a good sign, when

Mess Room
1

Berlin

3
31920×1080 203 KB

Moscow
5
51920×1080 239 KB

Normandy
6
61920×1080 147 KB

Tunisia
7
71920×1080 243 KB

Why is it less common to get in balanced/full lobby, than it is to be placed in a match that has less than six people when the countdown timer reaches zero?

But hey… at least we are rewarded for playing the game every day.
On day 120, I rolled a 300% x3 (Wahoo!)

1
11920×1080 97.6 KB

But then the Ninja algorithm kicked in, and put me in a match that was already started, and the match ended in 13 minutes. So the 300% was a waste, because I can earn 10,000 points without a booster.

2
21920×1080 144 KB

My other two matches with 300% were just as bad…
I don’t really care about the XP, because I’m maxed out…
But I know this ninja algorithm is affecting all the players who are trying to level up their campaigns/squads. It’s not cool to implement a mechanic that puts players into game-modes like conquest, or matches that are already started (typically being placed on the losing team).

You would probably have higher player retention, and more positive feedback, if we were actually given rewards that are useful.

How about being rewarded an extra squad slot, for a random campaign/faction?
Or being rewarded with a random vehicle decal, from a random campaign/faction?
Or being rewarded with foilage or cosmetic items that we can place on our tanks?
Or being rewarded premium xp pass for 3-days, 7-days, and 14-days?

You want to keep people attracted to this game?
Then it would be a good idea to REWARD players for sticking around, and playing…
Not*** implementing ninja mechanics that hinder everybody’s progress, prolonging the grind for as long as possible…

That’s just my opinion.

And the unbalanced matches are equally boring.
When is the BIG update and new progression system getting released? Because time is running out before a bunch of new games are getting released in the fall.
The competition for a finite market of players, is only increasing as time moves forward.

Is that why it’s so difficult to find a full lobby?
And why it’s even more difficult to find a full lobby that’s relatively balanced, and not just a slaughter for one of the two teams?

4
41920×1080 176 KB

Feel free to expand in the threads :slight_smile:

5 Likes
2

If you want to check how many players actually were in the battle, check if they pop up in replays or in the game’s friend search engine.

Not all players are in the leaderboard at the start of the game. Some have a weaker internet, others weaker computers and throw them into the game a little later.

The short battle time is due to the very aggressive play of the players themselves.

3

I wish they put a symbol on the ID of the bot player in the game, they really should face up to the shit matchup they are paired with

2 Likes
4

Just make players WAIT for a reasonable matchup, instead of send a unlucky guy to lead a bot team every minute

3 Likes
5

Yes, exactly :+1:

6

Or being rewarded with a random vehicle decal, from a random campaign/faction?
Or being rewarded with foilage or cosmetic items that we can place on our tanks?
Or being rewarded premium xp pass for 3-days, 7-days, and 14-days?

I would kill for these.

1 Like
7

Oh yeah could’nt agree more. Enable that +XP for playing any team and the problem fixes itself. It seems like people on the overpop side wait what the game considers too long already and will happily start a 1v8 just to get one going.

The algorithm for boosts is such an urban legend haha, one I’m inclined to believe myself I can confirm 98% of the time it’s conquest or a match thats already past the 1st objective. I’d prefer no boost and honest matchmaking, it really make me wonder in general because I swear the pool of players I play with and against is different, when I play on other sides the faced I met that are really good are nowhere to be seen and I get either noone or a couple people playing passively while they guy I’m playing against are fucking awesome and I’ve never seen them playing that faction before.

1 Like
8

Why do console players always act like nonrelated titles like starfield or whatever are going to have an impact on a live service shooter? The only 2 WW2 shooters out there right now are HLL and BF, the former got handed over to devs who have no clue what to do with the game because they only made shovelware and probably hate the playerbase of HLL, and the latter is your classic EA title that is abandoned and full of hackers and no more content. PS died officially basically. Theres nothing in the market, Enlisted got very lucky.

The reason your matches are like this is also the fault of the campaign system which was either just an awful idea or made for specific greedy reasons to encourage ppl to spend money to skip a grind they essentially already did etc…

9

Look at it this way. There are only a finite number of xbox players. Just like there’s only a finite number players for PC and Playstation.

-Of the total number of xbox players, only a percentage of these players have downloaded Enlisted (because it’s free to player).
-When new games come to the market place (also free to download), then it’s highly probably that a percentage of Enlisted’s Xbox players, are going to migrate to these new games.
-If the game is more appealing than Enlisted’s broken matchmaking, all the bugs, and microtransactions at every corner… then it’s highly probably that these players will either never return to Enlisted, or they will leave this game for multiple months (eventually coming back to see how much Enlisted has changed, improved, or gotten worse).

-This applies to all platforms, as upcoming/hyped titles are released to the gaming market.

Of the finite number of players available within the video-game community, ALL gaming companies find themselves in a fierce competition to bait-and-hook as many players/customers as possible.

Whenever there’s a void, there’s a high probability that someone will come along and introduce a game that surpasses all the rest. At the rate the gaming industry is heading, where videogames are entirely being developed around a microtransaction business-model… the players are getting sick and tired of the greed, false promises, and bait-and-switching.

It’s just a matter of time before the whole industry crashes.

Yep. We need lobbies to remain open, where players are taken to a new match after the previous. This would keep people playing with/against each other, and new players would constantly be joining the match as seats become available.
And we need map-voting. When a match ends, and players are taken to the post-game report-card… everybody should be given the choice to stay in the lobby, and also be given a few options to vote for the next map/game-mode.

10

This is getting annoying. Didn’t plan to reply on this topic but still:
Watched all of Sheeple’s last 24H games and in none of those there was a lack of players.

Another meaningless rant in other words.

I wonder, what keeps him going?

12

My #1 Fan.
minion