Let’s Discuss the Meta Changes

[ForlorN]

This is a pretty neat idea that will not jeopardize the whole new MM-format.
Introduce 3 load outs with restrictions /BR-cap.

• Loadout 1 (x BR)
• Loadout 2 (y BR)
• Loadout 3 (z BR).

Loadout 1 must consist of a low BR, loadout 2 a mid BR, and loadout 3 a high BR.

It will also speed up the MM-process.

@MajorMcDonalds

Sometimes yes, I do want a big challenge, but other times I want to play the game and chill, and I currently see no way for me to do that unless I equip just bolt action rifles, however this will seem to make me play vs new players, likely destroy them every game, which again isn’t very “fun”.

It will also solve this concern of yours @MajorMcDonalds. With this system you will face strong/veterans players with low level weapons if you want chill games and circumvent meta/autospam games.

@MajorMcDonalds

Have you ever given thought to two forms of matchmaking to address this, but which also accomplish the aims you set out in this post above?

Two types of matchmaking queues are not the soluton i’m afraid. It will double the amount of queues in total.

[tenartone]

@ParaDivision

refund people who grinded a lot and will lose progress because having maxed out 4 german armies and having them combined into one…although a player grinded 4 times for the progress will let many players VERY angry and they need a good compensation

Nah lol, they did it 4 times, they’ll do it once more. Let’s be real

@ParaDivision

let people chose/exclude maps from matchmaking

This is the one main thing I care about 100%

@ParaDivision

напишите мне в дискорд, я могу уточнить детали для вас.

А включить имя?

[ForlorN]

@ParaDivision

let people chose/exclude maps from matchmaking → solves most complains from players

It seems like you haven’t really thought about the contradiction with this statement.

It’s like doing everything as it was before lmao.

[VonuhLikesCake]

Being able to choose and exclude maps (and by maps I assume you mean the campaigns since the campaigns will all be turning into map sets) is the same thing as having seperate queues. They might as well keep the current system if thats going to be the case. People will exclude all maps except Tunisia, all maps except Moscow & Stalingrad, etc. Thus no significant unification of playerbase.

[GemZhou]

Sorry, can not understand point 6 in your post.

@ParaDivision

напишите мне в дискорд, я могу уточнить детали для вас.

This is English speaking section, translate please.

[秋YUI绘_Beaver食過炸蛋]

If you actually look at what is in Normandy, it’s actually the worst offender for Historical accuracy. P-38Gs are as bad as Federovs, having been completely withdrawn from Europe by the end of 1943 due to not being able to fill any required niche, and Ju 188 is as bad as the T-50s, having seen no action over any of the fighting over Northern France. However, no one complains about that because they are balanced, and the only time Historical accuracy was used as an argument was with the Jumbo where people saw it as unbalanced. From this, we can see the crux of what most people are concerned with is not historical accuracy, but balance. Thus, I feel comfortable saying that most people would be ok with this change provided it makes the game more balanced.

[_fi_nal]

Why I dislike the ideas you have for the game:

I like the fact that I have choice.

See, I don’t usually like Stalingrad or Berlin because I don’t like the big city urban maps that much. By combining the eastern front into 1, you give me effectively 66% chance of getting a map I don’t like (+moscow maps which I don’t like - while, of course, probably still trying to punish me for quitting). This already is demotivating.

I like that I can choose between different approximate historical period where the end game gear is different and it’s all the same, because

I like the fact that I have variety.

I like the fact that (for instance) when facing germans in different campaigns, the equipment varies. Your plans sound like that no matter which (end game) campaign I play, the enemy will probably not vary meaningfully. Every freaking match will be king tiger - panther - stg - bla bla bla. Same for every single other side.

From my perspective, this sounds repetitive and like it will get boring really fast. Right now I switch between campaigns because this keeps the playing fresh.

OK, so I can change the squad loadout - but this has a random chance of getting anyway matched up with a king tiger depending on the queue so at worst it’s just a self-handicap instead of a chance to calibrate the equipment levels. Plus I am not your average teenager who has all day to change squad loadouts, and what’s the point anyway if randomly I can get again uptiered, since the reason I would be doing it is…

I enjoy the approximately historical aspect of it.

It’s simply an aspect that I’ve appreciated in the game, that this is not Historical Longswords used by Historical Nazis on the Historical Surface of the Moon. You can say that “we’re only changing the ground you are on”, but sorry this is not true. By changing the ground you are on, there’s a chance that the weapons are no longer historical for the ground.

Yes, enlisted was never fully historically accurate. But this is a bad faith argument. So what? Neither was match making perfect so do you also think that this should not be improved or at least maintained? Since it’s not perfect it’s fine to make it totally crap? Bullshit. [More for Quandro and others who have been flashing this hot take in various threads]

I appreciate that you are trying to simplify the content addition.
I appreciate that you are trying to simplify match making.
I appreciate that you are having the dialogue with us.

However, for the love of god give us historically-inclined players something like a early / late war setting which limits the equipment set used per front. Let us have a different loadout set for early and late. And if that adds to the queue times for us, then so freaking be it. But don’t tell me it’s not possible.

[TimTaine]

I like this - made a similar post earlier, as have others. (Balance and Accuracy)

My main concern is balance, which I know they’re trying to address - so we’ll see.

Other concern is there being a place for everything - am I going to have to unequip all my squads and swap in bolt actions etc to be able to use the lower tier gear in a balanced game?

I do think we’re going to need multiple loadouts - so may as well be like this suggestion and my post
previous. Also see ⭐ About the new progression and matchmaking - #660 by 106782730.

But credit to the devs for communicating and actively looking for feedback!

[Bigote0070]

I think I should also add 3 templates, one for Early game (Moscow) one for Mid game (Stalingrad)
and one for Late game (Berlin) to ensure that there are no frequent meetings of Tiger or IS2 in Moscow

[Bohurt]

I just simply dislike the idea of having tiger in moscow.
Why concept of having squads binded to particular campaigns ine the lobby and having them in pre-battle setup is a bad idea? What limitations it bring? In the end u have unified tech tree which limits the grind, also you have unified queue with bigger pool and you can only choose side you want to play BUT you keep historical squads distributed by campaigns and let them use only equipment that is revelant to related campaign (lets say all squads starts with k98 in unified german tech tree so they can participate in any german campaign).To make it simpler the idea is like the current state but possibility of choosing a campaign is removed which results in one queue for all players with no restrictions - every player can join any battle if needed keeping in mind every single squad you decided to have in your pre - battle setup (lets say five squads) have at least starting weapons. In my head that system is almost flawless and I kindly ask to explain why it cannot be done that way?

[ParaDivision]

honest advice, spend 20 serious minutes thinking deeply about the enlisted game organisation.
→ my suggestion means, that with the new system players keep that specified old advantage and get the advantages of the new system without losing this old advantage.

updating a game well means keeping the good old and adding good new, not removing good old as you seem to think is gonna happen.

[ForlorN]

If these changes fix the shatterd playerbase, why do you want to split the playerbase agian?

Pls buff yourself.

[VonuhLikesCake]

So you are saying that the queue division between campaigns is a good thing and it should be kept? Because its not.

[Silmary_fr]

@Veekay45

I bought some historical premium packs like BA-11 and Pz 38t just to show my appreciation and vote with my wallet.

Big Mistake

[ProO08]

I Like the machmaking system, but I have some Suggestions: make a button prioritise a certan campain,Not foce , and let the free Player have at least one more Squad, because the germans are in 5 campain with different gamestyles. And one question:what should the American do egainst a king Tiger ?

[Reines1]

@Keofox

• Will I be able to join a battle under Moscow on my Tiger?

Sometimes you will. You’ll join a balanced battle against your historical opponent, the USSR, who will have vehicles that are meant to fight against yours, such as IS-1. And also many soldiers with powerful anti-tank weaponry, that will be balanced against each other as well.

You’ll be fighting a historical opponent in one of the historical war theaters with weaponry that’s historically accurate. The only thing that may not be accurate is the ground beneath your feet.

These two statements seem contradictory.

[MajorMcDonalds]

This doesn’t solve the thing I was trying to address though.

If I pick high BR weapons, it’s Fedorov/AVT spam vs StG/FG 42 spam against (almost wholly) very experienced/very good players. So basically very sweaty games I have to tryhard for every time I queue up.

If I pick low BR weapons, it’s bolt action vs bolt action, where I will dunk on new players (unless everyone else has the same idea and experienced players also do this, but I see no reason for them to do it often if they have the OP stuff), which isn’t fun for anyone and is already an existing problem in-game now.

If I have a “middle” BR weapon loadout, some will have worse weapons than me (and likely I dunk on them), and some will have better weapons than me (and they likely dunk on me). This is only really a problem depending on who you ask, I guess. But I can bet people will recall getting dunked on hard by the “better equipment” fellas moreso than how they dunk on “bad equipment” fellas and complain.

This is what I am assuming, of course I don’t know this for a fact, but there’s no evidence that I have seen to say this wouldn’t be the case.

Point being, I am sure many people don’t want to be forced to be sweaty every single game if they want to use the best equipment, and I’m sure people don’t want to stomp so hard when they use low BR stuff either.

[Blegh2022]

@MajorMcDonalds

If I pick high BR weapons, it’s Fedorov/AVT spam vs StG/FG 42 spam against (almost wholly) very experienced/very good players. So basically very sweaty games I have to tryhard for every time I queue up.

Just because you have late war equipment doesn’t mean you’re good.

And the current system is bad for new players. No one likes having that one guy running around stomping your team. Well, except for that one guy having the “casual” experience

[Silmary_fr]

@ProO08

what should the American do egainst a king Tiger

Simple ! Call US Air Force

[_fi_nal]

He’s correct on the balance of probabilities. And that’s really all that matters.