Let’s Discuss the Meta Changes

[BodyBagger111]

I’m fairly new to Enlisted and I absolutely HATE the idea of a “required” algorithm deciding where I play. Here’s why:

1. MAPS: Sometimes I’m in the mood to play a small, fast map; other times I’d rather play a larger, slower map. The current campaign selection model somewhat allows me to choose my options. But not really. I’d much rather have the option to choose a specific map within each campaign. Most games that I’ve played allow me to do this. Why not just let people choose where they want to play? List each map under each campaign and let people join wherever they choose to play. Make the matchmaking changes that you wish to implement as an “option” for people who don’t care or just want to get into a game quickly.

2. BATTLE PASS DAILY CHALLENGES: As an example, there’s a challenge that requires me to kill 30 people with an SMG. Most of my SMG’s are in Normandy. So I usually go there to complete the challenge. If I can’t choose which campaign to play in, it’s going to take forever to complete this challenge with a random map with the new matchmaking system you propose.

3. SPECIFIC WEAPONS: Sometimes I just want to play specific weapons (say a new gold weapon from the Battle Pass); this one specific weapon is located within a specific campaign. If I can’t choose the campaign, then once again… I’m forced to do something I don’t want to do: Join a random map and get whatever I get in the new “required” matchmaking system.

4. OPTIONS: In my opinion, it’s never a good thing whenever you take options away from players. Let people play where they want to play. If I’m constantly forced onto maps I don’t want to play, then I simply won’t play. The current system is already frustrating enough. There are plenty of other games that I can play if this one becomes too dictatorial. Given the option, players will congregate onto specific maps where other people are already playing—or want to play. Thus your"divided" player base problem will correct itself with the option to choose specific maps. If it doesn’t, then you have a different problem you haven’t identified.

IMPORTANT NOTE: I’m not sure if you’re aware of this or not—especially since you’re completely familiar with the forum—but, as a new player I find the forum confusing and completely disorganized. I learned about this post on Youtube when Quadro posted a video about it. When I tried to find this post in the forum it took a frustrating amount of time to do so. Here are some suggestions:

A… There should be a search function in the forum to quickly find posts by subject, by author, by date, or by key word. Scrolling through the forum to find something is extremely frustrating and time consuming.

B. There needs to be more categories for topics. There definitely should be a section where only developers can post a message. Break that section down listing each developer. Now I can quickly find a post such as this.

C. Also, for all posts in the forum, there should be a column showing the specific author of the post with a specific and date and time, not 1 hour ago or seven days ago. Then people can search for a specific person or date for a specific post. It shouldn’t take 20 minutes to find something in the forum.

Sorry for the rant… But I’m about to stop using the forum for these reasons. These are simple implementations that would make the forum much more functional and enjoyable.

And I just realized that both the game (the maps) & the forum simply need to be better organized to increase player enjoyment (and decrease frustration). That’s the biggest problem I see with the game right now.

Thanks for your time!

BB

ps I do like the new tech tree idea regarding progression in the game. I think it’s a big improvement over the current system. Why? Because it gives players more options, as I’ve listed in the suggestions above.

[Enlisted_Thunder]

@Keofox

We would like to live in a world with infinite players, but even in our case, when the player base is large enough, we cannot split it indefinitely.

But do you know all games, or even public service suffers in off-peak hours? And your game already get >20k DAU meaning in peak time, >2k active player online during peak time, and mostly in one region. You can’t let players dont sleep and work to play during off-peak hours.
Isnt current peak time playerbase not enough for 6 and more campaign?
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/enlisted/i/1Fq9YaEFru04
EU server overload to 765% in peak time.

Just filled less populous campaigns with more bots, like what you used to.

Even subways give up on off-peak hours service. 30 trains per hour vs 6 trains per hour. 5x difference. Still overcrowding during peak hours, empty trains in off-peak hours.

And with BR, you still get unbalanced BR in off-peak hours, not matching, or even completely unbalanced faction playerbase.
In extreme conditions, newer matchmaking can get you even worse equipment difference. What about off peak hour in NA server (which is really empty), Tiger II vs M13 ? At least for now, we have campaign partition to prevent this.

For example, in moscow evening time, soviet factions no matter what, newer or older game matchmaking system, will always have more players than german, thus unbalanced match.

I never ask you to do a completely e-sport style balancing system. But you failed at providing basic even player count for both side.

12vs10. (even if latter one filled with possible ai squads.)

But by introducing BR system. You completely GIVE UP on historical balance. Completely shifting towards e-sport. Am I correct?

Also, dont you think BR will split player base even harder?

And most importantly,
Is it hard to calculating based on player performance?
You’ve already done that
Some match filled with marshals, while other filled with beginners.

So, what if I’m suck at the game, in current matches, I still get only marginal “PRO” players per match. But in newer system, my unlocked better equipments are useless, because they will lead to a certain death for higher RB? Because better equipment guarantees lots more “pro” players. To stay away from those who bother to use mines on enemy rallypoints, endless white phosphorus grenade spamming. Literally only play using any possible advantage in game.

Also the reason why I hate e-sport. Is because it’s no longer game for recreational purpose at all. Like WT. You dont get fun at all. All kinds of disgusting grinding and “balance” that only bring much more boring to gameplay. After playing a whole match, you can even lost in-game money.

A good historical aspect game, should use IMMERSIVENESS not kills and get killed for fun. (Which, I think you have gave up on.)

[_i4i]

@InvoluntarySoul

the ability for players to stack one side is killing the game. Where is the fun when you just automatic win because you picked the stacked side

Ok finally somebody close to the mark here
So stacking is not new, was very prevalent, during Tunisia being released
But then you go and introduce rankings, to make matters worse.

So no Gold high ranking player wants to play on a green team, so they abandon, and just restart another game, as there is not penalty for just leaving.

also the case when you have 8-10 Gold high tier one side, and you get 2-3 on other side, they see they out numbered and leave, as there’s more gold on other team, and don’t wish to loose, or use excuses i don’t want to play sweaty game.

or i payed to have fun, i can leave a game as it wont be fun.

or stacking due to only playing one side of the campaign.

What about a penalty for abandoning matches,
ie like at the moment, what is it? 1 point of ranking, when you loose /abandon

how about making it, if they in a game, and they abandon,
it should be like 5 points off there ranking, maybe this would encourage them to stay and try and play for the win, more incentive to play for a loss of 1 point, than leave for a loss of 5 points, wont be popular, then again nothing is.

What about removing the option to not join any team, or have it permanently set to join any team, as you play, ofc, would need a way to not always be thrown on to same team allies or just axis game after game.

Wouldn’t just making all play join any team, sort of solve the so called MM issue, everything stay same, and hysterical/historical peeps be happy, all be happy, as nothing would change, no loss of anything???

And considering, XP coupons/vouchers are auto applied now, why is customs still nerfed?, should def give customs back its XP.

PS, give f2p another slot or two, so they can have tank/plane, and four squads?
I don’t need them as i pay, but if i was to play just f2p, it would be nice to have a tank and plane slot instead of either just a tank or plane, and at least 4 inf slots, so one can spade them, as 500 points into game, you have your 4th inf, but still lvling the other 3

A SEA Server, please, playing with over 200+ ping to closest server is annoying, is very hard to mass kill with 200+ ping

And then being told that engineers are useless in the game/waste of time, and that one should go play Minecraft, if we want to build stuff,
because all that counts is kills, and running around like Rambo on steroids, just zerg rush,

If this is DF/Gaijins view, on the game???, please remove engineers, and refund all my money i put into game.

[lolicon_chan]

I like new system grind but MM is need to work in it a lot. this is my suggestion about system for MM and adjust you squad in game with this kind of idea of grinding tree.

1. You need to rating you weaponry(vehicle and weapon) and because of this is most likely more rating mean more powerful and also more late war weapon. So MM system will match with same rating together. And rating system will easy for balance weapon power like improve their stat or fix their rating.

2. In “adjust you squad” menu you need to have filtering about your weaponry with 2 thing rating and campaign. Yes campaign can still exist but from pick directly like now it picks by weaponry rating that like more rating point more late war campaign to be match (and please tell us what year you gonna make that campaign to place is better to less confuse and balance game). Also early war weaponry can go thought most campaign mean you need these 2 filtering anyway to make less confuse and easy to adjust what campaign (map) that this squad are gonna meet.

3. For faction that will mean nation in future you need to give player a “loadout slot” that setting a bunch of squad combined and leading to calculate for MM system and give player like 3 slot at least to make like early/mid/late war setup and for premium player they will get more. These slot of loadout will give player easy to adjust squad and easy to begin battle.

4. And before beginning the battle you need to have UI or notification that show what campaign that you can/will participate. This system needs for make it clearly about match that player will meet.

5. I suggest you must implement this kind of idea after or with open beta with Ads for increase Player base. Cause Player base is the most reason to prove that kind of idea is work or not.

6. Premium squad need to fix every weapon now to set their rating(era) properly and every mean primary secondary and side-arm. And this is thing that I wish for premium squad, cause you lest focus on historically correct you can collab some stuff like “Fury squad” or “Saving private Ryan squad” to add more verity stuff to the game these unique didn’t feel likely force player to buy because their OP but buy because is unique is not make game lose balance and also lower the price please. Cause even their OP if price is high lest people are not gonna buy it anyway.

this is all my suggestion about MM for new grind system.

ps. for the fun part if more player base are rise in the future add “all random” that truly random campaign for loadout this will be fun like tiger 2 in pacific is will be fun. Is not historically but is have more variety to the game.

[lolicon_chan]

Also if player base is rise you a lot you must considering about player base skill after rating MM this will helping a lot about balance player.

[Enlisted_Thunder]

@Keofox

We’re not saying it’s perfect. We were being completely honest with you in the dev blog: “We believe the advantages of the updated Enlisted outweigh the abandonment of complete accuracy.”

It’s only benefiting you and those arcade players. Not those OG players who come because this is not with WT BS eco system. And delivering a reasonable balance between historical feeling and playability.
If I want pure historical aspect. HLL/PS/ARMA with mods are all better than you.
If I want pure arcade, why not go play BF CoD instead? They are much cheaper than Enlisted.
There’s a huge market that want game with some historical aspect, but also playability. RO2 is already 12 years old. But is still a classic.
RB (merging+RB ranking) is not the main problem. The problem is, Enlisted’s trend of ignoring history aspect, and switching to e-sport.

You know how PUBG BF’s esport failure right? Because it’s deviate from OG playerbase.

Let alone the infamous War Thunder eco system. It’s no longer a game anymore. It’s an extractor for DAU for statistic, from players.
Paid to work for game.

And with RB, you still do not fixed the nearly impossible grinding tech tree for new players.
Actually making it looks even longer. Also blocked the possible way to play for cold war equipment at begin. What if player dont interested in WW2? There’s a bunch of people only do cold war reenactment.

You have tried to “merge” them already.
Weapon transfer system. What I want is, with minor cost, take weapons everywhere, thus simplified campaign barrier. But you, again, be so greedy that make it useless to break the campaign barrier.

@sfh0525

About weapon transfer:
Great steps towards reduce playerbase split.
But… The real function is broken up.
Extreme Campaign level limitation. That’s mostly against for what you say.
I know high level weapon bring back can break balance. But at this high of limitation, like PPSH41 from Berlin to Moscow, it takes EXACT same LV30 for unlock or transfer!
It should be: Require you to gain SOME campaign level at destination campaign, but same or lower than the original campaign. Thus to PROMOTE players to play other campaigns, not to keep staying on what he has played a lot.
Also, if I can get the weapons via bronze not expensive at all. What’s the point of transfer?

[Enlisted_Thunder]

Actually, the new system is only grinding friendly at first.
No more repeated grinding for same weapon. And enable branch system (but it can be added up to existing campaign system).

What you get:
A WT style, infamous, infinite, no way to skip to play the period/campaign which you want to techtree.

You still failed to address new players despair towards hundreds of hours grinding and equipment difference between veterans.
What veterans shows to new players, new players can never get them within reasonable time and money.

Like, I want to share this game to my friends. But as long as I show them the price:
40USD per level.
The XP requirement:
Millions of XP, which you only typically get 1k per minute.

What I want is:
If players are willing to PAY MONEY. At a REASONABLE price. Can get a pre-set of mid-low, mid, mid-high tech tree unlocks pack. Or Stalingrad, paid to get a reasonable grinding speed.
Those F2Pers are literally letting paid players to pay to grind with them. Is it fair???
Why I still have to grind with you if I already spend a reasonable amount of money?
You already get a much better treatment than those trial version software.

With a reasonable amount of money spend, you should be able to stop grinding and enjoy the game. Try the things you’ve get.
If keep grinding, of course only the strongest weapons will be used. Because you are in desire of XP!
I’m now having time to try snipers, mortars, fighter planes, all kinds of things I dont want to use before. Because I dont need to grind at all!

[Conscript_Joe]

It’s even worse than you think. There is no incentive for players…

to use BETTER gear, thus to grind.

Before the new system, players usually grind better stuff because… they are better. they’re supposed to give an edge, they are worth it, they’re rewarding to use. You know, the same thing as all similar fps.

After the new implementation, considering the fact that everything you face will mirror exactly your best equipment piece’ BR, there just won’t be any necessity to grind or get “better” things… since they just won’t be better than older stuff to win.

I maintain this equipment br mm isn’t the solution. But that won’t matter anyway.

[HappyKillerTeddy]

Seems like an overall positive change. My concerns are, what if you play high tier German (FG42, Tiger 1, Panther) but want to play Normandy/fight America instead of USSR. Also what if you wanted to enjoy the Fedorov with the T50 and T34(1940/1941) or the AVT-40/PPSH41 in Stalingrad with KV-1/T34STZ against PZ IVs, are the high tier weapons just going to shove you in Berlin with with Panthers and Tigers? The air support is also pretty tame in these campaigns compared to others giving a funner experience.

[HappyKillerTeddy]

Saw a screenshot that said high tier weapons/tanks are going to be more in late war maps like they already are. A King Tiger in Moscow would be unlikely and only occur if there weren’t enough high tier players searching for a match at the same time.

[WidowMakerUk73-psn]

Ok let’s put this into perspective, purely looking at one of the countries - axis

Why against: one new combined super meta
The games will be all about highest level stuff wins, anything low level will be pointless now.

New axis meta:
Axis squads will no longer be varied, they will all have Engineers from Stalingrad FG42 from Berlin, Offenrohs from Normandy, MG45s, King Tiger from Berlin or TigerEs from Berlin, Jagdpanther from Berlin, ju188 from Normandy or Fw190 D from berlin, Bf109G10 premium.

Why against: Makes my premiums pointless
It won’t matter what campaign / map you play on, it totally negates the use of my various premium squads, I won’t use them because the other bought premiums and the above line up is all I need.

I recently bought P40, 2002 in Tunisia, where will they go? When will I use them? (Currently I can chose I fancy a Tunisia flight in my Hurricaine MkIV and p40)

Why against: Every game will be against try hards and sides will never get balanced as I won’t be able to help weaker side.

I played this game daily because it was fun, I don’t want to sweat in every match just because I’m end game and I used to go to the losing side and try and help balance out with one of my premiums, ie M3 on Moscow, or Stug III

Why cant you invest more time with certain restrictions on MM, if at very least matchmaking logic is split into Early, mid and late war Time periods it would stop this blurring and there would be 3 meta axis squads not just one.

Why against: Not properly Alpha tested
Something needs to be done, but making decisions without proper user testing? I thought there was a call for Alpha testers and then we hear nothing? Alpha test proposed changes, there are plenty of end game players here.

Why: My choice is being taken away and will never meet new players again
I play this game for the freedom, when soloing I help out, I fly and practice bombing, I go on certain campaigns Allied Normandy, Berlin Axis, Pacific Allies to help out, even meet new players offer them guidance and invite into our clan, won’t have that opportunity any more and will be likely put against same players over and over again.

Why: You will lose an income source when the players like me leave
I have spent well over 2k GBP since CBT on this game, I have / had a monthly premium budget to buy the new stuff that is released especially, I had no hesitation as this game was going in the right direction and I loved it’s historical battles

I guess we will have to see, bottom line Alpha test this before rolling out another game breaking change please

[Veekay45]

But why would you spawn a high BR lobby into a Moscow map anyway?

If the game tries to create a King Tiger lobby with comparable enemy vehicles, it should be something like IS or 76 mm Sherman, right? So just auto-select a Berlin/Normandy map.

What is a King Tiger supposed to fight in Moscow, if there are not enough players for comparable BR? T-50 and T-34/76 neither of which can even scratch it?

---

Seriously, if the main goal of this overhaul is uniting the playerbase – sure, put all German players into pool A and all Soviet players into pool B, but simply don’t allow spawnig ahistorical weapons and vehicles for certain maps/periods.

Or is the main goal of this overhaul not just uniting the playerbase but “fUN and dIVerSiTY” as James put it (i.e. King Tigers in Moscow)?

---

What I really like about Enlisted: it gives an opportunity to play in unique and underrepresented historical cicrumstances.

Every other WW2 game (BF, COD, even HLL) just lets you use the best gear (STG, Tommy, PPSh, Tiger) and use it wherever and whenever.

While in Enlisted we actually have some really interesting scenarios, for example:
Desperate defense of Berlin where German forces are using crappy last ditch equipment like VG 2, MP 3008 and Pz IV J without electrical turret traverse because IRL it was too expensive – in the new system, why would anyone ever use any of this if they’ll have K98, MP-40 and Pz IV with power traverse.

By giving unrestricted access to all weapons and vehicles on all maps, Enlisted loses its charm and uniqueness.

[James_Grove]

@Veekay45

If the game tries to create a King Tiger lobby with comparable enemy vehicles, it should be something like IS or 76 mm Sherman, right? So just auto-select a Berlin/Normandy map.

And this decision brings us to very good answer from keo in his post:

@Keofox

But how can this do any harm?

Let’s say you’ve got the most modern setup of the German army and queued up with a 1000 of other players.

The matchmaking has analyzed your setup and excluded 600 USSR/Allies players who have weaker weapons and vehicles and thus do not qualify as your opponents. In the updated Enlisted it’ll still have a pretty good selection of 400 players (100 as USSR and 300 as Allies) to create a few interesting sessions on one of dozens of historical battlefields (or even hundreds if we’re talking about missions and not maps): vs USSR in Moscow, Stalingrad, and Berlin; vs USA in Normandy, vs Allies in Tunisia.

But suppose you’ve added another rule: “Matchmaking can only send players to the map that’s historically accurate for their weapons and vehicles.” Then you’ll have to forget about Moscow, Stalingrad, and Tunisia, and will be left with just Normandy and Berlin — as long as you’re using your modern setup. That will make the updated Enlisted quite similar to the current one that’s limited by the constraints of the campaigns, but will also make it harder for the matchmaking system that’ll have to take into account both weapon power and maps.

That’s why during the first planning stage we decided to make that small sacrifice in favor of a game that’ll be well-balanced, diverse (hundreds of missions!) and always full of players.

[Veekay45]

@James_Grove

And this decision brings us to very good answer from keo in his post:

So you’re saying the game will create King Tiger vs IS-2 matchup on Moscow? Why?
Or King Tiger vs T-26 on Moscow. Again, why?

[James_Grove]

@Veekay45

Or King Tiger vs T-26 on Moscow. Again, why?

This will only happen if you pick high tier weaponry on soviet soldier, in other cases KT will encounter his usual enemy: IS-2

[Veekay45]

So, if I pick a Soviet squad with IS-2, and a German player picks a squad with King Tiger => create a Berlin map for us.

Why the perversions with King Tiger vs IS-2 in Moscow? What for?

[James_Grove]

@Veekay45

So, if I pick a Soviet squad with IS-2, and a German player picks a squad with King Tiger => create a Berlin map for us.

I already quoted keo answer above, it will bring more restrictions to future MM(the more restrictions you add, harder it to code) and it’s will be same like campaigns again.

[Veekay45]

I am honestly trying to understand. What restrictions?

There are 10 high BR German players, there are 10 high BR Soviet players => just have the game create a Berlin map for them.

There are 10 high BR German players, there are 10 high BR US players => just have the game create a Normandy map for them.

There are 10 low BR German players, there are 10 low BR Soviet players => just have the game create a Moscow map for them.

How is this a restriction if the map is selected AFTER the 10v10 lobby is organized?

[CaptainSebekel]

Except that most matches currently are not balanced. Yeah Worked out I guess.

[James_Grove]

@Veekay45

What restrictions?

What you propose is mostly same campaign system that didn’t quite work. Plus in this case you still need to wait while this players is gonna gather up, so it’s more queue time(and plus different queues for it)