yes excellent immersion. forcing tanks to fight frontally, forcing new players against meta auto/WP spamming players, forcing players with stuarts against tigers, every match on crossplay on we had 30% of bots entering game.
shit solution
tell me what will exactly break your historical immersion. give me an example. they said they will implement soft HA rule that will not break “historical” immersion. maybe your seal clubbing immersion will be broken?
so you are saying that veterans didnt have meta with stg44 and tigers, or USA with m2 and p47? BR will bring back so many weapons/vehicles back to use cause there will be no more shit end game meta.
dont let the door hit you
this current merge and BR were part of the solution that i proposed last year. now only thing that they need is making soft veto system for map/mode selection.
i pulled that data cause of an argument in one topic when i said that we simply dont have enough playerbase and other party didnt believe me.
and do you know why game cant attract enough playerbase? cause veterans are non stop seal clubbing with meta auto weapons and vehicles. do you think newbies want to stay in a game where they get insta destroyed by enemy tiger and with knowledge that they will need to grind for months before having anything to counter it?
according to one player xbox had 25k players on christmas, i pulled around 20k for the week i pulled statistics. that is max 25% difference. we are not talking about multiples of playerbase and those stats are enough to give general state of the game.
i tend to disagree. i dont play multiplayer game to play against bots.
it will be better experience than farming 150 kills on bots that dont even know where i am.
Suggestion: I believe for premium squad weaponry the player should be able to purchase and equip new copies of the weapons to any character and squad that are able. For Example: let’s say a new player buys the PPT-27 squad, if he’s never played this squad will be useful, but statistically speaking only until he unlocks the PPD-34/38 and his first assault squad, if he is then allowed to buy and use PPT-27’s on his new free unlocked assault squad, he’s still getting his money’s worth and doesn’t have to sacrifice any advantage for using a weapon that statistically is near identical to another in all but looks.
Man you are saltier than the water in the Pacific maps. But yeah dude I came here from WT as well. I was so sick of getting wasted by guys way better than me or better planes. I started WT in 2013 EARLY on, took like 5 years on free account to earn a UK jet, then realized I was never gonna have any more fun once the low tiers were about all I could ever get any kills in.
The campaign system is kinda the only thing that kept his fun if I have to start seeing guys with VG 1-5 last ditch Berlin rifles from 1945 in the siege of Moscow in 1941, I’m gonna puke.
and they said there will be soft HA rule. that means that VG 1-5 or mp 3008 will have more likely chance on appearing in berlin. campaigns were simply unsustainable. ffs on average 40% of total “players” entering the game are bots. i am playing ONLINE MULTIPLAYER game to play against other humans, not other bots.
Pretty much all of you that defend “purposedly killing historical accuracy for the sake of balance” are arguing in bad faith. You are hypocritical enough to say that “FG42 can match against AVS even if the numbers aren’t exactly the same, because what it matter is that rhey are close in role and performance”, yet claim at the same time that all historical acciracy defenders will want the Federov on Tier 1 because “they are historical accuracy purists”.
Just like there are barely no balance purists, there aren’t either many actual historical accuracy purists. There is a sweetspot between balance and historical accuracy, and making the MP3008 appear on Moscow because “it belongs in Tier 2” is uneeded and retarded. Realistically, the Federov should’ve been a Gold weapon instead of a main researchable gun, and the MP3008 could be an extremely cheap high Tier weapon, this links to the post I made recently:
Y’all are too far up your asses to care about newbies (who are the ones that will keep this game alive, wether you like it or not), constantly rambling about “should X weapon be higher or lower” instead of partaking in more productive discussions like “is the system Darkflow gave us even good to begin with?” or “how will this impact newbies and the whole grind experience?”. You are all acting egoistic and only caring about hyper-competitivity, as if you wanted to make Enlisted an E-Sport, to make a CoD WW2 knockoff.
Enlisted as it is right now, even with how flawed the Campaign system is, hits a sweetspot between reasonable balance (not perfectly balance, but not truly autolose (stomps happen due to population disparities)) between factions, and a reasonable amount of historical accuracy (not 100% accurate, but the inaccuracies aren’t “1945 weapons in Moscow”, but more like “this saw limited use i that timeframe OR saw use a few months earlier/later than the map it appears in”). With all your proposals following Darkflow’s initial plan you are scaring away all historical players, fucking over newbies (who now can easily play the Garand on Normandy within a week of starting, but in the new progression will be locked to early-war maps and weapons without any other alternative), and only bootlicking both tryhards (that want to make this game a CoD-like E-Sport without any interla or historical logic other than “”“balance”"") and Darkflow/Gaijin aloke (by indirectlt approving their tedious, linear, long-ass grind to “play something else other than early-war stuff”}.
and i am sick and tired of arguing with retards when DF said that this will not happen (or will have very low chance of happening) cause they will implement soft HA rule. so if there is mp3008 it will probably be put in low tier match on berlin map.
you know that this system was requested by community many times before DF even announced the merge? everyone that played could see that campaigns were simply non sustainable model and that DF adding later levels was making shit experience for newbies. this is not about hyper competitivity, but about preventing extreme seal clubbing and shitty end game meta.
You have to be very dumb to think that the historical accuracy matchmaking rule will apply to individual weapons instead of Tiers. It is just impossible to apply a matchmaker that cares about individual weapons, what this eventually makes is that either:
A) A shitload of queues appear because the matchmaker tries to do low, mid and high-Tier Berlin matches (with Kriegsmodell-Mosin M44-MP3008 on “early”, PPS 42 and VG1-5 on “mid” and all the full-auto stuff on “late”). This leads to the playerbase being way more divided than it already is with the Campaign system, leading to matches with 1-2v1-2 players and the rest being bots.
B) The matchmaker fails to find enough players, sees a majority of the early-Tier weapons are from early-war, and puts these “shitty” late-war weapons that are on lower Tiers into early-war maps. Hence, Volkstrum/1945 weapons on Moscow.
Goddamn dude, use your brain. You guys think the matchmaker will be a magical, miraculous solution that will make things perfect, and it won’t, it will be limited to what the playerbase looks like, and will follow Tiers because following “individual maps-per-weapon” parameters will be impossible to apply.
obviously 0 experience in programming and algorithms. simply you make low tier match of 20 players and then check their weapons to see eligibility of campaigns they will be assigned. 0 additional queues cause map is decided after MM made match.
i agree that MM wont be perfect. i would prefer that they also include soft veto map/mode system and then it would be close to perfection.
We sure did see it. But the detail of the “soft rule” wasn’t clarified, not wirtten in the latest news, so we have the right not to trust and rely on it 100%.
Yeah, I also thought about if we improve this soft rule, could it be possible? Keep this version of the tech tree design, and add icon like T, P, M, S, B (for each campaign, or it could be more simplized, but the latest one is decisive ) on the right corner of each weapon, to show what battlefield will this weapon bing you to , might could be a good idea which could please both side of the players.
Till now, I didn’t find any equipments might conflict with, but it will
surely make the matchmaking double-checked, which is more complex and must take longer time (which means we must make the “soft rule” a “hard rule” or it is non-sence cuz it could be softer than cheese, if there’s no “enough” players, while the “enough” is also unclear);
even if it could solve the lower br late weapon’s problem, the higher br early weapon, like ppsh-41, might still don’t have the oppotunity to join Moscow since it’s top-tiered and axis don’t have weapon at same br and same situation, this problem is which annoys me at the first time.
And I would mention, the banlance problem isn’t located in the weapon 100%. I agree it will improve the banlance (I never deny it), but the game mechanicsm is the main factor, so that I would insist not to sacrife HA (whether you admit or not, a currently feature of enlisted) for the minor one. Even if you keep using offensive word on me instead of my idea like what you did at the first place (which is not a good way to discuss), you won’t change my mind but drive me mad.
By the way, if we are talking about balancing fully-automatic and semi-automatic weapons, there is another way: to limit amount of this weapons in squads. For example: 1 submachinegun, 1 machinegun, 1 fully-automatic rilfe, 2 semi-automatic rifle per squad. Assault and machinegun squads - 3 (or 2) submachineguns (machineguns) per squad without giving them ability to use fully-automatic and semi-automatic rifles. But, unfortunately, developers will not use that system)
‘‘this is not about hyper competitivity, but about preventing extreme seal clubbing and shitty end game meta’’ this is exactly what will happen.
You really have no clue whatsoever you talking about, you really fail to get it
And since MP3008 and VG isn’t whole setup. And since most of your setup. will still suit more moscow than Berlin. I cannot imagine they would put you on Berlin map.
And you still remember your enemies should have low br late war equipment too. Which is kinda hilarious. (Not counting you will get probably downtiered playing against t-34 1941 on Stalingrad map anyway, lol)
I cannot see any alternative universe in which this would work probably, lol.
It’s extremely naive this soft rule will be somwhat relevant. I don’t believe it will work in any way.
well if you did see it than STFU. if after update game puts tiger in moscow then complain and dont whine like spoiled child before it is even implemented. it is possible to easily implement it just by deciding map after MM has found 20 players of suitable tier.
it would be better to just have premade historical squads with their weapons. limiting amount of specific weapons wont do anything cause you can just pick OP weapon and continue shooting
you fail to get it. do you even know experience of a f2p newbie right now?
like i said it is possible to easily implement this. only problem i see with my implementation is lack of 1945 campaigns for USA, but even that can be mitigated by preselecting players with such weapons in soviet queue.