In WT you have ranks, when i joined Enlisted its 1-29, now its 1-32, and assume they will go higher, so you would have lvl 1s, playing against lvl 50? so much fun that will be, (not!), and higher maybe in theory, eventually.
So why not say have, tier 1-2, then tier 2-3, tier 3-4, tier4-5 etc etc, or something like, just a idea.
There aren’t enough players
5 Likes
That is the nowdays game design way, every devs I know (almost) and for sure Editors are diving in …
But you know what ? It has been used for so many times it’s no more a valid way to make money to me and it’s useless taking into account clones existing on all genre nowdays … Batte Royale is the perfect example, everyone did do his own, to try to mimic profit generate by Fornite … in VAIN.
They are also thos days a lot of WWII games, tactical one.
So, taking into account those parameters and the expectations of the nowadays players ( and do trust me I’ve got a lot of feedback from those ), I think the good & only way to go is to make a game of quality with fair rules with decent shop offers to attract a lot of people who are lost into the infinte web of games plethora.
Enlisted by its base is a good game, so less aggressive monetization can actually bring more people in and thus bring more profits with basic batlepass. Otherwise people just leave at early levels when they realize they need to pay for everything from the very start. And if people won’t leave, there will be enough players and on higher levels eventually.
Do the new lower tier players generally spend money….probably not.
If the lower tier players are matched with higher tier players (who have played longer and probably spent money) will they be farmed for easy XP…yes
Do the Devs want a “fair” game with players matched with players of the same level…where are the profits in that?
So many on this forum seem to think that the devs care, or should care, about making this game fair…it’s silly.
The goal is to generate the maximum amount of profits……that’s why they chose the F2P business model………Fish On!
Are you Ghostofishmael, reincarnated?
I did
Have you been reading my other threads, and using them against me, lol
https://forum.enlisted.net/t/multiplayers-games-with-console-controllers-vs-pc-mouse-kb
they want more players, to make $$ off, because at the end of the day, they don’t really care about the game/gameplay, as long as there something new, people will buy
You know the thing is a campaign level based matchmaking wouldn’t work because 1: people already like to complain about what is and isn’t balanced at the same tier
2: the game would be pretty boring only seeing the same stuff, like early on it’s bolt-actions and the more common smgs
3: there’d probably be a lot of people stuck waiting for matches at higher levels and
4: player skill has a HUGE impact on everything. For example, people have been complaining about the Jumbo basicly since day 1 because it can usually just mindlessly wipe the enemy teams. Buut thanks to that most Jumbo players have absolutely no idea how to play the thing other than “uuh gray zone good, me safe you die haha” but not only do they have 0 situational awareness, it also takes them a whole MINUTE to realize that when you shoot them in the side armor, maybe it’d be wise to turn the hull that way. Then they turn it right towards you so you can just aim for the weakspot. Even with a Pz. IV J I could snipe him from our grey zone to theirs (got tired of him just sitting there for minutes). Twice.
A skill based matchmaking system would have many many problems aswell. Not only is it way harder to make, it would take a lot longer aswell. We still have many matches that get filled up with bots so you don’t have to wait minutes to find a match, but while on the lower skill levels it wouldn’t be a problem, they’d still have the occasional smurf/troll who intentionally got a lower skill level and destroy everyone and there’d be chaos there for sure, on higher levels it would probably take way longer to find a match because of the current size of the active playerbase and then I haven’t really mentioned how any one player’s skill can be widely different than their average (way better on a good, way worse on a bad day). And just as a reminder, the World of [-] series games started out without a matchmaker aswell, two of them still got widely popular until they got a proper functioning matchmaker and people still hate their system because of how quickly one of the teams usually loses.
4 Likes
You did do good comments to me on both topics I did. Thank you for that 
and very interesting ones.
But once more, sure “Devs” and mostly Publishers want to generate money going through F2P method. But has you said it the right way it won’t work without new players database with something new to attract them and THAT something new is something Publishers need to consider carefully those days NOT relying on those nowadays stupid analytics which are the tools of lazy people who don’t want to generate much larger profits and don’t want to shine nowhere in a worldwide scene.
That’s my point of view and it seems to be the point of you of some new Devs & Publishers who did make the all surprise with very interesting games released that year and no one was suspecting with very large profits by the end …
And finally talking about game of quality, I think the best example I’ve got is RDR2. RDR2 solo campaign is with a true quality with features, physics (thanks Euphoria) and gameplay which were FAR above anything I’ve seen so far … and because of that 60 million units worldwide were sold. The title was far away ahead any type of medias at release.
My bad, should of said my reply’s to threads, wasn’t trying to hijack, your thread/post, sorry
@ LordTomiHUN, you’re forgetting at least one important point - learning curve. The game is not some kind of a click your LMB to win arcade, it has gameplay details players need to learn. Now how can I learn playing my tanks or engineers if I’m getting out-geared and out-skilled by veteran players? Level-based matchmaking will give players a chance to actually play with the new squads they’re getting, learn the mechanics, learn to appreciate the game better, stay for longer, buy those battle passes and so on and so forth. FredFromFra is right - those are the silent ones and never accounted for, but those are the bulk of the playerbase that could have stayed for those populated servers and shop purchases.
PS RDR2 is a game of quality that is made with passion. And people were saying it will not succeed, but it did. So analytics are not always right. What’s right is doing something new and different and doing it good and with passion, so the silent ones come and stay.
PPS Made a topic on the subject in the RU part of the forums:
No way, you did not 
it was even a very constructive exchange , honestly
JUST PROTECT THE NEW PLAYER, PLS
I have introduce many of my friend to this game and most of the rage quit after D-Day maps, this is a very good game, hope developer fix it !
1 Like
They mentioned that a level based matchmaking system is in the works but trust me that won’t fix YOUR problem.
Hope for a MMR based one or “GiT gUd”.
1 Like
To be fair the D-Day map is designed horribly resulting in some really poor gameplay.
1 Like
I’m not entirely sure that some kind of matchmaking is not going on. Even so I agree the game needs better matchmaking.
They have also mention they were working on game customization lobbies as well. So lets wait and see what they deliver …
I would rather they fixed this by changing fundamental features of this game instead of adding more cumbersome systems to compensate for lack of forethought. The features I’m talking about have big problems and aren’t worth preserving in their current state anyway.
The way progression works is deeply flawed. The way you construct and use squads is deeply flawed. It’s possible to fix these issues and make matchmaker changes unnecessary at the same time.
1 Like
Meh. Some vehicles aside, I personally don’t think a mm is that necessary. When I joined first in Moscow, I was, like everyone starting, lvl 1. I met a t28 on my first match ever on foot. I quickly got my ass handed by it ofc (I was on foot) but I found those matchs simply exhilarating.
I find matchs where nothing can really hurt you more than you can hurt em simply boring. So. I learnt. I learnt to use my BA rifles to great effect, something I would never have bothered with “proper” mm, that would just turn the game into some cod storm the points fu**fests. I would never have learnt every tank weak points either without having to deal with them tactically using t60 or pz2.
Edit: Another good example of what could not be learnt with a mm: In Tunisia, there’s a lot of city terrain with 1 big large main road and buildings side to side. I have a Grant, so taking the main road is relatively safe (til a cheesy kamikaze bomber arrives) ALL THE TIME I meet some AB thinking they are invulnerable taking the main road instead of the small alleys between buildings. They try to face the Grant head on… I teach them it’s a bad idea, that they can maneuver on the flanks (JUST FLANK ME!), that the nimble AB is a fantastic vehicle for sneaky play. They would never know with mm. It would only, always be two braindead sides slugging it out in the middle of the road, every match…
Let ppl learn and grind, they will enjoy what they unlocked much, much more.
(Also Normandy is a real mess, it’s not a very good background to base a MM on.)
8 Likes
Would like to see a matchmaker based on what equipment you are using to be honest the current way it is especially with the tanks is just broken.
1 Like
I think that it would become highly exploitable, I already immagine all the high lvl ppl put shit gear and destroy noobs doing 20000 xp a game.
possible i mean i was getting a shit ton of xp even when i was new.
1 Like