New MM. Some concerns and necessary balances changes

Suggestions - Archive
1

Please, let’s keep discussions about historical accuracy out of this one.
Here we discuss concerns and needed changes of the game after the upcoming proposed MM.

Some key points that has comes to my mind

Balance change - Buff attackers

If the new MM will works as intended, battles will become a lot more even.
If two evenly teams compete the defenders will win a big majority of the games.
Therefore they need somehow to buff attackers.

How? Personally, I’m not sure.

Maybe?

Maybe increase tickets for attackers;
add ticket bleed for defenders;
broaden the maps;
increase the size of the objective.

Concerns considering new players.

Don’t get me wrong. These changes gonna be a massive boost for new players. Hopefully, they will have an easier time getting into the game, and most importantly - have a lot more fun.

However been thinking about some things.

1 - Premium squads. What if a new player deciedes to buy a premium squad (with weapons regaraded as high BR). Will they be send to the shark tank?

2 - Map knowledge. We all now that map knowledge is so important in this (in any game). Before a new player most certainly focused on one faction in one campaign. When the merge comes in to play the pool of maps (and maps + different modes) will be a lot bigger.

This will not only affect the learning curve a bit. It will also increase the gap between new and old players.
Maybe it will also disfavour Axis in the long run.

About these concern, I haven’t come up to any good soloutions.

Finally:

Anything else DF should consider regarding the big upcoming changes?

4 Likes
2

It will probably be like War Thunder so, to answer Q1, yes they will be sent to the shark tank lol

Dunno about Q2 tho.

2 Likes
3

well it will not be so even. even though you will have same weapons, skill difference will still exist. it is kinda hard to balance it on global basis. it would be best if matches had some per match buffs for weaker side (based on WR and/or k/d) to make it more even.

i dont see a problem in that. if someone wants to play with higher weapon BR i dont see a problem in sending him there.

well i would introduce probability of getting map depending on BR of weapons. so if you are playing low BR weapons you would have more chance of getting moscow, pacific or tunis, if you are playing mid BR weapon you would get stalingrad or tunis and with high BR weapon normandy/berlin. also i would introduce max BR that some maps allowed to have some HA on maps, so you wouldnt see stg in moscow and in that way limit map pool.

so overall with those 2 mechanism you would more stable map pool, but still wouldnt help germans cause they would need to know 2x more maps.

also i hope they introduce map/mode filter so it doesnt put you in a match with map/mode you dont want to play, but next match it creates in your BR bracket with map/mode you want to play. this could extend MM time for individuals who have filters on, but would make lot of people happier.

1 Like
4

I don’t think so, but we’ll have to see.
Defense in Enlisted is not that strong compared to other games (not just FPS)

Probably, but I think there should be a period of time, maybe like 2 hours, where the game is teaching new players what BR means and how all that shit works
Then, if they buy a premium squad after that, that’s their problem.

This isn’t entirely true.
I never committed to one faction or one campaign.
I like to play them all. The game offers them for a reason.

But we’ll see

5

Most of the maps are straight forward run to the objective. 3rd bunker on D-Dad is the only not intuitive point, as far as i remember.
And flanks… they are all the same in general.

6

Something I find ironic about the proposed “balanced” MM:

Is it really “balanced” when a new player has stock bolt actions and that’s it, but a “veteran” player has 5-star-bolt actions (magically higher ROF and damage) + vitality + quick revive + reload speed + stamina/run speed + 3 WP grenades on 9 soldiers?

2 Likes
7

What’s more important is to give similar weapons similar stats. Right now mp38 and 40 are 2 completely different guns.

8

still better than new player with stock boltie vs veteran player with 6 star stg+vitality+quick revive+vertical recoil+3WP grenades.

4 Likes
9

thank god.

Maybe, cant really tell yet.

Make more static spawnpoints, introduce tickets to defenders as well decreasing rather effectively current meta of rushing as defender.

Plenty of ways but id say its too early to say anything how the games goes.

What comes to matchmake I think they should take in account other stats as well not just weapon BR.
KD / avg score match ? Sure they aint perfect but would help to even matches.

This is something that only time can fix.

Quite alot better than what we have now.

Quite sure the matchmake will find equal player(s) to opposite side as well.
As we currently might have 9 of those stg players you mentioned against 9 new players with BA.

1 Like
10

Better obviously but I don’t have high hopes of balance paradize as some are suggesting.

Sweatstacks, mmo-like perks and faction popularity will still decide the outcome I think.

And another issue that makes me wonder – some people say it’s too tiresome to change your loadouts to get placed in era-appropriate matches with your weapons, but isn’t it similarly tiresome to change all the weapons and gear on all soldiers just when you want to have a slightly different BR experience…

1 Like
11

Two are different. One you need to consider era and equipment br. The other one you only need to consider about equipment br. So it is less tiresome to change the latter one because you don’t need to consider the era.

12

I mean it’s just down to good UI. If we had 3 loadouts per faction (early, mid, late war) without the need to consider anything (STG would simply be unavailable for equipment in early loadout), it would arguably be even more convenient than re-arming the whole army when you want to first play Barbarossa experience and then Fall of Berlin as Germany.

1 Like
13

But you also need to consider the br.

We can implement several loadouts according to br.

1 Like
14

Well, the 3 era loadouts can act as BR loadouts just as well, e.g.:

  1. MP-40 + MG-38 + Pz III J – this one is used when Moscow maps are loaded
  2. Mkb 42 + MG-42 + Pz IV F2 – this one is used when Stalingrad maps are loaded
  3. STG + MG-42 + Tiger – this one is used when Berlin/Normandy maps are loaded
2 Likes
15

There are many gear are late war but worse than early war stuff.
For example, are you gonna bring mp3008 to face late war stuff in Berlin?

16

Obviously it needs to be in Berlin and nowhere else.

If it was up to me I’d make it a “reserve” weapon unlocked from the very start for anyone who wants to start playing Berlin, but it would be quickly replaced by something decent like MP-40 (within ~5-10 matches).

1 Like
17

This will also make all late war campaign become meta weapon tryharder feast.
Since people will only bring the best weapon in the campaign.
In my opinion it doesn’t solve the current meta weapon spamming problem.

18

It wouldn’t.

But I don’t consider it as problem. Way better than to try regulate the actually good and interesting weapons. People should accept that endgame equipment will be more tryhard to play with/against it.

1 Like
19

Well you’d be able to keep your Late War loadout relatively “low BR” as well – MP-40, MG-42, Pz IV H and your Berlin/Normandy maps are not tryhard.

Having bolt action only fights (no “tryhard” weapons) in Berlin would feel weird too.

2 Likes
20

According to you there is no br only era. So who will want to use low to medium level weapon in Berlin when he can use on early or mid war campaign?