By this I mean that if there is a low player count in the theatre, the match-making is abolished. Sorry if it was unclear. Hence I guess it would be like having 12 “campaigns”, unless there isn’t enough players, in which case it is split into 4 “campaigns” that would allow for Stuart vs. Tiger E scenarios like we have now.
1 Like
I do not understand the question, there is problems in translation I think…
Yes, now I’m too lazy to think in English at this hour, im using translator
I agree with you. Of course the nature of this game (in my experience and opinion) is that underdog story and challenge is part of the game and should be treated as such. Not something to remove, but to rise to.
1 Like
I don’t like the idea, mainly because I don’t like the team switching constantly. I change strategies when I change sides so I mainly hard focus one side. Especially when team swapping I start shooting friendlies by accident cuz I’m so used to seeing them shoot at me when they’re on the opposite team. Finally, as a f2p it get hard to remember who has what equipment when team swapping a lot. Plus I have big trouble dividing the equipment well when leveling up two sides at once.
Yes, I also tend to play only on one side from time to time, but unfortunately, most of the time, the game ends up being unbalanced, as sometimes there are 7 axis guys, 3 ally guys in Normandy and the rest is bots, for example. I have another idea to try to resolve this type of situation. What do you think if the developers incentivize players, who activate the option to play with any faction in any match, like receive the benefit:
. 2 times faster to get a silver and bronze order.
. 1.5 times faster to get more xp.
What do you think?
2 Likes
I think that’s good especially fixes the issue of spreading the orders out evenly between sides.
1 Like
Cool 
, now I hope a moderator sees this idea, and considers adding
1 Like
6 of those topics are from 2 players. and in last year that i have been on forums, it has been discussed why theaters are bad ideas (better than campaigns, but still bad idea). and with so many topics, people are just numb to explaining every time why theaters are bad.
and you still have at least 4 grinds. germany would still have 3 grinds which players wouldnt grind, so you would still have playerbase imbalance. why would players play same faction from start for 3 times for same weapons?
no. underdog is shit when map design is such that you cant even flank. you want to play stuart vs tiger, then play stuart. it is absolutely terrible experience when newbies get their stuart and can do shit against tigers on hill that you can only aim frontally for no damage. specially if they are f2p players that their only vehicle is stuart.
You realize if you’re a tank, unless you’re a medium or heavy class tank, you don’t have to shoot only enemy tanks. Take a look at Pz 2 and T-60, weave in and out of cover at speed and and flank. If you can’t flank find a position that the enemy tank can’t find and hang round there engaging the infantry. Use smoke, ping tank, any thing but give it a chance to take you out.
Underdog is not the primary point of the game. But as a f2p, as a beginner, as a person who doesn’t buy everything in the shop or play the game 18 hours a day, you are an underdog. To someone else you are weaker, wether by skill or by equipment you will be weaker. This is inevitable in almost all games, and to say that being an underdog is shit is true, it can suck. But it is part of almost all games and if you think that everything has to be fair then you’ve never heard the saying life isnt fair.
War isn’t fair, communism isn’t fair, freedom isn’t fair, and finally life isnt fair. You want something fair? Go find it and tell me about it. Till then, keep in mind that just cuz you died doesn’t mean that the entre game has to change for you.
1 Like
also if you want better idea here is one:
unified grind into nations. equipment has years/level. multi campaign equipment based MM.
so you grind one nation and equip your squads with weapons/vehicles. considering that weapons/vehicles should have year of manufacture/service (and maybe campaigns in which they were present), with equipped weapons/vehicles you get set of campaigns you can play. also they need levels (current star system), cause some weapons were state of the art (6 stars) for current year/campaign and were available in limited quantitites, or they are widespread underpowered guns (3 stars).
MM would need fleshing out cause you could get some problems, but basic idea is here.
overall this kind of rework would solve numerous problems:
- grind
- lack of players in certain campaigns
- mitigate playerbase imbalance (solving it would probably be impossible without auto join)
- equipment based inequality (no more stuart vs tiger situations)
- keeping historical accuracy
- make historical RP actually possible without worrying about meta auto spam
2 Likes
nice in theory, but i am playing moscow now and pz2 is always dead when it is marked. t50 just kills it through houses, so cover really doesnt help. shit tank always needs to get in position where it cant get shot by superior enemy tank, but it still has good view to kill enemy infantry. and that kind of positions are extremely few in this game. and that is under condition that you can even find cover. just take a look at normandy on d-day and ver su mer. if tiger is camping on hill, only 2 tanks can kill it. m10 and sherman 76w (well firefly also, but it is premium). everything else is just cannon fodder cause it is almost impossible to get to cover (unless you want to be useless in spawn).
i want equality, not equity. i dont care about skill levels, but i care about every person having somewhat equal chance against opponents. matchmaking veterans with full auto spam and tigers vs newbies with bolties and stuarts is shit game play experience for both sides. newbies are discouraged from game when they see total domination of veterans cause they have better equipment. and no it is not part of all games. most games have balanced either equipment or skill or both. battle royale give everyone RNG to get same equipment, competitive shooters give same equipment+they have skill based MM, games like warthunder/WoT/WoWs have equipment based MM (BR/tier system)
You want equality? We already have that! You get what equipment you get from the hours you put in. If you suggest that a matchmaking system will help then take a look at Apex Legends. They have a system and ut doesn’t change anything, equal equipment but still playing against higher skilled opponents.
Clearly something is lost here, explain what an
Looks like…
There is not a single opponent that is impossible to kill. I’ve not lost a match because I could not kill someone, any person can bayonet charge and throw and explosion pack at a tank, most engineers can build AT gun, and with enough hours anyone can unlock the desired tanks.
What are you asking for?
that is not equality. just check war thunder, world of tanks and world of warships. you can still have countless hours in the game and you get equipment based of it, but it is still balanced cause it doesnt match you with massively overpowered opponent. and in enlisted you have that. in war thunder you will never have situations where stuart (m5a1) with rating of 2.3/2.7 is matched against tiger E that has BR of 5.7. you will get MM based on +/-1 BR. saying that stuart vs tiger E is equality is stupid.
also good luck taking out tiger on hill in D-day or ver su mer with explosion pack or AT gun or any tank that isnt m10, sherman 76w or firefly.
So what suggestion do you have? Because I’ve still not heard any suggestions to fix this problem. Till you can come up with a solution, stop adding to the static noise of the internet.
Currently I do not see any problem with this equality, but that may show that Moscow truly is the best campaign since 99 of my 100 hours have been on Moscow. Most likely I’ll be corrected once a play a different campaign.
Until then I’ve been assuming you’ve just been complaining since the game hasn’t been going you’re way.
already wrote it
also have wrote in few topics some more details about it, but basically this.
Thanks for clarifying! That’s a good idea, wish I read that sooner.
Sorry if I seemed rude (I seldom mean to) and I really hope some devs see that post cuz that can be really helpful.
So out of curiosity, do you hate all underdog aspects or just don’t like camping tanks crushing everything?
primarily equipment/vehicle based ones. i hate when one tank is invulnerable and you dont have equipment to actually kill that tank (stuart vs tiger is best example of that). also when you want to grind new campaign and win, but your enemy are fully grinded veterans with full auto spam, but you have default equipment. or you want to enjoy older equipment like bolties and older tanks (and win), but cant cause MM is shit and it still keeps matching you with meta tryhards.
i dont care about skill based pampering. if all players have roughly the same equipment/vehicles (or same tier ones), then they can have equal chance of killing enemy. this is not some competitive ranked game where you need skill based MM.