Personally I don’t prefer a shorter match, or a less populated match, i prefer one with fewer deserters. And I don’t think there’s anyone out there who LIKES deserting, they’re doing it because they don’t enjoy certain maps or game modes, and they’re not willing to waste their time playing maps they don’t enjoy, and I don’t blame them, ESPECIALLY when there’s a supposed map preference system in place (there isn’t) that should weed out their dislikes (it doesn’t).
They need to either make the map selection system work, give carrots to people who stay in bot matches, or apply the stick to the deserters. Preferably map system, since there will then be far fewer desertes to worry about.
1 Like
i don’t really get your point, since on my proposal you could have two vehicles, and yet again , that value is open to change, Moreover, gaming wise Lower player counts should encourage players to try their best with vehicles, given that they are fewer on the battlefield, their impact is more significant
however adding something of a potemkin army i do consider a bad idea since it removes the importance of the squad management, and also can be depending on how it works a rather exploitable mechanic
Though i don’t get what you meant by “making -+ 0 viable”, my apologies
sorry as small as the maps are having less soldiers on screen would make the game too slow, i like enlisted as is between hell llet loose and cod, i dont want a second hll
on the other hand if they increased the size of squads 150 20 200 % depending hoq few squads you want, you might even be able to control multiple sub squads of 4-5 soldiers
right now we have -+1 having few ‘human’ players per match would allow -+0 mach making without longer wait time
± i mean if you have a br2 line up you can face br 1 2 3 in a ±1
in -+0 br2 would only fight br2
Please, let’s not highjack this discussion by talking about desserters
even on those cases
1- people would be discouraged by the notion of ensuring a loss because you are resting more responsability into each individual player
2- even if it was to be true, if a match was going to be lost either way, why drag it more from what is neccesary?
Oh alright, now i do get your argument
i do agree that it could allow for no variance of BR, though that was not the point
the argument here is that due to smaller player numbers, matches would be actually more fast paced, while you may have a point because smaller players do mean it is more empty, shouldn’t a match which requires less kills to progress be quicker naturally?
1 Like
Sure just smaller maps, old map chop off some new map
i do partially agree
as for now it seems the best solution would be either 4 vs 4 or 6vs6 with two infantry squads as bots to maintain pressure of two unique objectives