Tell all those who oppose historical accuracy: historical accuracy does not conflict with those who like the current mode

[robihr]

@Night_Voyager_CN

However, I don’t think it is a better choice to let as many as 20% - 50% of players(calculating comments from various platforms) leave Enlisted than to split the player group,

out of those 20%-50% maybe 5% will actually leave. and those 20%-50% make less than 0.1% of actual enlisted playerbase.

@Night_Voyager_CN

let alone after the combination of various campaigns, the lack of players is no longer a problem!

it is a problem if you want historical accuracy. you would still need to have at least 6 (or 8 later this year) separate queues and that is without any game balance.

it is not problem not wanting historical accuracy, it is problem of not knowing how to implement it with current playerbase and implementation of game balance. it is also problem of fixed MM queues vs flexible MM queues.

people who are not mathematicians or programmers simply dont understand complexity and number of players needed to implement historically accurate games with actual game balance. also cause historical accuracy is important you would need separate queues for almost every campaign cause you could differentiate almost every campaign by what weapons they were fielding or not.

it is easy to say “i want historical accuracy”, but nobody is presenting viable solution where you can have both historical accuracy and game balance without requiring order of magnitude more playerbase.

[tommyZZM]

@robihr

actually leave

You can say that with confidence when Enlisted has the same number of streaming rooms as its competitors.

I think this is a kind of self-confidence.

[Aurora_Pioneer_I]

@robihr

it is easy to say “i want historical accuracy”, but nobody is presenting viable solution where you can have both historical accuracy

At least, many proposed solutions, often in excess of 1,000 words.
And what have you done? Who are you to think that our solutions are unworkable?
I think that’s confidence on your part.

[tommyZZM]

I can certainly understand that some players like the way it is now. But if you like the current Enlisted, you don’t need to refute it here, because it may just be another space in game.

@robihr

20%-50%

Suppose we can accept this assumption. Well Enlisted assumes a large player base.

Even if it’s not a World War II FPS competitor, let’s compare Gaijin’s offerings.

Big Brother Warthunder I believe has a larger player base.

Enlisted’s much-loved cousin, CRSED, undoubtedly has an even smaller player base.

Both Warthunder and CRSED have rich and varied game modes.

So I don’t think Enlisted adding a decent fun game mode isn’t an option. Well, you might say that lone wolf mode and custom rooms are not popular. Yes, only a very small number will participate in custom battles in the current game. But this is not a problem with the pattern itself. It is a problem that game developers have not done these modes well.

They are the same development team, compared to the refinement of CRSED, well, the development of new features and bug fixes for Enlisted custom rooms is really slow. If it comes to this, I am even a little impatient.

---

They still not yet brought custom blk loading feature to custom game players so far, I have been waiting for no less than half a year, as you can imagine.

---

In retrospect, I’m glad they at least made some replays workable.

But there are still many problems with the playback function itself, unable to locate and rewind

In comparison, I think it is faster to improve the problem of custom combat

[田田田田田田田田田田田田田田田田]

@Night_Voyager_CN

At least, many proposed solutions, often in excess of 1,000 words.
And what have you done? Who are you to think that our solutions are unworkable?
I think that’s confidence on your part.

The solutions saying something along the lines of keeping what we have now, but removing the ability to choose campaigns and giving it a new coat of paint are hardly a good compromise, terrible even.

[robihr]

@Night_Voyager_CN

Who are you to think that our solutions are unworkable?

just another computer engineer with some knowledge in computer algorithms and math.

@Night_Voyager_CN

At least, many proposed solutions, often in excess of 1,000 words.
And what have you done?
I think that’s confidence on your part.

i have given numerous replies on specific ideas and why they arent viable. usually they fail on 2 common factors: either they dont include balance or they require complexity (aka large playerbase).

@Night_Voyager_CN

And what have you done?

this was my suggestion 2 months ago

Another rework idea

Considering that every now and then i see front/theater suggestion, here is one that IMHO is superior alternative. Game progress: Game needs technology tree like warthunder for every nation. Every weapon and vehicle need to have year of prototype (for possible gold order weapon) and year of service (for campaign unlock). Considering that some weapons were either available in small quantities after entering service, or are OP for game balancing reasons, we can further put star rating that is cu…

it would bring best of both worlds. historical accuracy, balanced game, removed repeated grind. but it has problem of complexity. adding new campaigns and keeping them historically accurate while keeping the balance complicates number of queues

but cause i know that my idea cant be implemented i at least try to give constructive criticism on what is possible to implement so we dont have complete travesty of a game. like implementing max BR limits on campaigns/maps so you dont have tiger in moscow.

[Aurora_Pioneer_I]

@robihr

usually they fail on 2 common factors: either they dont include balance or they require complexity (aka large playerbase).

So answer↓

Or you think balance problem?
I know Germans cannot compete with KV-1 but you can give them powerful planes or mechanism advantage.
I want to tell you if you try to change. You will at least get something. If you refuse to change and refuse to solve any problem because you are always worried about it, it is hopeless

[Aurora_Pioneer_I]

@FedGangRunDaOp

keeping what we have now, but removing the ability to choose campaigns

Your eyesight is very poor. Excuse me

[Aurora_Pioneer_I]

@robihr

it would bring best of both worlds.

You can see that I like your suggestion. But why do you want to block similar suggestions now? This is a contradiction, which gives developers an excuse for stubbornness

@robihr

just another computer engineer with some knowledge in computer algorithms and math.

If this is true, I hope you will conduct more investigations. I think there will be no shortage of players after this update. At the same time, this may be a small problem caused by your career: you pay too much attention to theory and lack of research on the actual situation.
The player group may be a problem, but it is not now, since the developers decided to merge the campaigns.
It is meaningless to make Enlisted a fuzzy mixture of HLL mode, COD mode and BFV mode, and players of none of modes are happy. Why not split it into several modes? We now have players in six campaigns, crowded in one mode(and unofficial custom mode?)

[robihr]

@Night_Voyager_CN

So answer↓

that is not answer. if you are merging playerbase you will need to have them merged and not again separated to keep historical accuracy. but i will just quote myself so i dont need to write everything again

@robihr

cause i do programming and this is basic statistical distribution problem if you want to keep queues healthy. every separate condition adds constraint on players who can join and normal statistical distribution says that some queues will be more populated than other, so you need more players to populate those edge cases.
and it is not only problem of current enlisted, but you also must look at future added campaigns. linear addition of campaigns means that you are dividing playerbase every time new campaign is added. and then you need to keep every campaign balanced. even if you only balance based on basic 3 tiers (low, mid, high) you will go from current 6 queues, to 6 queues * 3 tiers= 18 queues. later this year they will add 2 new campaigns and that would be fixed 24 queues. now add player distribution over campaigns and over tiers (you can include standard gaussian distribution) and you would need at least 5x (or more probably like 6-7x) number of players to support 24 fixed queues vs current 6 fixed queues. and this number would just increase as they add campaigns.

and with new MM you get flexibility that will give you between 3-24 queues regardless if you have 6 or 100 campaigns.

and i forgot to include time distribution in those calculations. cause most players are active in peak hours, off peak hours would be even more affected by 24 fixed queues. and that is why requirement for number of player is rising exponentially more constraints you add.

[田田田田田田田田田田田田田田田田]

Oh, right, my bad man, there’s also the ones who want split matchmaking which this whole system is trying to eliminate.

[Aurora_Pioneer_I]

@robihr

not again separated to keep historical accuracy

@FedGangRunDaOp

he ones who want split matchmaking

I never said it was necessary to separate.
You made the wrong assumption, so through rigorous logical reasoning, you got the wrong conclusion

[robihr]

@Night_Voyager_CN

You made the wrong assumption, so through rigorous logical reasoning, you got the wrong conclusion

i dont get this topic… are you talking about mod or MM or… cause HA is usually brought into question with MM so i assumed you were talking about that…

btw MTL really doesnt help.

[Aurora_Pioneer_I]

We can just select the Soviet Union/Alliance/Axis, and then the system will randomly match us to different campaigns and huge battlefields (with historical reality).
This is an imperfect suggestion, but it can avoid problems

[robihr]

something like even battle event or you bring your own troops and equipment?

[Aurora_Pioneer_I]

The historical mode can also maintain the existing merger campaign.
The specific operation is as follows: In the historical mode, we select USSR/ALLIES/AXIS, and then the system automatically determines which battlefield to send us to (we can also choose which battles to participate in only). Of course, this battlefield has historical accuracy (vehicle and weapon limitations) and a huge map, as I said in my previous “detailed map” post.

@robihr

something like even battle event or you bring your own troops and equipment?

Own, but maybe partly event troops set
But obviously, it’s not the current tech system.
Maybe in the historical mode, we can have weapons and vehicle systems similar to HLL, which is different from the normal mode

[RussianPuts]

It’s one of the reasons why I don’t buy into the ‘‘muh low player base’’ claim.

[Mishaa76]

@Night_Voyager_CN

In the historical mode, we select USSR/ALLIES/AXIS, and then the system automatically determines which battlefield to send us to (we can also choose which battles to participate in only). Of course, this battlefield has historical accuracy (vehicle and weapon limitations) and a huge map, as I said in my previous “detailed map” post.

So how would this work, is there preset squads in HA mod, or is it my squads with my equipment?

[tommyZZM]

The result of the comparison is pitiful

Of course, if you compare it to some of the more niche games, Enlisted has at least some players playing it.

[tommyZZM]

@Mishaa76

preset squads

Don’t like the preset squads, I prefer to make my own choices for squad equipment base on current game.