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

[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.

[Mishaa76]

Same here. I just want to know how his idea works,because at least now it looks like other “Give us presets for those maps” that would just add coding to all weapons that would have to be done one by one to be only in some specific campaigns.

[tommyZZM]

@Mishaa76

Give us presets for those maps

If they insist on this, I’d rather go play mod maps I made myself at least I can use my own squads

[robihr]

@RussianPuts

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

if getting matched against/with bots often isnt enough of a reason to convince you then idk what is. also it is one of the reasons why pc players cant turn off crossplay. to have more human players so they dont need to put bots into match.

[Barendd1974]

@FedGangRunDaOp

hardly a good compromise, terrible even.

Explain that part. You can’t just put an opinion with no reasoning against people who disagree and expect them to all suddenly agree with you.