Embrace the grind.
Nah Jimmy should be grateful that he doesn’t eat a M8 or HVAR rocket every time he spawn
I feel the exact same way, we have so much in common
30% of bots is not a problem
in fact I prefer matches with 7 vs 7 as already mentioned, and also already covered that some the best matches in this game are because there are less players in the match overall, so I have accepted desertion as helpful thing for better matches
Secondly to this point, also already covered, but has to be repeated…the quitters are what are reducing the numbers in the popular campaigns that normally start with full teams and only stop being full teams because of quitters
Might open up a new thread to discuss that, since that is an entire other subject that needs in depth coverage and it is interesting to me
I have already proven to you multiple times that maps alone aren’t always the majority reason of quits, they can and are the minority often times as I notice they quit often after losing several squads and clearly not enjoying the experience
and yes I agree that is a reason as is roflstomp, but those are not the only reasons, don’t know why you would be ignorant of the rest, but whatever, that’s your choice
Because it’s true, I don’t make this up for no reason, it’s the most common factor
You make it sound like its’ only about seal clubbing, it’s not.
I have also clarified this that it’s part of the accomplishment in this game to reach the pinnacle and then get to enjoy it and be more competitive against other players that have end game gear, not just seal clubbing…your focus on only this shows you don’t understand
sacrificing some players to please players you currently don’t have is only helping reduce the players, not to increase them, guess it’s just more wishful thinking
I agree that’s a bad idea whilst the game hasn’t addressed the reasons why people quit
and let’s get to the center of that discussion, they cannot address all the reasons because many of the reasons are caused by the structure of the game itself, that will never change, and they can never actually fix player balance, it’s actually impossible. So I have realized that player quitting is actually essential since there is no other way around it other than enduring.
So player retention only works when you have the players, introducing something that will push more players away at this point with the hope to replace them with future new players is not a wise choice, given that these remaining players are the ones that kept the game going this long
BR going to push a lot of people away, and I don’t know if they will get those back by replacing them with players that like this BR nonsense, but hey, I won’t be around to care anymore, so whatever
makes no difference post merge pre merge, except there will just be more new reasons to quit matches thanks to BR, three cheers for BR
Wishful thinking it is then
I’m ok with that, I don’t want to play with them either, bunch of babies 
At this point I want to experience maximum desertion consistently, I want to make everyone desert my matches, and play with just bots. I want everyone to see my name and just leave
I’m actually proud of that, quite the achievement
thanks for actually putting that together, really does reflect my experience is completely different from the avg stats and I wasn’t just imagining it
What is happening with the guy that has so many bots in his match? Is that custom or some campaign off peak that nobody plays?
1 Like
I am actually really surprised that despite having the highest quits in my matches in that sample that I also have the least bots in my matches, that was truly surprising
so that means all the quitters are being replaced by players that play like bots
or maybe something going on with these stats, something feels off from the stats and what it feels in the battles
1 Like
people have different experience depending on time, server and campaigns they are playing on. you are on one end of the spectrum cause you are playing most played campaign in the game in peak hours for your server. that means that MM has lots of players and can even replace those players when they quit. so even though you have average 4.83 players quit in your games, you only end up with average 3.39 bots at the end of the game. and out of those who quit at the start you get average 1.44 new players joining existing battle.
stats show that you get at least ~1.5 players quitting per match cause of bad mode/map cause they get replaced right at the start. this number is probably even higher cause not every match you will get replacement.
if you look at global stats for normandy crossplay on in my thread, you will notice same behavior for assault, conquest, demolition and confrontation.
this is perfect example of why map/mode selection is needed. and like i explained hard map selection is impossible to implement if you dont want to make this game PvE.
so only other solutions are:
- vote favorite maps - you will only get most popular maps always selected
- veto hated maps - most hated maps out of 20 players will be eliminated and you will get one randomly from 0 hate or least hate pool.
i think that option 2 is superior option cause it will give wider pool of maps and it will not lock map pool to only few favorite maps.
yes it is a problem. in most campaigns you dont get 7v7, but you get 10v4. it is cause most campaigns have playerbase disparity. normandy is one of the rare campaigns that have around same number of both allies and axis atm. almost any other campaign has 10-100% playerbase disparity between sides.
you have not proven that. if anything proof is actually in your stats. at least one third of deserters in your matches can be directly tied to map selection cause they are being replaced with another human. this is impossible to do if match lasts longer then few minutes (i am actually really interested what is the limit). IIRC you even provided screenshots where people quit either pre match or few seconds after match started.
and yes people also quit cause of bad teams. i quit cause:
- there is no other rally point other than mine and we are not making any progress
- we are getting utterly destroyed
- majority of my team are console players, while enemy team is full of PC veterans with markings
- i am in MM bugged match (10v13)
tell me those reasons and solutions on how to fix them then? one of the reasons is IRL commitments and you cant do shit about that. other reason is fun factor and BR system will actually improve that cause you will not have so many sweaty meta matches against veterans. other reason is seal clubbers searching for an easy match and i really dont care about that population.
and you can be competitive with other players at the same level. i have played numerous games and i didnt see any game that allowed end game equipment be used against newbies with starter equipment (well except p2w games, but i avoid them). that includes MMORPG, FPS, RTS, TBS and games like WT, WoT, WoWs.
when i “reached pinnacle” in WoWs with various ships like yamato, montana, des moines, zao, minotaur etc., for me it was enjoyment to play against other similarly equipped players. if i was playing games against t1 newbies game would be really boring and newbies would quit the game cause i could one shot them and they would need half an hour of constant fire to kill me.
so KT vs t60 is not “reaching the pinnacle”. it is just pure seal clubbing. same with 3 squads full of fedorovs vs newbie with kar98k.
look at this
new players are staying behind and sniping cause they dont have enough firepower against veterans to fight for cap. and you can only win if every player fights for cap and not by sniping players that have infinite amount of lives.
game already sacrificed lots of player by not making those changes. do you even know how many CBT players are left? look at forum 2 years ago, look at forum 1 year ago and see how many players are still playing the game. even some frequent posters on the forum only play few games in 2 weeks.
there are lots of stuff that can be fixed in the game itself that will reduce desertion and BR MM is one of them.
human player balance will be fixed with new MM so there will not be 10v4 matches anymore. that is why i said that global distribution of players is important. now per campaign basis we have normandy that is balanced and other campaigns that have 10-100% difference in players per side.
will that mean skill balance? no and this game never needs to have that mechanism.
will it prevent desertion? no, but at least it will mitigate it to a degree by removing lots of bots and veterans from MM.
do you know what minority are the players who hate this change and could possibly quit? out of 300k players that i have taken data from, less than 100 players actually came to forum to express dissatisfaction with the merge and BR MM.
think he is australian so he plays in off peak hours on some server. also i didnt include any of the crossplay off data and situation there is much worse.
it’s only a problem not because of the 30% bots
but because of the disparity as you rightfully point out where matches don’t evenly do 7 vs 7, but rather 7 vs 10 for example or worse as we see after quitters 10 vs 4
yes that is why I have preferred the Normandy Campaign in recent times, in addition to working on the Campaign progress to finish the campaign and enjoy this game before this BR update kills the game for me
This is where I am telling you there is something not right with those stats
I see so many matches where the majority of quitters have lost like 4+squads, and showed you some examples in screenshots, in one case only 2 quit at the beginning and the other 6 left after losing several squads, some lost like 10 squads and then left.
That is definitely not leaving at the start of the match, you can’t lose 4-10 squads without playing the game for a while can you?
Will add those other reasons you mentioned to the other thread thanks forgot those
I agree that it’s tough facing end game stuff in certain situations and I too dread when a team full of end game gear is facing off against me and my team is clearly just bunch of rifle noobies and bots and the good players quit, but there are also matches and campaigns where the other team might have one or two guys with end game gear and I have only rifles, and then when I pick up their weapons or weapons of our top end guys, it feels great to then have that potential rush and enjoyment, there is nothing quite like it. Admitedly we can’t steal tanks, which sucks, and we certainly can’t get their planes, but that is another discussion
anyway, I rather the chance at having those cool matches than not having that chance at all, besides we already have to quit for so many reasons that cannot be fixed, so I rather have one the cool aspects of this game remain than have it be destroyed forever, and that includes the campaigns being destroyed
so whilst I understand the complaint about uneven teams, I still rather have it available if it means I can still start a new campaign and enjoy potentially picking up end game gear off the ground as a new player in that campaign or faction
the game going to have fewer players still after this BR system is implemented, because chances are I won’t remain around after this, I might be just one guy, but who knows how many more will this negatively impact
See this is what I mean, you don’t seem to understand, Normandy is not balanced, sure you have the numbers and stats look good, but majority of matches are still uneven affair and quitting is at the heart of it
Well good luck with that then, but most people hate online forums because of the rampant corruption and abuses and it being a head ache, so relying on that for anything is pointless, also there is no way that you have 300k active players right now, so that’s a load of BS
I reckon some these stats where you are reading as players are bots, they literally play like bots
you have 6 people that quit at beginning.
concretely this 6
3 of them have 1 squad dead cause they quit after their squad loaded in.
so you can say that 6 of of 12 deserters quit prematch.
these ones quit after 1 round
they may also have problem with map/mode. unless it was roflstomp where you lost your cap in 30 seconds, there is no reason to quit.
these quit after 2 deaths
they may be in stack with nr. 10, or they dont like the map, or they dont like that your team already has many deserters. hard to tell past 2 deaths.
that accounts for 10 deserters. last 2 are:
idk what they were doing. sometimes players are worse than bots.
this one quit at the end of the match and should not be counted as deserter. still sucks, but not deserter.
you have at least 6 people leaving at start without doing anything in last screenshot. and further 2 that quit after losing 1 squad. so at least 8 people quit prematch or at pure start of the match, with another 2 with questionable reasons that had 2 deaths.
only 2 of those players could be really called quitters cause they lost multiple squads.
i agree that it is not balanced. there are many things that affect balance. like number of console player per match, number of veterans per match, number of deserters. but balance changes must start from somewhere.
you may be referring to reddit? but if i invested hundreds if not thousands of hours in the game and paid lots of money for premium stuff and didnt like the way this game was going, i would go to forum and express my dissatisfaction with at least a post. one post that showed dissatisfaction got ~80 likes and there were few new posters on forum.
i would not call them all active.
basically you have ~76k players that only played 1 match in 8 days and ~131k that plays less than 1 match daily.
you have ~95k players who play at least 1 match daily. but you must remember that playerbase is split between crossplay on and crossplay off and there is no intersection between them. also they are subdivided in 3 regions/servers with further division to 6 campaigns and further divided by hours in the day.
btw 30% of bots refers only to bots entering the match for crossplay on that is more populated. with desertion that number is ~40% total. for crossplay off those numbers are much worse. you forget that averages also take into account off peak hours so players can have battles with 90% bots. it would be more correct to do analysis per region/server and hour, but i cant isolate players per region/server, so data would always be polluted with off peak hours of some server.
the screen you are dissecting was to show the total number of quitters in a match at the high end of total quitters
but I have screens like this of also a lot of quitters where majority didn’t leave at the start
this is what I am saying
you can’t justify it all with one blanket statement and think that covers all situations, I see this screen happen very commonly also
how would you dissect this screen? would you say they all left at the start of the match because they didn’t like the map?
1 Like
Agree.
But consider the amount of work they have put in, they might keep the BR.
But for me, the BR itself is sure to fail. Maybe BR fighting will be sidelined one day, if Enlisted survives. That means they’ve done another big, time-wasting job.
Because BR matches go against the intent of making the game diverse and balanced. First of all, BR does not solve the balance problem, players just look for new imbalances in the new BR. Secondly, BR will not diversify the game.
BR does not solve the most fundamental problem of this game.
Why are many many players not staying in this F2P game? They chose to leave.
Merging campaign tech trees and BR is their attempt to answer this question. The tech tree itself is good, but BR, I totally doubt it.
Enlisted has a lot of history and potentially interesting potential, but the game itself isn’t fun. The lack of strategic choices and sustainable fun is the main problem for most players who want gameplay, and BR doesn’t solve this problem. I have seen many these players claim that this game has RTS elements, but it never has, or is extremely lacking
For other players, Enlisted as a pure PvE battle may have advantages in some aspects. Some players are attracted because of some running, jumping and shooting PvE elements of this game. But I don’t think BR by itself adds to these advantages.
I tried to think about it from every angle, and BR would ultimately fail.
3 Likes
I believe this number.
But many of these are not active players. As a F2P game, it has a lot of inactive players, and its overall number of players who have logged into the game itself may be very high.
The vast majority of players leave forever after playing several times or mostly maybe days or weeks.
I tried to make statistics from another angle, Active Players online in real time. According to my calculations, there are currently about 6196 players online for random matching games, of which at least 1852 are console players, and there are at least 20% pure PvE battles in the server (one side No real players at all), over 45% of matches were highly unbalanced.
As a F2P game that has been in operation for several years, this report card is definitely not good. At least compared to his opponents who have to pay to play.
1 Like
for enemy team you only have 1 quitter that quit when game was almost over
for your team
quit prematch and was replaced by another player
quit at the start
quit right at the end. think that his bots were still alive and he was replaced by this bot
so overall your team had 1 player that quit prematch and was replaced by another human play, then had 4 players that quit in various stages of the match, with 1 player that quit at match end alongside 1 enemy player that also quit at the end of the match.
this is all in line with your stats. cause you will be having some matches below average and some matches above average…
Lol, you think this game is currently balanced?
Lame excuse, I can literally said this on every system, First of all, XX does not solve the balance problem, players just look for new imbalances in the new XX.
BR can achieve other kind of diversity. Currently there is no point to use low level stuff once you get high level. By using BR, you can use low level stuff without losing advantage.
Lol BR have nothing to do with these stuff, Br is use to make better balance in this game. Why are you talking about two unrelated thing? Its like saying that car can’t fly so is not a good vehicle, is a car designed for flying in the first place?
Hahahahahaha, when the player or for example you feel the so-called imbalance, it is usually when you have a difficult battle and you can’t win it.
This game has a very high proportion of PvE combat, Even in Normandy, which has the largest number of people, this ratio can reach 5% to 10%. In small battles, this number is surprisingly high, usually higher than 20%.
So if the player cries out of balance, is it because you can’t beat the robot? What does this have to do with the weapon BR?
And I have encountered many players who are completely unable to adapt to the mechanics of this game, which means that even if they face robots, it is very difficult to win. Of course, this is caused by the game mode. The game mode does not encourage players to do what they want. For example, many players like to play sniper rifles, or engineers without building rally point. The game does not create an environment for these players. Although players can do it, they Can’t win fights because of it, can’t even beat bots, so they start crying that the game isn’t balanced, that’s not all the cases, but it’s most of the cases.
In this game, the number of players has a far greater impact on the outcome than the weapon level. Even if you can’t win the few battles, you will most likely encounter some robot fights.
In most battles, if you have teammates with good cooperation, you can enjoy victory even if you only have low-level weapons, let alone you will encounter PvE battles with a high probability. Unless you are participating in a faction with a small number of people, such as the axis of Tunisia, even if you have reached the highest level in this case, it is difficult for you to win against those junior British players, 1vs10.
So what do these so-called balance issues have to do with BR?
They have nothing to do with weapon levels. BR once again divided the player group meaninglessly so that weapons cannot appear together. He solved the problem of non-existence and did not solve the problem of spam. Tiger king vs IS-2 in the battle of berlin, the Allies didn’t have any tanks against the spam tiger king like a flood, the imbalance is absolute and BR wouldn’t fix such a problem because tiger king and IS Already the highest level of spam.
To sum up, BR will fail at all, because he did not solve the problem, and brought new problems, let us wait and see. Maybe there will be positive surprises, right? I am pessimistic about BR.
KV-1 is a tank with an earlier timeline in history, and he is indeed very powerful. But his number is much less than the German Panzer III in history.
Where do you plan to arrange KV-1 in BR? If he goes up against the lowest level panzer IV J in Normandy, he’ll be turned into a flimsy iron coffin in no time, which is neither historical nor balanced.
Especially here you have a lot of infantry weapons as a variable, according to The tech tree form they offer, I don’t think that BR will ends up being good.
3 Likes
exactly
1 Like
Lol, looks like you totally don’t know what BR will do, you have only 1 type of balance in your mind.
There are tons of people complaining about weapon and vehicles balance, for example tiger vs stuart and panzer2 vs t34. Considering you are an active forum member you must had saw those complain, but you just choose to ignore it lol. Now you are just slandering BR by saying it can’t solve certain stuff that it wasn’t design to solve. 
1 Like
Of course I don’t know.
All I know is that he does not solve the balance, does not unite the player, and makes some weapons that could have appeared together not appear together.
All I know is that BR can’t make your game fun, because even at the highest level without BR, it’s still not fun. So if you divide more BR, does that change the game?
It doesn’t solve any problems, he creates new ones, and that’s what I see
Talk is cheap, let’s wait and see.
1 Like
It is design to solve the weapon and vehicle balance, not the playerbase balance that you said lol.
That is not a thing that br should do, that is the thing that campaign merge will do.
Stop putting unrelated thing together, BR is not design to make game fun, it is for balance. You are just talking nonsense by now. BTW, your soul point system that you spam everywhere doesn’t look fun either.
I was mean Weapon balance is always not an issue in this game at all.
99% of the battle that makes you feel unbalanced in this game is player skill issue and playbase issue.
How else would you feel unbalanced in a lot of PvE battles? You can’t beat a robot or what?
So BR is just solving a problem that doesn’t important at all.
And it doesn’t really address the imbalance of these weapons, because weapons have different attributes, and in history, these weapons don’t crowd into a 200 meter battle area and spam indefinitely.
I’ve given you enough examples, and you can find more if you think about it
—-
The only logical use of BR is to solve the problem of how to arrange players in different campaign maps after merging tech trees,
for example, BR is tending to make it difficult for the King Tiger to appear in Stalingrad.
But it brings other side effects, such as the awkward position of the MP3008.
Overall this is a bad solution.
1 Like
Lol, if that is not an issue why there is tons of complain about them?
No, when you have a tank that can’t pen enemy tank frontally you will feel this game is unbalance, this happen very often. Try to use BA against people with assault rifle that have similar skill as you, I don’t think it will go well.
So what? Br is going to put weapon with similar or comparable performance together, so your different attributes theory is irrelevant.
I don’t think the different performance differences of the same type of weapon here should separate them. For example, PPD34/38 may be better than Federov in some scenarios. And now you want to separate them.
Because you cry PPD can’t beat MG42/STG44? This is a ridiculous thing. Because it’s not true. The truth is you can still fight. If you fail at shooting combat. It’s probably more about your skills issue. There is also about the unlimited spam issue. Not about a single weapon itself.
At the same time, you may have a tough fight, but more often you’re just fighting the robots, or joining the robots on more sides, which has nothing to do with weapons.
Weapons differences have never been a big problem.
They have differences, but the bigger problem comes from unrestriction spam, and BR doesn’t help solve these scenarios.
Here the different types of weapons should have their own uses, which is what they always said they try to do, the bolt-action rifles should have their own uses, the different types of submachine guns should have their own uses, the light machine guns should have their own uses.
There are so many types of weapons that you can’t classify them correctly by a linear BR level, which is not feasible in mathematical models and inferences. And he also created the awkward situation MP3008.
This kind of deduction just takes a little bit of your brain to imagine. If you want to classify the strength of these weapons by a few or a dozen BR levels, this is just not feasible, it will necessarily create a lot of awkward scenarios, which means difficult data adjustment and work, and most likely not good results.
According to the information they have provided so far everything is happening, 1 FG422 will be placed in the same rank as 9 FG422.
If they respawn 3 rounds, the difference in their number will be 3:27, the result of spam is very huge and grow fast.
How does this BR mechanism achieve the balance you want?
1 Like