I don’t see how, the mm wouldn’t decide which campaign to pit which player in, but merely allow you to wait for a match to fill in with humans OR pit ppl vs those of similar lvl, equipment etc. For those wanting this.
I just want something done for the scenario I posted up to not happen as often.
As for f2p or not, my philosophy is: I don’t care. To me, it’s to each their own. You want to play without paying? Do so. You want to spend because you enjoy the game? Do it.
But don’t be a turd like the kid I just burned, that whines against those playing differently than he (f2p or not). This is merely jealousy, and that’s weak.
Ouch. Now that hurts my poor Chauchat chad squad 
1 Like
It just feels very odd, that the equipment I used in Moscow is no longer available in Stalingrad - example being mortar squad.
I CAN reach the top even without the extra paywalled equipment, it’s just that there’s little reason to strive for something you’ll never get - Berlin is a better option, for a similar experience.
In worst case, I can go with Moscow stuff via custom battles in Stalingrad maps.
I guess part of the way to resolve this, would be to - allow the player when to apply the booster bonuses.
Poor and uninteresting match? You don’t use the bonus.
Had fun and made good progress? Here’s a cherry on top of the cake.
My philosophy would be - give as many options for average player as possible, prefferably encouraging them to spend money, which gives them (slightly) easier time and shiny goodies (imagine getting party membership card, that gives you easier access to the more spicy stuff) which supports the development of the game.
Some effort should be kept to retain the special kind of folks, the masochists/(a)historical fetishists and other free to play folks, as they have their own ways of attracting attention to the game, and serve as a somewhat quality control.
As for gameplay perspective - I also prefer to encourage folks to experiment with stuff, as long as it does not activelly harm the others’ fun and enjoyment (teamkilling).
Enlisted is becoming an Role-Playing-Game of sorts… RPG and World War 2, now that would be unique.
Oh, that would be the day… Everyone dreams about it. If only DF allowed it…
But that “membership card”… isn’t that merely premium time already? 
1 Like
I guess it is. It should probably function similarly to warthunder premium account time, giving more cosmetics slots, and other shiny stuff.
I’m always in for more cosmetics.
At the very least I’d say premium time is one of the “adequate” (quality/ price) product sold in Enlisted. That and battle pass (because you only need to buy it once)
I bough premium time because the grind is long, and my gaming time extremely limited.
The rest… overpriced premium squads… I don’t recommend. At all. Because DF has a tendency to render them obsolete each new update, and refuses to upgrade older ones. Also overpriced as h***.
Nevertheless. This post is about a need for some form of mm, anything really, to make matches more human filled.
2 Likes
The suggestion I remember the most was the one adopted in HnG - give folks incentive to ‘choose any side’ or choose the less popular side - by giving extra exp for joining the less filled side/campaign.
We probably need to rework the campaigns and technological progression, for this to work right.
2 Likes
Yes…
I myself suggested that for more than a year 
Df refuses to see the wisdom in it for some reason…
2 Likes
Yes intense, edge of your seat sessions are way less frequent, i too wouldn’t mind a longer join timer get actual humans in each session, bot squads are WAY to prevalant now.
I played a session the other day where me an two other players were only human squads on my team and one was a inexperienced. The bot squads kept getting stuck in water AND on cliffs AND in buildings AND under buildings, lol. The other team must have been similarly put together because the number of foes at capture point was very low at every capture point, we ended up winning and it lasted about 15 minutes. It was a slow paced boring session imo.
2 Likes
i would believe this, it sounds like the average enlisted playerbase
1 Like
when did “being a tryhard” become a bad thing? why would someone possible not give his best, what type of “sportsmanship” is it when you troll your team and go fly around in an attack fighter, not participating in the outcome of the game?
Guess I am just “wired differently”
Because tryharding is tiresome.
Pretty simple. Having to CARRY your team means you CAN NOT enjoy the game at it’s fullest: you will keep spamming meta in order to succeed.
Which means only assaulters. No snipers, no AT guys, no fighter planes… you get the gist of it.
On the other hand, when you don’t HAVE to carry (when your team is competent) you can explore more possibilities, and thus have fun, simply because a good team support each others by default.
When you’re stuck with lazy campers that do nothing else but snipe, not even building rallies or anything
… then the match becomes a chore and you have 3 options left:
1- desert the match, find a better one.
2- become a tryhard, forgoing your own fun in favour of efficiency.
3- relax and goof around, knowing the match is lost and your lazy teammates are not worth helping.
This match I did #2, because I had a booster. But if not, choices #1 and #3 are the ones to choose…
… For those wired correctly.
5 Likes
It depends on the team for both sides actually where the worst case scenario on my part is to go full PPSh squads instead of most of the time partly PPSh where I use something else like a tank, an engineer squad to build an MG nest or my sniper squad with Mosin. I would be more pissed off if my team is shit against a 4 stack sweatlord team.
Such players are the reason why I stopped caring about their “fun” by destroying them in the battlefield especially when in the enemy team or desert when things are at its worst. It’s a shame most of them won’t learn a damn thing about teamwork anyway.