Wait, are you telling me that the level which the weapon is obtained should matter more to the stats of the weapon, rather then what the weapon itself literally is?
4 Likes
imo this Is a stupid mentality," i play more than them so i have the right to have Better equipment"
1 Like
What happens when they rework or change how the levelling works? Is that the only way they’re allowed to nerf or buff weapons? lol
1 Like
It depends on how you look at it. I’m all for realism and balancing relative to that. But the comrade says “it’s just a game”, so reasoning from his logic and forgetting that the machine gun should do the same damage I said that the second problem Ba - availability from the start.
No, it’s the “I won’t grind a game for shit” mentality. And so many shitty levels, let’s weaken the machine guns even more, reduce the damage SMG (as in Stalingrad) and make BA as good as them.
Then why should I waste my time when I have competitive weapons from the start?
I wonder why people complained about the m10 in norman, they already got the sherman and jumbo and they’re good. oh yeah, people don’t want to grind a million experience for crap. Did you see my thread suggesting new levels in Normandy? I’m tired of getting shit. Why would I want an m10 for the usa? Why would I want a me410 for an axis?
If the game has a grind like this, then yes, players get better equipment over time. I have no problem playing in 1-2 place even with a starting weapon (played that way for the US for 11 games without losing in 1-2 place). However, over time I want to get better gear than I had.
if the only thing that makes a weapon worth to use to you is damage idk what to say.
Stick with full meta fg42 squad and mg 34 (75rnd)
and use them again and again and again without ever change the playstile in a circle of boredom
2 Likes
I personally think machine guns would work a lot better when the bipod/mounting system isn’t complete and utter garbage. It’s extremely hard to hipfire from a machine gun, not only that, but the stamina drain while running is realistic because they literally had an Assistant to the MG alongside someone carrying ammo for them. It would be three people working an MG and in game it’s currently condensed into one.
and it’s realistic. Everyone chose BA when the opportunity arose because AR is simply better
But then that would make the Mg34s damage “fantasy” (which is of course necessary for obvious reasons), not the kar98’s.
because it’s not a simulator after all. You can’t make machine guns like in real life, because war here is fought according to different rules, in which it’s more important to run fast most of the time.
Stalingrad PPSH and AVT-40 versions are pure dogshit(I clarified that still usable in CQC). Gonna argue that only viable guns in Stalingrad are BA’s and MkB?
How are they differnet form any other PPSh?
why all of a sudden, they have the same caliber, they do the same damage to a person. Now everywhere except stalagrad is like that (the difference in damage is not so big and it can be written off to the length of the barrel blahblahblah and some kind of balance)
I never said I wanted this to be like ARMA or any other milsim. However, there are good systems that would would be cool to see, like the stance system in ARMA III. Just because people want it to be more realistic and tow the line between arcade and sim, doesn’t mean they want it to be a full sim.
Kek, at least try using maxxed ppsh in Moscow/Berlin(which is a great weapon even at mid range) and then switch to Stalingrad, better to see yourself
Well, as I said, that would make the Mg34s damage “fantasy”, not the kar98ks like the author said.
(And I trust you understand game balance wise why the Mg34 can’t constanty ohk)
Nah, I don’t play Stlaingrad and never will. The whole campaign is bullshit and never should’ve been added imo.
But still, PPSH is possibly the most broken gun in Enlisted, doubt what they did to it in Stalingrad would make it that much worse.
well, it is, but the rack system is too inconvenient and complicated, just not worth the time. You die too quickly, a fighter’s life isn’t worth anything.
My point is that machine guns can’t be as inconvenient as they are in real life, because the maps and the gameplay itself are not like real combat. Guns have to be comfortable, I have to enjoy them.
When a machine gun in Stalingrad has tremendous recoil, scatter, slows running, requires stamina to aim - I don’t want to touch it. I came to fight the enemy, not my own wretched weapons.
I already said - there may be such more hardcore campaigns, but let them not concern me. Staligrad can do whatever it wants as long as it doesn’t go into my campaigns.
I don’t understand you. If we increase the damage of bolt guns, we must increase the damage of machine guns, otherwise it will be fantasy.
I just don’t understand your sentence.