Enlisted stands out because there is a multitude of games that disregard historical accuracy such as Battlefield V, while Enlisted maintains a (mostly) historical atmosphere and gameplay. I think that disregarding historical accuracy will decrease the player base because many of the players came to Enlisted precisely because of its historical accuracy, such as myself. Players that enjoy the WWII atmosphere but want to disregard historical accuracy can still enjoy variations of the game (to any extent of craziness) in the custom games. And if they are apparently the “majority” then it should be incredibly easy to fill the ques of their custom games. While some liberties have been taken with historical accuracy already to ensure balance (and I have no major issue with this), some of the proposed changes go too far and would cause the loss of a potentially large number of players including myself.
Multiple campaigns divide the player base, resulting in fewer players participating in a match. And with the current game system, there is an equipment gap between those who have spent a long time in the game and novices that cannot be overcome by learning a little game theory. I think that is why a few old players have a big influence in all games. I started this game last holiday season with a group of friends and I was the only one left; all of my friends who jumped in at the same time, which was about 10 of us, quit. The game is fun once you get to a certain point in the grind, but few people seemed to be able to endure that far.
I have played enough in the last two months to finish the grind for two factions, and I love this game. I have made several efforts to convey the appeal to others persons, but what people outside the community have said about the game is that it is a “P2W game” and “Enlisted is a game where old-timers abuse new players”, I could not argue with them.
My personal opinion is that I don’t see a future for Enlisted in its current state. Something needs to change. Those who are happy with the status quo will hate change, but just pleasing the old players will only cause the game’s revenue to taper off. Even old players will get bored and quit little by little. If the game does not generate revenue, there is no future for the game. That is not the intention of the old players either. Old customers are important, but it is more important to retain new customers. This is true in any business.
Some claim that fidelity to history will be compromised, but the game is not perfect to begin with. The number of Squad in some countries is not historical, and the soldiers in the game are all fictional persons. If the game is to be truly faithful, players should not be able to choose their weapons. For example, in the US Army, the number of SMGs deployed in a squad should be limited to one, and most members should be equipped with Garlands instead of M2 carbines. This should not be user changeable. The size of the map, the number of people mobilized, the number of vehicles, everything is far from the historical reality. …Someone already talked about this.
Enlisted is not a full-fledged milisim game to begin with. It is somewhere between casual and simulator, and I don’t think the change of policy that DF has put forward will change the flavor of the game that much. To me, it is an acceptable level.
The integration of the campaign will increase the number of people you can play with. The new matching system will make it somewhat fairer for beginners and experts, at least in terms of equipment, to choose opponents based on equipment ratings.
To me, this policy change seems like a generally good idea.
I’ve made complete tree for Germany!
- Historical accuracy can be done by throwing later guns to later maps
- Some guns are logically correct but they are premiums, ignore them.
- Mass produced guns should be much cheaper, but have almost identical stats. (MP 38 and 40 performs same, but 40 is cheaper, kriegsmodell has slightly worse reload but also cheaper, later Berettas also reloads slower but other stats the same)
- Variants are in subbranches
USSR
- Fedorov and AVS should be REALLY expensive
Let’s take Germany as an example: now it becomes 1 single faction.
K98, MG-34, MP-38/40, Pz IV F1 => Moscow and Tunisia maps
plus MG-42 and Pz IV F2 => Stalingrad and Tunisia maps
plus MKB, Panther, Tiger => Kursk/Bagration/Normandy maps
plus STG, Tiger 2 => Berlin/Ardennes maps
The devs can either add separate loadout tabs for each of the “periods”
OR an even easier solution:
Think of a standard Battlefield spawn screen
During each battle players will be able to equip any of the weapons they have unlocked for the faction as long as they fit the map’s time period
So even if you’ve maxed out the German faction and have the STG-44 (because STG-45 was just a prototype and should not be freely available), a Berlin map will allow you to use the STG-44, but a Kursk map will default it down to MP-43/1, while a Moscow map will default it back to MP-40.
The German player presses “Play” and depending on the map that has come up, the gear becomes limited by the time frame of said map.
Besides, all players will have starter weapons for each “period” unlocked from the start (much like in the current campaigns), so every new player will have at least K98 Kriesmodell, MP 3008 and a Pz IV when put by the matchmaker on a Berlin map in their very first game.
Moreover, this massive overhaul of the game finally makes it possible to fix the grievous errors previously made by the Devs either for balance or for whatever weird fantasy reasons:
- RPD, AS, MG-45, STG-45, etc. removed from the game as ahistorical for WW2 (never adopted by respective militaries => players who had previously owned them compensated
- Moscow’s MKB and Pz IV F2, Stalingrad’s MKB and PPS-42, Normandy’s M2 and Jumbo, Berlin’s Fedorov, etc. reassigned to other, historically correct time periods while still being available to the players.
Basically, this is how the new changes should be implemented if we want to unify identical factions, combine the playerbase but still keep the backers/founders/original players who did not join this ride just to be dumped into waste bin (custom lobbies).
It wouldn’t be so cool that way. I believe that the player must choose the weapons he wants to play and not have them replaced when starting a game
Well, yes. Choose from the ones available.
I suggest that there is no “choosing” before the battle at all, only during the battle before the spawn - and from the ones available for this map.
For example, an American player might have reached the Jumbo level in their American tree, but on Pacific maps Jumbo is simply not available. Don’t worry, you’ll still play it but on an appropriate map.
Not in that sense. I was thinking that the player selects the weapon before entering a match. For example: I want to play with my newly unlocked kv2 tank. so with it selected i should be redirected to berlin campaign maps for example.
I just don’t like the idea of having to spend hours playing on maps where I can’t use my equipment that I like
But KV-2 never appeared in Berlin, so why would you expect that?
You unlocked it - cool. It will appear on maps where it actually was present.
Custom games => play with anything, anywhere, enable moon gravity if your heart desires.
Sorry, I mean is2
Yes, but I don’t want to have to wait until I’m randomly redirected to a map where it’s present
If you get a Berlin map, and you’ve unlocked IS-2, it will be available for selection of course.
Map preference settings, I guess?
That’s up to Developers to decide.
There are quite a few people who simply don’t play certain campaigns and now the Devs need to find a way to not put players on maps they hate while keeping the players together.
Or customs and select map.
oh yeah… historical immersion where one squads runs with 4 assaulters armed with stg 44 and 3 other soldiers with semi automatics. where all your infantry squad have semi automatics and smg-s whether this is early war or late war. immersion where every infantry has 3 WP grenades that destroys infantry through walls or explosive pack that simply destroys solitary tanks without infantry support. and that beautiful historical immersion when you wander in twilight zone… i mean gray zone and it magically saps your health. or that historical immersion when you run and gun with LMG. or that historical immersion where stuarts are forced to fight panthers and tigers frontally. or that historical immersion where bolt action rifle magically deals double the damage of AR/SMG with same bullet. or that historical immersion that makes low caliber HE shell only work if you hit soldier directly, or historical immersion that makes high caliber HE shell only work in 2m radius.
just admit that you are seal clubber and that you want to kill newbies with your end game gear. at least it will be truthful unlike those historical accuracy claims.
My proposal: rather than early, middle and late war periods (as some people have suggested), why not just two - offense and defence for both sides? The Axis offense period would be 1939 to 1942/3, with the defense period being 1943/4 to 1945. The reverse is true for the Allies.
Western Axis offense (Moscow, Stalingrad, Tunisia)
Western Axis defence (Normandy, Berlin)
Western Allies offense (Normandy, Berlin)
Western Allies defence (Moscow, Stalingrad, Tunisia)
Each faction only has defensive or offensive matches per their respective queue, OR the default mode could become Confontration to give each side a chance to attack and defend on a particular map.
Advantages: fewer queues than we have now, so more human players fighting one another. Players will be happy as they now get to pick whether they attack or defend, something we do not have currently. Historical accuracy will actually be increased as battles will be fought in line with their real-world nature. For example the Germans were on the defensive in Berlin and Normandy, so it’s logical players should be defending almost all of the time. Weapons will be restricted to their real-world time periods (so no StG44s in the Western Axis offense queue, only defense).
If the data shows one side has fewer human players, an XP bonus (say 10%) should be offered to encourage players to fight for that side. The devs could also offer players with enough qualifying weaponry the chance to join any battle with the same 10% bonus.
Not quite sure how to include the Pacific here without adding queues, but I guess we could have:
Pacific Axis offense (Philippines, Burma [for example])
Pacific Axis defence (Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima [for example])
Pacific Allies offense (Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima [for example])
Pacific Allies defence (Philippines, Burma [for example])
Weaponry restrictions and XP bonuses apply here too.
What do you think?
@1942786
Assuming that after the implementation of the new monetary mechanism：
Blue cards from previous events and gold cards，Will be converted to a redemption type card roll?
All Bronze and Silver cards, will be exchanged for the new currency?
So we can worry about the following situations in advance：
1.Whether there will be mechanics content such as maintenance fees, appearance fees, etc. in the future (e.g. War Thunder)？
2.What will be the prices for all different classes of ‘soldiers’ and ‘weapons’ and ‘equipment’ under the new currency system（State the purchase and sale price separately for each of the items）？
3.Exchange ratio of existing card system to new currency, military pay to new currency？
4.With the new currency mechanism, will the unlocking of regiments consume new currency in addition to the experience value?
5.whether the soldier upgrade cards, weapon upgrade cards and vehicle upgrade cards will be adjusted under the new mechanism？
6.What is the conversion ratio of the new currency mechanism to the battle score system?
7.How does Stalingrad’s special quadruple experience work under the new monetary mechanism? How will the mechanics of the sub-perfect soldiers and weapons in Stalingrad and the Pacific be adjusted?
8.How will the cost of weapons,tanks and planes modifications, soldier upgrades, etc. be adjusted under the new currency mechanism？
9.How will compensation from friendly damage be adjusted with the new currency mechanism?
10.etc.
hell you on about? the historical immersion is about weapons, vehicles available at that specific battle. You just ranting bullshit.
what was your point really? It’s still a game at end of day? ofc can not be game mechanics wise exactly reality, but that doesn’t mean game shouldn’t strive to improve to add more realism and immersion. NOT break and change it to worse.
I’m worry about enlisted future if they will implement this changes without any further work on non-leaving-game (match) policy. Now peoples are leaving match for many reasons (bad map, bad team …) and you will give them another one (bad campaign) to leave match to ruin game for others…
if it was about weapons and vehicles you wouldnt be able to equip 4 AR/SMG per squad, squads wouldnt be able to have extra radio person and most of the squad would have bolties.
if it was about weapons and vehicles you would boycott most of the game cause there are unhistorical weapons in every campaign. fedorov avtomat-> not in moscow, stalingrad or berlin, t-50 → not in moscow, pz 4 f2 → not in moscow, type hei-> prototype weapon, type otsu-> prototype weapon, mkb 42(h)-> not in moscow, jumbo → not in normandy, ju 188 → not in normandy, sherman 76w → not part of d-day (first combat in late july), m18 → not in normandy, rd 44-> not in berlin, as-44 → not in berlin, stg 45m → not in berlin (only prototype), fiat g 55 → not in tunisia, rpzb.43 ofenrohr → not in tunisia
and probably few more.
so yeah we have total historical accuracy in game…
and i am ranting cause nobody is attacking new progression system and MM on its merits and demerits, but just on “historical accuracy” and “historical immersion” when game is full of historical inaccuracies, from time traveling weapons/vehicles to different campaigns, to inaccurately equipped squads, to inaccurate weapon damage from same bullet (AR/SMG vs semi auto vs bolties) etc.
also people are attacking progression system and MM that is needed for game cause it has LOW PLAYERBASE and current campaign adding is making matter worse. also this change brings some weapon balance that was destroyed by adding higher levels into campaigns.
I like the game and I enjoy the updates that you have provided but i have mixed feelings about somethings about the new update. BR- ratings if it works great. If it is like war thunder I got to stop playing the amount of op premium tanks and smurfs really killed the game for me also ranking up to a new BR for example I just unlocked stug III G BR 4.3 I take that and my worse tanks to battle, our team has one tiger that is 5.3 BR and the enemy team has three full teams with BR of 6.1 premium tanks that were unkillable and that happened twelve times In a row so I uninstalled so I hope BR is fair and it works cause if I hop to a panzer III one more time to see two t-34 that camp grey zones it doesn’t work. Also, fair BR for gun and equipment balance is going to be tough.
I hope there is going to be at least three presents that I can modify per army, so it doesn’t take too much time to switch the squads for battle pass exc.
Fair progression for free to play players, like you have said I’m not worried about compensation for multiple campaigns, but I hope the grind isn’t developed for premium only, because I love the game and I spend money to support it. But not for buying premium time as a principle. Like more slots I think that f2p should have two vehicle slots and four ground slots. Also, I have 8 days of battle time and I just found out that you need to buy premium to buy more slots so pls chance that.
Love the game, love the support and you guys listening to feedback unlike other games and keep up the good work.
Ps I don’t speak London very well. 
I wonder how the Battle Rating for gold order weapons will be.
Because why should I order a gewehr 43 kurz, if it has the highest Battle Rating in the game.
I can only use it if I have played the Germans very far. Otherwise Im heavily disadvantaged because the rest of my squads dont have as good weapons.
In general it could be tricky to understand the Battle Rating because unlike Warthunder, you have so much diffrent stuff equipped on your squads.
Maybe someone mentioned this before, but what about premium squads? I bought a german premium infantry for Moscow campaign and one for Berlin, so I can bring a premium infantry to both campaigns. With this update, one of my squad will be useless, if I want to bring 2 special squads with it, as now. I will never buy anything in this game, if you continue these updates, where completly ruin the gameplay for those who paid for something.
What about the “play a game in Berlin campaign” like missions, they will be all gone? And if I want to play in a specific campaign or in a specific mode? Someone mentioned this, I already have to constantly leave the games if I want to play conquest, or if I don’t want to play the D-Day map, because there is no option to choose a specific scenario. After this, I also have to leave games to find the right campaign… It will be a game-leaving simulator if you continue like this
Not to mention the historical side, as a lot of people already said. This “update” is a very wrong decision and I am sure it will lead to a decreasing playerbase. At least I will not play the game after changes like this, that’s sure.