3 Likes
Completely unnecessary & boring…
2 Likes
enough about adamnpee what do you think about trench mortars
3 Likes
unnecessary and they would be quickly abused by players due to the small maps. Also werent they an thing in ww1 and not ww2?
1 Like
of course because all weapons in Enlisted are common weapons found in WW2,
1 they would be either slow to set up or constructed, two slow to fire and have less ammo
2 the only bonus might be range, damage and splash area
so good and bad plus and minus, one at least they existed as more then prototypes
2 Likes
We wont need more reasons for people to camp behind the lines. We already have a ton of explosives so there is no reason to add these
1 Like
course because everyone uses mortars as it’s is, i mean i can go twenty or thirty matches with at least one person using them
No it’s not people using planes, gray camping in tanks, or satchel charges that’s the problem its mortars eliminate them, and the game is fixed/saved
4 Likes
I agree, Enlisted can add a lot of WW2 stuff.
I don’t like comments that claim everything is unnecessary.
The so-called “meaningless” is not caused by these new things or the Enlisted game engine itself, but by the main queue game mode.
I think we could have more game modes to make more things meaningful.
7 Likes
if there is a big map conquest like your map hell yea i would love to be able to build “defensive line” since im a RTS player and i love turtling to victory
2 Likes
I believe from a developer’s perspective, if adding everything to a game always becomes “unnecessary”, then the game is on its way to death.
How to add new things is a problem that developers need to solve when developing games, rather than prohibiting the addition of new things.
In fact, a lot of the current content in this game is so-called “unnecessary”.
I think this is to address the question itself, rather than a reason to answer to many suggested new things.
8 Likes
that fair kinda like how they add that light rifle as a GO that i do want to have but it too “useless” to me to use if that make sense
2 Likes
I agree.
My thing is that much of the existing equipment and mechanics need a bit of adjustment to bring them on par with other weapons and strategies. (such as engineer fortifications and actually setting up defenses)
Though additionally, I think the addition of more weapons should come after the addition of other utility items (such as a better binocular system, flak jacket, gas mask, etc available within a “utility” slot that would replace the current “binoculars” slot).
More weapons is great and all, but if the tactics stay the exact same, then its essentially just constantly reskinning the game rather than actually making DEVELOPMENTS to it.
5 Likes
Adamnpee’s dating profile
2 Likes
This! I’m SO TIRED of seeing people go “we can’t add that feature, there’s not enough players” or “the game doesn’t play like that”
Why is it these (probably pay-whales) want to hinder the development of game features??? Seriously why
3 Likes
Because they like the feeling of winning, and in the current state of things (being able to abuse certain mechanics like crazy), they DO win a lot.
So rather than the game moving forward and adapting, balancing out and eliminating those OP mechanics, they jump on here to fight it as much as possible.
4 Likes
It’s all so tiresome. We have the potential for the best ww2 game to come along in a LONG TIME and cheesers use it as “My Barbie Imaginary Weapons Bunny-Hopping Simulator”
3 Likes
True. We could add A LOT of things that aren’t present in any other game. For example engineering vehicles (I’d love to see those).
But the problem is that the game in it’s current form doesn’t support this at all. Now if you don’t kill or build spawns, you are useless.
1 Like
Common weapon?
*look at Pacific Axis and Berlin Ally
Idk what you meant but it’s true I don’t need to date lmao.
2 Likes
maybe add buildable medium mortars (8 cm, 81mm ,3 inch ,82mm) like how we have engineers in machinegun squads that can build heavy machine guns