Firstly i’d say there are some quite good things in enlisted.
-
weapon model accuracy and handling (using multiple sights, adjustment of said sights, cross-hairs in scopes etc) are among the best in the shooter market including more hardcore ones such as HLL/PS/RO2
-
the game has a lot more content weapons wise than many other games of the same time period especially when it comes to often neglected nations like Japan, Italy and others
-
Vehicles gameplay is among the best i’ve played. It is hardcore with accurate damage models and actual crew members who’s loss effects the operation of said vehicles to a degree (unable to use certain weapons or features) as well as having very in-debth damage models.
-
the fortification building mechanic is also very good (MG nests, AA guns etc)
Now onto the bad i’ll mainly focus on stuff that merge will not address and i don’t like the idea of the merge in the first place hence why either give the OG community a separate game mode or a much improved game editor to make such experiences.
-
lack of persistent servers, that’s quite an issue with enlisted especially combines with very fast games
-
very fast games most battles are a steamroll in one or the other direction most of it doesn’t come down to the weapons but maps, grayzone placements and other factors.
-
maps are way too small (grayzones primarily) which leads to primarily frontal assaults and campy/rushing gameplay.
-
map objectives are poorly configured having ‘‘dynamic’’ objectives on same gamemode/map is fine
but placement of some is very stupid often meaning the objective is in such a place you need to cross a killzone like open ground or river to get to it while not being able to place a spawn zone since its ‘‘too close to the objective’’
-
lack of gamemodes. You could please both casuals and those who want to play a more BF/RO2 style game by splitting gamemodes like:
~Domination queue
~bomb mode (rush) queue
~invasion queue (reworked current maps to be bigger larger and offer proper gameplay)
~Conquest a larger domination similar to BF games
~perhaps even a No vehicle mode
-
Often there isn’t enough time in enlisted gamemodes to use all of the available mechanics like fortifications, vehicles etc to great effect especially since often zones open one by one and are fairly close by which means a cap could be half capped already in the time it takes to build a spawn zone.
-
Planes while accurate in depiction and often fun are usually among the most cancerous things gameplay wise most people i see use them just spawn them in suicide bomb a tank/obj and spawn another squad and sadly this is the most effective way to use them on current maps/modes.
PROGRESSION ISSUES:
-
while the progression itself is fine the short games often lead to low exp gain per battle
-
Squad upgrade system is the real issue. Even unlocking a new high lvl squad with a powerful weapon those squads usually start with 3-4 soldiers 1 of which has the specialized weapons/role on top of that the squad upgrade system means the squad will only really be effective and worth taking over older squads after extensive upgrading (lvl 15+) and even higher lvls to actually upgrades the squads weapons/vehicles/equipment. That has a poor effect on players myself included.
(solutions to this issue could be easy by simply increasing the number of specialists a quad has by default to 2 or by adding a ‘‘squad upgrade currency’’ like squad lvl up orders for example.)
As a closing note on the dev servers for the merge i’ve noticed overall increases in grind as well as many many many blatant favoritisms especially with event squads like allied rank 2 paras.
The UI was even worse than the current UI and somehow even more confusing and time consuming.
I do not wish the game to die but i wish it would cater to more players with multiple gamemodes and more choice in what maps, gamemodes or equipment we want to play.
10 Likes
One of the reasons fo the merge is to avoid splitting the player base…
1 Like
Talking about so much stuff. Is it even related?
Can you stop with this bullcrap? ‘‘muh splitting the playerbase’’ all successful games have a split playerbase soo players play what they want even War thunder (the other gaijin game) has a very split playerbase just for an example:
in WT you have:
- 3 types of battle: ground, air and naval
- with 2 main splits Arcade and REALISTIC + event gamemodes like Simulator ground, Naval EC, air sim, heli EC
- it has 12.7 BRs atm with a +/-1 queue soo in effect you have 7 BR ‘‘brackets’’
soo in WT the playerbase is split 7 x 3 x 2 soo on a conservation estimate you have ~45 different queues at any time. Enlisted atm has 12 if you count every campaign as 2 queues.
3 Likes
Games are fast because one-sided clubbing.
Maps were shitty two years ago but because Moscow had even players before T-50, matches lasted 30mins or sth. like that. Map design is not cause for fast matches. Even bigger maps can be ez clubbing, only making them like three minutes longer because people have to walk a bit more.
Squads are not related to maps or game modes.
Squad system is not linked to gamemodes. Nor does UI nor does grind.
Modes are also not related to morons 2.0 not liking the merge because
- historical accuracy or whatever alternative word is currently in
- newbies need to suffer for some odd reason
- too “WT-like”
- campaign system is doing great
Nowhere did anyone state that merge is fine for them as long as they get new game modes. Or maybe there is the Facebooc Enlisted community I dont know about.
If you compare Moscow/Tunisia maps vs other campaigns like Normandy, Berlin and Stalingrad (the 3 which in my opinion have some of the worst maps in game).
The games in Tunisia, Pacific and Moscow tend to be longer since maps are bigger (the actual playable area) tho sometimes there are some obstacles hard to cross like an objective right on the other side of a waterway for example (often an issue in pacific).
New players suffer more from the clunky UI, painfully slow squad lvling and other non gameplay related issues than running into a guy with a ppsh or tommy gun.
And i never said i’m fine with the merge in fact i hate it.
However DF has decided merge will happen and i’m just attempting to at least have a token of appreciation for campaign enjoyers.
1 Like
Not really.
Moscow isnt big except for Fort. District and even there its like 150m to CP instead of 100.
Wow.
Tunisia is only long if both sides have bolt actions and small cannons and no Beautyfighter spammig rockets and clubbers are defenders.
Pacific is the same because there are only like two tanks total that have 75mm cannons, planes are reduced to Japs spamming fighters with 50-60kg bombs and only US has auto rifles to spam, most of the time people spam SAs and BA rifles and it also depends whether you are defending or not.
Lastly also, 10-15min is not long. Not compared to old 30min matches or boring-ass confrontation stalemates.
Im pretty sure bad UI is on same level as getting wrecked by a Tiger E in a M5A1.
Merge bad, nerf UI.
And now they only need to grind like three or so for an entire army, not like 18/ 9 per side and class on average.
Did I state that though?
Never forget 1%.
smoothbrain take when i say big i don’t mean distance form 1 obj to the other i mean the ACTUAL playable area within a grayzone in those 3 campaigns the obj isn’t 15m away form enemy grayzone like most of normandy/berlin and actually allows to franking and movement and most of the maps isn’t untreversable garbage.
exept that’s not true if you actually want upgraded weapons since weapon upgrades are still locked to squad progression.
30m instead of 15.
Sooo big. Feel the difference. Still need to walk like 100m to objective, 50m less with rallies.
Sooo big.
What flanking is in this game is joke. Running 15m to the left isnt so much of deep flanking.
But now you dont need to upgrade the MP40 like five times or so.
exactly on most Normandy, Berlin, shitingrad maps that is a ‘‘flank’’ on pacific/tunisia/moscow its flanking around building an MG nest and gunning down waves of attackers from 100+m away in many cases.
Heck on some tunisia maps you can cross the river build an MG nest on the other side and seriously deplete enemy reinforcements attacking or attempting to defend the obj.
All “flanks” are small. There is no real difference.
well glad that you agree the maps are too small and need to be bigger.
So nothing here has to do with maps but with bad player distribution and gear. Finally.
Idk where you got that from xD.
- gear was worse on dev soo meger doing nothing to address that either.
Heck i’ll agree with NonNational
i’d take a PvE campaign mode as a ‘‘solution’’ to the merge soo i don’t have to play that awful thing
Well son, if there is anyone left to split, sure why not lmao
yeh i know i’ve seen the update drop its horrible
1 Like
There already is, you can play the games on the map you want, and in the future the rules for custom games will be expanded to make them even more historically accurate (and XP on custom games)