Alternative for the current Merge system/All maps for all BRs with historically accurate gear

[Veekay45]

@robihr

how do you balance OP weapons that were in those campaigns without introducing time traveling or prototype weapons?

My understanding on this is clear:
If no nerf can be done, and the “balancing counterparts” are all fakes, the iconic weapon shall not be added.

E.g. Battle of Kursk is “supposed” to have Panther, Tiger and Elephant.
But those can only be offset by T-34-85 or IS.
Conclusion: no Tiger, Panther or Elephant.
The battle of Kursk had more Pz III and Pz IV anyway.

[robihr]

@Veekay45

My understanding on this is clear:
If no nerf can be done, and the “balancing counterparts” are all fakes, the iconic weapon shall not be added.

kinda impossible at this point. you would need to remove half of japan (including premium squads), not to mention other protoype weapons/vehicles. lots of other campaigns would be basically dead cause you would need to force certain loadouts if you want HA.

[GENxCatrenko-live]

@CaptainSebekel

Yay Finally we are getting sweet 20rd Beretta vs PPSh back.

Of all things they gave the axis in Moscow that to counter the ppSh with. Like why not the drum mag m/37 or the Suomi lol. Better yet why give them the zh-29 when they could’ve received the kgm 1937?

[Ma_theos33]

@robihr

i am talking about squads, models and uniforms for those campaigns. also old campaigns didnt have accurate list of proper gear, not to mention new ones.

Then new things would be added, game obviously wouldn’t be stuck with the old art unable to make new one. As for the gear, lot of new things were added since the merge, so IF it would happen now, it wouldnt be a perfect copy of what we had before that, if anything it could be made even better.

@robihr

why bother with HA, when most of the time you will have mirror copy weapons/vehicles cause campaigns were unbalanced. allied tiger in tunisia, german KV1 and KV2 in moscow, soviet KT in berlin, german P47 in normandy.

Would everything really need to be mirrored? There isnt so many of things that are totally OP with no proper counterparts, If anything I stand by what Veekay said, it did crossed my mind before as well

@robihr

we would also need to remove half tech tree and GO weapons cause they were either prototype or were never used in most of the campaigns. remove m2 carbine from everywhere except pacific, remove fedorov cause it wasnt used anywhere except in winter war, remove pershing and super pershing, t20, m1944 hyde from game cause they werent used anywhere, etc.

No, where did I complained about such things? I didnt stated that I want a hardcore 100% HA in a game which I personally started playing out of curiosity when it comes to prototype weapons. I just write about making it as HA as it is possible And removing the things that are more of a nuance than a standard occurrence would just be a bad change no one would even want.
The only time travel Im against is when things from the future are being seen in the past, not the other way around, as that would be possible to happen even if it didnt.
You also mention things that were added post the merge, those realistically wouldnt be even added if alternative route would be made at the first place, its just an alternative scenario

@robihr

it is balanced much better than previous campaigns and your suggestion. btw provide example of current imbalance. only thing currently “imbalanced” is probably p47, KT vs soviets and soviet body armor

Sure, one example would be that almost all of japanese vehicles dont stand a chance stat wise with their american counterparts. Many dont even deserve the place they take in BRs currently. Back before the merge those were facing vehicles that were at least similar in terms of armor and guns, and it was fun.

@robihr

kinda impossible at this point. you would need to remove half of japan (including premium squads), not to mention other protoype weapons/vehicles. lots of other campaigns would be basically dead cause you would need to force certain loadouts if you want HA.

What I said above. And I dont see how any campaign would be dead as people would have to play every just as it is today.

[robihr]

@Ma_theos33

Then new things would be added, game obviously wouldn’t be stuck with the old art unable to make new one. As for the gear, lot of new things were added since the merge, so IF it would happen now, it wouldnt be a perfect copy of what we had before that, if anything it could be made even better.

we are talking about devs that reduced number of BP weapons/vehicles cause they didnt manage to finish modeling 4 weapons/vehicles per BP season in time.

@Ma_theos33

Would everything really need to be mirrored? There isnt so many of things that are totally OP with no proper counterparts, If anything I stand by what Veekay said, it did crossed my mind before as well

“proper” counterparts are usually prototypes or time traveling equipment. as for veekays suggestion, it might have been possible before they started adding all the OP stuff in the game. now with everything already in the game and lot of it premium, it is impossible to revert it.

@Ma_theos33

No, where did I complained about such things? I didnt stated that I want a hardcore 100% HA in a game which I personally started playing out of curiosity when it comes to prototype weapons. I just write about making it as HA as it is possible And removing the things that are more of a nuance than a standard occurrence would just be a bad change no one would even want.

and this is the problem with people wanting HA. they all have different degrees of what they want. veekay is purist who wants any non historical weapons removed including prototypes, you are somewhere in between and dont even know what you want.
also what is possible? lets say moscow. should we remove t34, KV1, KV2, ppsh41, ppd34/38, ppd40, AVS36, AVT40 and fedorov cause they dont have proper counterpart in axis although they were all(probably) used in moscow? or should we remove m1 bazooka and panzerfaust 60 from moscow cause they are time traveling, so soviets can only kill enemy tanks with AT rifles? ok lets say that we remove all those weapons from moscow cause germans dont have counter for them, then what do we do with BR5? KT was used in normandy, but jumbo was shipped after normandy, as well pershing and super pershing. should it only fight soviets? should we remove pershing and super pershing cause we dont have campaign where they were used? m2 carbine should be only used in pacific and we should then remove t20 and m1944 hyde cause they are BS prototype weapons that were never used in any campaign. germans and US(well britain) should be only countries with jets cause soviets didnt have one and japanese had prototype that flew few days before end of war, so it saw no actual combat.

@Ma_theos33

Sure, one example would be that almost all of japanese vehicles dont stand a chance stat wise with their american counterparts. Many dont even deserve the place they take in BRs currently. Back before the merge those were facing vehicles that were at least similar in terms of armor and guns, and it was fun.

before merge situation was same with tanks. japanese had shittier tanks than US on premerge(or low BR), same as they have them now on mid and high BR. only difference is that HE is at least somewhat useful on mid and high BR.

@Ma_theos33

What I said above. And I dont see how any campaign would be dead as people would have to play every just as it is today.

tell me how do you expect to have HA loadouts without splitting queues into something resembling premerge campaigns?

[GENxCatrenko-live]

@robihr

also what is possible? lets say moscow. should we remove t34, KV1, KV2, ppsh41, ppd34/38, ppd40, AVS36, AVT40 and fedorov cause they dont have proper counterpart in axis although they were all(probably) used in moscow?

This is where I say they should’ve went with Leningrad. Moscow wasn’t the move honestly. And instead of the ZH29, they could’ve used the kgm/37 (yeah it wasn’t used but there was quite a both the kgm21’s and 37’s stored away in Sweden and Finland but it makes more sense to use it instead of the ZH29 which was only used by Chinese warlords) to counter the AVS and the Swedish kp/-31 copy, the m/37 to counter the drum ppSh.

[Ma_theos33]

Sorry for late reply, I was quite busy when you replied and I also missed the notification

@robihr

we are talking about devs that reduced number of BP weapons/vehicles cause they didnt manage to finish modeling 4 weapons/vehicles per BP season in time.

Thats why my suggestion is just a pure fantasy imagining what could be done if game could be done right (in some peoples eyes at least)

@robihr

“proper” counterparts are usually prototypes or time traveling equipment. as for veekays suggestion, it might have been possible before they started adding all the OP stuff in the game. now with everything already in the game and lot of it premium, it is impossible to revert it.

Yup, also HA equipment being behind a paywall doesnt help either.

@robihr

and dont even know what you want.

I have a general idea what I want, but I can agree on things and change my mind on certain topics. Sorry for not making an entire list that contains everything I guess

@robihr

also what is possible? lets say moscow. should we remove t34, KV1, KV2, ppsh41, ppd34/38, ppd40, AVS36, AVT40 and fedorov cause they dont have proper counterpart in axis although they were all(probably) used in moscow? or should we remove m1 bazooka and panzerfaust 60 from moscow cause they are time traveling, so soviets can only kill enemy tanks with AT rifles? ok lets say that we remove all those weapons from moscow cause germans dont have counter for them, then what do we do with BR5? KT was used in normandy, but jumbo was shipped after normandy, as well pershing and super pershing. should it only fight soviets? should we remove pershing and super pershing cause we dont have campaign where they were used? m2 carbine should be only used in pacific and we should then remove t20 and m1944 hyde cause they are BS prototype weapons that were never used in any campaign. germans and US(well britain) should be only countries with jets cause soviets didnt have one and japanese had prototype that flew few days before end of war, so it saw no actual combat.

You speak of current Enlisted transforming into what I described, but that doesnt make much sense considering they already went with non HA direction and the above would have to be prepared years before the planned merge

@robihr

tell me how do you expect to have HA loadouts without splitting queues into something resembling premerge campaigns?

I already mentioned it, each would have presets just as it is with current customization. You have one type of item equipped for a certain campaign, it will appear in this campaign. No need to separate anything this way

[robihr]

@Ma_theos33

I already mentioned it, each would have presets just as it is with current customization. You have one type of item equipped for a certain campaign, it will appear in this campaign. No need to separate anything this way

took me a while to see what you wanted… so you want people to equip every faction for every available campaign with their HA loadouts and then have them queue in MM?
couple of issues i see here:

• obvious balance problems if devs dont remove loads of equipment
• you will either have MM problems caused by splitting playerbase if you allow players to choose campaign or you will have unhappy players that wont be playing campaign/loadout that they want if you just have automatic MM depending on just faction
• balance problem unless you further split campaigns in BR cause some early war equipment is high BR(e.g. fedorov, ppsh41)

[Ma_theos33]

@robihr

• obvious balance problems if devs dont remove loads of equipment

In my opinion it may be impossible to balance everything correctly without seeing the win rates first, as everyone would have its advantages and disadvantages. One thing could be buffed and another not. I imagine it this way. lets say, win ratio for each faction in each campaign would be more or less 50% by month it would mean that both factions are comparable and there is nothing to be worried about. But well Enlisted is pay to win game regardless.

@robihr

you will either have MM problems caused by splitting playerbase if you allow players to choose campaign or you will have unhappy players that wont be playing campaign/loadout that they want if you just have automatic MM depending on just faction

There always will be people who are dissatisfied with something, I doubt that everyone would like it. If anything I wrote so because I dont like current Enlisted that much as before, just as many others. And I personally think that having some difference in playstyle each time would make it more interesting but Im ok with disagreements on that.

@robihr

balance problem unless you further split campaigns in BR cause some early war equipment is high BR(e.g. fedorov, ppsh41)

I think the current system is just fine with it being I-II II-III III-IV IV-V, I also have no issue with early war equipment being used in later periods. I only wonder where those wild west weapons could be given

[robihr]

@Ma_theos33

In my opinion it may be impossible to balance everything correctly without seeing the win rates first,

equipment balance ≠ faction balance ≠ skill balance

@Ma_theos33

as everyone would have its advantages and disadvantages.

not really when game is made of meta nonsense/filler equipment. what will matter is who has best smg at most BR and who has best tank.

@Ma_theos33

lets say, win ratio for each faction in each campaign would be more or less 50% by month it would mean that both factions are comparable and there is nothing to be worried about.

lol. we are obviously not playing the same game. should i tell you about faction stacking? by your logic we should have heavily nerfed germany cause it had >90% WR for month after merge. then we should have nerfed US after that cause it had high WR and then we should have nerfed japan and then again USA.

equipment balance should exist regardless of what flavor of faction is currently popular.

@Ma_theos33

There always will be people who are dissatisfied with something, I doubt that everyone would like it. If anything I wrote so because I dont like current Enlisted that much as before, just as many others. And I personally think that having some difference in playstyle each time would make it more interesting but Im ok with disagreements on that.

how many people would you expect to be dissatisfied with game randomly assigning them loadout, when they play game with heavy grind and they have just unlocked something that they want to play with, but cant cause of MM? i know that i would be extremely pissed that game took me to e.g. BR1 when i had just unlocked BR5 equipment.

@Ma_theos33

I think the current system is just fine with it being I-II II-III III-IV IV-V, I also have no issue with early war equipment being used in later periods. I only wonder where those wild west weapons could be given

cool that you have no issue with it. now ask @Veekay45 or any other HA enjoyer. they will give you dozen different variants on what is acceptable and what is not.

[Ma_theos33]

It wouldnt take you to BR1 if you would want to play BR5, read again what I wrote.

But yeah, Im done talking about it now, seems like you are taking it all way too seriously and Im not eager to continue talking about a fantasy any longer especially after you tagged Veekay in such of a toxic way. You can say I have no more arguments, whatever