Alternative way of balance, again

(Actually read before you reply. I know some people argue before comprehension.)

I’m bringing up the alternative manpower mechanism, which sees the following benefits, later I’ll explain how it works:

-Restricts spamming without nurfing-to-ground, like what happened to grenades and flame throwers. The new mechanism keeps the fun of op stuff, only making them less frequent.

-Reduces vehicle dominance by full slot players like myself who can play only with tanks and planes (This is toxic I won’t lie to you.) The new mechanism encourages playing infantry without nurfing vehicle performance.

-Restores immersiveness in a sense, as higher BR eauipments that were powerful but rare in history would appear less frequently. I just hate seeing experimental guns everywhere all the time and being pressured to join these sci-fi line-ups for competence.

-Adresses balance where BR is quite irrelevant, like for anti personnel mines.

  • Adresses the problem that inferiority/superiority of equipments leading to the same and dull choices of equipments. For example, KV1 is good that people stop driving inferior tanks if they can. This is a boring scene to see in every match that you just get the same things happening despite the vast armoury in the game.

-Gives each player fairer chance to spawn.

How the new manpower mechanism works:
Currently the game gives collective manpower to each side (except defenders), now IN ADDITION to that, the new mechanism will allocate every player his own spawning CREDITS.

When a player spawns, he spends credits for a squad. The amount depends on each single equipment’s performance and the amount of squad memebers. For example, mines could be cheap in store but expensive for spawning credits, and the cost could even be progressive to restrict the amount of mines, as the more mines you allocate to a squad, the more expensive EACH new mines becomes. It’s just like the prices of squad slots. In this way, there is no need to nurf mines, just make them uneconomical. Uneconomical means that you spend too much credit just for mines, that later you cannot afford enough credit fot every other thing in a match.

The same economic logic goes further. Planes should be expensive. If you want to fly, fly properly because kamikazeing drains your credit fast. You can’t just sit there with a three-plane line up and make other players unable to fly. If you run out of your credits, well wait for your turn. Don’t watse the team’s manpower, like this is what many people are doing when playing the attacking side. This is unfair for infantry too in the current version because they have less shared manpower to spawn!

Now of course bolties are less powerful than Stingers, but they are certainly cheap! This is actually an advantage, and we can balance the game in this way. You can get a nine-man rifle squad with less credit than a MG squad. If your nemesis on the other side can only spawn three MG squads, You may outnumber them by six infantry squads. The numbers here are hypothetical and not attested for balance. It is economical to equip the squad leader with a SMG and rest with bolties, since you need to concentrate on one soldier at a time and the rest are bots who die quickly anyway when pushing (unless you are a sniper who never go to the objectives)

The same applies to tanks too. You can choose a cheap tank to push without fear. They cost you much less than tanks with better survivability. Or you can drive better ones and take the cost… In this way, light armour recon cars could also be added, offering even more choices.

In addition to that, we can also set stages for granting credits. I know it is challenging to manage the resources, it might be easy for some people to run out of credits. therefore, in order to keep each player participating, the credits for a single player can be given after a certain interval, so that people won’t be waiting for the rest of the match if they can’t afford spawning.

I have seen how DF balanced the game: if something is too powerul, they turn it into shit. We don’t play with shit. So this is a bad way to balance. Let’s just set soft restrictions that leave the choice to players…Managing their own resources for their own interests.

There are similar mechanisms in other games. you can compare “credit” to “elixir” in Clash Royale…or “MP” in Gates of Hell. google these and you will know what I’m talking about. It’s not really my original idea but it is becoming more relevant to Enlisted. Nerfing alone doesn’t work, soft restrictions are necessary.

I started exploiting vehicles after meeting a guy with three planes. I used to hate planes but now I have three planes in a line up too. easy scores. I miss the old times with infantry focused playstyle but I don’t want to lose against people who also exploit vehicles. This is a viscious circle… we need changes without killing the fun by nerfing powerful things.

Finally, I want to point out that I am aware of conflct of interests. Some people want to stay in their confort zone and enjoy their current advantage. If your goal is that, don’t argue with me. Let’s just be honest. My goal is to make the game less toxic, unfair, and grinding, but at the same time keeping the fun. If my method fails to achieve these goals, you are welcome to make revisions.

If this post gets enough attention, I can make illustrations with photoshop to explain how the new mechanism would look like.

3 Likes

This idea, while vague, is really good if I’m reading it correctly, though I am fond of the shared tickets because I’d rather not sit there and spectate for a whole match if my team isn’t getting on point.
With adjustments to accommodate points for those who will build rally points and those who will play on the objective we could see a positive change in play.
If we we’re to change the costs to reflect the commonality of the equipment we could truly adjust to make the game more historically appealing while keeping the equipment many people love.
That being said this is a drastic change that can either make the game better or make it go belly up due to campers or poor application.
It may be a lot of work but hopefully some game will take note of this respawn system because I like it.

2 Likes

This is can be a good change but I would want to see where you would get tickets for rally points killing enemy squads or tank or planes or assisting on taking the point or saving the point overall that would be a W change

1 Like

And if your squad has better equipment I think if would be a bit unfair if someone wants to play with mg42s in br4-5 the one of your squad mates has zb 26s so the equipment would be a bit dumb

Or instead of equipment changing on tickets it would be a squad thing to were a mg squad or at would cost more than a riflemen squad to the equipment for those squads because a riflemen can’t have an mg42

Very similar to concepts already tried in The Titan event (and in Warthunder).

Requiring Score to spawn in. ALong those lines anyway

Generally there are two camps (thereabouts)

those that think limitations in some form are necessary for good balance and variation.

those that just want to play what they want, when they want, no restrictions

Enlisted is more aimed at the latter it seems

I think to the contrary, it’s not battle score based, he suggests that each person has an individual ticket pool if I am reading this correctly.

By similar I mean to spawn stuff in you require a form of currency. if you lack it, you have to use standard stuff (AKA Titan Event if you lacked score, you couldnt spawn it in and had to use default options)

P.S I do think lmitations via a form of earning the good stuff is a good thing. I just dont see it happening because alot dont.

And dark flows always says “we dont want to restrict stuff”

1 Like

Just seems different, but idk, I could be reading this wrong. Some of his post was worded weirdly.

collective (shared) manpower means the current tickets each squad comsumes to respawn, shared by players. Total credits is all the credits that a single player has access to. It regenerates slowly so there’s no need to worry about being unable to spawn later in the game, as long as the shared manpower is still there. The intention is to limit consecutive use of over-powered squads with cost of “credit”.

1 Like

Like I said, the “credit” is only for each player when spawning. It doesn’t cost you silver or anything outside a match. It doesn’t matter what you equip with your squad members, because the costs of each piece of equipment will add up. It is up to you to decide how much credits your squads will consume. Having a zb26 in a mg42 squad will make that squad cheaper for spawning compared to a squad with three mg42. that might be preferable for you, I don’t know. In this way, every squad will be worth of its performance.

In the current game, every squad spends the amount of shared manpower, and people who keep kamikazeing drain manpower really fast that others have less opportunities to spawn. This is unfair and sick.

1 Like

I do believe the former is necessary. For example, I have 9-man premium rifle squads but I don’t have a reason to use them after I got better equipments. The only use is throwing them into the objectives as cannon fodders. So I suppose being cheap should be made an advantage, though it is not at the moment.

That makes sense, and wouldn’t be a bad idea IMO, anybody else think it might be bad? I want to hear more thoughts about this

The enemy’s refusal to confront vehicles and campers is their own problem
10 people refused to fight back? Is this a victim’s problem or a perpetrator’s problem?
Most casual people never try to stop what’s killing them
Since they like death and destruction so much, there is no need to let them live longer.

Mines?
Enough posts mocking these crybabies.
No need to say more

Experimental weapons?
You should ask Japan what they should use against American infantry equipment

The issue of points redemption has been discussed elsewhere.
This mechanism will only increase the risk that passives and conservatives will improperly use and parasitize soldiers and vehicles, causing friendly forces to lose support and lack equipment.
I also don’t want to see low-skilled players in the same room with low-level equipment unable to compete against players with strong skills and high-performance weapons because it is difficult to obtain points.
This is just a snowball of extremes and badness.

in addition
In most cases, aircraft wheels are only useful against enemies with low skills and those who refuse to intercept.
Instead of nerfing or changing mechanics, we should improve player motivation or isolate players with different skills.
Instead of allowing so-called casual players to negatively poison the entire game environment and make the environment even more negative.

When suicide tactics create enough value
Definitely higher than the advantages brought by the passive person’s resource saving and conservative fighting.
There is no reason or need to limit

An overly wasteful and inefficient suicide plane?
Of course it sucks
But what they do is essentially no different from low-ranking negative people.
It’s also a waste of resources. It doesn’t help victory.
But will you condemn or demand restrictions on low-ranked players?

Totally irrelevant to the topic. There is no victim mentioned. Neither is “incompetence” mentioned. I don’t even know why you jump out to say this.

I don’t want to see too much t20 either. Now don’t tell me about fg422 cus i don’t want to see them either. Buffing this and then buffing that is a broken way to balance in an online game, only leading to inflation.

Again you didn’t COMPREHEND but hurried to reply. this is NOT score based. Please stop misinterpretation. There is already a giant gap between low performance players and high ones. That’s what you don’t want to see? Make a difference then! The credit is given equally to players so it will only make the gap smaller if that’s what you want. There ain’t no snowball, this is exactly aiming to stop snowballing. You thought existing squads and lineups and all kinds of available resources to some three-year players like myself aren’t a kind of snowballing?? This mechanism addresses OP things of either side, why do you ignore this?

Oh you are now giving me that low skill
being the issue crap? You really think spamming is only an issue against people unable to counter? Tell you what, I don’t like spamming even if it doesn’t work. I have 99% precision in dropping 50kg bomb with fighters, I can shoot down nearly twenty planes in match if there are, with everything available. I can, but I don’t want to. The point is, I’m freaking sick of seeing or fighting too many planes cus this is a damn infantry game. don’t justify spamming. Now I understand what you mean by victim. Guess that’s the victim of spamming. You think any person playing a game deserves to be a victim? That’d be sick. It’s not skill issue that makes them victim to spamming. Spammers are the issue.

when it does, yeah. Does it waste manpower as well? Yeah. Is it aways creating values? No. I have seen it countless times in invasion where someone just kept flying and I shot him down everytime I saw his plane. There was a close match and he was the reason they lost. And I could only have shot him down because again I have three planes myself. I countered him by spamming too. There is definitely a reason to restrict.

I do condemn them. I condemn both playstyles. It is a weird suggestion you put here as if condemning one side makes me agreeing with the other. My proposal for restrictions is for the former. Though it doesn’t help the later, it doesn’t mean it’s ineffective to the former. Maybe you can think of a solution for “negative playing” yourself and post it somewhere else. It’s irrelevant to the topic, again.

This game needs more players. Condemning noobies will kill this game. Devs are on the right track for making low tier battlepass weapons, though it is questionable whether newcomers can afford them…

This is a (war) themed game
This means that any iron coffin that can fire explosives and large-caliber bullets and various individual tactical equipment are very reasonable.
If you just want to play a simple infantry battle game
Maybe you should play CS or something
Rather than requiring it to become another highly homogeneous and boring competitive game in a 2-war themed game.

Oh don’t worry about me, I just keep spamming vehicles and every single exploitable thing too, enjoy. I do that until people realise the problem. I have fun in spamming but I know restrictions are still necessary to make the game sustainable.
Tell your theory to every new comer who only has one vehicle slot, tell them go play other games and I’m sure Enlisted will be great again.

The funniest argument in a game community is telling someone to go play other games when problems are found, as if the game is good enough the way it is.

1 Like