(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.