off point. that was check mate
After giving myself a day to digest this Open Letter I will share my constructive criticism on what I personally think are good proposals, and what are unnecessary proposals or don’t benefit the game/community as a whole:
PROS:
Revamped Tutorials - The game has changed a lot over the years, and some of the tutorials the game provides need to be remade to reflect the “New Enlisted”.
Stat Card - The stat cards in the game not reflecting their true stats is a major issue.
Experience for Vehicles - I’m putting in the “PROs” but the proposed solution mentioned could be improved. Matches in Enlisted can be either quick 10 minute matches or grueling 40 minute slug fests. In situations where the matches are quick, if there were an XP requirement, you wouldn’t see a single tank or plane all match. I would let players have a freebie vehicle spawn, tank or plane. This way at the very least we will see some vehicles.
Gray Zone Tanks - Giving better AT guns is a great solution to this problem, but should be scaled according to br. I am sick and tired of 75mm pak guns in br 1. Changing rocket arty is an interesting idea and I don’t see the harm of at the very least testing a re-design of it.
Silver Economy - This has been beaten like a dead horse. The community has voiced their desire for an adjusted economy model time and time again.
Social Systems - I don’t play custom matches so I have no feedback to give, but anything that connects the community is generally a positive change.
Stack Based Matchmaking - Only in pros because I understand the frustration. BUT. I don’t want to see stacked based match making when it is only 2 players. Not everyone has 3 friends to play with regularly, and play this game to relax and have fun (myself included). I don’t want to be placed in lobbies full of 4 man groups because I’m playing with one friend.
Redesigning Game modes - Maps can always use tweaks and changes. The newest Conquest maps are a great example of what I want to see more of. Larger playable area usually means longer match time which in turn means more XP.
More Maps - More maps are always good.
Asia/Oceania Servers - Good idea, but it depends on how many players there are in that area. Too few and it would just turn into a server where player go to farm bots for easy XP and silver.
Customization Improvements - A customization rework is much needed.
CONS:
Vehicle Cycling - An issue for certain, but with the proposed implementation of XP thresholds for spawning vehicles, improved AT, AA, and Rocket artillery, it would be worth seeing the impact those positive changes have before making any drastic changes to Vehicle spawn mechanics.
Infantry Plane Countermeasures - while improving AA guns is a good idea, I don’t see any issue with what we currently have. The current AA guns can shoot down any plane with half its mag already.
Add Unique Mechanics to TT - Only mechanic I oppose to have in the TT is the Paratroopers. If they had to be added, I would only allow them to be used in high BR (4-5).
Rerun Events - Rerunning event defeats the whole purpose of the original event. As someone who is missing 4 event items, I WOULD LOVE to have them, but if an event came out tomorrow that gave them to me they would lose all appeal in my eyes because their rarity would be lost. I would be content with a rerun of the event, but it would have to be hard. So hard and challenging that it wouldn’t be worth doing. That way only the players who truly want the event item will unlock it.
Concluding thoughts:
Most suggestions would be great and welcome changes/additions to the game. However when I look at this, I see a lot of changes with goals to remove the use and usefulness of vehicles from the game, which is a major turn off for me. I like Enlisted because of the combined arms warfare. I like going from a soldier, to a plane, to a tank. This post was created by members of the community who consider themselves some the highest skilled players and are players that pride themselves on making matches unenjoyable. I have heard from many of them their outright hatred towards vehicles and wanting nothing more than to have it in the most water downed state it can be in. If I had to choose all these changes or none of them, I would choose none because I don’t believe there were good intentions in mind when this was created. It looks like a trojan horse post to try and enact changes that only the top .1% of enlisted players want by disguising it with positive suggestions that many members of the community have already asked for.
4 Likes
I dont really disagree with that but wasnt exactly the subject.
This falls kind of to category of flag666murderslayerkiller category, Mp28 can also kill people just fine.
Its still not exactly up to task of BR5.
pretty much my first response
I understand your views, but could you extrapolate how the suggestions would remove vehicle usefulness? Players can still use vehicles freely (and the suggestions are not demands, just ideas to facilitate discussion), just spamming is being focused on to allow all players to have access to vehicle play and alleviate more toxic exploits. Going from soldier, to plane, to tank is still accessible under the proposed solutions.
While I myself am an infantry main, this document was not made exclusively by myself or clans. We worked with several large Enlisted-based discords and players from all levels of experience and gameplay styles to ensure that we could remove as much bias as possible. I think that labelling it as a clan “trojan horse” is a injustice to the true intent of the document - especially since the majority of the document is not focused on these topics.
If you choose to not support, thats fine. But I just want to make clear this is not an individual or an exclusive project and we had long discussions on the vehicle spam topics to limit the impact of infantry-biased players. I do agree with Con #1 that if other implementations were placed (Better AT guns scaled to BR, Rockets reaching GZ tanks) then we should look at those implementations before further scaling restrictions
I can agree with high BR Paras only as well, equipment dependant (aka if the TT paras come with Welguns they def dont belong in BR 5, ideally they would have the weapon selection feature)
I dont agree with your opinion on Rerun events, but thats fine. I dont expect everyone will agree with everything in the letter - the most important point is that we as a community identify that a majority if not all of the major issues in the headers are actual issues and agree they need to be changed/addressed
1 Like
Exactly how I felt making that clip.
Shooting all those speedy BR 5 planes down like they were nothing, and, they couldnt do shit about it.
AA guns are powerful by nature, only poor tradesmen blame their tools.
And as i said right at the start, im fine with removing the arc and over heat…but they hold all the cards and any further buffing has to be done with that realisation.
They are far from
For all other arguments…i refer you to the clip, again and again. We are done here
1 Like
I agree it would be interesting to remove AT gun HE. Instead they should add Infantry Support Guns as the HE counterpart. That way we have to choose which way we’re going to support the team
They should also add Flak Cannons as the AT squad’s unique building. They would pretty much be the ultimate weapon against tanks, planes, and infantry
Support guns would definitely be an interesting new mechanic (possibly for high-tier mortar squads to construct?) and would open up more WW2 equipment to enter the game. I think this is a good idea.
No they would be a regular Engineer building
Mortar squads would build Heavy Mortars as their unique building
1 Like
Sounds good to me
2 Likes
There definitely should be Research Paratroopers, every Squad class and type for British and Italy, and Rocket Artillery should be available for all Radios
I disagree because I think it would be more interesting if rocket artillery was rebalanced more to how it functioned in real life. It was much less accurate than regular artillery but it had the benefit of being more mobile and cheaper. They were used as shock weapons where a ton of fire would rain down on infantry to demoralize them.
I prefer dynamic balancing where there are pros and cons to gun artillery vs rocket artillery instead of one being superior to the other. That way we have to choose what we think is best
I think it should be rebalanced like this. I further explain the idea throughout the thread
2 Likes
A lot of good points however some like Silver gain with it’s solutions are not sufficient, rare silver boosters that will expire after few matches won’t change anything since base silver gain is so miniscule, same with rally points earning more score at best it will give you 5% more silver how generous of you, We need silver gain to get increased by 2.5-3x anything else is just ignoring the core issue.
Right now economy is not sustainable on it’s own and i’m waiting for it to improve so i could finally unlock vehicles and weapons that i have unlocked but i can’t afford to buy and upgrade.
Some takes were pretty bad like engy AT guns removing HE shells, buildable AT guns have long barrel cannons and they have much lesser TNT filler than short guns so i see no problem with it.
With train gamemode i think train should be much longer and players would be able to spawn on that train (give it 5 points and two would be already captured, we will be fighting for 3 other neutral points), we would get bonus point for capturing points around that train and killing people.
Speaking of events our Battlepass needs a new rewards, since levels over 75 are pretty much repeated they should give us ability to grind old event squads/weapons and also older removed premium squads there are no point in hiding them and then rerelasing as FOMO events with insane prices of $30-50 even tho they are already outdated when compared to new premiums. If a player own them then reward that player with a gold weapon order or gold.
Soldier customization should be only be purchased once and then be able to apply it on every soldier, like that hat that you see in Stalingrad? Then buy it for 60 customization orders and have it on every soldier, instead of paying 15 for every single soldier in your lineup.
Speaking of battlepass we should be able to unlock camos for vehicles (event and premium too since they have zero customization currently) of our choosing with new BP rewards. Your suggestion of order of vehicle customization is good too.
I think grezone should be reworked only small part of the greyzone should be exclusive for a single team and we should be able to use arty there or even move with our infantry/tanks. Only first 30-70m (depending on the map) should be safe after that it’s a wild west.
A vehicles usefulness comes from destroying other vehicles and eliminating infantry from the objectives (tanks capturing points if taking from suggestions).
Giving vehicles an XP requirement is a fine addition, and adding a 20-30second timer between personal vehicle spawns is also fine. However, adding more capable AT, AAs, better rocket arty as well as having additional prerequisites emplaced for vehicle spawning, a vehicles role becomes redundant.
If you are playing in a tank as US at BR5 you need to watch out for: AT guns, Panzerfausts, Rocket Arty, Mortars, AT grenade launchers, explosion packs, TNT, AT mines, tanks, and planes. Tanks have a lot of counters to them and by reducing the amount of tanks that are fielded over the course of the match by TOO much, the few that do spawn are going to be torn apart the moment they are marked. As for planes, by restricting their spawn behind XP there will already be less air spam, and less players revenge killing other planes and tanks. The addition of even more potent AA guns seems unnecessary given that the current ones in the games excel at destroying planes at any BR.
By giving infantry more and more ways to counter vehicles, vehicles themselves would no longer pose any threat. Players who play vehicles should also be compensated to remain viable. The main culprit of this is the explosion pack (TNT to a far lesser extent). I’ve only ever used the explosion pack for the years I’ve been playing this game and it easily represents the majority of tank kills. By removing the explosion packs low br tanks suddenly become a serious threat, and high br tanks can move closer to objectives without the fear of being insta-killed by a perfectly cooked explosion pack. Another thought, though controversial, could be increasing the max amount of vehicles allowed to be fielded at once. This would make it so planes and tanks will both have plenty of enemies to shoot at initially once players reach their first XP threshold, while still giving infantry focused players all the tools necessary to deal with tanks. Then as the match continues less vehicles will be fielded as some players fail to meet the XP threshold.
I don’t have any issue with less vehicle spam, but it needs to come with changes that also elevate vehicle players as well.
2 Likes
Fair points. I’d like to note that not we also aren’t requesting all proposed solutions to be implemented at once, or all of them to ever be active. If DF took say one of the options for vehicle cycling and one of the options for Greyzone Camping, we’d be happier with that result than the current system.
1 Like
We shouldn’t give up just yet we need to push just like other half of their gaming community have pushed for War Thunder to improve, and now Silver Eagle gain is extremely comfortable to grind in that game.
2 Likes
Which is exactly what your clip is about.
Not a single decent pilot, not even a mediocre.
Agree, If after all this you still cant figure the issue here I need to get my crayons ready.
Are tanks really that much of a problem outside of BR 5 with invulnerable front armor?
In every other tier you can get your own tank to duel the enemy tank shelling or just use another way of killing it with how squishy they tend to be.
If your team is just ignoring the tank shelling them into oblivion and continue to cross its LOS then it is their own fault for dieing each time just like how a HMG or similar would do the same.
They certainly can be. American infantry cant deal with tigers with their most powerful AT launcher and AT gun, and Japan can’t scratch Jumbos with the Type 4 or their AT gun.
The major issue is the exploit of the Grey Zone and cycling particularly to exploit that- an area where tankers are untouchable and often have wide views of objectives. It is basically an exploit of game mechanics as enemy infantry are unable to touch them in many cases, and a player can get a few squad slots and just respawn in another one upon death so they can permanently sit in the GZ. If they were actively engaging by entering the battle area and playing aggressively - not as much of an issue, although it does hog the tank slots and deny those for other players if they choose to do so. Greyzone camping (and players cycling GZ camping) pushes away new players that dont have the gear to handle people doing that exploit, and teams often can’t be relied on to deal with the threat effectively.
2 Likes
Wouldnt it make more sence to fix those problems first before neutering tanks as a whole?
Keep in mind that those chances dont just apply to those high BR matches but also low BR where tanks are missing armor.
1 Like
I don’t believe any of the suggestions place undue limitations on tanks. Higher strength AT guns would ideally be only at high BR where they are needed. Cooldowns/XP requirements/infantry spawns are suggestions to ensure that other players are able to access vehicles instead of only one person - and are only suggestions, not necessarily all intended to have all of them active at once. Tanks on objectives encourage playing with close infantry support.
None of that particularly reads as neutering tanks. The only thing that threatens them is better AT guns
For any German players, someone has translated the letter to German (link to the form stays the same)