I think it would be great to have quick arcade games, and also realistic ones.
-Arcade- as it is now
-Realistic mode- Hardcore + better physics in the planes, etc?
-Simulator- Hardcore + Minimalistic battle interface - on + Lone Fighters + better physics in planes, etc + bigger maps and longer battles?
Each one with its respective money and ex rewards according to its difficulty
I don’t know, the game is so cool without the Hud
It’s just an idea but it seems to work so well for wt…
I mean.
Why?
Arcade is meant to be as the name suggests, Less realistic.
Realistic mode wouldn’t really work unless some how guns do more damage, Like SMGs two shot people, Rifles always one shot.
Simulator would be just line lone fighter’s… dead.
We don’t have as much players as War Thunder.
We should add more BR queues first, before considering adding different difficulty.
you will wait hours for a game
but it’s a sacrifice I am willing to make
We can already do that in this game with Tommy’s big action mod
I concur. There are two camps of people who play this game.
people interested in history first, then decide they want to check out this new game that claims " The weaponry, soldier’s uniform, appearance and capabilities of the vehicles in the game are in line with historical facts." They check it out…and anybody with an entry level history degree would tell you this is indeed not accurate. For example: They will wonder why their USA team (which has brits and commonwealth in them…should be named “Allies” not “USA”), doesn’t start with the standard issue M1 Garand. Or they play their first match, and see the enemy team using all experimental gold order weapons which never saw manufacturing or even past the blue print stage. With the current set up, these people will simply leave for more realistic game because if they wanted to play Fortnite, the would have just played the existing game. This player base would stick around for the long run if the game met the standards they claim to make. They also have money.
people interested in running around and shooting stuff. This is the Gen Z/Steam/Fortnite crowd. They like flashy icons, dropping mines everywhere, carrying unrealistic amounts of explosive packs, and arming every soldier with Federovs and STGs. They players are just bored of their other games which already exist and are not likely to stick around when they get bored with this game too. This group of people will bolster numbers of accounts created, but they usually do not stick around in the long run. This crowd might buy a premium or two. Unless daddy gives them what ever they want, then they buy everything.
Currently, the only mode in vanilla enlisted is what War Thunder would call “Arcade”. With the player base being so small (plus 35,000 active players quit after the merge…), Gaijin cannot afford to invest in anything like a Realistic Mode at this time without also losing group number 2. However, eventually, they do need to implement this, as group number 1 is the one who pays the bills.
We dont need these. We need pve and single player for those who dont have skills and those who need to upgrade their squads.
I’d say
arcade - as it is now
realistic - as it is now though without all the simplifications eg. pen indicators, hit marks etc. deadlier weapons.
simulation - no HUD, hardcore, deadlier weapons, no upgrades/perks.
imo realistic and arcade should come first
Wow, this is just reductive, unhelpfully so. It ignores that group 1 doesn’t actually play games like this, they’re too arcadey, people like this prefer squad 44, hell let loose, arma mods, stuff like that. And if you insist that a major part of the player base are people like that, then they must really be deluded if they insist on the “historical accuracy” being a big part of the game (in practice). It also ignores that the game is too clunky and “slow” for the cod, battlefield, and fortnite crowd.
This assessment also completely discards the idea that people would play this game because it’s entertaining and, dare I say, fun. And it ignores the gun/military hardware nuts who play the game because of all the unique firearms in combination with the war thunder vehicles. However, what matters at the end of the day is the gameplay, as long as the game is fun, and is aesthetically consistent, it’s all good. This game is its own unique experience, and should market itself as such, not trying to pander to either of your reductive “camps”.
I would also very much like to see your source on the 35k players who allegedly quit after the merge.
You can see the 35k dip after the merge. (it was actually 39k). You can see another dip of Group 1 players in Nov 2021 when Gaijin made the decision to make it more arcade than historic. Back then, there were legit conversations about what direction to go in. As you can see, they chose the wrong path, losing more people in a 3 month time period than are currently playing the game in total right now. Those were all players who were historians first, checking out a “WWII” game. Then quit, when they saw the direction the game was going. Losing 1.4 million players is significant. And yes, those people went to other games like HLL and Squad 44. I am the only one of my initial friends group that stuck with Enlisted since 2020.
Yes, group 1 comes from a camp of educated historians who also play video games (for example, I hold a masters in history while also enjoying playing games, not just Enlisted). I didn’t say they were the major part of this player base (they WERE, back in 2020-21…), I said they exist.
How does it discard the idea of people playing a game for entertainment? That was clearly established as Group 2.
Having both realistic and arcade systems like WT caters to both groups. Why so much shade?
And they gained 58k the month after… Your point being? The game reached a half year peak during the first month after the merge. Did this not matter?
I do think you’re pulling a post hoc ergo proptor hoc fallacy here. Saying for certain that it’s the historical angle that is causing the game to lose players when you, and nobody, has statistics about why people stop playing. There could be a million reasons why a player stops playing a game. See how I’m not claiming to know why, merely criticising you for claiming to. And your personal anecdotes aren’t sufficient proof.
And I didn’t say “the major part”, I said “a major part”. You claimed that there were two camps playing this game, and you implied that those were the only camps. And you’re once again claiming to know the reason why a huge number of people played, and stopped playing, the game.
Meaning you’re either dismissing the people who don’t fit into either group. Or you’re forcing those same people into group 2 and associating them with all those negative things. Either way, it’s pretty dishonest.
And I keep seeing people just invoking fortnite/cod as if it made sense to compare enlisted to them. The comparison doesn’t hold up to any kind of scrutiny, it doesn’t make any sense beyond the most shallow of interpretations.
I don’t have a problem with the proposed game modes, I haven’t thrown any shade on it. I’ve called you out for the way you describe the player base. I’m defending myself from the shade you threw on me through your description of group 2, intentional or not.
You’re reading way too much into it and are just looking for a fight. I may be rent free in your head, but I don’t care to stay there.
What? I’m not looking for a fight… I saw someone say something objectionable and I did my best to call it out.
So what you’re saying is, your reply has nothing to do with the topic and you were bored. Hence Group 2. You make assumptions and take everything literally. Obviously there are more than just two groups and no individual falls within any prescribed definition. For example, most of my soldiers are equipped with three explosion packs and yes, I use Assault Rifles and I put mines on my rally points. Because of the direction the game has gone, to do otherwise will be losing matches.
But that’s not why i started playing. I started playing for the same reason why I started playing War Thunder, because I liked the idea of a video game that employed historic features. However, as WT grew, it became less and less a WWII Tank shooter and a sandbox of unrealistic scenarios fill with teams of Maus’. In 2020, with the campaign system (remember, back then there was only one campaign…Moscow), Gaijin was at a crossroads. Go historic, or go arcade. They kept talking about maintaining the historic aspects, but that is not what happened de jure. The emphasis on prototype weapons (many of which never got past blueprint stages) and the nerfing of stats (like semi autos and MGs not being consistent with bolt actions) in the name of balance is off putting to historians. Hence Group 1 checking the game out and leaving.
All charts like this will ebb and flow, but there are clear patterns. After major decisions, there have been major losses. Yes, 58k came in the following month, but another 38k left the month after. This creates a plateau of overall stability. But there are two clear dips. I suspect when it is released on Steam, we will see a significant spike as most on Steam are Group 2.
But I do have insight to these numbers, as I was was there in 2021 and the merge. Like I said, I’ve been around since 2020, participated in Dev conversations, and provided reports and inputs. Myself and four other historians who play games started about the same time. I’m the only one left of that group and the reasons why they stopped were as I have reported here. Whether you believe it or not, I really don’t care, because the target audience for these forums are the Devs, not to convince you of semantics. For example, entertainment is the absence of boredom. But you want to fight over that rather than acknowledge the topic of the post int he first place that two (or three) different modes would benefit all.
Anyway, personal experience is all anybody can truly go off of. If everybody had all the answers, there wouldn’t be a forum to discuss suggestions in the first place.
Regardless, just because you don’t like something or get offended over assumptions doesn’t mean its not valuable information for the Devs. They can ignore it, but if I don’t report it, it will never have the option of being either ignored or implemented.
My reply was directed at the things you were saying, not because I was bored. I’m just going by what you’re saying, nothing else. I’m not making assumptions as much as I’m performing reading comprehension…
And why wouldn’t I be providing counterpoints for the devs by responding to what you’re saying? And I’m not complaining about semantics, I’m confronting flawed reasoning. You seem to think that I’m just attacking you, or fighting you, when I’m responding to the things that you’re saying, and explaining why they may not hold water.
No, entertainment is not the absence of boredom, entertainment is enjoyable stimulus whilst boredom is the absence of stimulus when stimulus is wanted. You can stare at a wall without being bored, but that wouldn’t necessarily mean that you’re entertained. The same can be said for frustration, you’re stimulated but not entertained, neither are you bored.
That aside, I don’t disagree with the suggestion, I disagree with your reasoning as to why you think it’s important. Am I against, or ignoring, the topic because I didn’t start by saying “I agree with the suggestion, but…”?
No it isn’t… reason is the most important element of discussion. You have to reason around ideas to see if they make sense or not. Especially gameplay design related ideas.
I didn’t get offended over whatever assumptions you think I made.
True, you’re providing information to whoever is reading, including the devs, and that is a good approach to have on these forums, as opposed to how a lot of people act on these forums. But in that same vein, I can chip in and explain why your information doesn’t make sense, is incomplete, is based on poor reasoning etc. And I would be just as much valid in my approach as yours. Since I would be bringing more context and perspective to improve the devs’ ability to make decisions.
I’m not trying to attack you as a person, I’m criticising your ideas and reasoning. And I’m doing it for the benefit of the devs and the other people reading.
Where are you getting these numbers?
Where are you getting these numbers?
Where are you getting these numbers?
Honestly it seems to me that you’re upset with whoever doesn’t play the game in the way that you want it to be played. Almost every veteran player that I know is a part of “group 2” (as you so politely put it), those who play and stick with the game for the gameplay and combat itself, rather than the larping experience that many more casual players expect to find.
I know it’s very childish to expect to shoot things in a game about shooting things.