will do a week of data analysis instead of day by day and will do deeper dive into many other stuff.
1 Like
There are plently of campaign-worth events but old system does not allow them to add because the system would eventually collapse.
This would also prevent content for old campaigns because people would lose their mind if they see Super Pershing in Normandy unless they are not hyocrites and dont come with “immersion”.
40 Levels are also stupid at the end because this prevents old campaigns from getting new classes etc. becaquse 40 levels were hardlock and even if you remove it, some campaigns can barely reach level 40 without already going proto-post-campaign stuff either because of lack of content or awful balance.
Its still so amusing that peopke think most people play for immersion when in reality most people just play to club bots and morons who thought playing Berlin Allies or Tunisia Axis is a good idea.
That still questions the point of the campaign system if 66% suck and no one wants to play them.
Nobody wants that and nobody will do that. People can already queue as any faction and no one does it.
Waste of time.
I dont care if 10 people and their 20-30 Facebook Friends are offended with their hypocritical and conflicting and dodgy “immersion” and most people dont care enough or dont try to explain how the Mkb is more immersive in Moscow or even SG than a IAR in Africa.
“You should always be allowed to pick maps you want but dont dare to pick stuff you want to use.”
2 Likes
I also once argued for the old system and disliked them merge.
While I still keep some old points, merge is overall better because it allows more content, is better to balance, and better for newbies because Veteran Tiger vs Stuart is not the same as Veteran Panzer III vs Stuart.
Current version is poorly executed but its easier to fix than the campaign system. All the concepts were described as follow:
- People can freely choose to queue in any campaign (Nobody would use it)
- United tech tree (which never got explained as far as I can remember)
- Forcing people to not put many OP weapons and stuff (Which is a bit hyperbolic if you dont like being forced into maps)
- Fronts (Which is like Pacific 2.0 but probably less balanced and also weirdly “immersive” because Kursk is not the same as Moscow)
What also really digs me now that people keep using “immersive” which Im still thinking is just a different term of accuracy because people know that this term is stupid to use to describe Enlisted and immersive is so vague I dont even if people even know what they are saying there, let alone that accurate was actually used by DF and not immersive I think/ actually is closer to accurate than immersive.
5 Likes
not at all.
immersive =/= accuracy aren’t the same thing
accuracy can be immersive, but immersion doesn’t have to be historical accurate related.
i presume people talks more about immersion as " feeling in a battlefield " etc.
and then there’s also the other bunch that mix the terms together and goes on the wildest tangents etc.
but yeah, you have also the others who wants an immersive historical accuracy ( which at this point, those who ask for what we had in term of campaigns are just clowns. because not even that was historical immersive either )
as for the rest, you’re pretty much on point.
1 Like
That bugs me still.
Because that is already ruined by the AI and spam. A Tiger II in SG only makes it “funnier”.
I only really had this feeling in 2020/21 Moscow CBT/ Early OBT because the AI was better and yes, drums and flamers existed there but I think the gunplay wasnt as fast as now e.g. where you couldnt reload while running and more moving penalties which at this point only really exist for MGs, and grenade launchers didnt reload this ridiciously fast. Only concerning spam were artillery.
i mean, immersion doesn’t necessary have to look at equipment that wasn’t supposed to be there.
that’s a discussion for authenticity and HA accuracy.
ais used to be different rather than better or worse.
they used to shoot through foliage ( which they still somewhat do, but much less ), they used to 360 no scope you if you dared to miss, and were generally more responsive.
as it goes for gunplay being slower, it’s because over the corse of the years we didn’t had many players during testing.
so we mostly faced bots or inexperienced players.
and as the time goes, more people try out because it becomes somewhat more popular ( i should use the " " ) and the inexperienced become better etc.
but i don’t think weapons changed that much between now and then.
movemet used to be alot slower though.
true, those thing got changed.
hence, fastened somewhat the gameplay ( more about the movement but yeah ).
but i think more people realized this is not a slow phased game. hence started to rush more and be aggressive.
after all, even if you die, you don’t have many repercussion.
it’s the nature of arcadyness.
i think.
I was more aiming for the battlefield feeling because as of right now it feels like poors-people BFV but with worse players, maps and bipods.
At the end they killed you more often. Right now they only kill you if RNG decides to OHK-hipfire you with rifles.
Partly, but stil it felt slower. We had less player, but l I remember that the average skill was better and somehow compensate it, at least I faced more “well”-placed rallies in the past on both sides until the end where Germans were “dominating” in CBT Moscow (I think) (which tbh is a joke compared to how factions used and how Germany now dominaties the second queue). At least matches lasted closer to 30min because (mostly) both sides were equally skilled and equipped, not like now where matches only last 30mins if defenders were the farmers or if you play Confrontaton, which is a welcoming, but weird mode.
But as said, soldiers moved and did stuff way slower and capture rates were also slower than right now even without the “ticket-balance” approach.
this in itself is fallacy. i dont know how you can get immersion when almost everything is wrong with basic premise of the selected campaign and the game.
you have wrong weapons inside all campaigns, wrong vehicles, wrong amount of weapons/vehicles that were actually present, wrong amount of enemies etc.
do you know how e.g. normandy d-day immersion should look like for axis player? they should be outnumbered 2:1, they should have no tanks and CAS with limited fighter support. most of their army should have kar98k with mostly mp40 (and some stg44) alongside mg34 or mg42 mostly in stationary bunkers under heavy shelling from enemy ships. allies also had tanks (though not in great numbers), and paratroopers behind enemy lines. allies standard rifle was m1 garand and carbine, standard smg was thompson (with m3 and m3a1) and they used BAR. they also needed to move through landmined area
but do you know what we have in d-day battle now (and before)? 1:1 player balance, german tanks, CAS which wasnt present for both sides, german paratroopers, squads of people full of stg44, fg42, m2 carbine, m1919a6, flamethrowers. or if newbies came they would use springfields which werent used and stuarts which werent at beach.
actually it is more or less the same. people started with HA and when they were repeatedly debunked about their claim they started to use term immersion for semi fantasy state of what game presented.
bfv maps outside being goregouse weren’t even that better than enlisted.
open fields of nothing.
perhaps the urban were somewhat cool, but for the rest, eh. a matter of opinions.
the battlefield feeling can be cool, and somewhat realistic ish.
if it wasn’t for how players plays it.
otherwise, playing against ai is somewhat immersive enough ( outside when they spin and become ballerians for whatever reason )
well, as much i would like ais to be more deadlier, ( which, in the editor they somewhat are. not sure about parameters of the base ones are ) not many people would like it.
as you can see, you have the occasional joe complaining about cheaters when it’s just a bot and the game fails to highlight the bot that killed the player instead of the player owning them.
it wouldn’t be for the masses.
well, germany is the most populated faction
for one reason or another.
well, i personally don’t think enlisted used to be better then, or now.
but we have more content. so… for better or worse, i tend to incline on believing current version is better ( considering the problems that the merge somewhat solved )
i still believe it’s becasue of more players, and more and more people are starting to be more aggressive rather than " passive ".
if you take a look even now, german players tend to be more aggressive. next in line, there are the soviet ones, and allies are for the most part, clueless. japan? full of bots.
for certain.
now that i think about it, i believe it’s also in the devs interest to slow down xps.
so you have to grind and spend even more time on this game.
because what makes people get experience, are matches that last long.
matter of fact, out of any, confrontation is unironically one of the best for grind xp.
and one of the major reasons on why we don’t have large maps, or conquest don’t last more than 8 minutes on averange.
because the more time you spend, the more you earn.
at the same time, the same sweaty players aren’t gonna make it last longer.
they have placed to be lol ( that is not touching grass somehow )
br 1 & 2 are an exception though. generally match are slower.
it doesn’t really matter what people use.
if i start calling tanks as unicorns, doesn’t change the term of the words of one bit.
if anything, i’d be the one in the wrong from misusing words.
just because some idiot uses HA or immersion as a buzzword in different context, they are simply wrong.
and in no way shape or form the word should change just because someone claims that.
well i still dont know what immersion means in context of campaigns. everyone has different definitions of what immersion is for them. for some people immersion is half historical state of campaigns that game has presented them.
and how precisely does that change?
immersion of normandy or tunisia, is because of the map.
i doubt it’s anything else.
if you are looking for an historical immersion in normandy which doesn’t include soviets on the allied side that is duable in customs, or volkssturm weapons, that’s another discussions related to the historical immersion // technicality part.
it’s just a sub category of immersion which doesn’t change the premise of the word.
if anything, it’s more about historical accuracy immersion.
which has to do more about the authenticity rather than immersion.
you could complain about immersion ruined if there are pink weapons / tanks
that would be immersion breaking no matter if it appears on a panzer II, or a m4a1 abram.
I can only remember the Belgian Tank Field Map for that regards, which was bad but “lol just flank” would actually apply there.
Fair.
Well. At end, we need those fuckers because otherwise the MM would totally collapse.
ah… pazerstorm.
one of the few actually good map… if you were in a tank.
or using that futuristic proto sdkfz 251 with radioman/codriver machinegun and/or the 251 /22
the only thing we need from them, is to get rid of them.
that’s for sure.
but… yeah. i get the point.
maps are only part of the equation.
it wouldnt be the same if you used abrams on them and be expected to have ww2 immersion of normandy landings. that is why historical accuracy is important for immersion and that is why most people talk about HA immersion when mentioning immersion.
and that in itself is the problem that i am having cause HA part just doesnt pass the check for any ww2 immersion considering everything.
Now thats a German approach.
1 Like
i mean, immersive ww2 battles pretty much just like any other shooter out there, doesn’t necessarely have to be historical accurate.
it’s just set ranges of what is acceptable and not.
which it then escalates on subjectivity about wheter one thing is accurate, or not.
but the premise of the immersion still stands.
doesn’t change of one bit.
on that, you are somewhat true.
i doubt even the 100% of hardcore experience could be considered immersive enough.
which can be argued as subjective matter.
but what in the end, you can’t really complain about enlisted not being immersive.
as it is somewhat immersive from technicalities.
if you want to find needles in the hay and point out many other things, that does not matters anymore about immersion.
but historical immersion.
which it’s different.
only a german deals in absolutes…
for any moderator quick on the trigger, it’s a joke.
1 Like
on contrary. immersive ww2 battle should be mostly historically accurate. otherwise it is just shooter with ww2 flavor, which enlisted mostly is and like most other shooters are.
and like i said it is not immersion in ww2 battle, but immersion in whatever semi historical fantasy people have of what they think ww2 should look like. i mean people are having problem with KT in stalingrad (which they should have a problem with), but are at the same time equipping full squads of fg42, mkb or fedorovs in all (previous) campaigns.