Are you Pro Merge, Anti-Merge, or Neutral? (Let's review)

Mess Room
127

again, it can.

those examples are more of a subjectivity thing.

immersion is not about feelings.

not at all

but by collective experiences which defines a criteria

an immersive thing is, looks realistic, looks real, function for the majority similar to the real life counter part or what have you.

i do not define, nor you do what is immersion.

immersion remains a base " list " of components and features that the game has.

because you can see it even if you do not have prior experience, and can actually tell ( in the example of tunisia and normandy ).

all to say, and i would like to remind that the point bringed, wasn’t about what immersion is, but to say that immersion is pretty much and very different from historical immersion of pure accuracy.

what the majority of those HA complainers use as a buzzword and counter argument.

128

i think you are mixing immersion with realism.

immersion about making people feel, believe and experience things like they were somewhere else. realism is only one of the tools on how to make immersion happen.

so immersion is highly subjective depending on what the game can make you feel and believe.

e.g. super realistic abrams inside ww2 game will not be immersive for people who know anything about ww2.

129

the whole HA term got totally debunked for the HA purists and got completely atomized with a hundred examples, so they had to find a new term to define their “needs” on the game.

the term they came out is “immersion”, cause that is more on the subjective side and easier to deflect attacks. they gone from “muh historical accuracy” to “muh immersion”, and soon when they realize they took the wrong term for their needs, they will choose another, like “muh time-proper related equipment”, “muh historical approach”, or “muh accurate representation”.

i can totally understand it, everyone have different needs. i just want to have fun, some just want to dress their soldiers with exact copies of uniforms up to the button numbers of the coat, some want completely balanced matches, some dont give a damn about balance and just want to kill pixelated blokes, some want more bots, some less, some better bots, some complain bots are too good.

different strokes, for different folks.

2 Likes
130

which it’s funny because i’m one, and used to be a stronger advocate for ha.

enlisted simply won’t offer that in the base game it offers something somewhat in the middle.

but i simply switched to create the perfect ha immersion in the most accurate way through mods.
where those should be ( even though i have issues with how customs function )

and as i did, anyone else could have.
yet not many did of the same who complains ( heck, literally 2 / 3 members in the modding scene who weren’t even strong advocate for those ).

that’s what bothers.

everyone so ready with the swords but not so much on doing the first step or actually even make something remotely close to what they want / advert for.

that was the main point.

and no usage of " immersion " can save you for what you actively want.

even funnier the same individuals have all different opinions of what HA even is.

still.
as it goes for immersion and historical immersion, those are two sperated thing.
which enlisted only offers the first over the latter. ( as it should. no ha game can and will survive for a long time )

131

its extremely simple.

Historical “ACCURACY” in this game has a hidden dispersion value. cause why not?

P.S.: i advise anyone to haste to research and unlock anything you have left in german army, as soon as the soviet paras land i fear this is gonna become a clusterf00k of biblical proportions.

2 Likes
132

i am for HA, but it is impossible to create it in multiplayer ww2 game, even more so in one with combined arms. not to mention one with campaigns.

basic premise of any multiplayer game is balance and ww2 with its wide array of weaponry and HA squad setups just cant be balanced. and that is why i agree with your idea that HA is only possible in PvE.

1 Like
133

By constantly adding new content into the game (for free), then by default, you’re probably going to drive people’s interesting, into wanting to play the game.
More maps (Historical battlefields that get incorporated into each campaign) + better game modes + more variety = more fun = more players across the board.

And when people are having fun, they will be more inclined to spend their money, which in turn, feeds the developers.

134

I remember the Original Battlefield 1942, and there were matches like “Wake Island”, where the entire game-mode is NOTHING but air-to-air combat, where player spawns on an aircraft carrier, and deploys from their plane from the deck. The next thing you know, the entire map is filled with players engaging in dog-fighting.
Then there was Battle of the Bulge, which had a surplus of tanks that could be used (as opposed to mostly infantry).

Meaning: Enlisted needs to deviate from it’s current game modes, and start getting creative in a way that appeals to the players. Why the fuck does conquest still exist (in it’s current format), when the majority of players strongly dislike this gamemode?

Where is the creativity and innovation?
When a company developes a game AROUND a monitized system, then they have essentially handicapped their own ability to make an AMAZING product.

1 Like
135

That doesnt work with historical accuracy.
Moscow Axis is already far-fetched without the F2 and the Mkbs considered. Also, level system is hostile to adding new stuff unless you want people grinding level 66 to get a bike squad.

SG maps can be historically whatever but still most people wouldnt notice it with the Tiger 2 driving around.

Almost all of those we have,are rubbish or require further work. Game doesnt need more modes.

We had like 40 guns per campaign plus premium and events, but it always come down to 10 same stuff getting spammed.
Campaigns are hostile for variety because people just spammed high tier stuff and kept facing low tier stuff/ newbies.

No one wants to play air-to-air with shitty DF air gameplay and if people want it, they should pay War Thunder, which is way better than any theoretical air-to-air battle in Enlisted.

Because whats more fun than Tigers and Jumbos camping in greyzones?

Merge is apparently too much even though it gives more variety than the campaign system allowed in the past 3 years.

136

Well that’s the problem… it’s appears you only see things as black & white.
Who ever said it was mandatory to keep the progression/leveling system at such an extreme value (per level)? Why does a player need to play 50+ matches, just to progress ONE level in the campaign?

They could have simply done an overhaul on the campaign-progression system, and reduced the required xp by at least 50%. Which would enable further flexibility with adding new content for any given faction/campaign.

Tiger II’s where they don’t belong is a foundational error, on the developers end. The only reason why we are seeing Tiger II in SG, is because of poor decision making/implementation.

Agreed. It would have been better to have spent this LAST YEAR, and all the resources that were exhausted (on the merge), towards the further development of better game-modes, better A.I., and better content for the playerbase to enjoy.

I never said to incorporate an endless supply of guns. The word “variety” is pretty broad, which gives people the flexibility to introduce new ideas/better ideas into the game, that can improve it’s quality.

Sure, with the current system, absolutely. But if you had modders like @tommyZZM and others, I’m sure they could get creative and make this type of game mode, fun for enlisted players.
Matches wouldn’t necessarily need to be air-to-air (only), but there could also be ground operations on the small islands (where players can fight for control overl AA-defensive-emplacements).
This type of game mode would need to be on a larger-scaled map.

Well if the developers manipulated the UI, and how certiain modes are loaded-up (for the players), a mode that is primarily focused around vehicles/tanks, you could entirely eliminate the option for players to spawn inside of a vehicle. But rather have a “base camp” (where everybody spawns), and from this camp, would be a wide variety of tanks and vehicles for the players to choose (and use).

Nobody would be required to use a vehicle, and could simply leave the base-spawn, on-foot.

It’s not the merge itself that’s the problem, it’s the flaws within it. Where for example, you have new players who are only using tier I and tier II equipment, who are being matched in tier V.
Or another example, of 10 vs 15.
And another example, due to how complex the main menu, soldier loadouts, equipment progression, etc…
Do you sincerely believe a new player is going to spend ALL THAT TIME trying to learn each-and-every mechanic, while simultaneously being forced to play A LOT of matches, before they’ll ever acquire enough currency to use “the fun stuff”?

137

I am going to quit playing Enlisted. It is no fun anymore after the merge.
After playing a couple of days I find.

  • I always get the same maps
  • It is a drag managing the squads
  • It is still very imbalanced. Balance has not improved. Mostly you get steamrolled or you steamroll the other faction.
  • Germans are kind of OP. The win rate for them is about 80-90 % in my experience.
  • Playing the Japanese is mostly a clear lose.
  • The BR system does not really work. OP weapons and OP vehicles from later war years dominate. OK you ned skill too. But due to the strong imbalancing the effect is stronger.

Guess I will get back to playing BF 4.

If you like the merge I wish you fun in the game. I dont get any fun out of it anymore after the merge.

2 Likes
138

I haven’t played more than like 6 matches, since they updated the game. It took me like an hour to figure out how to get my three infantry squads chosen, and then getting their perks/gear allocated accordingly. It was super confusing for awhile, and I haven’t given it a second chance (since then).
I was definitely bummed out that I can’t soley play in Stalingrad anymore, because I was only like four matches away from unlocking level 24 (and getting the German version of the PPSH).

But now we are getting paratroopers falling from the sky, in stalingrad… So i guess it was cool to merge airborne spamming, within urban warfare (in Stalingrad and Berlin). Checks out lol.

I can;t even comprehend how the developers sincerely believe BRAND NEW players are going going to pick up this game, and waste a tremendous amount of time trying to figure out/and understand the progression system, and how unlock their gear. GOOD LUCK.

2 Likes
139

DF need to just admit they don’t know what they’re doing and they should probably listen to some of their community like Tommy for example

2 Likes
140

pro merge
man what a botched release.

1 Like
141

You know what they say, ego and pride are both sins.
When people are unwilling to admit their own mistakes, and refuse to ask for help from those who are able, everybody suffers and nobody wins. (Things just fall apart, and nobody wants to take the heat).

Rather than recruiting talented people, who can see the bigger pictures, we have decision-makers who lack the foresight to deliver a product that the consumers are asking for.

Greed is never an attractive quality (not in people, nor a business’s enterprise).

142

I wish I had more hearts but there’s a limit :orange_heart:

1 Like
143

I wasn’t talking about the player, but the developer. They could put in new fronts as a test run if they had a rotational system. If enough people like it then it could become a permanent fixture down the road

You misunderstood, not saying you wouldn’t be able to pick what guns you want to use, I’m talking a point system for the player. Each gun would use up x points. If you run out of points then the rest of your soldiers get equipped with bolt actions. Point being you wouldn’t be able to equip every soldier in your squads with all tier 5 guns. you could take a few really good guns, several mid guns, and several low guns.

1 Like
144

I actually think this point system for equipping guns could be really good for the health of end game. It would force a good variety of weapons in battle and make it much more interesting then everyone spamming the same stuff over and over. I know most people don’t like how it is now. Really don’t think this is a bad solution

2 Likes
145

I would argue most people who play are after some level of immersion or they would be playing a different game. I think most players are adults who have a very big interest in ww2 and pick they main faction accordingly. Me, i want to be storming the beach of normandy with a tommy gun.

For the 100th time. Enlisted was developed for the casual player and fit in a very unique place for gaming experience. The A.I. offered an immersive experience of a large battle taking place while limiting the numbers of real players and being a relatively small battlefield. For me it had all the right elements and perfect balance of fun, immersion, accuracy, tactical choices

1 Like
146

Indeed.
The AI is probably the shittiest AI I have seen including Bethesda AI. Very unique.

Its also really immersive to see bots run straight into tank fire because thats what happens in real warfare too.

giphy (1)

Players are that ultimately use it or rather who wont use it.
People didnt want to play Tunisia otherwise they obviously would have played Tunisia more.

Itd still restricting but less.
People want to use guns they unlocked, premiums they unlocked etc. and wouldnt be pleased that they can bring like one T-34 and five PPSh to a battle.