It take way too long for a mortar shell to travel from your barrel to the ground, plus most of the time you may be as well blasting empty field if you don’t have cooperative team that marks the enemies. That’s why nobody wants to play them unless enemies are storming obvious open field point.
1 Like
Of course there is, because the number of assaulters squads is limited, so we have a vacancy.Or this restriction itself is to encourage players to use different kinds of squads. It seems that there is no problem to mention these special squads.
This restriction is also the result of some people’s complaints, and if we think about what people will complain about later, it seems no problem.
Of course, there are some personal problems. They restricted game style, so I had to think of other ways.
And apparently it’s very needed. At least judging by how many ppl complain about not being able to spam assaulters any more.
Muh diversity
1 Like
Snipers, mortars, engineers, communications soldiers, camping in a variety of ways,now people will notice this.Who will suffer? I don’t think it’s a camper.
Because ppl who run exclusively assaulters will switch to snipers suddenly? Yeah, sure.
2 Likes
Who knows, but isn’t that diversity?Interesting.
Maybe don’t drink more cafeine today, ok?
2 Likes
You too, it’s time to rest.
1 Like
Nice bait.
Now let’s talk a bit. The whole point, the transparency of the company’s game policy towards players, and the making of bad decisions in the past led to such a situation.
Now, the situation is that the balcony of the house is being repaired, but the foundation of the house is collapsing.
If something is “banned” in the game, it already shows a bad spice for the entire game-play and flow. You are restricting the players, with your poor decisions with all the merge politics in the first place. Dude, I paid money for some of their promises in the past, why am I being penalized now when the fun factor is taken away from me?
The inability to do something as controversial as merge already is, in a constructive and balanced way is not the fault of the players, and most players have backed the mechanics with real money and invested in building certain squads that now make the game fun. Sorry but Enlisted is not such a serious and deep game that we should be punished like this.
Lol that was your first mistake, falling for the micotransaction-scheme. At some point in your life, you’ll learn some very valuable life-lessons (in the context of gaming and your wallet).
And one of the lessons is that gaming companies are notorious for bait-and-switching. So whenever a gaming company “Makes a promise” , it’s a good idea to swallow a big grain of salt.
The Bottom Line is Money, and companies will do WHATEVER it takes to farm as much cash from the crop (the players) as possible. Even if it means making false promises.
3 Likes
Gonna have a bunch of baby whales running around here, soon 
3 Likes
Nobody does that (except maybe EA, Blizzard, and Activision who can afford to screw players directly, but continue to make millions) if they want to save their game, plus Gaijin is a small enough player in the market. Such decisions are a death sentence in the long term. Good luck thinking differently.
I only ever use one of any squad in my lineup because it’s gives me three distinct roles and shakes up gameplay
1 Like
True, a company will do everything it can to avoid bankruptcy. People just want to keep their jobs while investors want…
That enough conspiracy theory for today.
All videogames have a life-cycle that eventually come to an end.
All videogames have a finite player-base, and the lifespan of a game is quickly determined by how much money it can generate from the potential customers-base.
Within the context of a lifespan, after a game reaches it’s “peak”, and the profits begin to shrink… That’s when the owners of the business begin allocating more-and-more of their resources towards the development of new projects.
(And eventually, when the game becomes more expensive than what it’s producing financially, the plug gets pulled, and everybody who spent money on digital pixels/premium items… they get the short end of the stick.)
Meanwhile, we get a NEW GAME! And this time it’s Vietnam era, or Cold-War era, or some futuristic fantasy war (with high-tech gadgets).
However, whatever gets released… it’s probably a refined and upgraded copy of the previous title. (with a lot of copy and pasting, along the way).
Companies spend a tremendous amount of time developing/coding improvements towards the game-engines/software/hardware involved, of which they want to showcase all these improvements via new titles that can yield higher profit margins.
The question I have for you is: Do you believe Enlisted has reached it’s peak? And what do you believe will happen after the merge?
Imo enlisted once it reach the saruration of ww2 contenent it immediately pass towards the ww1 or cold war era, maybe it happen already from the next year apart from map there is nothing more to add and whatever new class come in future can be implemented in both ww1/cold war and ww2 withaut issue
1 Like
Sounds good on paper, but in order to have WW1 and Cold War in the same game, it would require a HUGE UPGRADE in map variety (all of which would need to cater towards the era and weapons being used).
And then they would have to split the “campaigns” again, in which players would only be wanting to play the ERA of their own preference. (which would not make any sense, considering The Merge is removing campaigns)
And then you’d have BR and tiers for weapons/vehicles of each era/nation…
All of that sounds very complex for a single game to accomplish (without having a tremendous amount of bugs).
As a tactical/support player, it is something I hate, my usual squads are the radio squad, medics in the campaigns that can be used, engineers, mortars or machine guns to set up various structures, that continuous spam of flamethrowers and stormtroopers is very exhausting, fortunately in my group of friends we have established our roles: I provide tactical support, I have a sniper expert, the vehicle nut, Don Assault and the versatile one, who uses a little bit of everything but not everyone have a squad of friends like this, so it’s a bit sad
But relying on such logic, we can then not play any games at all. The point is not to talk here about the fundamental global laws of the computer game market, but to talk specifically about Enlisted and its problems.
And by the way, everything is not always about money. You can have whatever monetization model you want, but if you care about the game you are creating and how you represent it, you will create a sustainable relationship with your community, and you will only benefit from this and people will buy your services. Games like Red Day show that in the current game market, you can get games that were made with the developers’ enjoyment and dedication first. Because Rockstar understands that all the effort will pay off in monetary terms, and the players will have a ton of fun and everyone will be happy. So the point is not to lie to your community, and know for yourself what kind of game you are creating.
I’m not a “cheap” player who insists on doing everything “for free”. If I see that the game is moving forward, and the developers consider the players, their potential customers, I support them with my money. And that’s what every player has to do. And I have every right to demand changes.
The most realistic scenario is that players who joined Enlisted during the Alpha and Beta testing period and came here for WW2 realistic, stylistic immersion will likely leave the game - but for people who prioritize e-sport, competitive, battle royal type of game-play and for whom the genre, or style is not absolutely important will be absolutely fine as far as merge is concerned, and it will make up the majority of players in the future.
Of course, from a technical point of view, people will play with people more often, but doesn’t it seem pathetic when a merge is needed only because players play less against bots, when this was one of the essences represented by this game and when Ai squad based mechanics more or less received criticism during the development stage of the game? Now we have consequences.
But I’ll ask you too - are you here because you like Enlisted? Or, you don’t care about the future of this game at all, and you just go to forum discussions? Are you for, or against merge politics? I want to understand your point towards the Enlisted future.
3 Likes
If they feel up for the challenge, I’m sure there’s a lot of people who’d like to play that type of game. However, the only way they can achieve such an accomplishment is by delivering quality results (each step of the way).
If they make too many mistakes in the process, and drive-off too many people who leave bad reviews of the game… then the house of cards will likely crash, entirely from how expensive such a game would be to manage and maintain.
The more moving parts that are added to the machine, the easier it is to lose control.
It would be much easier to have two separate games, with two separate developer teams, each focused on creating the BEST QUALITY game that they can.
For example: Have one team manage WW2 era only, in which this team is responsible for creating new historical maps/battlefields, historical uniforms, historical weapons, vehicles, and aircraft, etc.
And have your entire online-gameplayfocused on WW2 objetive-themed missions for players to enjoy (without the pressure or distractions of being tossed around in different ERAS and Timeframes, facing fantasy scenarios that have nothing to do with the WW2 FPS experience that they originally came for.
Second development team: Their job is to develop, manage, and maintain a completely separate game, which might have an identical/similar/or different structure as the WW2 game. Either way, this team’s job is to develop maps, battlefields, game-modes, weapons, soldiers, uniforms, vehicles, aircraft, that are all specifically catered towards THIS ERA.
Of which, players who join the game… will ONLY be playing matches that are from ____________ (insert Era).
By having the two completely separated from each other, each development team has the freedom to explore different mechanics/implementations, without worrying about fucking up the experience for all the WW2 players (and vice versa).
And then you can have the best of both world, by having game-currency that is universal amongst ALL of Darkflows games that are related. Considering our game-accounts are synchronized with DF’s online-servers, it would be cool to earn credits/currency from one game, and then have the freedom to explore their other games with the universal currency that’s been earned from playing any of their products.
1 Like