Um, what? How is this an issue. It’s the game design. It’s not a “team deathmatch” scenario. If you cap, you win. If you don’t, you lose.
yeah it’s intentional game design, really small objectives perfect for full auto squads, surprisingly haven’t we any low RoF premiums, have we? oh the coincidence. Game design is set up to make money not to be played fairly
with design like this the best strategy is to rush the point with assaulter squads which is exactly what’s wrong with it
i like how hll managed to pull this off, you have stronghold which is just like objective in enlisted but additionally you get to control the area around it, so every other non-assaulter class has its place to help the team, everyone has its place, meanwhile in enlisted if you’re wielding low rof weapon you’re bassicly screwd, you’re either forced to push with bolt or stay away and contribute nothing, bcs killing outside objectives isn’t viable since you can spawn literally street away from objectives anyway
tldr i just expect more from this game rather than press W and shoot around
2 Likes
Again, it wouldn’t be so much of an issue if actual fortifications were able to be put into place. If you look at the map design from a fundamental level, over 80% of the objectives would be a lot more fair if fortifications were able to be effectively used. Full auto squads would still be used but their effectiveness would drop significantly due to the approach. The approach is SUPPOSED to be the contested area, before the actual objective. It’s the medium range in which semi-autos and even bolties have their place. However, due to how quickly the attackers advance, there is no time to prep this area adequately to make the approach difficult. Therefore leading to nothing but CQB fights.
This is why I push so hard for fortifications.
We have bad full auto premium squad, but still good for join the spam
I’m sat here bewildered that people are so upset by full autos. Complaining that assaulters need to be restricted, so then we arrive at the point of what about things like the AVS? You can use it in semi-auto but fire very quickly, are we going to restrict semi-auto guns for balance? What about guns like the FG42? It’s a rifle, but it has full auto, are we going to restrict that too?
What it seems like is people whining they can’t aim properly, and wanting the skill ceiling to be brought to the skill floor, which will kill any notion of a competitive FPS? How would they advertise a bot shooting simulator where you can’t even bring the famous full auto guns like the MP40 or Thompson into a game because some people dislike going close quarters with some of the best CQB guns in the game… Blows my mind…
it seems that the way out for you is simply to insult people with whom you disagree or do not understand.
we don’t mind full auto, but we just think it’s too much at the moment, like the whole game resolves around it whether you have lot of assaulters or not. Of course too much assaulters will cause other soldier types to perform worse, it’s not skill issue, it’s literally the purpose of these weapons.
i already said what this game could do against all of this and what i mean specifically. All this makes gameplay dull in my experience, i expect something more. It’s not even about full auto at this point, it’s about the shallow design of the game that lets you abuse it.
summing up someone said back in the CBT fights were slower, more brutal, and over all more immersive due to no end game weapons spam, and it perfectly reflect what i am striving for.
2 Likes
So shoot them with your battle rifles like the dogs they are, as they helplessly spray a hail of bullets around you
To be honest some things are a bit off, the AA-gun-in-the-corridor was just plain stupid and I’ve recently seen some shitters who do nothing but bring the biggest squads they can, give them all large grenade pouches and just throw phosphorus all day. That is pretty cancerous for basically everyone. They get massive teamkills but you simply cannot defend the cap zone, because IT IS LITERALLY ON FIRE THAT PHASES THROUGH SOLID WALLS
1 Like
Indeed, the player’s preference for automatic weapons is not the problem; the problem is that the game design encourages the player to engage large numbers of enemies at extremely close range in order to gain control of the area. In this case, what else can the player use other than SMGs and ARs?
On immersion:
Indeed, only being able to use 4 submachine guns in a squad ruins the immersion for me, I love playing as shock troops so please give me 7 x SMG and 2 x LMG
do not forget these platoons didn’t fight at 200x200m…
i wouldn’t mind this type of squads if play ground were x times larger, as submachingun squads would be really good at what they ment to be - close range, problem is when the whole game is close range 
this is perfectly visible in lone fighters for example, fights tend to be at larger scale, because it’s more difficult to advance without accompany of bots, thus there’s more usage of rifles and the moment you choose to bring assaulter this means you’re really have an opportunity to go full close range
something that would fix game design is rally point distance standarization, 60-70+ m away from objectives and assaulter squads already would be more well tuned. Right now you can spawn assaulter squad often 40m from objective, so you’re avoiding all the threat from distant fire… consequently there’s no downside for assaulters, and i love rock paper scissors concept
2 Likes
Essentially stalingrad Engineer squads
I’ve changed my mind about desertion punishment
And It’s because the game will never actually fix balance and the issues that create quitting
therefore quitting is the only solution
And this incoming BR system change is only going to create more reasons to quit matches, so forget about reducing desertion
the design of the game keeps moving in a direction to create more desertion and not reduce it, so the discussion is pointless
1 Like