'DESTRUCTION' mode is just worse invasion

Suggestions
1

As in the title, while its a good thing to add some variety to gamemodes, ‘destruction’ is just implemented in the worst way possible.

Firstly, the mechanics of planting bombs is just not rewarding in any way. Enlisted is a SQUAD game, where YOU are a leader of a group of bots and still YOU HAVE TO PERSONALLY PRESS F FOR 30 SECONDS to plant the bomb and on top of that you cannot do anything else in that time - during a heated battle. I love playing the objective, but I am not doing that for a mere 50 score points!!! That’s less than killing 2 enemies. I always wait for someone else to do it, even if I’m literally standing alone on the point I’m still not going to do that. In ‘invasion’, fighting near capture points is rewarding as hell - extra 15 score for EVERY kill is great. Also, that IS the objective, to kill every enemy on a capture point. Its simple, but effective and fun. ‘Destruction’ however rewards you for just standing and fighting near radios, not destroing them.

Secondly, the objective of ‘destruction’ is just idiotic. Every soldiers with grenade pouches can have enough explosives to blow up 3 tanks. You can also drop 500kg bombs anytime you want, but THE ONLY WAY to destroy a radio is in the scripted way. I get it, it’s only a game, but for some, those details are immersion killers. Also it cannot be fix easly becouse of ballancing issues. Nothing wrong with invasion or conquest in that matter, fighting for or defending strategic positions was always crucial in military operations.

And lastly, the Devs had spend a lot of time and effort to make these beautiful hand-crafted maps. On ‘Al Har’ map (not sure of the name tho) ‘destruction’ mode fully replaced ‘invasion’ as attacker for allies. Destruction takes 3/5 lenght of map while Invasion uses all of it. You can easly see how well structured experiance is invasion on that map. Starting with small village buildings and farmlands, climbing up the hill, finally ending with a conquest of a walled palace. Destruction however ends without any climax, you just blow up some random boxes in two buildings. Thats it.

I’m happy that you are trying to make Enlisted more interesting. Also not gonna say that destruction is a step backwards, it’s a step… somwhere else. For now it bare-boned and doesnt have its own identity. Its only a testing stage, but if it stays for longer It should use its own map layouts…

…OR destruction could be part of side quests for invasion, much better than destroying baloons where defenders cant do anything to counter it.

Its always better to have one massive gamemode with lots of possibilites, than many different smaller ones, that lack any interesting mechanics. That thing doomed Modern warfare 2 - different queues for 10 gamemodes, after a year everyone played ‘conquest’ and ‘search and destroy’ (SaD was one of best shooter gamemodes ever created - it was high risk, high reward, extremly engaging and with every round you knew better your enemies, you could try to counter their play or suprise them with different playstyle or loadout, it was more like chess - always loved that one becouse its was different experiance than what any other FPS offered)

6 Likes
2

Only logical problem I see with it is open-air objectives.

Those you can easily deny arming or defusing the bomb just by dropping arty or a mortar directly on the 1 point the enemy must be standing on.

However, the phenomenon that makes absolutely no sense is why every time without fail when there’s 2 objectives, 90% of the defenders always ignore the same one.

3

Destruction just seems to be a clone of the battlefield rush game mode i just just wish that some interesting unique game modes would be added to enlisted at some point.

4

not a huge fan of the mode.

lacks something. donno what.

5

nah, my only problem with destruction mode is that the axis didn’t seem to be attacker enough. always defender…all day long

6

Not a fan of this also. I find myself deserting this mode as quickly as possible.
Oddly enough, Conquest is my favourite ???

Every time I hear that bell tho, it just reminds me of this guy…

1 Like
7

There may be nothing wrong conceptually with conquest, but there’s a lot wrong with invasion. 1) Why are only attackers’ reinforcements limited? 2) Why do defenders instantly retreat once the point is captured when they have unlimited forces?

The problem with №1 goes beyond immersion. The very ability to function for that mode hinges entirely on the presumption that attackers are actually going to attack and throw their lives away. Even when they see there’s no chance. Even when they are completely boxed in and cut off. What happens when for whatever reason attackers just sit back and farm points? The game becomes disgustingly unsatisfying to both sides and it drags on forever.

1 Like
8

I’m back to shilling for the game mode Gaijin only ever implemented in War Thunder naval mode, which is like a 2-way invasion where each team can push the other back, and whoever pushes all the way wins.

9

Not quite, that’s sort of a 2-way invasion since each team has its own conquest route, and they are also at the opposite sides of the map.

10

It’s not a bad game mode at all on paper. It resemble assault. But as the devs stated, the mode is in a testing phase, so it’s safe to assume it will change A LOT as time goes by.

Best we can do is try it and report what we find, like and dislike, here. Pretty much like this thread (hopefully devs see them).

11

That’s literally what I wrote

12

Yeah, I wanted to point out the part about 2 different conquest paths, but unfortunately I’m also blind.