I am one of many that was watching slow development of Enlisted since its announcement in 2016, it is gonna be almost a decade.
Back in late 2020 when Gaijin announced Closed Beta testing that you could get yourself into by purchasing Soviet/German bundle was honestly peak of Enlisted. Developers were fully aware about historical accuracy and didn’t put tanks or planes, or even weapons into specific theatres when they weren’t even invented by then. Progress was simple and linear and it all made sense. After they decided to merge all campaigns into one they did horrible mess, not just by historical accuracy with the fact you can drive Tiger II at outkirts of Moscow in 1941 or have experimental Soviet assault rifles from 1945, but also they sucked the soul out of progression, everything now feels like extreme pay to win and the progress became horribly unorganised, average new player is not gonna love learning all that. Now I can’t even pick what period of war I want to play which was honestly best feature in the game. For example I personally like early stages of the war; Stalingrad, Moscow and etc. Now all I can do is pray that game algorithm is gonna throw me into one of specific periods of war that I like.
In short, I feel like the best days of Enlisted are past us and now this game is left to its fate unless developers are gonna do something about it.
The old campaign system was simply not possible in the long run, too many campaigns divided the player base too much creating constant balance issues.
The most famous of all are Tunisia which was effectively unplayable as Axis, nowdays the game is historically much less accurate but is more balanced, teams are filled with real players and equipment gap is much smaller.
Its a good thing that victory farmers can on longer bully new players with tanks they can’t even put a dent on. It’s been a year since merge and the game still has 99 problems but it’s slowly developing and the player base seems to grow even if only at snail pace.
This “preferred maps system” will provide players more freedom over what region they wish to play in, giving a lot of similar vibes to the old campaign system - developers are aware that this was a big sticking point as to why some didn’t like the “merge” update. This has become likely due to the growth of the game and playerbase recently.
As for what precisely it will contain - we will see hopefully soon™!
Thank you very much.
“Map filter” exceeded my expectations.
I thought it would be in a later version.
Will we enjoy ““Global Chat”” and “Map Filter” together! ?
Oh my god, it’s really wonderful.
If the simple “Guild” will also come with it. Then this Christmas & New Year & Orthodox Christmas will be the most wonderful holidays.
Of course, there are many wonderful activities and great event waiting for us.
As there are no serious bugs.
great hug
Prior to the merge, I was stating that instead of combining tech trees, we should have instead made weapon transfers universal.
For example, if you unlocked the M1 Garand in Normandy, then it shall be available for purchase and upgrade in Tunisia and the Pacific.
Instead we got a lazy merging that proved to be an overcorrection and now we see Volkssturm squads in Tunisia and Australian Z force raiders in Normandy.
I have been playing Enlisted for 2 years and I have to say the game is in the best state it has been right now. The merge was needed and the game has improved vastly in all respects and I have not noticed any performance drops, despite improving the graphical fidelity quite a bit. I like that I can play Enlisted with a good frame rate with my old computer and it looks very good. The last few maps for Battle of the Bulge and Rzhev were very good maps and Burma looks quite promising.
We need the campaigns back, but not in a way that splits the population. Call them fronts or battles or whatever.
Keep the tech tree, have a shared inventory. Merge all faction XP into same pool
Each battle/front should be associated with a single map (you know how same map has multiple gamemodes/objective layouts)
Each battle/front has a firm date and has its own list of available weapons and vehicles. No more sand colored pizza de panzers trudging through Eastern Front’s snow. No more time travellers. Default soldier models/voices should match the most important army of said battle.
Each battle/front has its own squad lineup you make once you unlock it - so you could have different lineups for more open maps vs more urban ones
You cannot queue for only one side of a battle - sides are assigned by matchmaker, allowing for some player set exclusions (perhaps ability to queue only for specific BR range or vetoing few of the battles). XP earned is universal anyway. Ideally the system would let you queue for every BR at the same time on top of every battle/front
There should be more battles than there used to be campaigns - for example, moscow could have:
absolute low tier with br1-ish small arms, pz2c/early pz3 fighting against t60/t26/bt7, biplanes
stuff around p4e/t28/br2 small arms
Br3 small arms p4f2/t34-76
Tunisia could be similar
Armored cars, low tier italian stuff vs appropriate mix of usa/briish stuff (i don’t actually know that fronts history all that well and its 4am and im on my phone lemme be)
Midrange italian stuff, some german stuff
Heavier german stuff vs heavier allied stuff
Etc etc
Mechanics of unlocking more battles is the most difficult (for me) part of this idea. Perhaps instead of tiers weapons in the TT could be grouped by battles?
The upsides:
Better match quality (provided the matchmaker would be improved from just blindly filling team 1 then filling team 2 later and was smart enough to really randomise the battles you got)
Some semblance of historical accuracy would be restored (obviously gameplay concessions need to be made, no one wants historically accurate KV-1s fighting Pz3s)
Minor factions become fully viable
Higher flexibility in adding frontlines/battles - hell, once the system is in place even adding something like Dunkirk or invasion of Poland or France or whatever would not be a big deal. Make a map, add the items needed and make the battle equipment eligibility table and it just slots into place without breaking anything else
Pressure to power creep should be lessened - there would be a billion weapons and vehicles that could be added to fill out each battle and thats years of big updates. Just backfilling Briish or Italian gear…
Given the customisation is improved - people would probably pay for nationality/voices change to for example have Canadians on D-day
Life is simple - I’d just click play and let RNGsus take the wheel while being endlessly stimulated by a kaleidoscope of gear and locations
Downsides:
Effort
Single faction spammers would be upsetti I guess
For older players having to make a ton of lineups would probably give them carpal tunnel lol
Without backfilling some of the battle equipment lists would probably be pretty sparse
I don’t really care about the merger.
But the current gameplay is too biased towards selfish and extreme cognitive impairment patients and low-IQ idiots who have no ability to think.
Diversity content leading to war is increasingly missing or unreasonably weakened
When this game doesn’t even have the shadow of war, it’s just a planter robot for cognitively disabled people and a farm for idiots.
CBT era, I know how you feel.
The game was slower than now and the players and weapons were not as strong, so there was a good old casual FPS feel to it.
This idea is so horrible it makes the campaigns look good by comparison.
This already makes your idea impractiable.
Horrible balance aside, how should it work if people have stuff that doesnt work together? Would it be forced? Then you have campaigns again.
Puh Bold claim, not gonna lie.
Very important if the game ads include Jumbos driving through French beaches.
Not really since nothing would change except gear.
Again, bold claim.
Yeah Because everyone would go back to queue Axis Berlin and Allies Moscow so there is no Faction B to complain about anymore.
Ofc unless we also adapt horrible forced faction MM concept but then I dont think we would have player numbers required for a MM to work to begin with.
And you need to screw game for that?
Horrible idea for MM.
Lol
Why? Your idea would be loved by them unless you stay with forced faction MM.
Are you on drugs?
Why do we even have goddamn factions then at this point and a TT?
Lol
Because each battle would have it’s own set of equipment you could unlock and use? And you could set up your own lineup for each side however you wanted?
And TT means you shouldn’t have to grind out same weapon unlock over and over
How could you even have stuff that “doesn’t work together”? For each battle you have two lineups, one for each side. The lineups can only use weapons available in that time period and on that front (obviously with concessions for balance)
Yeah, the idea is Normandy landing would get its own battle and the gear availability there would be restricted to only period correct (ish) stuff. So no Jumbos probably. On the other hand KT would also have to go, unless you’d want to fight KV-1s with short cannon P4s?
Point is…you couldn’t do that anymore. You’d only be able to queue for both side of each battle and the battle vetos should be limited. You’d be queueing for multiple battles at the same time. (Any you’ve unlocked minus few vetoes)
That’s how balance improves. Once matchmaker doesn’t have to deal with one faction being stacked to high heaven getting reasonably even teams on both sides would be way easier
Imagine if Battliefield let players make matches where its 60vs40 regularly
Higher flexibility is a bold claim? Adding something like Finnish vs USSR war is just a case of adding the map and missing gear. You don’t have to worry about splitting the population too much - if there is enough players with the campaign unlocked…grab 20 of them, make sensible teams and off they go. If not? There are other battles they were queueing for anyway. Wanna add more british gear? Add it to the tech tree and to appropriate battle rosters, let people research it and use it however they want.
