Or when we get something like the T20E1 in US tech tree.
I was initially proposing a loose BR system with SBMM like 45 days ago…
A BR system with “best weapon = your BR” can’t work with SBMM, you will end up segregating players in different tiers.
So, unless we scrap the whole BR system to go with SBMM. But, since we went the BR route, we need ti fix the equpment disparity between TEAMS and let skill dictate the match.
With proper weapon balsnce this will leave SKILL as the only major variable affecting the outcome of battles.
Bots in general need work… But better to put a person like that “godly” enemy in your team as well.
Bot farming shouldnt be a thing.
long queue times can incentivise reople to stop spamming the OP stuff.
Wasn’t that a thing??
In general, popups in game for player feedback (especially with a list of answers to just click one) is the best way to get eccurate feedback from the entire playerbase. Sadly, this is the most underused way of gathering feedback in gaming history…
Map selection is really problematic. They tried to “keep it historical” while ditching every other historical aspect of the game and now we are stuck without any option to pick maps to play in…
The matchmaker is the most broken thing right now, followed by weapon balance and maps.
That is what “best equpped weapon = your BR” does to a game like this…
I tried to warn people, to propose something different, but nothing came out of it…
Honestly? I’d rather just…not.
I’m not in need of super historical accuracy, but when limiting weapons that weren’t used in huge numbers IRL also serves game balance, I’m for it.
1 Like
The current thing that does the matchmaking-like stuff is doing so blatant errors and punishes so hardly the population it should help (those willing to participate in anything) that I don’t really consider it matchmaking. I think matchmaking should be implemented, not fixed.
(But the game was okay-ish this way, luck was working for most of the time, and we had enough options to avoid bad queues - maybe not so easy now.)
The things that destroy the gaming experience in my eyes were the grayzone, explosive hell, the paratroopers, earlier the bunny hopping guys, now the leaning and other unrealistic nonsense.
After the merge, the very limited map selection options and the total abuse of the earlier partial historical accuracy is the biggest hit in the stomach on top of the rest for me. Reverting these two, I’d be willing to live with matchmaking nonsense for a while.
1 Like
Yeah, the only thing we now have that even resembles a matchmaker is the 2 BR brackets. (1-2-3 & 3-4-5)
But, you really cant call this a proper matckmaker before you get it to maintain BR ratios between teams.
We cant have games where one team has 50% BR3 gear fighting a 80% BR1 team. That’s way worse that pre-merge Enlisted usually was.
You had options to avoid bad queues, you didnt have “best equpped gear = your BR” forcing spam and you could take a mixed loadout and face everybody without being placed in a top tier spam match.
)explosive hell : grenade launcher spam is really annoying. As for bombs, nobody puts a fighter in their precious 1 vehicle slot to counter them…
)the paratroopers : no deployment limits and those equipment crates made them a menace.
)the grayzone : WHY it EXISTS??? To make light tanks SUFFER. Really, it restricts you to frontal engagements while effectively banning flanking manuevers and ambushing reinforcements. Before the merge, i loved grabbing my Puma, driving to the corner of the map looking for incoming Jumbos just to shoot them from the side when they pushed enough to give me a nice flat sideshot. But, usually, the corner of the map was too close to the cap, so i was sitting looking at the front corner of them as they were shooting HE at the cap from the grayzone… IF we could properly flank, like in war thunder, we would finally have an awnser to the gray zone camping heavy tanks that win matches by themselves when CAS is absent.
1 Like
I was avoiding places where grenade launchers are too common. I was more concerned about arty + tank + bombing combos on objective. I don’t really understand how are we supposed to protect a 20 m sized open place constantly bombed by supersmart bombs/shells not affecting the opponent, and what is the point of it at all. I’d be more okay with explosives if they weren’t that selective.
I guess grayzone is there to make it possible for attacking team to easily rush the objective while not getting spawncamped due to the exposed spawn point - perhaps to avoid frozen fronts as much as possible.
For grayzone, I have no clue how infantry and tank spawn protection could be fixed in such small maps in a way to still make it possible to attack tanks camping in gray zone. But as it is on your list also, I’d be happy to see some nice ideas. 
Simply removing grayzone could lead to situations where a well placed tank kills tens of just spawned tanks making it impossible to move around afterwards, as it was in the early days. Maybe 20+ seconds of spawn protection on tanks could help, but I’m unsure, it’s not enough to spot someone hiding, and perhaps already too much for abusive players.
Regarding explosives, my favourite idea from long ago was this:
The realistic way for explosives would be to kill everyone within range, but friendly kills are not welcomed in squads mode. Instead of that:
- calculate who would die from both teams
- proportionally to non-happening friendly kills, save as many from the opponent team
So e.g. if a plane screw it up and the bomb lands in the middle of a melee fight between two 5-person squads, everyone will be affected the same way - nobody killed. Perhaps everybody loses consciousness for 5 seconds just to feel it (no medkit required for recovery), but definitely not wiping out only one of the teams depending on the color of the bomb.
In a 5 vs. 2 situation, a bomb from team-5 would cause 5 + 2 unconscious persons with no deaths, whereas a bomb from team-2 would kill 3, make unconscious 2+2. (Currently it is either 5+0 or 0+2 kills instead of proposed 3+0 or 0+0 kills.) So misplaced explosives would have a tendency to even out the two sides or not affect it.
And adding the 5 second wounded animation, the system would have plenty of time to have the server and the clients sort out who will die and who will live. With unconsious people at the mercy of those still standing, of course.
Well my response was longer than expected, and not necessarily on topic, so I’ll stop writing my ideas. Thanks for the suggestions above!
1 Like
The garand performs closer to the G43 (which was always it’s rival in normanby) than the G41.
If it is going to stay at BR3, then nerf its damage from 12.7 to 12 to match G41 and SVT-38.
I would argue a bit about that nerf, because the Garand already (at least for me) has a tough time damaging enemies. I don’t know it feels weaker then the G43 probably just because of mag size and fire rate. If anything lower overall damage, but make it where the range damage drop isn’t as bad.
The SVT-38 can be reloaded with clips and it has a detechable magazine, so it doesn’t maks sense to remove it’s ability to change mags. Just give it the ability to top up it’s mag with clips like the G41.
I know it can, but for the sake of balancing the weapons for the tier that they are in, make them both just clip fed, so when you get the SVT-40 and G43 there will be a much more noticeable difference in weapons.
1 Like
@Andris42 Hmmmm, good ideas here…
So, instead of killing everybody, (w friendly fire enabled like in war thunder) you can end up killing nobody because your bomb hit your teammates.
I wanna see a test server with friendly fire enables for everything!
exposed spawn point : maybe put the spawnpoints in places that cant be shot from across the map??
(war thunder argument about spawn to spawn shooting on some bad maps (and small maps at top tier))
You said it. spawn protection for more than 5 seconds.
But we can go further. We can automatically mark any enemy on the spawns and the ones that are shooting into them.
So, for example, if you push too much (even with infantry) and end up at the enemy’s spawn, you position will be automatically revealed to your enemies. (exactly like war thunder)
And, if you go into a sniping/ambushing position that can shoot at the enemy spawn, you again will be marked if you start shooting at freshly spawned troops/tanks. (either spawn area based or time since spawn).
You could also have enemy mines in the spawn area highlighted so you know they exist.
(and put the spawns further away from the cap zones, to make them more difficult to reach)
@Bone_Face
Right now, M1 Garand, Gewehr 43 and SVT-40 have the same damage at any range (12.7 max),
While the SVT-38 and Gewehr 41 are straight up worse (12.0 max).
Fire rate is practically the same on all of then, & they are semi-auto only, so it doesn’t matter much.
Nah, don’t arbitrarily remove functionality from weapons that have it.
The SVT-38’s (and SVT-40’s i think) were issued irl with ~2 magazines and a bunch of stripper clips.
(not 5+ mags) Just have it with both. the low damage is the main factor for BR3 anyways.
(otherwise SVT-38 = SVT-40)
And The M1 Garand’s clip acts more like a magazine.
<3 sec. reload and no single round loading. (not recommended to try irl)
Currently, it’s the best BR3 rifle by far.
1 Like
Yeah its a bit cheap artillery, bombs, and tank shells don’t kill friendlies. Would be an interesting mechanic. Would force a lot more thought and accuracy into using them thus lowering toxic spam. I already know people would cry and moan over it though. Would never happen.
Same for FG42 because it has also automatic mode.