This game has good graphics. Maps are beautiful. However it’s obviously meh. It’s not good. I would give it 12/20. The reason is that this game is based on an unrealistic system that combines one-shot-one-kill and 100% accurate rifles. The consequences of this bad balance are:
You can’t properly defend any position. Whether you are an attacked or a defender make no difference. Whether you are in a bunker or outside make no difference either, you will still get sniped. In real life attacking a town would be deadly. Attacking a bunker would be dangerous. You would need a 3:1 ratio to attack. But not in that game. You can’t properly defend a town even if your respawn rate is the same as the enemy’s.
Maps are beautiful but completely unbalanced. This is a direct consequence of that bad system.
Machineguns are uselss (at least for Allies). Why would you use one when you can just snipe with a rifle? In a more realistic game machineguns could deny access to an area or pin down a squad. But not in that game.
Here is what should be done:
Accuracy of ALL weapons should be decreased drastically and be more like what could be found in Brothers in arms. Players HP should be increased.
The CHAT should be actually used by players. It’s astounding that players do not use the chat in a tactics game. The reason they don’t use it is that it’s SMALL, hard to use, and not squad-oriented. This is a SIMPLE FIX. How can you allow something like that.
Defenses need to be drastically improved. Sandbags should prove useful against artillery or tanks and protect players against explosions in a given area.
players not using chat is not really something the devs could fix
i am very against reducing accuracy, i dont want this game to turn into csgo where you can dump entire mags into someone at point blank and not hit anything
also i disagree with increasing health. the current game is built around players having 10(sometimes 13.5 health)
Pretty much all this.
This game is not based on dumping half of drum mag into single soldier just to kill him…
People weren´t a bloody terminators.
OP should much rather adapt to the different environment rather than downgrading it into BF/CSGO/COD.
Sandbags already somewhat protect you against some explosions such as det packs/grenades. … If you died to those, it is most likely because you were on the wrong side of them , or just had your head poking out… what a surprise you would die then.
There was actually rally point near those ammo boxes and lot of squads spawned there. Somehow im not able to make even single bot squad to use my rally points in custom matches, no matter where i place those or how long i wait, no one uses those. So i have to assume all those spawn rapers was actual players not bots like i was told.
I can see that the main references of players in this thread are CSGO, COD and Battlefield. It seems obvious that players haven’t played Brothers in Arms (very low accuracy) or Squad (more HP, defense and healing options), games that are precisely the opposite of CSGO, COD and Battlefield. Right now Enlisted has more in common with COD than it has with actual squad-based games. Devs shouldn’t just nerf accuracy, they should inspire themselves from a game like Brothers in Arms. Yes rifles should be accurate when you’re steady, but certainly not when you are in the middle of battle and just ran 20 meters with a heavy rifle in your hands. That’s the job of SMGs.
You are asking why I’m talking about a 3:1 ratio. This is common knowledge that in real war you don’t attack any defended position without having a 3:1 ratio. The fact that you can still win against defenders in that game with a 1:1 ratio is evidence that there is a problem with gameplay mechanics, i.e. defenses are useless.
As for sandbags I’m laughing at Eloros’ statement that you shouldn’t “poke your head out”. The point of sandbags is obviously to let you do that in order to fire at your enemy while mostly covered. However in that game this is hardly an advantage. Indeed the super high accuracy and low HP allow any player to snipe easily at covered soliders, making sandbags, bunkers and any other defensive position almost useless.
It really isn’t possible to fight against decent enemy team just with small arms, artillery, tanks and bombers are needed to take advantage and keep hordes of enemies back.
The fact that you can still win against defenders in that game with a 1:1 ratio is evidence that it is in fact a game. Of course attacker and defenders has to be able to compete in 1:1. So you want 30 v 10 for invasion mode now?
gajin in general tends to aim their games more at the casual playerbase
while enlisted does have a realistic facade- real guns, real locations/battles, at its core is an arcade shooter
Your statement regarding the fact that “of course” attackers and defenders should be able to compete in a 1:1 ratio is of course wrong . What is important is that gameplay and maps give a fair chance of victory for each team. Defensive strutctures must of course provide actual protection to the defender therefore giving the defending team an important advantage. This advantage must be counterbalanced by a superior ratio in favour of the attacking team. In most games this ratio is represented by a system of tickets, the defending team having much less respawn tickets. It’s of course possible to have a real 3:1 ratio with still a 50/50 chance of winning for each team.
In the current state of the game all defensive advantages are nullified by the ridiculous gameplay that allows attackers to snipe defenders easily. There is no team work, no communication and no tactics. There are also no defensive tactics as defensive works are easily destroyed by artillery strikes and tanks. There can be no tactics because you don’t know what to defend or what will be your next defensive position, and because players can’t communicate properly. The result is that we have beautiful maps that are mostly uselss, with no soul.
Regarding the statement that defines this game as an “arcade shooter”, this is wrong. It’s not because a game is simple to handle and can be played by teenagers that it can be called “arcade”. The problem with that game is that it fails to be good in any regard apart from the beautiful maps and graphics. This game should be immersive as it could easily be. What should happen in an immersive game is that you should be able to tell yourself a story of WW2: Landing on the shores of Normandy, defending a bunker, capturing the Reichstag: That should be epic. Yet, that’s clearly not the case. You have a beautiful Potemkin village, nothing more.
No they are not it just takes time to get used to them.
No they shouldn’t the accuracy of the weapons is currently fine.
No its easy to kill enemy’s in enlisted this should be the same as all the weapons feel satisfying to use this isn’t a call of duty or battlefield clone where you shoot someone 5 times at point blank only for them not too die. This is more like games such as Verdun and red orchestra.
You can “fix” people not using the chat if people do not want to use the chat you can not force them.
I have yet to see a single game in which people wouldn’t want to use the chat. The chat is not used because it can’t be used easily. I can hardly believe that it’s not done on purpose.
Having a peek out of a defensive position and getting headshot as if you were fighting elite snipers is precisely what breaks immersion. In real life soldiers are harder to spot in buildings, in the dark, in grass. Their stance is also quite different from the one in game. All of these mechanics make it easy to spot a player, aim and kill it in less than one second, something that couldn’t be done in real life. Therefore increasing HP would only compensate for other unrealistic elements and increase immersion.
ok. reading through your posts here i am sarting to think that you just want to play arma or something. this is a very casual game, and for it to live up to all your wishes it would require almost a complete redesign of base mechanics
, or just had your head poking out… what a surprise you would die then.