Yes except that you have yet to define what a discussion is. Half of the statements here have nothing to do with discussion but are rather rabid non-sensical opinions. Some of the answers that contain no point at all, e.g. “this is not COD” (what does that even mean) would deserve a direct ban just to teach people how to use their brain and keyboard. Same with those who refuse critics and answer that any modification would turn the game into something else. People who are not ready to have discussions regarding improvements and modifications should be banned from the “suggestions” subforum.
Obviously increasing HP would make the game closer to Squad, and Squad is actually the opposite of COD. But it’s obvious that most players here are “casual” (as they say) teenagers who have few experience in gaming.
“this is not COD”-> this game is not call of duty-> your suggested change would make this game much more like call of duty-> which would be bad(opinion of the poster)
a discussion is people sharing their opinions and providing points/counter points based on those opinions
dont know about squad, but i do know more health+ less accuracy would increase TTK(time to kill) and (seeing from videos) COD has a noticably longer TTK than enlisted
i hope not
curretnly the damage values are set up so usually a shot from a rifle downs on the first shot and kills on the second. any significant change would throw that way off
bots often turn 180 to instakill you at shorter ranges. allowing them to tank a rifle shot would make bolt actions awful and almost unusable at close range
Why should I care for the opinion of the poster or his personal preferences? You might as well add a like or dislike button on my post, such comments have nothing to do with discussion. A discussion can’t be just sharing “opinions”, you have to make points and saying that increasing HP would make this game like COD when there are so many other games out there is certainly not discussing. That’s called flaming. Indeed it’s common knowledge that due to the very high rate of fire in COD as well as absence of recoil and perks the result is that you still die in half a second, hence the importance of having a good ping. Moreover this is also evidence that these players haven’t played Call of Duty 1 as you could headshot players with a rifle resulting in instant death. Actually increasing HP would decrease the pace of the game and get it farther away from Call of Duty.
That’s exactly what we could be saying about your OP, so listen up you entitled brat:
You come here and (legitimately) propose changes to the game.
Your suggestions are actually NOT about balance between factions, but rather structural changes that would affect the whole game experience in a MAJOR way.
Which apparently would fit better YOUR tastes, but not quite those of most of the users who bothered answering. Whose opinion weights just as much as yours to the eyes of the Devs.
If you’re going down the path of “I’m right and I don’t care if you disagree”, you can as well (d)uck off and be gone. Nobody will miss you.
Otherwise, if you stick around, realize that what you’re asking for is a drastic game experience changer, and other users may not want that.
Because it makes little sense to move from game A to game B, and then complain because B is different and ask for B to be more like A.
I train with Vz24 and Lee-Enfield No.4 Mk1 IRL, with VZ I hit 5 target 3 inches wide at 10 yards in 8-9 seconds up close, and 200 yard torso-sized shots with irons, with Lee-Enfield I hit 10 5-inch targets at 10 yards in 14-15 seconds, and 250 yard torso-sized shots with irons. I have been practicing speed shooting for about 5 years, so it is not completely undoable. HP is fine as-is, bolt-actions should honestly be even more lethal.
When I meant real life I meant real combat conditions. The experience that you describe would be that of a highly professional soldier. Even nowadays professional soldiers don’t shoot that many bullets per year. WW2 soldiers train at shooting range in a steady position. They are trained to use the correct stance in combat as quickly as possible, however one can guess that in real combat conditions, due to fear and exhaustion this isn’t that easy even for highly trained soldiers. Now in this game I often feel like I’m fighting sniper monkeys. Enemies jump everywhere, enter buildings in 2 seconds. I often discover enemies behind me and wonder how they could appear there so fast. The overall feeling is playing against aimbotters and wallhackers. One can’t even use the open-top US tanks without losing the gunner in a few seconds.
A good WW2 game would allow players to use tactics like fixing the enemy with heavy fire and flanking. Obviously you wouldn’t enter in combat just to notice that 5 seconds later your whole squad is dead while you are perfectly fine. In this game you just spot the enemy and kill or be killed within a second. There is no immersion and the maps are empty shells. This is especially true on the D-Day map: It is beautiful but there is no soul to it.
Some mechanics need rework. As I understand it the amount of players isn’t that great. From what I saw on Reddit it seems that many players leave after playing a few minutes and don’t unlock the best units. The game isn’t good as it is and devs are probably aware of this. This is a pity because one can see that the game is beautiful and rather smooth, so it could become great.
I’m not the one who brought COD or Battlefield to that discussion. As far as I know this thread is indeed about Enlisted. The references I used were Squad and Brothers in Arms, hardly similar to nowadays COD or BF. The fact that people like to compare Enlisted to COD and BF is evidence that Enlisted is actually to close to both games. That’s probably due to the fast pace.
Actually not that close.
I remember the time when i was young, playing MW2 with the perks infinite sprinting, faster sprinting and increased knife range, running around with pistol and knife and slicing everybody in pieces within the blink of an eye.
Enlisted is not like that.
Running around with a knife and instakilling, that’s what people can don on Enlisted. The perks system didn’t exist in the first games. The problem is that most players there never played Call of Duty 1 and 2. As far as I can remember Modern Warfare was also still balanced regarding perks. The very fast pace of Enlisted is what makes the game so close to Call of Duty.
There is a 35% HP boost perk and yet people don’t complain about that. They complain about my post as I asked for more HP. Yet I’m pretty sure that most of those who complain use the 35% HP boost.
because any increase in HP would either
a) bo to small to matter- the extra 35% already doesnt do that much(you still get usually oneshot by BA rifles, semis/autos can usually get a followup shot), it also means you cant take any other heart-costing perk(+stamina/+hp regen/+hp from medkits)
b) completely break the balance, by making bolt actions not oneshot
c) make the bonus HP perk broken by allowing players to reliably survive rifle shots
Half of your team are either bots or console players.
I kinda agree that explosives need reworks (mostly tnt against inf and cover) and I would be fine if CPs could be No-Arty zone.
At the same time, attackers have ticket, defenders not. Defenders tend to suicide bomb attacker tanks.
Well. BARs are battle rifles used as a machine gun by the US. It should be clear that they do not necessary perform better as supressive weapon than the MG34. DP and DT are fine though. Worse than MG34 but not in a way I would call UP.
As you said yourself 35% HP boost don’t do that much. So why do people complain when I ask for increased HP?
Now I switched to 35%HP on most of my troops. This saves me from instant death much more often than medkit perks. Not getting instakilled by bots is a big game changer.
Bolt-action rifles shouldn’t instakill more than 9mm does, at least at close to mid range, but people don’t complain about soldiers tanking 9mm.
Defenders have infinite tickets indeed, so that’s basically reversing the roles. Attackers are supposed to have more tickets than defenders. So why do they give infinite tickets to defenders? Because defenses are useless. That’s a bad way to cope with the flaws of the game. A map shouldn’t be balanced by increasing or decreasing tickets, but by modifications to the map itself. That’s not possible with the game in its current state.
What would be the point of artillery if you couldn’t bomb CPs? The whole artillery system is actually very bad. We have surgical strikes in the middle of WW2. I would rather suggest that we remove artillery strikes and instead just let radio players put artillery markers on the map for mortar squads. I would boost mortar squads and make these squads deadly when combined with radio recon.
why do people complain?- look at my points, curretnly the only notable breakpoint +35% health reaches(ignoring damage faloff) is 12(semi or auto rifles, which get fast followup shots) and 13 dmg(from some starter rifles, leaving you dead after any slight chip damage), any extra health would cause issues with the higher damage rifles
and people dont complain about soldiers tanking 9mm- yes, because smaller caliber guns tend to be fast firing and automatic, making up fot their lacking damage
becauase of the balance issue bolt action rifles would cause i dont think they could really change player health significantly without a massive balance overhaul
Why people always get into a game and right away try to make it into yet another game and don’t appreciate it, as it current is.
Maybe what defines this Game, isn’t for you at all.
Why should the game change to your taste, where most of us actually like it for what it is?
Why there is always someone asking A to be B and don’t simply play B instead? And let people that enjoy A for what A is, actually enjoy A as, it is,?
