think this way
there will be no more campaigns, none, GONE reduced to atoms
no more moscow, no more berlin no more tunisia no more normandy etc
Just sides. just and only sides.
US SIDE
GERMAN SIDE
SOVIET SIDE
etc
and you play on maps, that have 0 connection to a campaign.
so a tiger on a snow map, is just a tiger on a snow map.
yes one can easy see berlin is berlin lol, or stalingrad is stalingrad, but if one can just consider that as just another map, there is no reason to just play the game with ww2 gear with all the options avaiable on yet, another map.
You misunderstood me. The situation you’re describing isn’t fun or challenging at all, it’s just suffering.
I’m talking fun and combat-worthy.
You say this situation, of course you can choose to be a suffering happy clown, but without the limit of respawn points, all the hard work you do, you call it a challenge, is meaningless, because your opponent randomly spam everything.
In CRSED you can trick players into wasting soul points to use skills. And here in the Enlisted spawning game you can’t do something like that because of the infinite spam.
I’m talking about a situation where for example a t26 costs 10 resp points and a tiger tank costs 100 resp points, then I can use several t26’s to try and defeat a tiger, which is rewarding and fun. If I succeed the enemy won’t keep spamming this stuff. This makes sense for the end result of the game.
You can also use the cheap stug III for things, since you spend less respawn points.
—-
BTW
If you don’t like being restricted you don’t need to contradict me, I still agree with keeping the spamming mode, even in BR-MM you can still spam.
All I want is the ability to add a respawn score mechanic to the customization and mod editors. He will not affect you.
I can’t still wrap my head around why for any campaign is not assigned its own loadout. It won’t divide the playerbase and at the same the flair of each campaign is preserved.
that would make sense if you could actually flank tiger in normal game… but with current small maps and gray zone you will never achieve this (unless stupid player).
chinese idioms are funny when mistranslated to english. i guess correct english term would be fool/jester.
and yeah i understand you. infinite tickets dont give tactical depth when defender can just throw human waves at you without repercussions.
i disagree. as a resume, changes nothing gamewise besides the map below the soldiers. and infront of your eyes.
and high chance some weapons wont apear to demolish the fun on early levels with bolts and such much love to play with.
but we have to wait…
a “tiger on a snow map” is enough to demolish the ww2 experience… i cant agree with that.
if said map was never named for “moscow” , was just a snow map. with a axis force with axis weapons fighting agains soviets with soviet weapons on a somehow more balance fight than now.
what game has to loose?. i would say it has way, way more to gain than loose. specialy if grind system is fast to pick and grow. alot of people dont play enlisted because how tedious is to start yet another campaign to grind yet another mp40.
be Enlisted players:
complain:
too many bots, no humans on my teams
too many mkbs stg etc
why i have to unlock this rifle at level 30.
why i have to unlock this if i dont use it
why i cant send my pistols to x campaign
Suggest :
Why dont you join stalingrad and moscow and future leningrad etc in fronts and have equipment more balanced?
why tiger against my stuart?
“i m tired of fighting against stgs fedorovs etcetc when i only have x weapons”
etc
devs propose a system that will bring much much more balance (hopefully) and equality on gear ingame.
remove need to transfer guns
remove need to divide playerbase
remove the need to grind and start germany or soviets for the 0214825 time
make matches with ww2 gear on some ww2 map
“game will be generic”.
still ww2. guns, “maps” fights etc
probably way more balanced and user friendly.
if you have better idea how to rework campaigns that we have no repeated grind and to unify playerbase so we dont have so much PVE, you can easily propose your idea. try to give reasonable algorithm with number of MM queues that will need to be present, how adding new campaigns will affect MM and number of players at any given minute per server for that MM algorithm to work.
dont just say this and that, give us good presentation on viability of your idea and people will support you. this change was needed not cause DF was lazy or it wants to ruin the game, but cause we have low playerbase and it was split in 6 campaigns (would be 8 this year). some campaigns were pure PVE (bot+newbie farming campaigns). so instead of yelling keep historical accuracy just give idea on how to have more human vs human matches.
True, but at least it’s going to appease those who want historical accuracy. This would only separate the playerbase in half instead of 6 ways as it stands for now.
Hopefully in due time this game will also have a giant community as well.
The sense of gain is as important as the sense of participation. Some players prefer the former.
I support this update ，and it mybe cost a long time to finish it ，before we finally get it.It is important for the players who only conplete one campaign to finish another one to get the new weapons.
So ，It maybe meaningful to reduce the exp required for upgrading，or provide
more exp after match.
Nah man, lots of people who don’t agree with this decision already gave many good and logical ideas how to please both the people that want as much historical accuracy as possible and those who want better balance.
no they didnt. there were holes everywhere in their suggestion. you just need to run napkin math and you would see that most of those proposals were just simply unsustainable.
i defend and will keep defending trully historical accuracy maps can be played on events or custom maps or have 1 setting on rotation for people to participate like the “even” leaderbord event. where a set of squads based on realism on a batle are choosen to the player and he fight that way.
for normal queue, i rather see enlisted with the aproach they presented us. nor because of my bias to my own personal fun, but also because its still the “suggestion” where the game as more to grow, and players to gain without the need to yet grind another k98k with scope.
if one isnt so squared that "THIS MAP WAS FROM MOSCOW CANT HAVE TIGERS " aproach and just consider it , yet, another map.
I get that you don’t give a rat’s ass about historical accuracy and want the game to be close to a Call of Duty or Battlefield game as possible to get as many new people ass possible but many people indeed gave good suggestions.
We have a lot of player in some period, like around UTC 20:00 in Europe Server, usually just several seconds to join a match with all real players.
So a good solution to without leading to less balance is introducing the concept of “flexible constraint” for some sort of historical accuracy. If there is enough players, they should be more likely to be allocate to a historical accurate maps. If there is not enough players and queuing take too long, the constraint can be automatically disabled.
yes, i understand but game is also avaiable on 23 more h and on 2 more servers. and people on some regions dont agree with that (and i do agree with you, much live game at EU prime)