I’ve checked a lot of comments on this forum, and also reddit. I found that some players might equals the “game balance”, aka the “purpuse of battle rating”, to evenly matched weapons. So that bolt-actions fight bolt-actions, full-auto fight full-autos, it do improves the “fair play”.
However, in this game, even the weapons of the same type, and be placed in the came ranking during that google sheet, it’s not perfectly banlanced: for example, FG42 series have 750 rpm stock and 20 rounds, while AVS and AVT only got 600 rpm and 15 rounds, it’s definetely not fair due to the view of absoulte “balance”, not to mind the vehicles which are much more imbalanced in this way.
Then what should we do? Unlink the weapons to the teams, make FG42 fight FG42, KT fight KT, Fedorov fight Fedorov, to make a Wargaming-liked game? Or “adjust” the damage to make their dpm banlanced, like Rainbow six does? I guess most of us don’t want that much.
That means, we don’t need something to be absoulte. For the balance, group the weapon which have similar performance is already the aim. But for the historical accuracy, some people (both on the forum and the reddit) just being double-standarded: they argued there’s already something against the HA in the game, so that the game don’t need HA at all. How unreasonable thought it is! We don’t have absolute balance, so that we don’t need balance anymore?
I shall state my view of this game here, it just got the sweet point between the fictional shooter like BFV and the simulation game like HLL. I played all of those games for over 600hr each, I am here because the unique harmony of Enlisted. (Don’t HLL have something against HA? Check the marine camo in western battlefield.) When we talk about HA, we are not asking for a total accuracy, but to prevent the game to be out of this sweet point. Like, PPSH-41 couldn’t show up at Moscow since it’s top-tiered, VG series might show up at Tunisia since they’re lower-tiered… it’s really strange. Devs said there will be some soft rule to help, it’s unclear, and also hard to deal with while a player only bring one of those “special” weapon.
The banlance of Enlisted shouldn’t be achieved by mix all the stuffs up. To achieve it, we shall
1)keep the HA in the rate we have now, and
2)make sure each team have equipments that could roughly equivalent in each campaign (This is not based on individual players, but on each faction, that’s the main difference.)
So that, in each game, the overall strength of the two sides is equivalent. Compared to now, the diversity of weapons and equipment in the game has been preserved. As for the part that needs to be changed for balance, it lies in the selective editing of weapons and equipment . For example, (if) Soviet tanks in the current battle of Berlin have difficulty penetrating German tanks, but German tanks can easily penetrate them. Then maybe the USSR should be given new tanks to counterpoint, such as the IS-2M.
3)keep adjust the mechanism of every map (which is the most important)
Since Enlisted is not a game that win only by kills, the biggest factor influencing the banlance is NOT the EQUIPMENTS, but the MECHANISM customized for each side. Why are players concentrated on one side of the campaign? Is it a specific gun? No, it is the experience of the game, which is also reflected in the winning rate. If you go into this map knowing that it’s impossible to get the second or even the first objective point, then you’re more likely to play that faction less.
4)Disable mid-join
The mid-join is very frustrating for players. By affecting the player’s fighting spirit, influence the balance of the battle situation to a certain extent.
