i don’t think so.
you failed to understand it from 4 different people.
that sounds like a your problem at this point.
2 Likes
You should leave the thinking for those who are capable of it
And I ask again which one ?
We sure know what HA actually is, regardless your group in ignorances keeps using it wrong.
So are you now asking what we have now ?
Are you asking what it actually was ?
Well im not being thrown in customs with 3 friends, so hardly.
get in line then
1 Like
There’s no point bothering with these guys.
They simply don’t have the logic to understand.
It’s amusing and then it’s not, just annoying after a while.
No matter how much trying to explain they just keep circlejerking without even trying to understand, or just simply they can’t.
let’s just leave em in their boxes
4 Likes
Please stay respectful, overwise the Ban Hammer is Happy to help a bit
4 Likes
2 Likes
The Carcano M91 with scope mount is objectively worse than the Scoped Kar-98ks and the Scoped M38 Carcano. It has worse stats than the non scoped Carcano M91. It should be no higher than tier 3 provided it’s stats become equal to the normal M91 Carcano.
Type Otsu Rifle is way too high at tier 7 and should be tier 6. It’s performance is hampered by low damage and low mag capacity too much too be in the same slot at the 10 shot Type 4 rifle.
1 Like
What I mean by queue not being an issue is that I have no problem finding matches in this game
opposed to h&g where sometimes I had to wait 5-20+ mins to get into a match only to have the match end in couple mins
This game has bots, so it does not matter if there are less players in the match
and even if you force all the players to play in a match with this dumb BR system, they will still just quit the match and find another, which creates more bot matches
which is obviously how people like it, otherwise they wouldn’t do it
I am ok with there being more bolt action in my matches, but not at the cost of me no longer having access to my hard earned weapons in those same matches
the new Enlisted will have less bolt action rifles in the top end of the BR (if any), so that’s just going to ruin the game, no more point playing it if everyone at top BR is using the same thing
you will never have true game balance
because the players are rarely even in these games
you either the team getting stomped or doing the stomping and rarely you have good fights, and the new BR system will not change that
it will just make it so that it looks less historical at different BR levels
I rather have more historical then less, because I know you can’t really balance the game by segregating the players based on BR
2 Likes
1 Like
Haha ban hammer go brrrrrrrr
Check the changes in tech tree.
I see new planes in the axis, but re202ce and fiat55 are not there yet.
Wait have they released an official update to their tech tree proposal? Since you say “check the changes in tech tree”. I don’t see any post about it.
If I missunderstood, sorry. I guess a combination of language barrier and me being eager to see some response from Darkflow (at least they acknowledged to be reading and sending feedback). At this point I really, really want to know whether they will accept (at least some of) their fundamental flaws in their progression proposal (too many Tiers, too linear, no flexibility, bad for newbies, bigger historical inaccuracies…), or if they will be stubborn and insist with their model.
I’m talking about the tech tree that’s about to come in. and this is the link.
1 Like
Sheeet. So basically nothing other than “we added a couple weapons and moved things a bit”. Still 10 Tiers, still linear, still locks newbies to early-war, and of course the whole HA thing going on.
If they go down this path they’ll kill the game, I’m not exaggerating. Making Enlisted “War Thunder with infantry” won’t work, WT has no market competition so it can get away with shitty progression, Enlisted is in an overpopulated market so it can’t afford making its in-game economy worse. Merging the playerbase will be pointless if you scare a part of the current playerbase AND don’t do anything about new player retention; and with too few people we’d see +4 MM being the baseline and thus would defeat the whole objective of “preventing tech-based sealclubbing”, and lead to even more people to burn out and leave.
Thanks for passing the link. Tho I am now really worried about the survival of this game.
5 Likes
Get back to me in three months. Just lol.
In all honesty, whoever isn’t worried about this progression rework either must be incredibly naive/too numb to understand the potential effects on the playerbase. All your previous comments have disregarded what the effects of this progression rework will have on the future on the game, and instead hard-focused on fruitless discussions about “gameplay fairness”. If that is an oversight or not from your part, I can’t tell.
The Campaign system is incredibly flawed, but at least newbies can pick whatever theatre of the war they want to play in and jump straight into it. But with the propossed Tech Tree newbies will be forced to play early-war, whether they like it or not, and combine that with the supposed “map-per-weapon MM soft rule” (that we know nothing about), and the end result is that all newbies wanting to play Normandy or Berlin will just drop the game after they realize it’ll take them months of an extremely-linear grind to get there. Take away the Garand and the beaches of Normandy from a newbie American player, and they won’t play, straight up (yes they are that biased).
The main problem with this game always was the progression, followed by playerbase splitting, gameplay inbalance and lack of cohesive/understandable new player experience, in that order (other minor problems are too small individually to count them as “major”). The first prevents most newbies/non-premium-account players from staying due to “not feeling progress”, the second leads to bot-filled lobbies (and would’ve been severely helped by a big EXP reward for "joining any side, but wouldn’t have solved the split problem), the third creates gameplay-tied frustration (tho can be mitigated with skill), the fourth makes newbies’ time on the game confusing and unsatisfactory.
Since you admit that Darkflow’s objective is to grow the game, it is hilarious that all your feedback can be summed up to “make Engineers Tier 1” or “add a bit more Italian squads”. Even if I were to admit that “HA had to be fully sacrified” (which I don’t believe), it doesn’t matter how much HA you sacrifice because if you still defend the proposed model you are defending an incredibly mediocre, lazy (due to copying WT) and overly-strict progression rework at best, or defending killing the game at worst. What Darkflow proposed is THAT bad, and your lack of feedback (other than arguing back againdt HA defenders) has amounted to almost nothing relevant.
So I don’t get the “come back here in 3 months lol”. This is a serious topic and I’m not being hyperbolic. If anything, all the people that fail to see the massive flaws in what Darkflow proposed are the ones not providing anything useful for the future of the game. If you aren’t in this boat and do see the massive flaws in what Darkflow proposed, then I apologize, I went by your comments on this post. Otherwise then I don’t need to come back here in 3 months. If this change gets applied this Summer, I fully expect this game to be a ghost game by the 2024 Summer with +5 matchmaking due to lack of players, and be “dead” by 2025 (games rarely die in a matter of weeks, usually it takes a series of mistakes/a big mistake that erodes the playerbase).
Also sorry for being so overly-seriousbon this topic, I’m not even a whale (just a BP+premium time dolphin) and really want this game to become the WW2 FPS that dominates every other WW2 FPS, I’m just not afraid of making hard criticism.
10 Likes
So I finally had the chance to look at the proposed BR changes and wanted to give some feedback, hope you are still taking it.
General comment: You have too much complexity going in which impacts the BR and players need to manage. Please simplify the setup:
-
I think doing squad + weapon BRs at this point is just adding redundant complexity that you expect your players to manage. The squads themselves don’t make such a big difference (bolts will still one shot every guy), better just stick to doing a really good job with the equipment BR distribution and do squads as a 2nd step if it is needed at all.
-
Pistol rankings, broadly, don’t make so much sense to me from stats or general set up. TK1926 is the same as P38? Distributing them over so many ranks seems redundant: Split them into two rank groups max. Level 1: trash guns (revolvers, TK1926, BerettaM1934, Type94) and Level 5: all others. You are again building too much complexity over stuff which fundamentally will not move the needle - Just do two groups. You can still have a the research progression.
-
Same for equipment. Better have a research progression and split into two groups (again, 1 and 5 maybe) rather than make people shift battle ratings because they equip binoculars. Broadly speaking, everything from 3 or below + molotov for level 1 and then everything else to 5. Keep the progression for research.
Proposals for adjusting battle ratings (the fun stuff):
Looking at the general distribution, the USSR not only has way less stuff when it comes to regular infantry firearms but also is more top heavy than germans (46% of guns* are on level 7 or higher vs. 40% on germans - with 32 vs 52 guns respectively). There’s also significant lack of variation and unlocks across the categories. particularly for assaulters. So I would distribute them down slightly and do a matching move for the germans:
USSR Decreases: PPD-34/38 to 7, PPD-40 to 8, PPSH-41 (box) to 5.
Ger Decreases: MP-40 to 5, ZK-383 & MP-35/I to 6, Beretta M38/42 & Beretta M38(40) to 7, Kiraly 39M to 8.
On the other hand, I would push late MGs up to balance that and bring it in line with Americans:
Increases: RD-44 and MG-15 to level 10.
Vehicles:
A-20 Boston: Only deserves level 7 if you significantly increase the bomb load. Being on the same level as JU-88 with 4x100kg would be a bad joke.
Airplanes should be separated into attackers and fighters as research tracks to allow players to choose what they want to research and focus on that.
*not AT weapons, flamers or mortars.
2 Likes
I realized that full historical accuracy probably has gameplay disadvantages.
Such as the lack of experimental weapons and machines.
Because the Japanese technological tree can only be supplemented by adding experimental machines.
Maybe someday it will be possible to introduce separate hostorical games like in WT, that only units appearing in a given battle are on a given map.
I am for the mp 3008 or VG1-5 to be higher in the tree due to the year of creation, but it is actually a weak weapon.
And so we have to turn a blind eye to the Fedorov machine in Berlin, which was used only in the Winter War.
We’ll see how the tech tree will work, balanced by construction and firepower, rather than the dates of introduction to the front lines.
But what I would change in the game is the dexterity and strength of the soldiers.
Currently, soldiers move agilely like in CS, i.e. with a knife in their hand, they do not feel the weight of the equipment at all. and they move like ninjas. And that’s the way I would go to make the characters move more realistically, so that the bots would stop doing the parkour in a place so tasty for the players.
Well, I would reduce TtK, the life of vehicles, in particular planes, because I would prefer it to be like in WT.
In this respect, realism takes priority over historical accuracy.