It really, really isnāt. If we were going full historical, the M1 Garand would be the USās base rifle in Normandy, FG-42s would only be available to Fallschirmjaeger, the Federov wouldnāt really be around, etc. This really isnāt a game for people who canāt get over their own desperate need for perfect historical accuracy, and I barely ignore the inconsistencies with history and weapons function enough to enjoy this game.
Youāve been playing a beta. Things were bound to change, and itās become pretty clear that the current progression and campaign system falls apart if thereās too many campaigns. German mains are split across five progressions, US three, USSR three. Shit, the reason Pacific is so hard for US right now is because people that want to play Japanese only have one, so the enemy team is always more populated than yours.
Dudeās arguing his side of things, and doing a good job of not responding to insults in kind.
I see the concern, but donāt think itās likely to be a problem. By getting rid of campaigns and going to gear-tier MM, theyāll be consolidating the currently split playerbase, so the lliklihood of unpopulated queues is decreased. As for the Japanese, theyāve annouced that theyāll be getting preferential matchmaking because their tree isnāt flushed out well enough to be competitive at higher tiers
Right? Gameās always been arcade, and the lack of MM showed more and more the more levels and campaigns were added.
This. Thereās loads of innacuracy and theyāve just kept adding more, at least with gear-tier MM theyāll be less. Then they just have to fix things like weapons that had bayonets that lack them in game, weapons that canāt take a bayonet but have them in game (looking at you, Mosin 1907 and 38 carbines), and guns that donāt work like they should (IE S&W 1917, probably Nagant Revolver.)
Like I said, probably wonāt be an issue between gear-tier MM and japanese preferential MM. Keep in mind, too, that the MM spread is set up for ten tiers already. US players that donāt want to fight Germans with FG42 and STG will intentionally play at lower tier, instead of just flocking to Tunisia. I think what weāre more likely to see is some tiers being more populated than others, leading to things like high-tier Germans stomping all comers, or mostly getting matching with high-tier soviets because high-tier US is going to struggle against FG/STG squads and Tiger 2ās
Have they proposed a BR MM system yet? All Iāve seen is a gear-tier spreadsheet, and talk about how MM will be based on gear level, but havenāt heard anything about if that just means the tiers or if theyāre adding BR, or what the MM spread would be.
Iām not one thatās gonna harp too hard about HA in whatās been an arcade shooter from the start, and I know it wasnāt for me, but itās an interesting challenge, so:
- could go for HA in how weapons actually work, which theyāve messed up a lot
- HA in what weapons were actually available and in common use for a given battle/.campaign, which theyāve messed up
- HA in what vehicles were available and in common use for a given battle/campaign, which theyāve messed up
4)HA in individual soldier combat load, theyāve never come close
5)HA in squad/section composition and equipment, again, not close
6)HA in squad/section type/battlefield role, again not close
7)HA by more closely replicating actual historical battlefield, AFAIK not close
8)HA in the environmental effects, like actually effective naval artillery in Normandy or any at all in Pacific, not close
9)HA in ammunition selection, for both small arms and vehicle mounted weapons, especially MG belt composition instead of all tracer all the time
10)Cheating, thereās arguable degrees of each of the preceding.
How do you know this? Not saying itās wrong, I just donāt have that information and havenāt seen it anywhere.
Logically, if itās a 1 BR spread and they have 10 BR already, itās way more than 27. Germans are queueing across all ten tiers against US and USSR at all ten tiers, USSR is only queing against Germany, US against German for ten and Japan for what, six? Complicated.
And the Garand was issued before US involvement in Europe, and thereās loads of prototype weapons that were never issued or tested on the battlefield. equipment HA isnāt a thing this gameās really ever had, and itās not going to get it.
Yourāe not wrong, but
Enlistedās balance has never been āfairā even ignoring HA
For a game thatās supposedly favoring HA over fun or balance, itās doing a shit job and two thirds of them (itās reasonably fun most of the time)
Arcade argument. Enlisted is obviously on the arcadey side of things, but from this gun nerdās perspective, itās not as unrealistic as CoD or BF. I get that itās my opinion, and itās arguable in shades, and I have my own problems where I believe the game could stand to be more realistic, but itās not nearly the worst offender even in the WW2 sphere.
Shit, Iāma stop. Went to deep.