No
18 Likes
then the whole point of introducing the br system is lost
9 Likes
what did they do though?
have i missed on something?
1 Like
you are limited by how many type of the same squad you can carry.
for example, you can no longer run with 3 smg squads unless one of those 3 is a premium/event one.
same goes for flamethrowers etc.
( for the moment being )
i think it has been made this way, because you would limit the ammount of meta that is being used.
and facing 2 meta squads with a premium is not the same thing as facing 3 meta assaulter ( or any other for that kind ) squads.
because of the premium variant since has less members ( usually ) and weapons of one kind. ( which for the most part too, premium are not better than the free to play counterpart )<
which, now, it will lear to meta gloryounds equipping a third squad with 9 men fg/svt.
which it’s where op suggestion comes to clutch and balance things out.
personally, before someone will jump and starting debating my own opinions, it really does not make a difference to me. used to play the underdog factions so i’m kinda used to.
although, i do like some restrictions as it would enhance the quality of matches to see more variety rather than the same thing. but of course, just my opinion, and i can always be wrong.
4 Likes
To have mixed fight again?
Yeah cool, but that’s the first reason why i didn’t wanted the merge.
The entire merge and battle system rating is a no-sense from the start to the end. I never had a problem in facing high tier soviet weapon with my kar when i started playing.
1 Like
I believe limitations are not going to make it anyway. The feeback was primarily negative with few exceptions. And this is perspective of devs.
8 Likes
nonsense, because Meta Assaulter squads are not better than other Meta squads.
well, yes.
but it was made more to protect newer players.
because we had for a period, people joining in to complain how unfun it was for them to find themselves with just bolties and starter tanks against veterans with fully equipped and upgraded weapons.
it wouldn’t leave a first good impression.
( if i have to guess )
like, it’s more of a defensive mechanism. otherwise we would have a stagnated playerbase.
with people too afraid to continue because they’ll face anything with little incentive to stay.
1 Like
they can be for the most part.
and… they kinda are.
considering that they are the second squad that can get the most automatic weapons because of assaulters in a squad.
1 Like
so STG is better than FG? no its not. Period.
but it was made more to protect newer players.
because we had for a period, people joining in to complain how unfun it was for them to find themselves with just bolties and starter tanks against veterans with fully equipped and upgraded weapons.
it wouldn’t leave a first good impression.
The solution to this was really simple: make the grind less painfull.
One really simply solution but DF preferred to change the soul of his game, a really nice choice.
it is for cqc.
and if you have to fight more opponents.
1 Like
eh… it’s a free to play. you’re kinda forced.
as it’s the price for being a free to play to begin with.
so they get more money from premium time, and premium squad…
imo, unpopular opinion, but i would have loved if enlisted was similar to old ww2 games, where you had to buy them, and get access to stuff much quickly. ( which, before the alpha, a poll was made about this, but the russians decided to be a free to play. so here we are )
but… things might have been very different, and the rate of updates, much slower. ( not to mention, the ammount of dlcs… )
limit bolt actions - they kill in one shot, STG does not, bolt actions are better.
- thats how you sound like
STGs are not better than FGs, they are different and have a different approach to gameplay, but overall they are equal in total firepower.
You are wrong.
The free to play element is not an excuse for the amount of grind the game have.
They can find better and smarter way to monetize their games.
ugh… except bolt actions were much more common, and actually did the job?
believe it or not, that’s what the war was mostly fought with.
which, the idea ( more of a my opinion ) buff smgs while drastically reducing their presence.
that, would be both realistic and more fun. as it forces you to play in a different way rather than just mindlessy using the same weapon over and over.
i’m not really enjoying the soviets because i’m only running with the most meta bs. and i don’t get punished for throwning my lives away. not to mention, who cares if my first assaulters die, i can just use other 4 with the same weapon and kill majority of my opponents with just one squad.
now, i don’t make the game ( thankfully, because i’d recon less than 5% would play it ) but i do know what compromises are. and as far as it goes for pvp games, you kinda have to make them skill based while finding a balance.
let me tell you. you do not achieve said balance by letting everyone run with more meta.
that’s the opposite.
that’s how matches last less, people gets more frustrated and so on and on.
you’re putting words in my mouth that i never said.
also, you’re completely going with your own little narrative and assumptions.
yes, but it’s been 4 years here and nothing was changed in the monetization.
they won’t listen. because after all, it is profitable for them.
1 Like
But thats not the point you are making all the time, you guy keep arguing how Assaulter are spammed and OP and Meta, which is bad for gameplay.
also why the hell is this even still an issue? we have bloody BR1 and BR2 now for boltaction lovers, which work perfectly fine for that? one might argue that there are Bolt actions undeserved in BR 3, or that some decent SMGs are Ranked too low in BR, but to say STGs need to be limited because they are being spammed is completely without any basis.
the game should never force you to play in a way that you don’t want to play - instead rifles need to be worth using - balance will make this issue completely disappear, why micromanage the behavior of players when you could just as well balance the game and make players pick from the many options available!
i’m afraid you’re mistaking me for some else.
all i’m saying is, spamming weapon of the same kind is bad.
primarily, smg, and selective rifle rifles.
because they remove chunk of gameplay and makes the whole game stale.
it doesn’t change of one bit.
because A people will not remain stuck on br 2 and 1.
B, it’s not about bolt actions. lmao. ( you’re making it about them )
C, balance and stuff being spammed is both a problem of low and uptier.
i mean, sure, as adamn would say, counting minorities and their impact to shift the whole game would be crazy, but at the same time, i’m not sure how many would suffer from it.
weapons aren’t being removed.
just restricted. to increase the quality of gameplay.
that’s kinda about it it.
which it’s crazy that in a ww2 game there are more full auto weapons than bolt actions.
is it a problem? not necessarely. but people sure can make it become one.
( me included. i shouldn’t be able to spam more )
literally serves 0 purpose.
what’s the point of destroying a tank or plane too if he can just respawn and / or recycle?
makes kinda everything meaningless.
guess we’ll have to agree, to disagree.
1 Like
on what basis? Diversity? forced Diversity is lack of customization - which is the opposite of diverse gameplay.
One player likes playing the Sniper role, let him play sniper
one player likes playing the Assaulter role, let him play Assaulter
one player likes mid range support fire, let him play MG gunner
one player likes playing with rifles, let him do that.
If you force people to play all those roles - chances are that you force people to play as something they don’t want to play. Why would you do that, whats the point?!
1 Like