That is EXACTLY what I want
I want a hither TTK on one gun. Not lower on the rest
World of Tanks
Then you are clearly not talking about the same thing as OP, since noobs will still get stomp by veteran.
1 Like
Makes every gun becomes pee shooter, add third person mode, add gun skin, COD gun customization, War Thunder arcade stat for vehicles.
1 Like
Well. Weâre getting there with that new zombie modeâŚ
i like enlisted because you donât have to have a good aim and a lot of kills to win the match, I often won matches with a clearly lower kill efficiency, or lost with a higher one.
in my opinion, slower gameplay would make this even better, people running around mindlessly shooting would have even less impact. But wouldnât it become boring for some? certainly
though I would prefer a slower gameplay mainly because it would look more authentic, now, especially at higher brâs, the game looks like that people are running around hip-firing each other. It just doesnât look appealing and it looks cheapâŚ
6 Likes
SA rifles suck ass due to their poor accuracy and that half of them need to be upgraded to actually kill someone. I swear to god those Jap SAs hit worse than SMGs.
Also, bots with BAs at least can kill someone from time to time.
Also it allows to use/add more mechanics.
Like digging that is currently used almost exclusively to hide rallies.
1 Like
lmao, you have no clue. Like literally.
anyway, I dont really care.
Enlisted is an interesting mix IMO
Stuff like aiming indicators i would associate with arcade.
But then you have short ttk, forced 1st person vehicles, no flight model speed or rotation boosts,
I certainly dont want the gameplay to get any fasterâŚbut thats more induced by a map size/objective size proplem imo.
I would love the game to be slowed down via bigger maps, much bigger cap zones etc etc. You wouldnt have to change anything else
Well, We donât need bigger maps. What we need is to abolish rally points. Just throw the concept away.
Then every death would have more meaning. Since youâd have to go all the way from spawn each time.
Iâd keep the APCs tho, since there can be a max of 3 per team on the battlefield, they have a longer respawn rate + several other reasons.
If we had bigger maps, literally nothing would change. It would just make rally points more important.
Im more talking about combinding it with a much larger objective. Currently objectives are soo small you can clear it with Localised HE/artillery/mortar spam or a quick smg assault. If it encompased a much larger area, It would be much harder to contest and you would actually have to sweep/hunt players contesting the point. (also it would have the added bonus of all those players that dont actually go to the objective, might accidently end up on it because its much larger 
)
I donât see how it could work in enlisted. Since it wouldnât be hard to get at said objective/zone at all.
How could one team win the complete dominance over such zone?
At this point we wouldnât have needed objectives/zones at all. And just give both teams the same number of reserves/tickets.
do you now why panther, chi nu or is 1 are totally useless now ? because current maps only 1 or 2 way for tanks to approach so they are easy targets. There is no way to use tanks in any meaningful way now. Ths is why everyone is obsessed with the heaviest tank possible. Tank clashes turn into boring ping pong matches
Idk, I have played Panther quite extensively since last preorder bundle dropped. And It definitely wasnât useless.
In fact, I played JP IV as well and it was fun.
Except some very slow planes, thereâs not many useless vehicles.
(Btw. Bigger maps would have made those slow planes even worse)
Well yeah, it should mean that there are much more people on the cap from both teams at anyone time. So because its contested it should be much slower to cap, depending on the difference in teams capture weight.
In my experience , currently captures happen very quickly and usually uncontested. Players have a big problem actually getting on to the point. Generally there is maybe one player contesting (actually contesting), and 1 âactuallyâ attacking, whoever wins that duel wins the cap.
bigger cap objectives were on display pretty well in Big Action Mod.
2 Likes
wrong
1- devs can remove dispersion retardnes with recoil and sway, bigger areas means smgs and automatic weapons cannot overperform
2- bigger areas also means more dispersed troops in whole map so cas will not be a big issue like before
3- bigger areas means chance to menauver and flank. more manuevarable tank can have a chance against heavy but slow tanks
you sound like you have never played any other game than enlsted in your life
Lmao, surely. I would just build my rally point 50m away from objective and nothing would change. Nothing.
Yeah, you are most likely right. I havenât played big action mode tho.
Another way to think of it, currently soooo many of the objectives are âoneâ building/defilade, that you know thats where people are going to be everyitme. How many times have we abused that by spawning in and firing a HE round/artillery strike/flamer/airstrike straight into the middle of that area, team wiped and then capped
If we make the objecitve cover 4-5 buildings or defilades instead of one (also add extra objective spawn locations) it should be much further spread out. Also means that winning the singular building/defilade doesnt necessarily mean winning the cap
you know that saying about fire cracker, open palmed or closed fist?
2 Likes