Im sure the devs would add it if you paid them the $50-100 it’d cost in workers salary to code in. Otherwise, from a business standpoint, its not going to have any returns. This game is NOT a simulator. Its made for a semi realistic market, same as War Thunder. Adding in simulator elements that a small percentage of the playerbase uses makes no sense. Its like if Escape From Tarkov spent time to code in Fortnite-like building, it’d appeal to so few in the community and be a waste of their time and resources.
1 Like
again, this feature can simply be on the backburner, as probably are many different features. They would overtime develop it and release when ready. They already have a simple form of this ingame, just hold the trigger and the character wont reload it until you release it, however you are stuck in the firing form.
How would a simple manual bolt action feature make this game any closer to simulator and how is furthering the game towards more realistic feel anything bad when thats the focus of the dev team anyway? This feature is not like changing from simple tank damage model to WT like damage model, this would be furthering the game towards simulator, not a simple manual bolt action.
comparing this feature to EFT adding fortnite like building is quite strange, how is a realistic feature added to “semi realistic” that strives to recreate realistic feeling of ww2 combat game anything like that ? Fornite is a sanbox battele royale while EFT is focused on realistic combat.
Also a basic form of manual bolt control is already in the game in the form of holding fire button so your character wont reload it.
And, reading the dev teams comments about what Enlisted is to be like.
“We thrive to recreate the feeling from a real battle” and “to deliver a real feeling of battle”.
Manual bolt action would only further these points, its a tiny addition among many others that will drive the game closer to its goal.
How would a simple manual bolt action feature make this game any closer to simulator and how is furthering the game towards more realistic feel anything bad when thats the focus of the dev team anyway?
this would be furthering the game towards simulator
I think you are answerring your own question here.
“to deliver a real feeling of battle”
to deliver a feeling of battle, not to simulate battle as accurately as possible. War is not fun. The end goal of enlisted is to make a WW2 themed shooter game that is enjoyable for the majority of ww2 themed game players to maximize profit. This can only be done by optimizing the developer’s time and keeping them from adding features that are not needed for the game to be enjoyable.
Look at Robocraft and Crossout, for example. These games were the most enjoyable when they didnt have all the features. When the feature creep came, it actually made the game less enjoyable for the majority of players. Because why would you fix the major issues with the game (such as AI, balance, loot box progression, better gamemodes) if you could work on these little features that hardly anyone uses?
Fall of robocraft had nothing to do with features compareable to manual bolt action, it fell because the devs wanted to drag the game towards loot boxes and the community didnt want that.
Crossout is by far more enjoyable now that it was before, due to the diversity in its features.
You still generalize and act if developing features will somehow stop them from fixing issues.
Also “Gaijin Entertainment provides really big support for this project”.
If I see that you have made an actual non nitpicky point and not a nitpicky point like this feature making this game not fun (somehow as a optional feature) or a completely untrue point like this preventing the devs from fixing issues, ill respond but if you keep regurgitating the same points, ill just ignore you. But in the end, whether the devs will add this is not up to you nor me, only they can decide whether they see this is as a “waste of time” or worthwhile simple but good addition. So talking about those two same points is just not worth my time.
So how much money will this free addition used by a handful of players make the devs?
1 Like
Crossout is by far more enjoyable now that it was before, due to the diversity in its features.
Despite you saying that, their player count is at an all time low.
You still generalize and act if developing features will somehow stop them from fixing issues.
Issues are fixed by programmers. Technical features are added by programmers, aka the same people. Last time I checked, people can not do 2 things at once.
If I see that you have made an actual non nitpicky point and not a nitpicky point like this feature making this game not fun (somehow as a optional feature)
Features like this push the game more towards a milsim, which is not something everyone is looking for and also makes the game more complex. For example, there is dozens of these tiny features in war thunder that make the game unneccesarily complex (for example, propeller feathering)
ill respond but if you keep regurgitating the same points, ill just ignore you.
I could say the exact same thing mate. You try to debunk my points by picking out the weaker links but in the meanwhile the big message flies right over your head. There are more important things to work on than this.
There’s zero reason to do this, other than to cater to a minority of players who want the game to be mechanically closer to a perfect simulation.
If you force it on people, you’re directly nerfing bolt guns by adding an extra step to their operation that has to be remembered, slowing rate of fire by reaction time and introducing a simple mistake that can wreck gameplay performance at the start of a new firefight.
If you make it optional, the only ones using it will be the simulation nerds, putting them at a direct disadvantage.
If you want more simulation and historical accuracy, how bolt guns work with the game mechanics isn’t where I’d start. The Soviets wouldn’t have been issuing the 1907 carbine in any real number by the Battle of Moscow, for a start, most infantry would have had 91/30 rifles.
1 Like
Again, when did I ever say that this should be added before the major issues are fixed ??? I have already asked this to be pointed out, but nobody has.
Why are you trying so hard to defend it if even you agree it’s not important to get added into the game
Because its a feature I would like to see ingame. Why would I not defend it ? Its my suggestion after all, and just because some few players think that it should not be added at least rn, does not change my view.
But no matter how long you wait, there will always be something more important to do. Moscow isnt the only campaign they’re gonna release, each campaign will have its own issues tied with it and those will have to be fixed first. By the time all that is done, we will be in 2022 at least.
This suggestion was from the ground up stated to be “OPTIONAL”.
Its a very negligible “disadvantage”. “Simulation nerds”, how so?
Manual Bolt Action has nothing to do with historical accuracy, only realism. Soviets did use older mosins in battle for moscow, this is a historical accuracy point not realism point.
2022 isnt far in the future, its very close.
Even if there are more important things to focus on, so what? Why shouldnt smaller things get attention too? It wont cripple the game nor its development. Looking at war thunder, Gaijin keeps adding smaller features and stuff like ostketten and winterketten. They do large, medium and small fixes while also adding large to small features every update. Even though they are a larger dev team, darkflow can still do it at smaller scale, + gaijin still helps darkflow greatly.
Ignoring the fact War Thunder has been out for 8 years now…
in the meanwhile
Now, how do you know what the people will and will not use? Are you the community ? no ?
4 people are already supporting this.
Last time I checked one guy gave a +1, there’s you, then there’s one guy that said “not bad” but doesnt actively support it. And then there’s 3 guys saying it will actively hurt the game.
And the fact that war thunder mostly fixed their issues in the first 5 years, allowing them to earn money to waste on tiny features
3 people have liked this post, i.e. giving their support. excluding my support, since I cant like own posts.
You still ignore the fact that, I NEVER EVER said nor implied that this feature should come NOW or anytime soon. If you gonna keep implying that I have somewhere implied or said that this should come now, than prove it.
This suggestion was from the ground up stated to be “OPTIONAL”.
That’s fine. I was making an argument, and my argument stands.
Its a very negligible “disadvantage”. “Simulation nerds”, how so?
In a fast-paced shooter like this, fractions of a second are not a negligible disadvantage. Since you want to make it optional, meaning voluntary, the only people using it would be the people who want more realism out of a game which is otherwise not realistic (Simulation nerds, which is not inteded to be an insult.) Some of that is the basic infantry damage model (chest wounds self treatable, back to the fight immediately, still fighting right after getting shot in the leg while standing and running). Some of it is damage done by different kinds of weapons. An argument could be made, from a realism standpoint, that carbines should do less damage with their reduced muzzle velocities, but semi-autos doing less than their bolt rifle cousins is mostly absurd, and there’s no reason at all the Nagant revolver hits as hard as the 1907.
You’re right, this isn’t a historical accuracy discussion, so I’ll just not do that. All this is to say, wanting more realism isn’t a bad thing. I ain’t shitting on your opinion. I just think that adding realism to the function of bolt action rifles wouldn’t add anything of substance to the game, while seeing relatively little use except by people who are willing to sacrifice statistical parity for a sliver of realism.