I’d at least expect those to get tested once by now. We’ve yet to go above the current player limit (~12v127 soldiers, in the case of groupped players on both sides). Lone soldier is 25v251=50 so is lower than squads.
Like how one side has a slightly faster tank (BT-7) vs a slightly tankier tank (Pz3E)?
Or like how one side as a 71rd drum SMG and the other side has MPs?
You don’t need to give one side godlike vehicles to have “strengths and weaknesses”
One side can have a slower, multi-turreted T28 that fares more poorly against tanks, but is even more powerful against infantry compared to a pz4c/d.
I am adding my opinion, that other people like @73359070, @ErikaKalkbrenner, @8383908 and more do seem to care about. Last time I checked, this is perfectly allowed. Trying to silence someone just because you do not agree with them is horribly immature.
How does adding more tanks, but balanced tanks, remove from the game’s uniqueness?
Plenty of games have done asymmetrical stuff, but all of them have at least kept some ammount of balance as throwing balance away is the same as throwing away the game’s lifelihood.
Unfortunately, as long as there isn’t some sort of matchmaking like in War thunder (or even Heroes and Generals) for equipment and vehicles, there won’t be any reason to bring anything other than the top tanks, planes and weapons.
Why would you bring a Panzer II, knowing that there will be 2 T-34’s/ KV-1’s on the field?
As it stands the game is unsustainable, fueled by people who obviously want to get some kicks off of clubbing with overpowered units, which will eventually lead to P2W and a very dead game.
In berlin campaign, you had the choice between T34 85 and IS2, or Panther A and Tiger 2P. You have either a mobile tank, or an armored tank. Either way, they are balanced.
There is no reason to add the T-34 and KV-1 to Moscow balance wise, there only is “they saw combat there”.
I guess we could always consider having them be implemented how the initial production was:
No sights whatsoever, everyone is blind, driver needs to drive with hatch open and you have to aim by opening the breech and looking through it before loading a shell into it.
it removes from the game’s uniqueness by erasing the inequality and lack of direct balance it was built to have. And no matter how many people care about what you’re saying, it just isn’t adding anything of value. Just being allowed to talk doesn’t mean that you should talk. Your opinion is based on the misconception that tanks need to be balanced amongst each other, even though this game is not limited to tank on tank combat and meant to be asymmetrical in nature.
And with that in mind, you’re detracting from the conversation instead of adding to it. And no matter how immature you personally perceive it to be when you’re told that you’re not adding anything of value, it’s even more immature to insist on involving yourself like this after it has been made so abundantly clear to you that it is at best pointless and at worst destructive. Balance is going to come from the different strengths and weaknesses of the different factions, not from everything being cookie cutter and equal.
So you’re saying that because 1 person likes A but 100000 people like B we should go for A because “it was ment to be”? That, right there, is how you kill a game.
I didn’t know I was not allowed to form my own opinion in the way I want? What is this? North Korea?
I WANT tanks to be balanced. What is so difficult to understand? There is no right or wrong about that. I want something, and people agree with what I want, or disagree.
This, right here, is the origional conversation.
I add to this that I do not like to see these because they would not be balanced. That is not a disctraction. You, however, are trying to distract me from the topic by going on a rant how I should not be allowed to give my opinion. You can have your opinion that I don’t add anything to value, but plenty of people think my opinion does add value and respect it.
Maybe you should start reading the community guidelines again.
This being the original post, your opinion does not matter. It’s not a matter of opinion whether those tanks were present in the battle of Moscow. They were, and as the game is supposed to realistically model this battle, they will be present.
Your opinion is that they shouldn’t be because you personally think that this will not be balanced because germany doesn’t have comparable tanks. The part that is so hard to understand about your opinion and argument for anyone who takes a few minutes to think about it is why you would even have that opinion or make that argument. Because it is entirely besides the point of this discussion, besides the point of this game, and of no concern for its balance.
Games do not survive because they cater to the will of a vocal minority, but when they offer a unique approach. And Enlisted was promising to do just that. Your opinion, which you are sadly allowed to have, is threatening this unique approach. As such, it is not only wrong but actively detrimental to its development. I’m not trying to distract you from the topic, but rather to make you aware of this issue in hopes that you’ll see the error of you way, before you mislead even more people.
“they existed so they will be added”
So are we adding them as in the state they were deployed, then?
If you want to make things truly “realistic”, aka milsim.
I love how you question the reason of having an opinion. Hello? I am not you? Are we in North Korea again? Do I have to think like big papa Kim Jong-un?
He literally asks “or not?”
You formulate your point of the game based on your opinion mate. There is nothing objective about that. The point of a game is to have fun. I would not have fun if these are implemented in the conventional way.
Aka how to kill a game again.
People are allowed to form their own opinion. My opinion is that no matter how unique a game is, if one side has super tanks that just do not die, it will just kill the game. Other people agree with me, and it sure as hell does not seem like I “misled” them into believing me.
Enlisted, as it is now, already offers something unique: drastically more soldiers per battle, thanks to the squad mechanic.
If that mechanic was actually designed properly, the game would be much more enjoyable. But right now, half of the time, I am just babysitting my AI squadmates. This shows that just coming up with an unique way does not mean it will be successful, proper implementation is required.
Yes, that is how they should and ought to be implemented. This is the limited Perception of tank crews I keep referring to, and this is more than enough of a drawback to balance them in asymmetrical warfare. Both the KV series and the T34 series are not and will never be unkillable, unless the developers specifically decide to make it so by modeling them in an unrealistic way. The german army was more than capable of destroying them historically with the weapons they had at hand, and there is no sensible reason that this should be impossible in a video game. Germany will have superior anti tank guns that are going to just utterly demolish those tanks anyways.
And while you don’t have to think like Kim Jong-un, you have to consider more factors than just the dynamic between tanks on both sides. This game is not limited to just tanks. Whether or not German tanks can destroy Russian tanks does not matter when Germany has other means to handle hostile tanks.
And that is where the objective basis for my opinion comes from: In an environment with multiple different factors, no two factors have to align perfectly for the system in itself to be balanced. And it is more fun and interesting if there is a clear distinction between the two factions involved and both of them have different play styles that complement each other then when everything on both sides is largely the same. That’s not going to kill the game, but rather give it longevity that is simply not attainable with the kind of cookie cutter system of absolute balance you champion. That was and hopefully will never be the point of this game.
Except the explosive packs are symmetrical, and the cannons and AT rifles practically are too.
So why should one get drastically more powerful tanks, when the other side is currently not suggested to get anything of equal value in return?
As of now. But as of now, tanks are also as symmetrical as possible. And all sides use the same MG for the MG nest, or so I’ve heard. The current state of the CBT isn’t anything you can extrapolate the final balance of the released game from. The current test environment serves a very different purpose, and you know that.
I know that I would not overhaul an entire game when already inside of closed beta. So I highly doubt it would drastically change the balance between CBT and OBT.
Team Fortress 2 is an extremely asymmetrical game. Every single character is entirely different from everyone else, and it was very, very far from being cookie cutter. It also survived off of its multitude of mods. There is simply no equivalency with Enlisted.
lmao how is the game asymmetrical in nature …do you know the meaning of asymmetrical at all…if germans can field more panzers and infantry than russia (russia can have at, mg nests, few heavy tanks and low infantry ) which the game promised then we can say the game has asymmetrical approach to world war but right now its 10 vs 10 and you want to kill kv using dynamite but panzers using kv
By the way this game promised the following which is now long forgotten:
Enlisted’s big hook is that its campaigns are meant to recreate actual battles, rather than “sports-like competitions,” with multiple phases, unequal conditions, and differing goals. “Battles involving equal teams in equal conditions are, of course, interesting as a competition. But they do not have the immersion or the thrill of real battle, where balanced forces and symmetrical objectives are unlikely, ”the Enlisted website says. “You may be a defender of Moscow in the trenches dug around the city, facing advancing enemy tanks and superior forces, with an objective to hold the enemy, to stop the advancing army in its tracks with all the resources you have.” How many enemy players you kill is irrelevant — all that matters is holding the line.
This is what the game promised an ASYMMETRICAL in nature but we got something totally else
But you can mirror. So for everything there is a balance. On top of that, none of the characters is objectively more powerful than the other. Everything has their purpose.
And I am putting my points based on what we got. Not based on something imaginary (promised or not) that has not happened.
Then your points are moot. Because what we got so far is not the final product. And if implemented correctly, you’ll get the same situation in Enlisted that you got in TF2, with different things simply fulfilling different roles based on their abilities. You could mirror in that game, but the most interesting matches were always those when this didn’t happen. And my favorite game mode was freak fortress anyways.