HP as in an hp health bar for tanks? No, I don’t think that will ever happen in enlisted but it is proven you can take out a tank with any desperate or coordinated attempt if done right. Every tank has its weak spots but if you can’t hit the weak spots then a simple suicide run should do it.
1 Like
Short sidenote
I remember playing some custom server without BR in WT. I was playing the earliest Ju-87 and I was nuking modern MBTs with my bombs. It was so fun to troll this way.
At least untill all jets and radar AA started to r@pe me.
1 Like
Seems fun lol. But yeah I hope more people read this post and thread and eventually gaijin takes this system into consideration
Nah, that’s not happening.
You would need a big part of community actively complaining/crying in the discord/reddit/forum to make a change in devs’ decision.
As a single person the largest impact you can make is bug reports, QoL and some other minor things.
1 Like
Good idea, in my opinion you can have both balance and historical immersion
Regarding the issue of AVS low BR, just consider the historical use of the weapons. As replacements for light machine guns, AVS and AVT should only have 1-2 in a squad (or give them to the machine gunner)
However, I don’t think the developers have the intelligence to make such complex asymmetrical balances, they’ll just take the easy way out (Like allowing you to create a 9-man AVS squad)
Yes. No for me too.
—-
Comment for OP.
Without the use of tools that guide the player to limit the number of weapons, historical accuracy and balance are difficult to achieve without any restrictions.
That BR based on the best weapons is bound to lead to rigidity in game variety.
Because players still spam every best choice they have.
———
For infantry weapons, I think BR should consider the overall squad member weapon configuration, for example.
Only in this way can different weapon combinations really find their proper place in the MM.
Any talk of balance or historical accuracy without regard to average squad members weapons is just self-deception. wouldnt actually work what they claim even in most simple cases
They should have a MM for sqaud gamemode base game.
1 Like
Its not rocket science.
20 Mag Beretta vs. PPSh/ Drums vs. Non-Drums and Non-ARs and 39Ms?
Panzer IIIs vs. T-34?
Panzer IV vs. Jumbo?
IS-1 vs. Tiger?
Semi-auto vs. Automatic rifle?
TD vs. Any tank that has an machine gun and turret?
The devs said the oppositte but whatever.
Reflecting back, I think I also saw Jumbos on D-Day in their ad video.
Not complete but almost all campaigns are one-sided botfarms.
There is one thing saying that the game should be historically accurate.
But then saying that the game is historically accurate, historic or whatever is just meme at this point given the circumstances and also ignoring the fact that the devs lied to us in their ads for years.
It also amuses me so much to read these stupid spongy definitons of ha of certain people to the point where even DF sounds more historically accurate and honest than this splitter fraction of the HA side.
If you wanna play with MP3008 in Berlin, then just equip a Tiger and go.
It is really important to keep the FG42 standard issue rifle, the beach Tigers, the Mkb and F2 in Moscow, the Jumbo in D-Day, Ofenrohr in Tunisia, outdated British tanks in Tunisia, German planes in Berlin-atmosphere real.
“Yeah who cares about new players? Fuck them. I want my shitty definition of historical accuracy lmao.”
So your system is still not historical lol
Thats really consequent.
4 Likes
For 17962700th time, devs basically said they intentionally made wrong ads and use vague definitions of historical accuracy and such which is different from what most older forum users think of.
But now we are stuck with a new generation of HA morons who have a similar crappy and hypcritic definition to the point where a MP3008 is too much but not SS units in Moscow armed with weapons and tanks that not only wasnt there but wasnt even issues in that time frame, and openely give a shit about 95%+ of the players who dont want to let newbies with Mp3008 face IS-2s or Panzer IIs KV-1s.
This is not a problem as you can also find players using Mosin 1944 or Tiger II in the same game
Haha they do? You’re the first person I’ve seen on this forum who thinks devs care about players’ gaming experience.
2 Likes
I fully believe they are moving in this direction.
No need to say much. Maybe from a different angle.
Of course they also care about balance.
Every player claims to represent the majority to increase their persuasiveness, I think this is morally acceptable.
For me, I only represent players like me I have no way of knowing the proportion
1 Like
they aint doing the merge just for giggles.
Also the merge is supposed to fix the issues of so called “Historically accurated” battles that are quite heavily unbalanced.
Ppsh vs beretta 20mag etc.
So technically it would be quite pointless to keep the said timelines / campaigns that are found not to be working.
1 Like
Yeah Lets rely on other players to not turn the match into a one-sided nightmare. What could go wrong?
(Lets not ask why those masses of IS-2 players do not show up in Berlin right now)
If they wouldnt care at all, the merge wouldnt exist. There is also profit margin but merge has been asked numerous time now compared to unfun wannabe-ha br matches.
10 people liked this post/ support this idea compared to hoe many that support generic br match in general?
Math
1 Like
this topic seems to make you reliably upset. Appears you’re becoming outnumbered while you shout insults.
More players want historical immersion than you seem to believe.
3 Likes
Let’s assume that you are a newbie in BR1. If your BR5 mate cannot gain an advantage in the battle, you still have some BR4 mate who may be able to regain the disadvantage. If half of your teammates are terrible and it’s happen every game (which is exactly how the game is now), then separating all the BRs won’t help shit. Cause that faction will still be screwed in all BR due to the playerbase, that’s why I think merging is unnecessary, it destroys Immersion and does no good for current situation.
I think both sides should have both elite troops and cannon fodder on the same battlefield.
I think a higher priority should be to reconcile the player base and implement better match making mechanisms (such as adding players from different BRs in the same campaign at a certain proportion in the same battle, or adjusting team weights based on player performance) , but they provide no information on this part at all, just putting players with the same “BR” together will not solve any problems, because the problem is never the equipment.
You mean 190 people will like generic br match?
Math?
In my opinion, what most players ask for is to reduce repetitive grinding, not achieve arcade balance through merges.
I reiterate my point: it is 100% possible to achieve both immersion and balance , it’s just that the devs seem to want to abandon one (or both, since the BR they released is not that “balanced”) for no reason.
3 Likes
How has this been so lost in the discussion? We just wanted to not grind the MP40 4 times, and now it’s turned into a “what the hell is this game even”?
2 Likes
And to what extend ?
This isnt exactly first topic about the same subject.
Some wants to keep the game as it is currently and considers it “historically accurated”
Some wants actual historical accuracy with weapons of said timeline
Next wants this the same but with limited weapons ~1smg squad
There are just as many variations of this “historical accuracy” as there are people of speaking of it.
Theres noway to please every and each one of them except the custom games where everyone can have theyr own view of immersion or historical accuracy.
To keep it short, best they can do with HA is to have that soft rule mentioned earlier.
For example if theres enough ppl with kar98’s / moist nuggets they will be put in same game in a moscow maps.
If we take a look at current campaigns moscow, tunisia,berlin & pacific for example.
In each campaign another faction has more players than the other and usually theres quite notable disparity in equipment.
Especiatly now when we know merge is coming.
Why should I waste my time as axis in moscow and grind over 20lvls before I get a first weapons that is even slightly comparable to what soviets gets at beginning levels ?
Since I can just grind berlin and get good stuff with by far less effort and at lower levels.
Sure the BR aint a measure of inviduals skill but with the upcoming BR it balances the equipment by far better than what we have in current campaigns.
Such as above mentioned ppsh vs beretta 20mag.
And tbh, id say its safe to say that 90% of time a player whit high BR is indeed a better player than player with low BR.
1 Like