My Moscow Winchesters now do 27.9 fully upgraded at 10m - almost twice what they did when first purchased.
I can see reasons for a 1-2 pt increase at 10 m, but I think this is silly … for a number of reasons
1/ It speaks to really REALLY bad QC and testing by Darkflow that such a massive increase is rolled out with no advance testing by the masses (that we know of)
2/ How has the game been playable thus far if this is really necessary?
3/ Most progressive games give significant advantages when going up levels - that is the point of going up levels - can we now also look forward to P3B’s and T-26’s getting 80mm armour so they are not outclassed by T-50’s and Panzer 4’s?? I-153 and Hs-123 getting some 20mm canon and +100kph for fighting against Yaks and 109’s?? Same logic applies…
4/ Automatic rifles replaced BA rifles for good reasons - the fact that they have to be so crudely and abruptly “balanced” speaks to the inability of Enlisted to provide a vestige of “real world” considerations in the game play of Enlisted.
Overall I think it is a crude and excessive change, and of course my opinion is worth every kopeck you paid to get it.
I think it’s a bit rude to give cents, on other person cents,
But… isn’t better if new people get the chance to actually be able to kill everyone even with the starter weapon?
Beside the satisfaction and the chances that allows them to kill veterans like us, inspire them to continue. which it’s what everyone wants.
Sure, I think you brought a good point ( so far unlike the others )
I think in enlisted, it can take a different approach, you level up in order to get new weapons, and variety.
You know, always have been for getting new toys and achieve the accomplishment of unlocking stuff, which you can use if you like Them, or avoid them.
I roughly disagree with other points, but I guess it’s a matter of opinion.
What I think should matter, is objectively the more chances for players, while retaining the ones we got ( since, they just buffed and reuduced recoil of smgs just yesterday )
In my personal opinion, they are doing a semi good job. ( I’d say good, but dunno if they could do better )
I never noticed Stalingrad testing anything except 4 star everything, and certainly not BA’s with +90% damage compared to the other campaigns!
Bollocks - almost every 1 of my squads still has a bolt action - with the exception of Allied Normandy where they are inappropriate for US troops, and Tunisia, where god knows hte Axis needs any advantage it can get so I’ve spent a lot of silver on semi-autos!
Always could compete - because most people in any given game are NOT top level.
Being better than autos, or even “just as good” is not the same as being competitive.
Good example - HLL is NOT a progressive game - because although you do have levels they do NOT provide large advantages in anything, as you have pointed out - unlike Enlisted.
Cant’ wait for Explosive packs and large grenade pouches to be available to Lvl 1 (already had a newbie calling for grenade pouches to be canned 'cos they “aren’t fair”), sniper FG42’s for engineers and riflemen, all small arms to be free and do away with bronze and silver economy and all weapons to be max starred right from the beginning…Tiger 1’s for the Puma squad… same logic - everything has to be competitive… right??
You see mate, if you use this kind of setup, doesnt mean the majority of high level players use it. They use SFs, SMGs, and LMGs only. Aka they spam full auto.
That is still true
Oh yes always could compete.
3 shot someone who has vitality.
And no full autos are still better.
Id take a PPSH in enlisted any day to storm an objective, which is what you do in the game
Not the same as +90% - stop shifting the goalposts
You said auto 24/7 - pointing out your argument is not true - sorry you have to shift your goalposts again…
That is still true
Yes I recall all the complaints about all of this before the change… NOT!
Ah - and then whining straight into an ad hominem - sucks when you realise you don’t actually have an argument and you have to resort to attacking the person.
Nice one - yes you are right - you do smell a skill issue - go take a shower.
Well a bunch of people didn’t like me giving actual reasons why this is a bad change - expected that of course.
No great problem - I’m fully aware of the lack of intellectual honesty and firepower (sic) that goes into most arguments about “game balance”.
Unlike the people here who can’t handle a reasonably present argument I didn’t expect better, even though these people have on occasions shown the ability to think clearly.
This argument is invalid. I don’t see people ditching G43s and FG42s for the K98 with AT grenade launcher, that weapon is a very late unlock and is higher level than both of them.
I do exactly that - I equip my late level rifle squads, and sometimes 2-3 riflemen in other squads, with grenade launchers in all campaigns - a very useful piece of kit.
Yes that is a glaring exception to the rule - but generally hte rule still stands.
And sure there are people who “abuse” the later gear - that is par for the course.
But here’s a funny wee thing - I was banned from this forum for 6 months after changing my avatar to say something nasty about hte president of Russia and completely missed the discussion about increased BA damage in Stalingrad, although I do recall the announcement… but I never looked at the stats in Stalingrad, and it made no difference at all to my gameplay!
Honestly BA buff exists because automatic spam. I don’t think anyone ever had a issues with semi autos so that leaves automatics and this game lets you use TOO many automatics, period.
But limiting assaulters and SFRs would cause a uproar because “I payed for these/grinded hours”. So sadly it had to come to this.
