Another poorly-thought request to buildable stuff.
Apart from the shovel rework, every other suggestion is overreaching and unnecessary.
1 Like
in quick resume: DF hate builders, hate support players, they won’t do any update to us, look older posts from reaper,parrot,me and many other users, don’t waste your saliva,they only want zerg rush
2 Likes
Eh, would be abused indoors.
Highly unrealistic to use that many bandages, also an indirect nerf to the already-lacking medic class soldiers.
Fortnite is also F2P, can give that a shot (AKA: no).
Unnecessary, would likely be used for trolling more often than for defense. Even with defensive intent, some people sabotage their own team with the current barbed wire. Current wire is pretty damn large anyway.
Sounds fair.
They already get ammo crates.
They’re already pretty damn good.
It seemed like you wanted them to replace medics earlier.
Maybe I’d give them the ability to repair vehicles and tanks using building resources. But at a high cost as not to be overpowered. Or maybe just let it work for small vehicles, because no one carries repair kits just to repair Jeeps.
Is there such a thing, other than from the premium squads?
1 Like
agree with you in this post, but you must admit guardianreaper and other users did quite good designed posts and they didn’t make a move, this game seems cursed to be a mere zerg rush,I am not saying we must become in a HLL but some stuff of there could be properly implemented here and would be fun
1 Like
FOR THE RIFLEMAN SQUAD UNIQUE STRUCTURE
I’ve posted a lot of these before, I figured I’d link them for easier access.
Engineers DEFINITELY need the buffs.
This part I disagree with.
Engineers need to be fortification experts, not multi-purposed for run-and-gun tactics. That is what got us into this unbalanced mess in the first place.
This is what I’m talking about. They need to be able to reinforce stationary positions. NOT be on the move, all- purpose soldiers.
1 Like
There are methods to deal with it.
- White Phosphorus
- Smoke
- TNT
- Precise aim
I agree. The currently existing medic boxes need a buff, not make this entirely new thing to take its place.
I really hate when people bring up Fortnite. What we are asking for really is not comparable. We are asking for things that were ACTUALLY IMPLEMENTED in that time period. Strong fortifications that can make the game much more dynamic, rather than running into the exact same map every time like its CoD.
No, the larger wire is actually needed. Will there be players that are dumb and hurt their team, yes. But that is the case with pretty much ANYTHING. Flamethrowers are a double-edged sword in this way too yet they still exist within the game.
Again, there are still ways to counter it, and it simply breaks up the meta equipment builds (which is much needed), in order to carry things to get through more solid defenses with.
Not as good as they should be. They aren’t taken on the scale of assaulters, MG, flamethrowers, etc.
Part of this is due to a lack of reward, but mostly its due to a lack of efficiency. The current fortifications are so weak that a single artillery strike wipes everything out within seconds. While it could take 5 minutes or so to set up.
There NEEDS to be a significant buff to FORTIFICATIONS.
They can use anti-tank steel and dug trenches to solve the defense problems of open-air scenes and explosives
But I hope the officials can dig the hole more aesthetically or make it vertical.
Trenches are a double edged sword that honestly are their entire own sub-topic.
Yes, and there are methods to deal with world hunger, poverty, and conflict. Just because something is possible doesn’t mean it is realistic or sensible. Just because the M5A1 Stuart has the capability to kill the Tiger II (H), does not mean throwing them against each other would be balanced. Taller sandbags would effectively seal off doorways and hallways, forcing attackers to disassemble or destroy them. Current sandbags can be vaulted over and already can have a large impact on the game. Even if the devs spent months on making them only buildable outdoors, they’d end up being largely useless, except for in niche scenarios where they would have an unbalanced impact on gameplay. On top of that, making the build menu more crowded will be a headache.
Me too.
I am not aware of platforms being built 3 ft off the ground during WW2. There would be no realistic need to use large amount of resources for such luxury in such a mobile war.
Sounds like more of an issue with the maps rather than with engineer constructions.
I would like to know why you believe so.
The difference between flamethrowers and barbed wire is that flamethrowers must be used with malicious intent to inflict harm to the team, whereas barbed wire passively impacts the team. I’d argue that attackers already have a harder time than defenders anyway. Barbed wire takes away skill from the game and makes invading a nightmare. Imagine getting to a zone solo, with no reinforcements left, hopping through a window, and landing in wire that you can’t move in and getting blasted from 5 directions before you can attempt to find some cover. You were already outnumbered, but now you can’t even move.
As I pointed out earlier, that is not a valid argument. Also, bringing a ton of grenades seems quite meta to me. Tougher wire would take away from the gunplay and make the game significantly more annoying to play.
I have an engineer in all of my infantry squads, I use them in each and every match. In fact, the first thing I usually do in any given battle, is build a rally point and ammo crates. I see a lot of other players using them as well.
You already receive some points for the constructions you make, and an additional 50% of your total experience if you use engineers effectively. Giving more reward to players who build fortifications will take the focus away from the main experience of Enlisted.
There needs to be a counter, and consider that artillery has a downtime as well.
Enlisted is a game centered around combat, not building. Increasing the effectiveness of buildable fortifications would significantly slow down the game and require massive rebalancing. I don’t think many players would be happy with such a large change.
Would it replace the ammo crate?
That’s a good thing if you word it differently. Enlisted is a combat game, not a building game. There has to be an emphasis on gunplay. Building lessens the importance of skill, and makes offense incredibly difficult. Defenders naturally always have an advantage (unless the zone is in an open area), fortifications amplify their advantage. Engineers are already very powerful and win games.
In this case I listed solutions that are both realistic and sensible.
- White Phosphorus is specifically useful for dealing with entrenched enemies.
- Smoke allows you to blind them, allowing for more effective flanks or even just dropping low and crawling toward the position. Generally people aim for torso level, so going low is a valid option
- TNT is designed to blast through fortifications. Yes it requires you to get close, but it still does its job VERY effectively.
- Precise aim will allow you to shoot back through the very windows the enemy is using against you. Snipers excel at this (why do you think there are semi-auto snipers available?)
Additionally, getting in close and precision aiming with a flamethrower would be making excellent use of it, as it was intended to be used.
That is the point. Stop and think though.
There are generally 4-8 routes into an objective, sometimes more. Doors, windows, cracks in walls or ceilings.
A single player has access to 10 sandbag walls. Even if they go to full height, that player can only block off so much. (If you actually play dedicated engineer, you will understand what I mean.)
Direct blasts and other methods can still break through them.
Here’s the thing though. If they make fortifications much more viable, it means that their direct counters (such as TNT) will become much more necessary as well. This means more players will need to change up their current kits, which lets face it include the metas, to carry TNT.
On top of this, the current metas that allow players to sprint forward, guns blazing will be disrupted, as they should be.
It will require players to use more than 2 braincells when pushing. Flanking, support play, smoke cover, trenches, sapper tactics, etc will all come into play. Making the game a LOT more interesting.
Actually you would be very wrong. It was extremely common. Generally they were built in right alongside other fortifications rather than the standalone structures we see within the game. Elevated positions were very often used in this manner for MG nests and other advantageous shooting positions.
As far as " a mobile war", I think you should look in a history book. Many cities, bridges, etc were the sites of very heavy fortification and repeated assaults. WW2 saw some of the heaviest fortification in history.
Here is the thing though, while a few of the maps could use some help for sure, a lot of the maps are designed to where fortifications are INTENDED to be used.
- Roads designed in a certain way where Czech Hedgehogs would be immensely effective
- Alleyways that are EXACTLY 2 barbwires wide
- Short windows the exact height of the sandbag wall
- Trenchable soil out in front or behind of objectives
- Portholes in bunkers and cabin windows on the Moscow Campaign that are the EXACT height for a standard MG nest to be used
- and plenty of other examples
My point is that the vast majority of maps leave a lot of the potential space open because it is meant for players to fortify.
This in turn makes each game play out differently (dynamic).
-
Where you might encounter a heavy fortification on the front in one game, you may encounter a fortified MG position cross-firing on another.
-
You may encounter a minefield on the flank one game while the next its open.
-
Where you might normally cross a field with no issue one game, a player may set up a line of wire and keep it watched with a hidden MG in another game.
That is the point of fortifications.
If they were made to be more durable and more adaptable, we would see maps play differently according to the engineers in that game.
For effective exterior usage.
Right now, we predominately see the existing barbwires only ever used in doorways and indoors right?
There are 2 very large reasons for this:
-
Because barbwire is generally very easy to destroy (currently) putting it down anywhere outside of cover pretty much guarantees it will be destroyed by the fragmentation damage of an artillery strike or plane bomb.
The ONLY way to make it worth using outside CURRENTLY is to dig a trench in advance, then place the wire in the trench. This however leads to the second issue. -
It is easy to jump over. If players have the higher jump perk on, it doesn’t even matter if barbwire is at normal height or in a trench. They will jump right over it.
This is why I think the larger barbwire options need to be introduced.
- Only allow them to be used where there is enough space, which generally speaking will usually only ever be outdoors.
- Make them immune to fragmentation damage, so that it requires a direct hit from a blast, or an engineer to break it down.
- It counts as an alternate option for the standard barbwire, meaning you are still limited to 10 total units of wire related structures.
I would disagree. Flamethrower players generally push an area and immediately start coating the area in flames, often catching many of their own team in the blaze as well. Its not necessarily being done maliciously, but rather that they simply don’t care if they burn their team or not. After all, there is no penalty for it (though I believe there should be).
Its the exact same as if a player had put wire in a bad spot. They intended for it to stop enemies, but instead it hurt teammates.
I would GREATLY DISAGREE. Attackers still win a vast majority of games, with many of them being absolute blowouts.
The only reason that I have seen that people say defenders have an easier time is when they are treating it as an endless offense game.
If the game allowed for proper fortification gameplay, I would say that a lives penalty be imposed on individual players for defense.
This means that rather than the defending forces be able to run out in an offensive manner, they would need to actually attempt to stay alive more, or the players that are frequently dying would no longer be able to spawn.
I would argue that using barbedwire actually does take skill. It may not be the reactionary skill that you seem to be focused on, but rather strategic skill.
Planning ahead. Pushing the enemy into a trap, or making it more difficult to push through their preferred route.
It’s happened to me. Yet rather than get mad at the player that put it there, I applaud them. Because they thought it through ahead of time where a player was likely to try to push through. They placed the wire preemptively and were rewarded for it with a kill.
The problem here is that you are ONLY considering grenades as an option. Hence why I suggest breaking metas.
Other options include:
- Bring an engineer to deconstruct
- Bring a TNT mine to clear away large amounts at once
- Use a tank to push through (as they were historically used for)
- Hit it with a Tank or AT Field Gun shell
- Hit it with an aircraft bomb
- etc.
There are options. If you only use the grenade route, then its more of the meta crap.
It would take away from the run-and-gun aspect of gunplay, yes.
HOWEVER, it would actually add to gunplay by pushing more intense firefights at other locations, as there will be more people funneled by well placed fortificaitons.
You use a single engineer on each squad, usually for the sole purpose of a rally point and an ammo box.
- YET, how often do you use the ENGINEER SQUAD?
- How often do you build extensive fortifications?
- How often do you dig trench lines and build sandbags for troops to move from their spawn (includes rally) to the objective?
Engineers are NOT used anywhere near as much as they should be. The fortifications should be more resistant and actually encourage more support play, rather than only be used for rallies and ammo.
The rewards given for their construction is a joke.
The rewards given for barbwire and sandbag walls is a joke. Especially considering that sandbag walls are protecting players, allowing them to survive longer and get more kills. Barbwire wounds enemies and slows them down, yet you don’t get the assist for the kill.
Ammo boxes give the same meager amount of points no matter how much ammo was replenished. Meaning if a player is grabbing a fresh mag every time they use one, then its worth it, HOWEVER replenishing flamethrowers, mortars, AT weapons, etc often consumes the entire box, and only gives the amount of points equal to a single bullet.
I’ve suggested it before and will keep suggesting it:
Ammo boxes should give assist points for enemies killed after resupplying.
You would never have a shortage of ammo boxes spread around if that were the case.
Right now though most players only place them down to use themselves.
As far as “taking away focus from the main experience”, I would disagree. There are assault players, which is what you seem to be, and there are support players, like me.
If a support player does their role properly, it will make assault players such as yourself much more efficient. It will also give players a more valid way to counter direct head-on assaults. Both of which should yield fair compensation.
For example, if I went in, had a rally point down, trenches dug for safe passage, sandbags in place for shooting positions, ammo boxes down exactly where you need them, wire funneling the enemies into killzones, and mines protecting your flanks, do you think you would be a lot more effective?
I’d be willing to bet you would.
In fact you would likely double your score.
So then why should I as a support player be getting such a low amount of points? I assisted the team in being more efficient, so shouldn’t I get a fair cut?
Artillery’s downtime is a joke. Especially because it only applies to the player, not the team. It is very common to see artillery barrages of 20 shells, hitting every 30 seconds because so many players are using them.
If you think that fortifications don’t play into combat, you are SERIOUSLY mistaken.
Which is exactly what needs to happen.
I beg to differ. I’ve seen TONS of people asking for the gameplay to be slowed down.
@Naohmcete , @ModGage , and @Greyparrots , @Lisqs , and @Lthiddensniper are some great examples of members that have discussed this at length.
4 Likes
My poor friend, you are insane; I am going to have to take a week to reply to this.
1 Like
He is not insane he’s basically an encyclopedia when it comes to defenses and he’s made so many good points that the fast-paced community has always resisted our suggestions when it comes to increasing the defenders or slowing the game down.
3 Likes
he is our own jesus for support/tactical/defensive players
2 Likes
Take it in chunks, thats what i did. Its a debate i believe that needs to be made.
yes, he has many good points, unfortunately keo and devs/helpers gave a clear signal that the fortifications will not receive any major improvements so as not to change the current pace of the game. So it turns out that developers prefer to leave it as it is. It’s a pity, I’m a bit tired of how fast, mindless and arcade-like this game is, but that won’t change anytime soon, if at all.
the most significant thing here is that many players play this game very passively, which is often seen especially in invasions. This is a great illustration of how players approach this game - over time, they start to play more aggressively and more mindlessly because that’s what the game encourages them to do.
2 Likes
That may be true but things will have to change on steam and the fast-paced community won’t be here forever
2 Likes