Progression, incentives, events, and sweats

Suggestions
1

Remember to at least be historic or at least respectable with any such suggestion implementation I am suggesting, as golden weapon skins would be neat to see, it would greatly detract from enlisted’s current persona. Thanks.

  1. Issue: When a player unlocks everything in a linear tech tree, there is little incentive to continue playing said campaign outside of enjoying using the best equipment for said campaign.
    Suggestion: De-linearize progression and instead award tokens to unlock campaign items of players choosing every ~60k experience. After unlocking everything, allow awarded tokens to be exchanged for a lottery system for a (hopefully) reasonable chance at getting cosmetics for vehicles and infantry bling like weapon skins, engineer construction cosmetics and the like. Or offer an amount of tokens to directly purchase various less desirable skins/bling/banner flares/collectable items/silver orders/bulk bronze orders. A prestige system could also work that is displayed next to players name on scoreboard for selected campaign.
  2. Suggestion: Lower XP gain by a reasonable amount for better equipment usage and increase XP gain for underperforming equipment to better promote the usage of non-meta weapons/vehicles. Although, I currently have no distinction between over performing equipment as it is highly dependent on who you are facing.
    Examples: Ha-Go, increase XP gain. Bolt actions, increase XP gain. Pz IV, Berlin, increase XP gain.
  3. Suggestion: Prestige and kill counter for weapons used. Say you get the Berdan 2 and want to make it feel more important than any other Berdan 2, allow for a stripe or cosmetic flare option after every 1000 kills with it.
  4. Suggestion: A ranked mode for those competitive folks out there. I am sure there are plenty of suggestions lying around with their preferences like solo-soldier mode and what not, so I merely suggest having a consistent tournament schedule with proper incentives like exclusive squads and cosmetics for winners and silver/bronze orders for lesser performing teams and individuals.
  5. Suggestion: Siege game mode event. One team comprised of engineers, machine-gunner, sniper and motor squads builds a defense position while the other team of flame-trooper, riflemen, assaulters and medics throw bodies at it. Defense has say 5 minutes to prepare whilst the attackers strafe run them with planes that only have .30 cal machine guns.(gives them something to do so maybe the HS-123 would be perfect here) Win condition is stealing an item hidden by the defenders and bringing it back to a spawn point or alternatively, win condition is eliminating every spawn placed by the defenders and eliminating all of the defenders before attackers run out of time or tickets.

Thank you for your time.

2 Likes
2

You are correct, when a player reaches this point, there is little incentive to continue playing in that campaign faction, with the exception of: if they really enjoy it, or if they use it to grind out extra orders that they can then use on other campaigns.

I disagree with this 100% as it would cause a LOT more problems with people only using the meta equipment, and never breaking out of their comfort zones and trying something else. The current setup encourages usage of things that many players would otherwise not use, and some of them might find those things far more useful than they originally would have thought. So NO, do not get rid of linear progression.

Even with following a linear progression system, giving the chance to get additional stuff after everything has been unlocked seems reasonable to me.

I get where you are coming from, but I don’t think this is a good solution. This suggestion just incentivizes using inferior weaponry to get a personal gain of xp, which might work for individuals, but at the cost of the victory that can help the whole team. While I agree that there is more than just meta weapons that can be used to make this happen, I don’t think this solution is a good one. Focus on the win so that everyone on the team benefits, not just one player.

I see no problem with this, as long as it doesn’t add some bright shiny color to it that really breaks the immersion of the game. I think a simple tally mark system would work great.

I agree with this. It would also help open up the standard lobbies for non-competitive players to play in a more relaxed setting while those events are going on.

I like the idea of a siege game mode event. Honestly though both sides should get access to all types of troops with the exception of defenders getting flame troopers and attackers getting machinegunners. Attackers need access to engineers for various reasons, just as defenders should have access to medics and SMGs as well.
5 minutes to prepare really isn’t a whole lot of time, especially when you have to add trenching into the mix. So I would suggest that in that 5 minute period of time, all building is sped up by 2x, and speed of melee (for use of digging) is sped up by 2x as well.
The attacking side should also get some opportunity to setup some offensive structure of their own as well. Trenches, sandbags, ammo boxes for mortars, field guns, etc.
I’ve said this a lot in other posts and I will continue to bring it up: fortifications need to be a lot more resistant to run of the mill explosives (frag grenades for example) and not be able to be deconstructed by hand, as that makes it far too easy in general.
I also think for this specific game mode that a way to refill mines would be important. Not everyone on defense will be actively building defenses, but might opt to be out placing mines instead.
I don’t think item retrieval would be good for this necessarily, unless the item was EXTREMELY heavy and required multiple squad members to move it.

This part I disagree with 100%. Its the defenders job to DEFEND THE OBJECTIVE, not have to worry about where they are spawning from. If your concern is attackers pushing out of the objective to fight out front, then simply limit their range with a greyzone.

2 Likes
3

This game is FAR ( lightyears distance ) from being ready for a competitive scene.

Only 1/5 of your suggestions is barely half decent, the rest are simply daydreams.

2 Likes
4

I completely agree with your insight. I was coming from the view of making new players having an easier time and older players given an alternative to stomping. In the grand scheme, if there were more players, having a matchmaker based on campaign level or items equipped would be preferable. Like a player loadout level bracketing system.

Given if the above would work for balance, a rebuttal for de-linearizing progression would be:

  1. Allow each tier to only be accessible after unlocking x/y many items; like warthunder.
  2. According to tier of unlock, number of unlock tokens required increases; hopefully not to the extent that 180k XP is required to unlock a desired squad/item/vehicle. As it stands, 60k XP is rather rough but manageable for a newer free to play player. XP required was the main reason I quit playing in 2020. 2 months of playtime mostly in Moscow and I barely had lv 7 for both sides.

I also forgot to suggest making the ping system into a spotting system like planetside 2’s system. Instead of allowing players to put red arrows randomly around the map either in good spots or bad ones for no reward. Allow for at least a map ping to where a soldier/tank/plane was actually spotted and award players an assist and battle hero for most spotting’s. This would also make the binoculars more useful. Remember to put the spotting feature on a cooldown and to make a perk to reduce the cooldown. Maybe even a perk that allows for a red icon to persist over a spotted target infantry/plane like spotted tanks. This will also help with dealing with camper in dark areas, as how else do you expect me to know they are there outside of dying to them?

Thanks for your time.

5

1/5 is better than I hoped for.

6

Some one want to explain me WY? Everyone wo come with Topic on progression always kill all motive to grind high end weapon

Wtfk? People grind and waste time for unlock high-end equipment and most time is even a shit compared to some goodlike low-tier gun (pps,mp40ecc…) wy someone wo only want have fun with his high-end sidegrade equipment need be penalized,WY?

Do you think high-end equipment is good? All thompson behave like a shit,all stg have machinegun dispersion, high-end soviet smg suffer from hit-reg, all high-end mg are simply…

The only high-end gun wo are good compared with early unlock are

  • fedorov
  • fg42II
  • avt40
  • barA2
  • kiraly

The rest are pure sidegrade or downgrade

7

My buddies and I have noticed that there is to some degree already. IF there are enough players in a campaign, having lower level squads equipped with lower level gear can in fact change what you come up against. Each time we start on a new campaign, most of the enemies have the same level of gear that we have for quite a while. Once we start bulking up though, we get put in against players that have stronger gear too.
The exceptions to this however are if we try to play at times when the servers are really empty, and it tries to find any actual players to put against each other.

I’ve posted this suggestion before. I think this is the most fair way of doing that very thing.

8

and usually competitive modes lead to gun banning, like autospam
This is how it happened in the red orchestra 2 where the mkb42 and the avt40 were banned

1 Like
9

this just punishes people who have grinded for that gear… not to mention making the battle harder to win, people are already playing too reservedly already

good in theory but this game just doesn’t have the technical framework for it. it’s not up to spec

other ideas are pretty good though

10

Yes, flares would be far more fitting rather than red blips on your hud.

11

Perhaps a ban for ban list and map select before each game? Say one side bans three items, the other then can do the same or haggle to unban one item for the loss of two others.

12

NO. This game focuses too heavily on counters. AT troops and equipment against tanks for example. AA against aircraft. MG nests on maps that need the extra firepower. If one team gets to choose that their enemies simply don’t have a counter for what they are doing anymore, it absolutely ruins balancing, and therefore the game.

2 Likes
13

Yes, banning of essential items should not happen and banning of too many items would likely not be fun. Perhaps though an agreed upon variable match settings dictated by the player base would eliminate the need for a ban/unban phase altogether. At the end of a season, perhaps the players could simply fill out a simple survey for the community and developers to look at.

14

This kind of thing is what custom games are good for.

1 Like