the trouble is if you move to a slow game you will loose at least half the player base, and if you go to a medium player speed you loose the entire player base,
Enlisted is a fast game, i would like it to slow down, i do not … want it to be a slow game why
snipers and people who play behind the you’re teams front line are bad enough
add in people who hide behind corners, lay prone
artillery, rocket, and bomb spam and a slower game would be slaughter for attackers
If we are getting tech trees might as well just get Arcade and Realistic mode too from WT as well.
Oh no. We will lose the bots.
i said players, loosing half the real players would only mean loosing half the bot, or are you calling people who don’t want Enlisted the retirement home bots
Nevermind, I was just trying to annoy him.
Since he feels entitled to talk for the majority, after criticizing others for doing exactly the same.
Pretty sure the notable amount of bots is sign of game with qualities and that everything is fine.
Around 40% are bots so… kinda…
Not to mention that half of the 60% are so bad that they struggle against bots because they sometimes shoot back and looking at the fact that almost all campaigns are heavily one-sided botfarms/ people keep playing ez factions…
call me crazy but at this point, one guy or two have the same qualities as bots. (Though its unfair because bot squads ACTUALLY build rallies).
Enlisted gameplay is so “play the way that is currently in” to the point, that it’s almost an NPC meme.
Well. Enlisted is not doing great for at least a year now (they even stopped giving us their event numbers) and there are problems. Ofc the problems, let alone causes are matter of debate.
While I don’t know what the “majority” wants you have enough plebs who want the game “slower” or whatever and also enough plebs who say the current pace whatever is fine. Plus minus one or two plebs.
At least by the fact that you have such debates here at least once a week.
I imagine numbers are quite down because they announced the merge, and essentially made a good chunk of the game “dead content” until it releases. Who is going to realistically waste their time grinding through a campaign like say axis normandy when 90% of its unlocked in berlin and the few unique things you get are just whatever like ju188 etc.
I agree with most of the changes suggested here including reducing zoom when aiming. The game needs to slow down especially when the AI isn’t capable of processing the battlefield against players who wipe the floor with them. LMGs need to stop being treated as assault rifles too as you stated.
More importantly the cap points for most game modes needs to span multiple buildings/ across the village than single buildings that turn into meat grinders. There’s no strategy in capture point matches when it’s better to just zombie rush every cap as quickly as possible before the other team gets time to prepare after a point has been captured.
While it is undoubtedly true that the merge is a move out of necessity to keep the matches populated, long time players expected that something similar would eventually happen since long time ago.
It was easily foreseeable that the separate campaigns format, with periodic major updates adding more and more campaigns, would eventually spread the playerbase too thin. It was an unsustainable model on the long run, from the get go.
The Devs TRIED this format to see if it would work. It did for a while, it doesn’t (or anyway won’t, soon) anymore.
This is just the latest, most radical of the many structural overhauls the game has gone through in just a few years, whenever the Devs decided/accepted that something they originally arranged ultimately didn’t make the game popular enough. Soldiers upgrade, weapons upgrade, orders earning… Pretty much every single management and economic aspect of the game has gone through at least one major rework.
Now this shift from campaigns to a factions based system. Does it have downsides? Of course yes, the first one being the loss of theatre choice by the player. But from Devs’ perspective, it’s the same system that has been working so far in War Thunder. Does it guarantee unlimited longevity to the game? Probably not, and at some point in the future both games will inevitably end up scraping the barrel. But still, as long as it works, it works.
“Tried”.
The devs tried it like for three months and afterwards decided its better to turn the campaigns into botfarms, where the unique gear are mostly reskins of another gun and planes.
You don’t see people complaining about jump and shoot mechanics because it was a bad mechanic.
Not because of fast pace or unrealistic aproach, but simply because it was buggy as hell on cqb.
An improvement is always a welcome one.
Nice answer serpiko.
I agree with slow down.
Need to increase cost of life too, for now-players don’t count soldiers, but they should.
No, they literally cringed from fortnite style in game with mosins, other stuff with low fire rate, overall slower gameplay than BF for example. And i need to admit, it will not success in BF-style with pseudorealism onboard and low TTK. Once you implement realistic limitations, the game would not carry too much speeds
Huh I never remembered once that people complained it was buggy.
I didn’t say they did.
I said the movement was.
the trouble is how do you progress, bolt action to semi-auto to assault rifle, if not that then what, not everyone wants to get good, as for slowing it down you would have to alter it all the way or end up with a game that feels like WW1 or any war but earlier WW2, Tanks, planes, rockets, artillery, mortar, Bomb Runs, MG nests, slowing it down would not make it slow it would make it a crawl, that or redesign the maps so there is no more than a 50m empty stretch without cover, so in order to make it work you would have to gut half the game thus …making it WW1 and not WW2
Both slowing and map redesigning are needed. Best mapping is noticed in Stalingrad and proven by different players