So, after reading news post

Mess Room
27

You probably didn’t read anything I wrote, so I won’t repeat myself. I have answered all your arguments in the post above. But I’ll make an exception again:

1.- I explained why Lone wulf mode was canceled.
2.- I myself recently proposed a battlefornt model that could replace the model of separate campaigns. I also encourage you to read the forum and social media for what other players have suggested. And in this place, I repeat again, it was Enlisted’s marketing strategy and uniqueness that attracted people in the first place - Campaigns.
3.- Ai squad based model - it is harmful in itself, because it is a model based on bots involvement, where total uncontrollable chaos takes place during the battle without the player playing. Which made it necessary to think about the H&G stylistics and pursue further Lone Wulf fashion by experimenting and searching for the best solution. But they just listened to their streamers who just didn’t like Lone Wulf and that was it.

Ask yourself why we have now reached such a stage that we need a merge at all. Due to the fact that Enlisted is losing popularity, because the developers completely let go and at some point their own game philosophy. And it was focused on microtransactions and things like that.

Have you played the merge test server? Total immersion murderous chaos fantasy. I was “bought” in the Beta stage by the campaigns idea because of that, me and hundreds of other players and came to Enlisted. Because of this, I cannot justify the attitude of lazy developers and taking an easier path. If you agree with such a merge philosophy then I have nothing to debate with you bro. Good luck to you in new Enlisted, filled with e-sport, battle royal players in mind. EDIT: who do not care about WW2 stylistics at all.

28

If with that you mean the total mess of all levels gears and vehicles, it was because there was no matchmaking active during the test> it was a free for all on all fronts.

im not saying old enlisted wasnt good, all it needed was a merge of research trees…but the problem was the expansion model and the dillution of players. they needed to do something, or it would turn, as it was happening, in mostly a pve game by choosing campaign and side.

but we can have a little, little hope. depending on how limited the BR uptiering and downtiering works, we could still choose more or less where we gonna fall. im all in for a button letting me to wait as long as needed to play in my exact BR.

29

I don’t think enough people played Stalingrad to regularly cry foul
Six man MkB teams are utter aids
Especially when the shitbloods that cycle them one after the other with some other obnoxious shit as their third

1 Like
30

yes. and you also said that they should have developed lone wolf in parallel when they cant even develop basic game without bugs. simply they dont have enough developers/time for both.

yes i have read it and it is bad proposal.

  1. you would have terrible balance. basically you will have early war weapons/vehicles against late war weapons vehicles. and this would be present in all fronts. western front would include everything from invasion of france to invasion of germany, or eastern front which would include everything from invasion of poland to battle of berlin
  2. you will have playerbase disparity. basically your proposal splits german/italy in 3 , western allies in 3 and soviet and japan would only have 1 side
  3. you will have much bigger bot % than with merge cause of split playerbase

if they could make big battles with hundreds of players game would be much better. but most modern games just cant do it cause of reasons. ffs even battlefield with much bigger dev team and loads of money had to bring down its player count from 128 to 64 for good player experience.
i played M&B:NW with 200 players and while it was fun it had extreme lags and rubber banding, specially when any arty landed and destroyed environment. battlebit is only fps in recent times with high player count, but idk about experience playing it and it is much simpler game compared to enlisted/battlefield or other modern shooters.

from what i saw it isnt problem of popularity, but problem of math. from one day analysis i did the other day i compared enlisted players now and 5 months ago. ffs it is even slightly up. problem in enlisted is too many choices. we have 6 servers with 6 campaigns that divide playerbase too much.

what immersion chaos fantasy? ffs only test there was conversion of xp and silver. there was absolutely no new MM there.

this game was never immersive ww2 simulator. it was arcade fps with ww2 elements with particular campaign flavor.

before you blame devs for taking easy path, actually make good suggestion. it is easy to make a wish and expect magic genie to make everything perfect. your battlefront idea sucks like many others who tried to keep campaigns.

do you know why i like the merge?

  1. cause it severely mitigates bot problem
  2. cause it severely mitigates playerbase disparity and with other mechanisms it may fix it completely
  3. cause it fixes severe equipment disparity between veterans and newbies making grind more tolerable.

are there negative sides to merge? yes, but nowhere near any other solution. my biggest problem with merge is inability to choose maps or at least veto shitty modes/maps, but they said they will consider this after merge, so i am hopeful.

1 Like
31

YES! Very well said. This is how I always introduce this game to everyone. But here’s the catch: There is a much bigger difference between the “what if” style with all experimental weapons and the like (where the developers themselves have said that if a weapon or vehicle is period correct, then it can be in the game) and between complete fiction, where everything is just thrown into one pile, without any very deep thought. And when we had separate campaigns, this “what if” scenario worked perfectly, within the WW2 immersion frame of Enlisted.

And by the way, - we should never forget that everything could have been different, and more simulated and similar (going to the waters of the HHL territory), if the players themselves had decided that it would be a paid game and not free. This is here you have it. But now that’s not the point:

The developers were warned by the players themselves, in the alpha/beta stage, that such a model will lead to the fact that it will start to cause problems for the entire stylistics, if nothing smart is done. What suggestions are you missing when the train has long gone. Players have been coming up with amazing stuff so far, but we still have gray zone tank camping in the game so far, so what are we talking about? But by the way, we can sell a couple more premium squads for 80 EUR on top of it. Does this logic ring a bell a bit?

We’re all entitled to our opinion, but it would work perfectly in a game like Enlisted. As discussed, the idea of Campaigns itself is great, but simply nothing has been deeply measured in this direction. It is much better to have just 4 separate, (realistic) battlefronts, and make various additions to them like Ardennes, Burma, Crete, whatever, than “mini” campaigns like Stalingrad and Moscow, which are battles of the Eastern Front. - Also, when you don’t have Germans and Russians, but just Axis forces and Allied forces, you can more easily develop the same weapon tech tree, where it would belong to the entire bloc, with various additions for individual nations, for example. And the player would spend much longer on the game itself.

1.- Bots aren’t going anywhere.
2.- This will only encourage players who believed in the original idea of this game to quit the game. And as I mentioned, only those will remain for whom WW2 stylistics is secondary.
3.- Nope. Because the developers will simply cook the content of premium squads, and we will have exactly the same as we have now. People will buy premiums with no restrictions in the post merge game, and veterans will certainly take advantage of it. It is naive to believe that they did not think of how to make money from this whole thing.

1 Like
32

whats the point? FGs are stronger than MKBs anyways.

1 Like
33

imagine posting this toxic squad thinking people are going to agree with your whining

1 Like
34

not really. there are many times in campaigns where weapon/vehicle is not period correct but is introduced into campaign as balance to something other side had at the time of battle. m2 carbine, jumbo, pz4 f2 are just some of the examples. unless you consider weapons in development or in early prototype phase as viable for period correct.
from what devs said they will try to have soft HA rule that will try to give correct battlefield for weapon loadout selected, but some weapons may suffer (like mp3008) or they will be just constantly matched on berlin.

my biggest problem with merge is inability to choose mode/map or at least veto mode/map, but devs said they will consider this after merge so i am hopeful. otherwise there will be lots of deserting.

wasnt there, so cant comment on this.

i think that problem is in lack of highly skilled devs that can implement things besides things in limited WT engine. you can have all the amazing ideas you want, but if you have to develop them from scratch it will take lots of time.
but to get on topic of fixing campaigns, i have not seen any amazing idea on how to fix that besides merge.

no it wouldnt. like i said before ask yourself few questions.

  1. will it fix terrible weapon/vehicle balance?
  2. will it fix bots
  3. will it fix player disparity
    i would say that those are 3 biggest problems in current enlisted and idea of battlefronts fixes none of them. it just gives you 4 campaigns instead of 6 and further deteriorates weapon/vehicle imbalance.

and this can be easily done in with merge. you can easily put e.g. italy as nation in tech tree and have it fight with germany on many battlefields where it was present.

but they can be severely mitigated. instead of 40% global average for bots entering battle, with merge we could have 10% (and most of that average will be in crossplay off section). do you know 2 biggest sources of bots? player disparity in campaigns (so MM must fill matches with bots) and just not enough players for some campaigns.

idk what you are talking about. i am talking about player disparity in campaigns where e.g. in tunisia you had 2 allied players for every 1 axis player giving extremely shit matches for anyone other than pve enjoyers.

wtf are you talking about. i am talking about stuff like springfield vs stg44, stuart vs tiger, pz2 vs t34, not about squad carousel.

35

toxic squad…

what a bunch of nonsense.

2 Likes
36

you are just one of the very few unlucky souls that even cared about this gun, but since I did the same back in the day I can absolutely understand you. Sad story.

2 Likes
37

Not sure why suddenly every moral high ground wannabe think removing $talingrad engis carry AR are good when you can legit get a full squad of soldier with AR as main weapon with premium squad and even event squad in the future(very likely the next para squad for soviet), also you can legit have 6 man using Thompson 100rnd and Vickers while skipping the need to walk into the cap…

Balance my 4ss cheeks, you are asking balance in a game that doesn’t give a shite about balance since day 1?

2 Likes
38

I glad that you liked my toxic Engi squad. It is very beautiful and powerful. Do you often have to die from similar squads and rage quit, or something like this, tell me brother :slight_smile: ?

39

That will be a valuable lesson for him that Gaijin/DF (actually that’s all gaming companies) only cares if there is a mass outrage against them, if there are just a few “insignificant insects” then they won’t lift even a little finger.

New soviet and axis event paras will both have 6x AS-44 model 1-3 and most likely some earlier Sturmgewehr prototype also 6x, i’m 100% sure both of them will be full auto with high mag capacity, not even assaulter squads can get this much of power. It’s funny how they never see the issue with powercreep overpowered paras and yet Engineer AR is the dealbreaker that need to be eradicated from the face of earth.

2 Likes
40

2x now.

It was a joke.

41

A single para squad? Manageable. 5 of them dropping at the same time right on the cap zone? Total cancer. (I own the Stalingrad pack and tbh don’t care about the mkbs, they mostly suck ass IMO)

1 Like
42

Weird zoomer opinion no. 185922

43

They are fun to use, but at the end of the day upgraded ZH-29s seem to be more effective 80% of the time

44

The Germans, the first nation actually mass produce AR to replace their rifleman rifle as standarized weapon, with actual combat record and field test, ironically being the worst AR of the game against some unicorn gun that failed at field test and some large pistol round carbine

Legit every non StG44 AR are better than StG44 in this game…

45

Topic is 17d old and the discussion is kinda dead, im gonna close it, if @OSTLAND think it need stay open can PM me

46