I agree, boycott pay to win and demand it be removed from the game or make it a free unlock f2p players can grind for. Putting such a huge advantage or more options and tactics behind a pay wall for every single different campaign is ludicrous and outright predatory. Especially considering this game has no age verification so they rip off little kids and older whales that want to no life the game…
i support the removal of vitality, tho its not so hard to get, noobies can get it pretty fast as well. i couldnt name them all since id uninstalled too quick, must had been poor retention. yes the point is anyone can kill anyone in a split second, theres no super soldiers running into gun fire totally invincible just because they are level 40 vs lvl 1s ( even against bots players doing this die instantly) infantry vs infantry isnt whats scaring people away from this game lol. go ahead and limit guns even more, itll just make infantry more worthless tbh
2 Likes
What about adding a new perk called explosive resistance 25-35% as an option besides vitality? It would mean no more vitality spam and even the semi-autos would be great again? Also would make explosions no longer kill you from the other side of a building or thru a window maybe?
With an explosive resistance perk artillery and planes would be less annoying, but direct hits from grenades and explosives would still kill you…it’s not like it would break immersion flak jackets were standard issue in ww2 for all kinds of troops!
i think its good idea, but vitality also gives more tanking vs explosives as well as flames, maybe 50% so it outweighs it? or vit can be removed for specific perks like that covering every type of dmg except bullets lol
Vitality might help with explosive damage a little bit, but explosive damage is crazy overkill, like a BA rifle will do like maybe 20-24 full damage, a grenade point blank is like 1000 damage or something crazy like that for direct impact, so being able to negate big amounts of that damage might actually allow troops to survive indirect explosions that land near them but not directly in the initial blast radius, from my understanding there are a couple different radius damage zones and then no damage chance at all outside of a certain radius, explosive damage resistance would make those 2nd or 3rd radius damage of indirect damage much less and survive more often…but sure go all the way to 50% explosive resistance it still won’t save you from direct explosions I am all for it!
1 Like
That’s pretty much how it already is actually
Aside from the point limit per squad
It’d be fine provided you have at least two braincells to rub together
Past that? They can ask here or in the discord for help
I like the Discussion about Squad Slots…
Most thing i like about,when Players say:
Premium Squads should have their own Slots, if i buy a 50€ Squad i can play it.
If you could unlock extra slots for free why would you need an extra slot just for that premium squad? That is just adding more pay to win to the game and messing with the balance even more…
Ah ok. But i did pay for the Squads and cant use it, so i have to buy Squad Slots and pay extra, thats ok for you?
After i buy my 12th Premium Squad, and after buy Squad Slots, i can only take 10 into Battle… now…?
I’ve thought about your suggestion and read through the various arguments for and against.
Nevertheless, I think it would be much simpler just to go back to historically accurate squads and associated equipment schedules, and then provide some roles with “gamism” options via the random classic weapons floating out there.
IF they went back and re-designed the squads and teams into their historical versions - varied in size based on doctrine and equipped accordingly, they would open up the opportunity to invest more developmental effects into the structure of the squad.
That means develop squad leader roles and 2ICs who would most often be the senior soldiers /seasoned veterans and could arguably be armed with whatever the player saw fit to give them - within some limits.
Similarly the broader distribution of specific squad automatics would be much more conservative and would actually nicely highlight the difference in national doctrines between the various nations represented in game.
As another parting suggestion, I would like to see the AI get more aggressive in melee to assist the active player.
Understandably there are already issues with AI sniping with weapons through cover etc… So keep working on AI understanding of the terrain, but dial up situational awareness of AI within melee range, so that players who employ larger squads can rely on trying to get them into melee and carry the battle by weight of numbers.
I’ve already set the aggressive and close formation order for my troops and would be happy to have a “bayonet charge” or equivalent order to be executed dynamically at an appropriate range from the enemy. It would also allow bots to defend themselves effectively against solo players and smaller teams rather than be mown down like sheep.
2 Likes
The AI is the least of their problems, the pay to win and terrible progression and grey zone premium vehicle camping are all much bigger issues than the AI…if the progression and pay to win and grey zone camping are fixed lone soldiers mode would actually be viable because people could progress fast enough to play it, also the game is dead so they can’t fix matchmaking or anything else until they restore goodwill within the community, putting a pay wall for custom match passwords wasn’t showing they are willing to move in that direction, it was the opposite, a big fuck you to free players who just wanted to make custom matches with their friends without premium spam…
1 Like
I don’t know whether the game is dead or not, I have no stats to prove any of that. The AI work can continue although deploying AI is expensive so given all the socio-political issues plaguing EU and Russia atm, the games developed and operated there will suffer accordingly.
More broadly Enlisted is sill in “BETA” and if WT is anything to go by, they can make large scale adjustments when warranted. WT was a cut and paste of WoT in its earliest days with an identical ranking system, which was overhauled and modified into what is the current BR system. Similarly adjustments to both vehicles and their position on the BR as a result of game mechanics changes occur all the time, so don’t write off the capacity of the game to implement change.
On the assumption that the Dev team is small they will build the Campaigns first from what it appears, and then flesh them out with both maps and internal adjustment to trees.
Question is does the playerbase have the patience - it took them 10 years to get WT to what it is now and I think some 5-6 before it came out of BETA.
1 Like
The problem also is the lack of continued interest or high level players, the engagement in this game is entirely dead in terms of player retention. Their own stats prove it, if you look at them trying to brag about how many people logged onto the event, during a 2 week period less than 600,000 people logged on and less than 1% of them completed the challenges, meaning the player retention rate of this game is below 1%…compare that to any other new developing title with AAA or AA company backing them that is pretty terrible…and there is a forum post rn talking about the amount of bots in the game just filling up every match making squads a bot farm every game almost.
Pay to win, terrible bots and design issues, toxic discord dev team, no communication with players, no transparency, removed lone soldiers mode which is only game mode without bots, but then gave bots fake player ranks to try and lie to the community about lack of player count. This company deserve an all out boycott until they admit they lied and apologize, plain and simple. Idk about you but I don’t like being lied to, I don’t give money to people that lie to me, and I tend to not think highly of people that do…
Regrettably, I am part of that 99% because I have a job, and a family and my game time is limited so I often buy out the challenges, I have barely enough time to progress the campaigns which tend to be grinds for me anyway. I’ve been playing the game since Closed BETA and I’ve only maxed a single side on a couple of campaigns, Stalingrad excluded because progression was accelerated, and I got both sides maxed. I try to play both sides on most campaigns but my Axis teams tend to be higher level as the cool stuff on Axis teams is always stacked towards the back levels.
Basically proving that unless you have enough time to no life the game being a free to play player isn’t even possible…so why ask if the game is dead if you are basically admitting it already? You just typed plain to see that this game would not be playable for you at all if you hadn’t spend money on it…that means it isn’t free to play, it is pay to play…the progression is too slow and too biased against free players that is why the game is dying…and if you can’t casually play a game without having to drop money on it for pay to win advantages maybe that isn’t a game you should be supporting with your hard earned money? Maybe if they make a fully working game and don’t falsely advertise any of the features you can feel good about giving your income? But maybe just maybe you need to stop riding the premium bus and join the boycott to not contribute to the death of modern gaming? If we want the problem fixed, we need to get off the bus and walk bro…get off the bus and walk bro otherwise it is all talk and simping for corpos
You’re just filling in your own strawman…
I wrote quite clearly that I don’t know if the game is dead or not, I don’t have the time to analyze game stats on the internet, I spend enough time opinionating with the rest of the community on various game issues, and given the number of folks chiming in on the forums there is still plenty of ppl who seem to play the game. Equally, I am a bit old school so I don’t believe in anything “free”… I grew up in a world where nothing is free, and all things must be earnt in some way. So I had a “premium” account from the start and I buy what I like when I feel its warranted. Its as simple as that.
I never said they shouldn’t make money or have a free game, I said they shouldn’t lie about features being advertised as free to play, my argument isn’t a strawman argument, it was based off real facts. What kills games? Player retention being low? Bugs and balance issues? Monetization problems? This game has all of these issues and more and the player count hasn’t been public or healthy for over a year? What about that is a strawman argument? If you don’t have time to do research but you have time to ask how is it dead? Maybe don’t gas light and argue like a pussy for starters lmao? Found another premium simp shelling out money for a dead game acting like 1-2 players on each side is a full lobby lmao
I didn’t ask if the game is dead, you opined about it, as did I. You jumped to a false conclusion hence the strawman agrument reference.
If I can log on and play, shoot some stuff then the game is playable. All games have bugs / balancing issues etc, some more than others. But as long as there is a forum to vent on and some mod to jump in an patronise me that all is well, I’m content ;). If I don’t like something I can go play something else or I can ask for my money back. When they made changes to the Normandy Panther I asked for my money back and got it. Its as simple as that. No need to abuse me for having a different opinion or God forbid daring to disagree with you.
1 Like