It may be that they want to reduce effort here to save costs.
But that’s sawing off the branch they’re sitting on by giving up their unique selling points and trying to enter the mass market, from which there’s no way back.
And Enlisted is clearly at a disadvantage here, and this will increase cost pressure even further.
The goal must be to elevate the brand in order to become independent from the rest of the market and position themselves with a unique selling point. That’s why Enlisted has made it this far.
If they give up on that, the game will be gone in three to four years.
At the very latest, when new games with better graphics come out. Then there’s no reason to play Enlisted anymore if the historical relevance is lost.
There are currently enough games, including AAAA titles, that show what happens when you streamline them. They quickly disappear from the market and are not accepted by players.
Do you really think so? I see it the other way around.
Precisely because the bots aren’t perfect, even less skilled players get a sense of achievement by scoring a few kills. And that rewards them.
So I see that as a huge plus in terms of easier accessibility.
Sure, for a better player, they’re annoying.
In my eyes, the unique selling points are quite clear: the interaction of the weapon types, damage models, vehicles with historical armor values, and no HP bar depletion, maps of original battlefields, the mix of arcade and tactical gameplay and also simulation, the squads and their configuration, etc…
There’s a lot. And precisely because Enlisted started out NOT wanting to serve the casual market, to attract those players who simply don’t want to play BF5 or CoD.
For a long time, the game gave me the feeling of being able to play one of the historical battles of the time. Now, unfortunately, that’s lost.
How many games offer a squad system akin to Enlisted?
Then what were the Panzer III B in Moscow or the M2 Carbine in Normandy? The Twin Towers?
Pffff… Yeah Sure, very unique. Not every game offers different types of weapons…
The shitty bugged ones from the old version of War Thunder? Or infantry where Soviet body armour magically reduces 10% of all kinds of bullet damage?
Didn’t they overbuff the Panther armor? And weren’t T-34 drivers’ hatches not known for flying off when hit with HE?
Also, this exists in many other games such as Red Orchestra, HLL or Squad 44.
Tank modules do have HP (bars) and technically the crew are also HP bars. And this exists in other games as well.
So does Battlefield, Call of Duty, HLL, Squad 44 Red Orchestra…
Very unique I see.
Didn’t I just mention that?
But yeah, for once there is actually something unique.
Never forget the very historical Jumbo in Normandy or the M3A1 Grease Gun which was issued in December 1944.
Or the post-merge era where the same M3A1 Grease gun could be used in Tunisia.
But I forgot, that is completely different because the Panther was issued in mid-1943 and the M3A1 Grease Gun in December 1944 so the Panther is clearly worse… wait, what?
Technically, you’re right about the Normandy and Berlin campaigns back then. The opportunity would have been there.
In practice, however, this automatic weapon spam didn’t exist because the weapon grind was done per campaign. This meant that you had players with different equipment and levels of progress in each match.
This meant that every player wasn’t at their maximum possible equipment limit. This mixed up the different skills more, which admittedly could have been a difficult start for a beginner.
However, these players who had the ambition here weren’t flash in the pan either.
However, the zero-recoil children’s laser rifle M2 Carbine wasn’t yet in the game at that time.
That’s precisely the madness of wanting to make everything the same and maximize flexibility through streamlining.
All of this leads to even more imbalance and dissatisfaction.
Your method of arguing with others has put you into a position where you are essentially saying that the game was always generic slop and should continue to be generic slop. That the game has few, if any defining features or aesthetic. That is a very strange place to be, for what reason should anyone listen to you, if you yourself claim the game is just some nebulous shovel ware, then what exactly are you arguing on behalf of?
Which it was, at least according to its own standards.
The merge was a success as shown by robihr and so you far you NEVER showed numbers (or at least got lost).
The campaigns were doomed as other numbers also showed that apart from Normandy and Berlin, they were underpopulated and people always stacked one faction.
I mentioned squad system and the diverse TTs etc., offering weapons that are uncommon ams often und unheard of, which we would not get with historical accuracy.
Everything else was and is done by other games, often better, including the campaign system (Easy Red 2).
That is why almost if not all “historically accurate” do not have TTs and grinding, at least not on this scale. Or even a campaign level system.
Yeah I told you guys for eternity now, that if the game does not make fun to you to the point some quit 9/10 matches, you should switch the product because 2-4+ years “we want historical accurac” resulted in nothing.
But maybe that is some kind of kink that is fun to people.
Dunno, why should anyone listen to you, if you play a game for almost two years now that you hate?
Why are you still playing a game that you dont like for years now?
“Which it was, at least according to its own standards.”
-Your idea of generic must be very generous indeed.
“The merge was a success…always stacked one faction”
-Everyone knows the merge gave a boost to player count, I never said otherwise. There were alternatives people argued for, but it’s done and over with. The Steam release was the real boon though.
“I mentioned squad system and the diverse TTs etc…Everything else was and is done by other games, often better…”
-Did you even need to be arguing against me and others with such fervor then, nearly all of us have said we are fine with most of what you consider unheard of weapons in moderation. We are currently arguing over them going a bridge to far, specifically the opening of all maps to all brs, and constant shift away from its original vision.
“But maybe that is some kind of kink”
“Dunno, why should anyone listen to you, if you play a game for almost two years now that you hate?that is fun to people.”
“Why are you still playing a game that you don’t like for years now?”
-You are desperate for me to be someone I am not. I have had plenty of fun in this game, you are arguing with a villain in your head.
I could be very rude right now and just use your own reductive arguments on your comment about the reasons you enjoy this game, but I won’t because it’s silly. No one can defend forever against an eternally reductive argument, this why they tell you not to use them in law school, because eventually the opposition will do the same.
Can you please learn the forum quotation-function?
What?
Again, according to DF, campaigns only had stuff that was used there and that was not true. Nothing to do with my or your standards but what they told us.
Then where is this Historical Accuracy Facebook Group that allegedly makes up the majority of the playerbase and wants more historical accuracy?
Which were all bad and not very supported by players so why should the devs bother?
I am aware of this intellectual bankrupty but cant never show it enough for the sake of fun alone.
You mean the fact that the M3A1 can appear in Tunisia according to you but not the Tiger II despite the Tiger II being issued in mid 1944 and the M3A1 being issued in December 1944?
Oh please finally explain is why this aint hypocritical.
Dunno, some BRV items make more sense in Moscow than certain BRII items.
Dunno, the original vision where they lied to you and cucked you for like two to three years? The original vision according to someone who joined 2023?
Not gonna lie, both cases sound funny.
Big words from the Strawman Master.
It was so fun that one change that barely changes anything at all makes you wanna quit. Yeah, sounds normal to me.
If this your nice version, then your definition of rude is very off.
Do you even know what the term means?
And in Business School, they would tell you that making a game for the 10-12 members of the Enlisted Historical Accuracy Facebook Group will result in bankrupty.
“Can you please learn the forum quotation-function?”
-No, I will never use that function, it clutters up the screen too much when scrolling.
Reading all these responses you’ve made, you just seem to be very ill willed towards me and others. You frame nearly every argument as though we are rabid and never happy with any changes or updates, which is entirely untrue. Looking at one of your recent posts, you do not even seem to really care about this game other than rare weapons and the squad system, in-fact you mock it, yet you argue as though it’s the apple of your eye.
I still do not understand your obsession with my forum stats, perhaps there are those that attribute some arcane meaning to it? I’ve heard redditors take great pride in their forum stats, but I don’t really engage with that side of the internet, so you’ll have to forgive me for not understanding.
I’m holding out hope they do not go through with this map change, but in the very likely case that they do, and do not at least meet us halfway, you will most probably have little to no interaction with me shortly after, so I wouldn’t get to upset when responding to me from now on.
Well, for starters you claimed to know what the starter vision of the game and the community was and yet you not only joined in 2023, never participated in CBT, but also do not provide proof in terms of numbers.
The rest is just acussing non-believers of wanting Fortnite.
Well, granted. Some people didnt post for months so I am not sure what they believe except that apparently only one topic matters for them, which is HA.
But people like Veekay45 hated the merge, hated stuff like Chinese squads or hated the jet update for historical reasons and generally complain about the HA situation but still pay.
And, granted, the expert of community of yours posts like three posts per month, but the shift is still funny.
And by looking at your activity, you barely care about the community so who cares.
Is this the best counter of yours? Calling the non-unique mechanics of the game mid or worse means I dont care?
Wow. Law School would be proud I guess. Case closed.
Dunno, you claimed to know the true/ mainstream opinion of the playerbase (at least forum) and what the devs wanted in the past but from all I see so far, I see someone who didnt even join when they released new campaigns with CBT phases and has a low interaction rate. Which is not important unless you make certain claims.
Its like claiming to be a doctor but your license is a certificate for completing a one-week online first-aid course. Not very impressive.
About as impressive as dodging the question why the M3A1 (December 1944) is totally cool in Tunisia but the Tiger II (Mid 1944) makes you post less on the forum.
Like right now?
So only two posts per month now from the man who knows what we want?
Would be more important to know if you would still play though.
I really enjoy having Tunisia higher br line up because I feel weird using Italian weapons that are br 4. It’s also nice having my br 3 finally be in Tunisia because I hardly ever get br 3 Tunisia
Can we update vehicle skins to display different paint schemes depending on the battle or environment?
Otherwise, when I use a snow camouflage, it ends up looking especially conspicuous in the desert.
Well I have quite enjoyed the new variety of maps. I play this game a lot so having more maps to play on is great. Admittedly I’m mostly a T2/3 player so I’ve only really had Berlin added, but I’ve enjoyed the addition and if I was a T5 player I’d definitely be enjoying more of the maps being freed up.
As for the crying about HA. The primary German rifle of the war is in T1, so are the USSR, Soviet and Italian ones. The Commonwealth one is T2 and American is T3 - stick to Tiers 2-3 and you will encounter stuff that fits in any battle of the war. Effectively, T5 is a fantasy battle anyway (unless you really think German riflemen were routinely being issued the FG42) so why not open it up?
I-153’s on Sealowe and Berlin is ludicrous - if this change stays will likely see me mostly gone from the game except for any interesting events - I’ve still got a few hundred days of Premium, so would use those up…
ETA: And OSU’s are even worse … albeit easy points…
I already main BR3, however, there is some really iconic gear in BR4 and etc, common enough at that. But thats a question of when will BR5 be locked away from the rest of the game so people can enjoy BR4. And no, BR4 wont just become the new BR5, to compare them two is critically short-sighted.
I digress, unless we have a full map system (which I am willing to bet my left bollock on that we wont get and will only get a half assed shitty one like in WT), that will completely kill any sense the game had left for me.
You people need to understand, we arent fanatics for wanting HA, we want a healthy balance, as long as there is a plausible reason why some equipment or squads might be fighting on certain maps, I can live with it, hell I can live with up to panthers in Tunisia (even if I would rather not). There has to be a limit to it though, otherwise how long until this becomes a full blown circus like WT where its a free for all between all the factions?
