For the Rifleman squad, I really think they need a unique structure that will help with survivability, rather than just another weapon type structure.
My best suggestion would be perhaps a log bunker.
Durable, with a roof on top to protect from ordinance.
Have narrow gun slots on the sides that height wise match up with a standard MG nest, or a player bracing their weapon in it. Promoting synergies would greatly help the game.
Can be placed in a player dug trench, perhaps have some degree of auto- leveling mechanic added with it so it can be built on a surface that isn’t 100% flat without being tilted.
Something like this would be EXTREMELY useful for both offense and defense.
IN TERMS OF DESTRUCTION:
Grenades should NOT break it.
TNT charge placed on the roof or inside can break it.
LARGE caliber HE shells need to hit inside it to break it.
Artillery and aircraft must direct hit in order to break it.
Can be repaired from its damaged state, which may appear as the roof had been blown off. The sides may appear a bit broken as well, but the structure doesn’t entirely disappear.
Once in a damaged state, it can be deconstructed or destroyed by running over it/ through it with a tank.
IN TERMS OF POINTS:
It functions much like sandbags would, giving a small amount of points for blocked bullets, but perhaps a larger amount of points for protection from explosions.
NOTE: It should not be able to be deconstructed by AI. Otherwise players trying to order their AI to go there would likely break it down, much like the other issues we face with friendly AI breaking down fortifications rather than “using” them.
@Lisqs@ModGage@Lthiddensniper
You guys are pretty good about helping iron out details on structure suggestions, I’d like your input if you don’t mind. @Bigote0070
I know I had listed this as a reply on another thread originally, but I am hoping that by making it it’s own thread, it will get the support it needs to be passed along.
It should take a pretty long time to build. I would also not like to see it go much past this (e.g. no concrete reinforced bunkers or two story buildings).
I would think that the gun slots should be large enough that a skilled grenade throw from a few meters away has a chance to go inside (not destroying the structure but the victims inside).
I also think that a bomb should be able to damage it without direct hit (e.g. 250kg bomb a few meters away should at least destroy the roof and maybe a wall which could then, potentially, be repaired by an engineer. This seems more realistic than it standing up to a very sizeable bomb right next to it. If it’s in a trench then maybe just the top gets some damage.
Similar sized bombs directly on it should destroy it outright. 100kg bombs should damage it pretty seriously (or more).
Large HE should damage it with each shot and be able to destroy it eventually.
Arty strikes should add some damage to it at a minimum (maybe 20% reduction of its “health”).
would it be all above ground, half underground or more, also i think it should be nearly impenetrable from the front thick logs, but weak on the top corrugated steel? and either open at the sides or back to let soldiers in or out
When I say a “direct hit”, I mean the structure would need to be within the primary “blast damage” radius for it to qualify.
Aircraft bombs and artillery shells have the massive kill radius that they do because of the FRAGMENTATION damage, which is what I am saying this should NOT be destroyed by.
An aircraft bomb landing directly on, or very near to would in fact blast it.
That said, I think that it should be given a bit more resistance IF IT IS IN A DUGOUT AREA.
In which case, an ACTUAL direct hit (or within 5m) should be needed.
Agree.
Again, I think if its in a dugout area it should receive some resistance to this damage.
Yup, and perhaps a 10% reduction if its in a dugout.
I think by default you should be able to build it on normal ground, but IF you place it in an area that has been dug out by a player that it should be obviously lowered, and made more resistant by doing so.
I don’t think having a designated “front” is a good idea, The sides would be quite durable and the top would be immune to grenades and bullets, but would still take significant damage from large blasts and TNT.
I find this has a great idea. Though it could be different depending on map. Moscow could have logs but Normandy has sangbags.
I agree with most if what you’ve suggested, thought I’m unsure about it’s damaged or undamaged state and it being repaired. We still need to keep it relatively simple.
Whilst this is an entirely logical suggestion, it won’t work in Enlisted.
There is simply not enough time to build it, and from what you read ppl support it as long as it takes a reasonable time to build… Its hard enough to build spawn points, protected by MG emplacements, much less this stuff. Notwithstanding you have also included the mechanism for irrelevancy of this whole system in your own notes - detpacks. The spam is real, play some vehicles to understand it, and this structure is just a static vehicle equivalent.
The other issue I have with these pocket bunkers is that they can lock down already cluttered streets for vehicles.
I would like to see a game mode where the pace of the game is slower, the ground is relatively flat/undulating and its up to the players to erect appropriate strong points, reinforce them with AT guns and what not.
Arguably HE fire from arty and bombs needs to be taken into consideration, and perhaps an incremental damage system created to show visually how these structures are being degraded, rather than just outright destroyed in one hit. That aspect can be reserved for direct tank fire or a direct artillery hit if need be.
However, in the current game this is impractical and open to abuse.
On a complete tangent, equip an entrenching tool on your soldier and dig them in, I was amazed how quick I get a crouch useable fox hole that significantly extended my soldiers lifespan.
The biggest issue I have atm is the lack of AI commands that would make the squad follow my lead. When I dig, they dig, when I throw grenades they should be able to be commanded to do likewise. The current AI C2 system is still super limited and clunky, but that is where the core fun of the game sits with me and the greatest opportunities for the success of Enlisted lie.
Slow the game down, and make it more involved with C2, building structures etc… and your proposal will thrive !
Just to be clear, there are OPTIONS that can be used to speed up build time:
Faster construction perk
Ordering your AI engineers to assist you in building structures (I use this fairly often, I can setup the outlines and tell them to finish building it)
teammates with engineers can also assist (I’d like to note that a structure like this that could make a considerable difference would likely be prioritized by teammates to assist in its construction).
They are still grenades and should be treated as such:
incapable of destroying it from the outside, but able to put it into the damaged state if detonated inside.
Enemy vehicles have options to destroy them, and as far as friendly vehicles go, its no different than a tank dying ahead of you and blocking your path that way.
I’m not saying its a perfect suggestion all around, but if its utilized with some intelligence, it won’t be an issue.
Additionally, if it has a higher survival rate by building it in a dugout, the likelihood is quite high that players will seek to do this rather than build in the middle of the road.
Literally EVERYTHING in the game can be abused in the right circumstances.
Trust me, I use trenching a LOT. That said, the whole reason I have this suggestion up is that it offers a type of cover that a trench by itself simply does not.
Even with Perks the build time for an AA gun or an MG emplacement is still time consuming.
that is a very good option, and infact would make perfect sense if not for the fact that on many maps the AI is “borked” and my soldiers run around aimlessly looking for pathing… The alternative here would be to try and build in a “least cluttered” space which would push you out into the open, or just chasing ground in general.
what are these “Team mates” you speak of ?? I’ve never seen this endangered animal… Only if I’m actually groupped with my friends does this actually work, and given what the game has “evolved to” I’m finding it harder and harder to herd the cats…
Detpacks are not grenades as the name implies and they’re specifically purposed to remove constructions. Each solder can carry 3 under the current schema, so yeah any minutes spent erecting structures will be erased in seconds.
I understand that building anything and using it to block vehicle avenues of approach can be abused, but in the case of the existing obstacles only the actual tank traps count and you have to build several of them to actually block the road. They can also be J’d out reasonably quickly without wasting resources, whereas a defended bunker structure as the one you describe would be harder to “remove” - not that this is a bad thing under the right circumstances.
Perhaps a compromise would be to allow the building of such structures in specific areas that prevent this type of route blocking abuse. There are ofcourse options either way, but in the immediate implementation of this, I don’t think you’ll get much more bang for buck that you do out of the plethora of buildings that are now lavishly sprinkled across maps.
An alternative compromise might be a “reinforcement build” that allows your selected roles to reinforce either an existing window or doorway to harden it in the manner that you describe ? A kind of beefed up sandbag + other bits emplacement.
… and? Not EVERYTHING should be able to be built quickly. In the case of this structure, its a very durable, large, and potentially game changing structure. I don’t think it should be able to be built “Quickly”. That’s part of the balance of it.
The only times I really have issues with pathing for AI:
If I go through a high window, then they still go try to find a door
Crossing water sometimes
If another player enclosed a room with a rally point, intentionally causing the AI to have problems getting out
When I’m moving along to build structures, with an AI engineer in tow, I almost never have the issue.
People need to stop acting like teammates don’t exist, it only causes the issue to get worse.
Rather than balancing everything around everyone playing solo, it needs to be built around synergizing with teammates. It may be slow at first, but once players figure out that they actually need to work together to some degree, we will see a huge shift in the game, for the better.
You said on another post you wished the game would slow down a bit, I agree, and right here is a major part of how to do so.
Right now the game is set up for solo players to run-and-gun. This matches very poorly with vehicles and structures being in the game, as well as various other core mechanics. After all, most players come to the game to get away from the CoD type gameplay.
Many previous games like Battlefield 4 found a good balance of the gameplay that allowed solo players to synergize their gameplay with other teammates, regardless of being grouped up or not.
THAT is what this game needs to look at for inspiration moving forward.
My point is that if more things like this were added, to where teammates saw the difference that it makes, chances are they will become more likely to work with teammates, and we will get the teamwork necessary to move the game along in the right direction. Including assisting in building structures.
ACTUALLY, “detpacks” (listed as explosive packs in game) were added way back when because AT rifles were unable to deal with heavier tanks. An issue that has long since been resolved, and honestly I think explosive packs should be removed from the game.
The issue here, is that they have since been turned into the “all-in-one” grenade. An item that breaks a LOT of balancing across the board.
There are numerous ways to kill tanks, that all have decent balance, that aren’t used hardly at all, simply because explosive packs exist.
There are numerous ways to deal with fortifications, that for the most part have decent balance, that are rarely used because of a combination of artillery and explosive packs.
How often do you see players use TNT “mines” to clear fortifications?
Almost never, because instead, you see players running around with a bunch of explosive packs.
My point being, especially with this fortification, explosive packs should NOT be able to damage it from the OUTSIDE. Plain and simple.
Honestly, I think that if you limit the structures to only being able to be built in specific locations, you will run into a big problem:
They will be too easy to destroy.
Part of what makes fortifications within this game unique is that you can freely place them around. If you forced players to build them in specific locations, the enemy would always know where to look for them, and know what the surrounding area would be like.
Going so far as to finding the exact locations they can set up with an MG or sniper to automatically start killing people as they go in and out.
By having freedom of placement, the enemy is forced to ADAPT each game.
I think you misunderstood what I was trying to convey in terms of speed of construction. I don’t have a problem in build times, as long as they are commensurate with the overall context of the game duration, “and” balanced against the destructiveness of weapons which subsequently remove or degrade them.
As it stands the destructiveness of weapons far outstrips the effort to build things. Which, if it is intended to make built structures situational, then I can live with, if the intent is for them to make more of a tactical impact then their current implementation is somewhat flawed.
WRT the team issues, I there are many reasons for teamwork in game being as poor as it is, but largely the biggest contributor is the inability to communicate intent effectively. You can indicate targets with “v” and there are some other rudimentary indicators like map pinging, but most players will struggle in reading the mini map and understanding the unfolding situation around them. The mentality of most is to provide the greatest combat pressure on caps and therein lies their focus. This then makes it easy to spawn camp and harder for vehicles to achieve effects, unless you’re parked on cap with the mob so that they can actually protect you to a certain level.
So IF your perspective of teamwork is purely from an infantry perspective, you’ll have a more positive view of the problem, if you’re looking at it from a vehicle or support based perspective then the situation is pretty chronic. Poor comms make for poor teams. The game is WIP, so the field for more effective and accessible comms options may yet materialise.
Nevertheless, to close out the original point, structures that are more complex than the existing simple stuff, which already takes a fair time to build, will be easy to destroy “because” they are static - just like any tank that is unfortunate to get tracked within infantry charge / detpack range. AND they will take you away for longer periods of time from influencing the situation around you in what is a fast and furious run and gun millieu. I have many games played where I’ve “sacrificed” running forward to influence the line of contact and tried to build the second line of defence, only to be overrun and have all my work destroyed as my team either camped or just failed to halt the run and gun onslaught of the opposing team. Note, this is not a complaint against the build time in and of itself, but a reiteration that the game flow is already far too dynamic for the existing range of built structures, without creating even more complex structures that will more than likely either be bypassed or detpacked into oblivion within seconds of contact.