We've Collected Your Questions!

Greetings, commanders!

You have seen our plans. You have asked questions about those plans, and, we have been keenly observing what you have to say.

Among these, we saw a great many questions and concerns from you how we will tackle ”gray-zone” players, in what manner we’ll be improving customization, about our planned changes to punish desertion from battles, what the ”Veteran’s Box” actually is, and what quality of life improvements we were actually referring to in the plan.

Many of the queries mentioned above, or specific questions about other topics, that will be answered anyway in approaching developer blogs, so if you don’t see your question addressed directly in the Q&A – don’t worry! We’ll answer it another time.

Keep an eye on the news – the Q&A is coming in the near future.


So Soon™ yet again.

  1. Grey zone players aren’t even a real issue.
  2. Ah yes, lootboxes.
  3. What QoL changes, out of dozens of suggestions?

Do you want players to stop playing? If not, don’t punish them; instead, fix the in-game abuses causing them to leave.


I hope this means they will address Italian Uniforms and picking what type of nationality you want for your soldier.


Why do you want to punish players in tanks ?

Tanks are not meant to cover infantry with their body, they are to support infantry from behind.


Rather than going silent for a while until the Q&A is suddenly released, we preferred to make a post to show that we have seen the questions, and that we mean business. :slight_smile:


As a show of good faith, can you give us an ETA on the QnA results then?


Giving actual timelines never works well. Makes more people angry than anything. I’m just saying I understand why their policy is not to do that.


I hope that 1~2 developer Q&A sessions can answer the hot questions of new and old players in as much detail as possible.
Show the future of Enlisted to players and potential investors in a meaningful and time-limited manner.
(Instead of being vague, repeatedly delaying, always emphasizing the difficulties encountered by developers, forcing players to forgive developers, etc.)
Of course, if possible, show and demonstrate to players that the Enlisted team has sufficient technical strength, sufficient professionalism, and a sufficient number of senior developers (in various project departments of Enlisted, rather than investing a lot of energy in serving War Thunder/Water World/other games).
ps:If rewards could solve all problems, then there would be no more crime, and even corruption.

Inb4 greyzone camping is fine as is

The statements made in this Q&A are going to make or break the community’s view of the devs. It’s pretty bad right now given the Steam debacle and lack of major issue fixes. If they give good answers with quantifiable measures to improve this game, it could revitalize the community. If we get half answers and “soon TM” answers, it’ll likely break the community more. We will see how it goes, I suppose.


We ask for timelines because it is a voluntary commitment.

Some changes such as additional rewards for queuing as any faction have been requested for years, but have only been addressed recently.

When I ask for a timeline, it shows me how COMMITTED the dev team is to actually getting a feature out, and it gives players SOMETHING TO ACTUALLY LOOK FORWARD TO.

It’s a basic show of trust.

That’s what it all boils down to.


I was not criticizing (I gave like to your post), I just tried to keep meme alive.

1 Like

as far as i know,

james and :fox_face: often just left a message “in gold” ( headlight ) over the main thread saying that they would have addressed X or Y.

but then again, Keo did also made announcements threads of further announcements from time to time.

so i guess old habits never die


Is the third machine gun model on many tanks will be usable in future updates?


keen to hear about this :+1:


I had some questions and concerns about the grey zones being too tight and being an obnoxiously unfair hindrance in the gameplay.
The grey zone is deadly enough as it is. Sometimes it sabotages totally fair actions, like supporting the team from the back lines for extended time as a mortarman or a sniper with a clear view of the next objective - for example in Tunisia, where you still have mortar range to eliminate the enemies but you get deleted because the objectives have been taken, or in the battle of the Bulge, where there are 2 hills and you will be annihilated by the system if you try to snipe from the top of the hill on the side of your allies - and you can literally see the whole capture zone and the routes towards it, so I’m not talking about a selfish sniping situation - people playing the objective are being punished by the grey zone.
No need to delete the snipers in good positions, they can always be countersniped which is much more fair.

So my question for the Q&A is: Can the battlefield area (non-grey zone) be expanded to be more fair for the supporting infantry when staying far behind as a sniper or a mortarman still means playing the objective?


Please! Focus on matching sets of clothes. It’s really a shame that I can’t use ±70% of the customization pieces because there are no matching torsos to the pants and helmets and vice versa.


You do you. I’m just telling you it is industry standard NOT to give a specific timeline.

I would also like to point out that DF compared to any AAA company is far, far, FAR more responsive to customer input.

Things like adding engineer slots to old squads, or the high value, low cost, of the Battlepass and the merger of campaigns shows that DF does listen.

The thing to remember is that you can make some of the people happy all the time, all the people happy some of the time, but you will never make all the people happy all of the time. It’s about balancing a disparate audience how all have different ideas about what makes the “perfect” game.