Balance the game behind player skill and decisions.
That’s what I’d like to see.
When I started new campaigns, I adopted a playstyle that worked well with bolt action rifles, and I had no issues. PPSH drum mags aren’t shit when I pick off the entire squad at 100 meters with my rifle.
I see no reason why every player can’t just learn to play to their strengths and acquire even a tiny semblance of map knowledge.
You don’t HAVE to play cqc with bolt action rifles necessarily. Sometimes there’s no choice, but typically you can adapt to the games current situation.
Weapon nerfs and buffs aren’t really needed in a game like enlisted.
Oh but I’m saying quite the opposite!
I’m accusing the devs since day one of the semi auto nerf of doing stupid things like nerfs wich serve no purpose at all, no plus value and to make things worse, dig the chasm between new players and full auto rifles power creeps enven deeper! They nerfed the middle ground weapon, how dumb is that? They also didn’t have ANY reason to do so. In fact it’s BECAUSE that nerf that now full auto rifles reign Supreme. Was okayish before that.
Combined SMALL Arms is the toolset. Everyone knows (hopefully) to add an engineer, but you should also be adding assaulters, machine gunners, etc. to your squads to allow for adaptation.
Dont nerf anything unless its a full auto rifle (FG42, AVS, AVT, FG42 II) Dont nerf stats, you can just restrict them to radio OPs or Engineers or gunners. Its that simple. Having them on every class is fucking dumb and i dont think i really need to say why
You would have loved playing the alpha for berlin in 2020 where exp to card drops was the standard way of playing. This addition was already in the game before it ever went public, yet removed once it was out of exclusivity.
Note: this is different from bronze cards to exp which is public. this was ‘everything’ cards.
“The semi auto nerf was a bad idea” and “All nerfs are bad ideas” are two very different concepts. The semi auto nerf being a bad idea implies that one particular change was a bad idea. All nerfs are bad ideas mean that all content that has been and ever will be added, was perfectly balanced on introduction. It implies that artillery squads having 30 second cool downs and no lockouts was the right way to go. It implies that bombers being able to reliably kill everyone in the point with no friendly fire was the right way to go. And so on and so forth.
I fully agree that a nerf to semi autos, without nerfing select fire weapons in semi auto mode, was pretty dumb. What I disagree with is the idea that no improvements could possibly be made to the state of things from where they were prior to that change,. And as for it hurting new players, do you know what guns new players have? Its bolt actions. Getting access to semi autos, especially if you choose to play in moscow, takes a long time, and the game already actually blocks most particularly high campaign level players from interacting with newbies.
So, instead of saying that everything was great the way it was before, and any changes to the status quo is bad, perhaps we should argue for nerfs that are better thought out? Ones that actually help give different weapon classes clear niches with no single weapon being the best option in 90% of cases?
Also, I think with how often this sort of topic comes up, it is clear that many players are unhappy with the satus quo, and Gaijin would be foolish to not at least experiment a bit to see if they can make things better
If that were the case I wouldn’t complain as much. But they have no idea how to do that. Like when they nerfed BA accuracy for no reason. Or when they broke rally points by increasing build distance. Or the lmg nerf making them useless (they reworked it) shotgun nerf… etc. Those nerf diminish fun factor a lot.
It’s not thought out at all. Have you played H&G? It’s exactly what they’re doing rn, throwing random nerfs left and right.
As for the bombs and arty nerfs: those WERE requested by us! As such they’re ok because at least we DID want them, and for actual good reasons…
My counter suggestion was to use polls more, and ASK the players if such nerf is justified, etc.
I mean, they nerfed accuracy across the board, and when it became clear that it was overly harsh, especially on bolt actions, they toned it down and gave bolt actions some preferential treatment. When they broke rally points by increasing build distance, the behavior we saw was never actually intended, it was just a bug, which they fixed after a couple days. When they nerfed lmgs, they made adjustments to even things out.
I’ll give you at least some credit on the shotguns, though. While as far as I understand it pre nerf shotguns sound kind of nuts, in their current state they could use some love.
But hey, happy to see we can agree that the plane and artillery changes were warranted.
Honestly though, as long as we have a mutual understanding that good nerfs do exist, even if they aren’t common, then I can walk away from this discussion satisfied. Far too often I see players across all sorts of games attack any and every nerf, simply because it is a nerf, which is just… shortsighted. Sometimes things have too much power or impact on the overall game, and crowd out other options, to the detriment of most players, and often the best way to deal with that situation is to tone down the offending elements. Sure, in theory you can buff everything else, but then that either changes the overall flow of the game considerably, by shorting matches, for example, or ends up being a far more difficult path to the same end result. Obviously nerfs can be misued, and over used, but they are an important tool, and it frustrates me to no end how often they are hated.
I agree with pretty much everything you say, which is why Tunisia is by far the most enjoyable campaign for me. Unfortunately, whereas semi-autos alone are okay in Berlin for the Soviets, Axis players generally have to go full auto to stop the SMG horde. Normandy is just broken, and I’m saying this even when I only play Axis there. Un-nerfing semi-autos is a first step towards a much needed general rebalancing.
Yeah sure you don’t need to defend/attack points to win you can just sit 100m behind and you can still win because stupid non-adapting players will throw their bodies to capture/defend the point. Absolutely true
That’s not even true
The only German semi that genuinely suffers is the G41 from the double stripper reload and that has nothing to do with RoF
Sperg more
absolutely, how do you expect to keep new players when they finally reach the semis, better able to counter select fires, find out that they’re useless at cqc?
I can agree with the LMG shit, the semi change has only helped my time with them if anything
Only MG that needed a nerf hit was the 34, but the change has really fucked on all of them unnecessarily
The ROF was another punch that made it even worse