Added my suggestion on this forum, take a look at it and discuss your ideas there, I started a new one to stay clear of any annoyances from previous ones.
1 Like
I really dont think thatâs the case for everybody I personally just got access the other day and Iâm really enjoy it. There are some things that are wacky but its currently in beta and I expect alot of the issues to fix over the course of the beta/first few months of being live. And if you feel like your being ignored I can say that they dont ignore people just they have ALOT of feedback coming from alot of places they cant deal or look at everything all the time. And tbh im finding the progression way easier then it is in War Thunder.
The only thing in my few days of playing ive noticed is if people have a few radio squads on a team they can launch arty strike after arty strike it would be nice to see it limited to X number per team or have larger cooldowns/damage on the arty strikes.
Im not fully dismissing everything you stated in your original post and people having higher level squads (AI) then other people should challenge those new players to play more and grind to get the higher rank squads. (I understand that point but at the same time think in COD or Battlefield somebody has maxed out weapons and a new player joins the lobby and gets stumped because of that, thatâs something that is bound to happen with a level progression system.)
and for the player retention from ive heard this will say free to play and who cares if there are packa for people to get a small advantage in the game. If it truely stays free to play Gaijin needs to make some profit back from the game. No company in the world would invest into something that they know wouldnt make them a profit back. (+ buying packs etc. help support the development of the game)
On your point about winrates. I personally donât really care or have an issue that one nation has âbetter weaponsâ or âmore playersâ etc. I just play the game and enjoy it and iâm learning more about the game every time I play.
I never claimed it was
This should never be an excuse for bad game mechanics.
Well it can not really be compared to a drastically diffrent game, especially when all players in this game are thrown toghetter in one matchmaker (well per-campaign basis, but still there are no tiers).
And to never see a single post about their plans other than the official dev blogs which are almost always news post about already made changes, really makes you ask how much is ignored.
Letâs compare what a player has on a starter squad when comparing with and without premium:
Without:
3 rank 1 riflemen, armed with gewehr33/mosin1903 and 1x explosive/grenade and 1x medkit, no perks
1 rank 3 rifleman, armed with gewehr33/mosin1903 and 1x explosive/grenade and 1x medkit, no perks
With:
4 rank 5 assaulters, armed with the best SMGs in the game with +20% rate of fire and damage pre-modded onto them, 3 medkits per soldier and 1 explosive/grenade. Gets 5 extremely powerful perks and enough reroll points to get any perk loadout you want, including triple medkit efficiency, 70% less recoil, 35% more health, 15% higher sprint speed and more.
Lets compare the weapons:
Gewehr33/Mosin1903 deal 13 damage at a ~40 rounds per minute.
PPK/MP41 deal ~5.5 damage at ~700 rounds per minute, aka ~5x more DPS.
This is way too big of an advantage to ignore, and will prove detrimental to any free-to-play players that do not invest into such a squad. And the majority of the ones who donât simply will have such a bad time they will quit.
Well, good for you. Sadly, not everyone thinks like you, otherwise we would have much more balanced matches.
My final reply to you tonight.
You mean exactly what you tried to do earlier in fact making an entire thread about it? Comparing to WT in such a minor way is very valid since it is the same publisher.
Plus the premium squads canât be used as an example of monetisation since they are simply a reward for supporting the devs, not an example of monetisation, besides, the only difference between them and a fully upgraded normal squad is that they have more SMG soldiers.
I have compared it to H&G, if that is what you are referring to. That game does not have a matchmaker either. It is a WW2 first person shooter as well, mostly aimed towards horizontal progression to not get the vertical progression steepness we have in enlisted rn.
War thunder has a tech tree system where each vehicle has a clearly defined rank and as such does not face each other. Too much of a diffrence at that point.
They are exactly that. They are a microtransaction that simultaniously act as entry for the game. You can not buy the game without getting the premium squad right now so they are not some optional way of âsupporting the devsâ in any shape, way or form.
and unique SMGs
and double perk capacity
Err, no, I am not, i am referring to your extremely recent thread entirely and baselessly comparing Enlisted to RO2 which you, yourself completely invalidated with your comment there, pick a lane and stay with it, you canât say you canât compare different games, whilst doing so far more egregiously yourself. This is just for context to others.
You mean @sfh0525âs thread? that one was not mine 
I never played RO2, how could I ever compare it?
Fair enough, but still you compared games in there very closely which still means you have double standards.
And the guns are identical fully upgraded to their free counterparts.
Again I understand I canât really compare it to War thunder but for this point it makes sense. War Thunder is far from Balanced on all the nations each have their ups and downs. But the 85% (this is just a number I made up from my almost 2000 hours in war thunder I donât know the official stats) of the player base play the big 3 nations USA, Germany, and Russia. There are 9 nations in total. They constantly add new content to these other nations but the majority of the player base still plays the big 3. Premium versions of vehicles exist in War thunder and some of them are stronger then their tech tree counter part.
I think right now it feels like its pay-to-win but once more players get access to the game those players will become a minority and you will only come across them here and there. (this may or may not be the case but I still think that if somebody choose to purchase a CBT pack its helping show interest in game and supporting the game a bit financially)
at the start new player will be a bit at a disadvantage but I think the more people play the playing field will even out.
The only reason im comparing games is because its made by the same company.
Does offer semi-automatic, and less recoil thanks to the recoil perk that you would otherwise not get until you put 40 hours into getting a single rank 5 soldier.
I donât see the world as black or white. There are grey areas, but for me, for this specific case, it boils down to what the purpose of progression between the games are, and how comparable they are
In War Thunder, the purpose is to get higher in the ranks, to obtain and fight stronger tanks.
In Enlisted, as there is no matchmaker and is mainly aimed towards unlocking more options through the campaign. Sadly, the rest of the progression system is vertical, making a soldier stronger despite it facing all the weaker opponents.
Well I have played war thunder a lot too and if we stick to that as an example, you notice that a lot players above 6.7 but below 10.0 drive premium tanks. A lot of them do offer a slight advantage over other players, but in Enlisted that advantage is so much bigger. In Enlisted most players play their premium squad as well, showing that that part specifically does not differ much between War Thunder and Enlisted
Stop going on about the matchmaker, there are not enough players to have one split by progression, not that one is necessarily needed (not saying it isnât, just saying many other games donât and work fine).
And you did compare games yourself and this specific comparison was already explained, besides it is a minor point so letâs not get hung up on it.
Well I highly doubt a new player would enjoy using a gun that deals 35% less damage (13 vs 18 from upgraded rifles), face enemies with 35% more health, better guns overall (SMGs, MGs, mortars), more soldiers per squad (4 vs 7), etc, etc.
I have yet to actually figure out a metric on HOW a matchmaker could actually work, though. Otherwise I would have suggested it by now.
And I think that there arenât enough players because the game fails to keep people playing. We had 10x the ammount of players we have now when CBT started, but they all left in disappointment.
well the same could be said for alot of games like COD a level 1 getting in a lobby with a prestige 20 level 80. I understand but if they had a matchmaking system then they would have to create an invisible MMR system. Which would be difficult especially due to player base size as @51084259 mentioned.
And I joined a few days ago and i dont think my gun does any less damage then the ones the enemies are shooting at me.
because Rank is just based on play time not skill I would hate to be constantly matched up with people who are insanely good at the game just because I have a high campaign level. It wouldnt make the game enjoyable
Having an mix bag of good and bad players is what makes games enjoyable
Also just to note. Collegeâs/schools started up again. so maybe alot of them had IRL things to do. Also people will wanna play whatever game they choose they are not forced to play a game they paid for or got access to.
I have not played CoD that much actually. What does a p20l80 have to offer other than experience / skill compared to the level 1 player?
My guess is:
More gun options that arenât necessarily better, but some are because meta
More gun attachments that do improve the gun, but also have downsides, that mostly get negated because meta picks.
Which is why I have yet to find a suitable way of judging a playerâs strength, unlike how War Thunder uses a BR system, you canât exactly do that in Enlisted unless you give each individual item a value.
Which will happen until the ends of time. So that is why the game has to stand out, which it does not right now, which is what I have been trying to fix for the past half year.
basically that guy would be level 2080 so they would know the game extremely well compared to the new level 1 player
For me the main issue was that it was a âA is better than Bâ argument, without any clear laid out reasons as to why. And that got significantly worse as the games are difficult to directly compare objectively.