A score requirement system for vehicles

Suggestions Vehicles
1
  • Yes
  • No
0 voters

This idea has been on my mind since the Titan Rise event, how many of you remember that far back. But my main takeaway from that event was that the Titans couldn’t just be spawned in whenever you wanted to, you had to accumulate a certain amount of score before you were able to use one.

I think that Enlisted as a whole would benefit from a system like this being implemented for tanks and aircraft, having players use infantry and APCs before being able to spawn in a vehicle.

The main benefits I think a score requirement system would bring are:

  1. A new way for vehicles to be balanced without having to change their BR.
  2. Preventing an unhealthy number of vehicles from tarnishing the infantry experience.
  3. Allows for a reasonable rebalancing of vehicles to better suit their role in an infantry-dominated battlefield.
  1. Currently there’s very little that the devs can do to effectively buff or nerf a vehicle besides changing its BR or changing its ammo load. But when vehicles require score to be spawned in then that opens up a new possibility for balance.

Take for example the Na-To (which nobody wants moved down apparently), it’s worse in every conceivable way to the Chi-Nu II. The Na-To is a casemate, open top, it’s crew is exposed and defenseless, it has no machine guns, it’s ammo load out is terrible, it’s slow, it’s a massive target, and it has no armor. Well if the Chi-Nu II took 2,000 points to spawn in while the Na-To took 500 points to spawn in then suddenly it has a purpose as a cheap tank destroyer.

A score requirement suddenly opens up the roles of tank destroyers and guns-only fighters for what they’re supposed to be, easy anti-vehicle platforms. A plane with no ordinance currently is useless, but if it a FW-190 A-4 was easy to spawn compared to a FW-190 A-8 when there’s an Xa-38 bombing your team then suddenly it’s not as useless anymore. Same thing for tank destroyers, no one uses the Marder because a vehicle whose sole purpose is to destroy other vehicles while being poor against infantry just isn’t very useful. But if the enemy team got a Sherman up and you need quick anti-tank then the 500 score Marder isn’t as bad.

  1. I’ve never really been one to complain about HE, more so that some teams are carried by the fact that they can endlessly cycle vehicles in an infantry game. It’s not difficult to counter vehicles, but eventually you just sigh and do it even if you don’t really want to. The best example is BR2 Japan, you almost always get uptiered and get spammed with Shermans; and thanks to the Pacific maps you basically have to deal with all of them quickly or half your team gets blown up.

I think the game would benefit if vehicles were less prevalent but more impactful individually, but also with strong counters. Basically every infantryman already has either an explosive pack or a TNT charge since tanks are so common, so scaling back their prevalence would change the calculus behind loadouts.

  1. Like I said previously, I think the number of vehicles should be scaled back but their impact should be scaled up. At the same time, I think their counters should be made more consistent at the same time. Basically buff everything in one way or another.

Seeing a tank loses its meaning after you’ve destroyed 10 over the course of the match, the last time I think people felt something seeing a tank was the Normandy players seeing a King Tiger for the first time after the merge. But what if that tank was only able to be spawned in after several minutes of hard-fought infantry gameplay, then suddenly it might change the course of the match. Vehicles would still have to be played right, they’re easy to destroy and I want them to be easier to destroy, but they’d also have a much higher potential than they currently do.

With this point I think vehicle MGs could be buffed, tank HE could be buffed, bombs and rockets made more consistent, AT guns made to not bounce around when you’re trying to hit weakspots on an enemy tank, high tier AA, explosive packs being more consistent with their damage, explosive packs being able to not magically glide on top of tanks, etc etc.

Anyways this is a lot, but I can elaborate more so ask away if you got questions.

3 Likes
2

Assumes that everyone has the slots to spare for a very situational squad.
Tanks like the marder are already a great pick against tanks but since taking it means not running a more versetile option it rarely gets chosen by dedicated vehicle players.
Just unlock vehicles from their singular squad from competing for the 1 TT squad and it would be way more common.

Protecting the infantry experiance in a combined arms game…

Not sure how that is supposed to work really. How is somebody supposed to be more impactfull in a tank when at the same time you nerf his survivability. If a tank has to be even more careful or risk beeing blown up wasting 5 minuts of points then how can he make an impact where it mattters?

Do you really want to push them into the greyzone exclusively?

But why would that be the case? I already got every soldier outfitted with detpacks and TNT/AT mines so why should I got through the effort of removing them?
I barely use grenades anyway and dont enjoy the tedious spamming AP mines so why should I even remove TNT when you even propose to buff it aswell? And then again if you really make a tank more impactful as in below

Then AT will also become more important or I risk beeing driven back to beeing spawnkilled if my team cant take it out one way or another.
All you did was make tanks steamroll bad teams even harder as they already do.

So do want to replicate the king tigers from normandy but without the one aspect that actually made it so good… its survivability. If I grinded my butt of just to drive a king tiger only to get taken out 30 seconds later due to one of the “buffed” made more consistant counters then how can my tank be “more impactfull”?

1 Like
3

Enlisted is a combined arms game, always has been.

Overall, no.

You admit that tanks are very easy to kill (hence why you feel that you can destroy so many with no impact). Why make tanks rarer but then keep all of the things that currently kills tanks like flies the same…?

Greyzone camping tanks won’t just be the standard, it’ll be the only viable alternative for the guy who spent five minutes grinding for a tank, they’d really like to be using it for more than 40 seconds.

And, people who buy tanks and aircraft should be allowed to use their bought vehicles. Slapping on a score requirement for you spent actual money is just cruel and a bad business practice, but only slapping on that score requirement to TT vehicles would be P2W.

In short, this would never work.

6 Likes
4

So bring back HE killing throu walls or how would you buff HE?
As stupid as it sounds but even the 150mm HE which is massive is kinda just meeh due to beeing stoped by the tinies amount of cover/terrain eating the entire shell.

With the way current HE in enlisted workes even bombs like the FAB 5000 would be only marginally better than a 1000 kg bomb and I would say even worse than just taking 2 500kg ones if given the option.
So unless you allow HE to ignore cover again there isnt really an option to buff HE at this point.

5

I don’t know about you, but I can sense a shift in momentum after a tank is destroyed.

Aircraft less so, unless you take out a guy very good at precision bombing, or who’s just spamming rockets effectively.

6

I actually forgot to put that vehicles shouldn’t be locked to squads, which I do think should happen.

1 Like
7

HE shells shouldn’t be getting stopped by random objects. Wood is the best example, wood completely counters an HE shell if it detonates on it.

8

If someone’s willing to spend upwards of $50 on a vehicle then I think they can play a few minutes of infantry before spawning it in.

9

And this is why the devs will be quietly ignoring this one.

They’re not going to touch premiums in this way.

2 Likes
10

I’m not saying that AT should be buffed so that any single-celled organism can take out a King Tiger just by sneezing at it, I want it to be more consistent. The main things I want are:

  1. AT guns to not have a seizure randomly before no-clipping into the Backrooms. It makes hitting weakspots tedious in the few spots you can actually get away with building an AT gun.
  2. Explosive packs should be more consistent. I’ve noticed there’s been a silent nerf to their performance with a few no-armor vehicles surviving explosive packs they never should have; but at the same time they still work perfectly 95% of the time.
    The main thing is the physics if they land on a target, the tumbling can affect their damage if it lands on top.

Honestly the main reason I want a score requirement is cause it would help make underpowered vehicles more viable, by having them be easier to spawn. Particularly the BR2 tank destroyers that so many people are scared to have in BR1 and the planes with no ordinance.

Also like I said HE shells shouldn’t be stopped by molecules and machine guns should do machine gun damage. Also that any vehicle should be usable by any squad.

1 Like
11

As @OggeKing already pointed out, the game was never balanced to have point requirements for spawning vehicles. Any soldier can easily destroy tanks, aircraft is very easy to crash and even light damage can be fatal to them (they cannot be repaired either besides carrier planes in Pacific).

With a point system, all vehicles would need to be heavily rebalanced. Sure its possible but it would take too much work to be worth it, not to mention that we already too deep in the current rabbit hole, every faction has AT guns and rocket launchers necessary to deal with any tank.
Its only a matter of time for stronger AA as well.

The point system was tested 3 years ago and nothing came of it, so I think its pretty clear that devs themselves understood that it isnt a real solution to any of the in game issues.
Plans for the merge and BRs were announced not long after the test, so the direction is already set and there is no real reason to experiment with controversial and problematic game mechanics.

5 Likes
12

It was just an idea I thought I’d throw out there. An idea spanned from my desire for certain TDs ti have their BRs lowered, every plane without ordinance to either be given ordinance or a purpose, and the greyzone to be pushed back.

13

No

14

planes that have no ordinance need something added, if nothing is available then they need to be a BR lower.
As for planes with better ordinance, I had a system in mind for that.
Fighter aircraft with bombs bigger than 4x50kg/2x100kg or equivalent and attacker aircraft with ordinance more powerful than the average of the BR would need to wait some time before they could rearm at the rearm point.
That time would scale with the amount and size of bombs, rockets carried.

This way aircraft with more ordinance would need to ration its weapons instead of dropping everything at once and running back to rearm point.
This would balance the difference in ordinance but some buffs would probably be necessary, like bringing rearm point closer, increasing area of effect of bombs/rockets.

Only issue I cant really do much with yet is suicide bombing, aircraft spawn would probably need to be moved further back to make suicide bombing less rewarding than staying alive until rearm.

edit: an idea just sparked:
if you suicide bomb, you cannot spawn aircraft until the time rearm unlock would take.
So if you crash with a Stuka D-5 to avoid waiting 2 minutes to rearm than you cannot spawn aircraft for 2 minutes, except for aircraft without ordinance.

15

Suicide bombing is only really problematic with defenders who have infinite tickets. Other than that you’re throwing away tickets for the chance of getting enough kills to make up for it. The unfortunate part is that with no limit on tickets or vehicles, suicide bombing is just effective if you know where your target is, often a tank.

1 Like
16

This would save the game

4 Likes
17

They need a timer feature so that if you haven’t gotten a kill or spotted a tank from the sky for like 2 1/2 minutes then you’re kicked out… or like a vote to expel player from plane option

I’m normally not a fan of this suggestion but i can only like it because i know it’ll prevent these idiots from getting in the plane… it’s one of my biggest frustrations with this game is a tank shelling objective and not that! But the subhuman trash in the sky preventing me from taking out said tank.

18

Hard no people keep mistaking enlisted for CoD this is a combined arms game not an “infantry focused” game vehicles should not be scored streaks like I’ve said if you want “infantry focused” gameplay go play CoD or learn the rock paper scissors of this game Tanks with infantry support beat infantry planes beat tanks and Engineers beat everything.

5 Likes
19

The problem is not how prevalent vehicles are, but how easy it is to spam and cycle through vehicles.
The solution is very simple, free first spawn for all vehicle squads, then start charging points for repeated spawns.

1 Like
20

No, that would ruin the game. I like seeing panzers roll up into combat at the start and later planes.

2 Likes