While it is always good news to see some Q&A, the lack of questions about the latest progression rework proposal is worrying, and some answers are just moronic:
As others pointed out, this was a big discussion at one time. Like, the MAIN discussion for an entire week. If anything, if you don’t see leaning as an issue, is because at this point discussion has shifted to even bigger issues (ahem progression rework ahem).
Wtf. Like, there is no reason to do this. Just add F2P paratroopers why block an entire type of Squad?
That’s basically a non-argument. How is the game “unbalanced” if F2Ps get a second vehicle slot? If anything, I’d be in favor of making the standard be 3 infantry, 1 ground and 1 air slot, with premium being 4 (or 5) infantry, 2 ground and 2 air. Locking vehicle slots to ground and air prevents multi-tank spam and gives players the flexibility to use planes when needed (right now almost every F2P would pick tanks because they are more generally useful).
Again, glad to see a Q&A after so long, but we really need to address the bigger issues and give better argumentation other than “yeh pay us for slots and buy our paratrooper premiums”.
I disagree. I prefer currently how Premiums are just like any other squad added to our collection that we have to choose to add to our lineup. I’ve never viewed Premiums as P2W, sometimes you just feel like playing them just like how sometimes I feel like playing Sniper. Yes I know theoretically it would just be one extra slot but
Still waiting to see any answers about better balancing defensive mechanics and fortifications.
There are many of us that came to the game because of the promise of strategic gameplay, not just run-and-gun like Call of Duty. However, as it currently stands, it seems like it is drifting further and further away from a game that values strategic gameplay.
Even smaller changes like the recent removal of double stacking sandbags. I understand that there was an exploit that some people were using with it, HOWEVER, taking it out completely and not giving players a chance to make decent cover or fortify MG nests in a FAIR manner seems absolutely ridiculous to myself and others!
Especially when you even mention that the MG nest is used considerably less.
Building them faster and letting them angle more to the sides is great and all, but major issues are still there.
ONLY the American MG nests can angle down, meaning all the others are almost useless if they are put in a 2nd floor window or higher.
Without the ability to stack sandbags, the sides of the MG nest are always exposed, making it incredibly easy to kill the player or break the MG.
A single bullet hitting the gun breaks it. So again, without being able to put sandbags beside it, a spray in its general direction will normally break it.
A fortified MG nest is a really good reason to take a sniper. However, right now snipers are only really taken when players are actually sitting back sniping. Otherwise they are just passed over for more automatic weapons.
OVERALL
My summed up questions are as follows:
Do the developers care about making the game incorporate strategic elements going forward, or just run- and- gun elements?
Will there be better mechanics implemented for defense side getting an opportunity to play strategically and fortify ahead of time?
As engineers are a staple in every squad, and more squads are getting unique structures, will the ENGINEER squads themselves be getting better defensive fortification variants to make them a worthwhile squad to take?
Have the devs considered giving the currently existing MG nest to Engineer 1 squad, and a windowed sandbag version to Engineer 2 squad instead?
Will the devs be bringing back the ability to stack sandbags?
Regarding the AA guns, there has been a lot of chatter about the damage against aircraft no longer being viable. Do the devs plan on fixing this?
Given that several campaigns now have SPAAs, as well as HMG options, plus the old model of AA has been changed out for single barrel versions, Will you be adding the ability to aim down to the ground with the AAs (autocannons)?
Since they won’t beat HMGs against infantry, and won’t beat AT field guns against tanks, there is no longer a claim that they will be “Overpowered” as an offensive structure.
i’m not sure if we are allowed to " debate " or not.
but…
half of this game it’s not historical.
i don’t see why add customization for weapons ( as long are realistic. for example rags, engraved marks of kills / names / places / campaign ) just to make a few bucks isn’t going to be a thing.
but literally putting prototype that never saw combat is ok.
Except, also in other battles it’s arguable important to learn from other players, get cool cinematic in times and above all ( more for personal use )
allow PVEs to take place and let another team spectate.
which it’s great…
but still no medals on the chest ?
but for the rest, more or less, it’s all good to hear.
Sure, but what can you expect if the reporting system that Enlisted uses right now is worthless?
I agree that there should be a global chat, a group chat and a general team chat (like the current one), but first fix the problem with the reporting system.
They most likely dont even know how to fix the BR themself and dont want angry pitchforks because they scraped what was promised in favor of something they deamed better.
And any mention of BR would derail the entire topic for othere feedback.
So dont blame them for not including it.
since most players have 3 infantry slots and only 1 vehicle slot
Jesus Christ, of course most players will have this slot set, as it is default. All those players who just played 1 round and then deleted the game, certainly they will have this set.
Why not check for example players who reached Level 20 in specific campaign and see how many slots they have?
.
