show me 2 vehicle slots for f2p players and then we can talk. high end tanks are basically invulnerable if f2p newbie decides to take tank instead of plane. this isnt even rare occurrence that whole team has only tanks for vehicles and have seen this scenario numerous times.
well unlike stack where you dont have any good solutions, BR actually fixes lots of things
games have balance. you dont balance weapons based on one group of strangers vs other group of strangers with varied skill levels. weapon are balanced when same player (or similar skill player) can provide similar performance with both weapons. this is core of any FPS. just look at CSGO or Valorant and tell me are they balanced by matching players with similar skill and then one team only has access to pistols, while other team has access to AR and snipers, or do both teams have access to all weapons?
you are now forcing new players to play CSGO/Valorant equivalent of pistols, while veterans have AR/snipers. it makes for unbalanced game no matter what skill level both teams have.
yes i am ok with noobs getting abused cause they will only improve when they play against skilled players, but i also want for them to have a chance to fight back. you dont seem to understand that i dont want one sided abuse where newbies cant do anything cause of my superior weapons. if they had access to t10 weapons i am ok playing with them on t10. but it is utterly stupid to have match when they have t1 weapon and i have t10 weapon/vehicle. this gives unfair advantage to veterans.
but you said it. this is one of the major stronghold arguments that you have. in wars you have varied weapons/vehicles, so we must have them that way in game. and my counter argument is that in war 90% of german soldiers used kar98k, so you should use kar98k 90% of the time.
only thing that is pathetic is your lack of skill that you need overwhelming advantage in weaponry to stand a chance against newbies.
i am ok if you want to full simulate HA. that includes squad setups and their equipment. either you go full HA simulation, or you go balanced arcade.
only one who wants to play softcore mode for limp babies is you. tell me what is more softcore: taking OP weapons against newbies with starter equipment? or going against newbies with starter equipment equipped with starter equipment and going against veterans equipped with top equipment with top equipment?
cause equality is only available in communist/socialist countries? maybe you should read up on history.
you obviously dont understand morality. if you are invulnerable in PvP game, that borders cheating even if you technically didnt cheat. do you maybe feel like a man when you know that nobody can hurt you?
when i actually played axis normandy i came across this situation a lot. i could camp on hill all game without getting destroyed and get 10-15 tank kills alongside 150-200 infantry kills. only recently allies have more veterans (who use planes) cause they want to grind top level premerge and lots of axis player went to berlin to grind end game stuff there.
i know the issues, but simply game is past point of no return for those issues. without 2-3 years of devs constantly working on fixing them, it is impossible to fix it. and you would still have balance issues cause game would put you with early war or prewar weapons/vehicles against late game weapons/vehicles and this is mostly unrealistic situation for ww2 (i know exceptions exist, but overall unrealistic and mostly not historical)
only thing that is lost is your head.
flametroopers are visible from plane and there are only 2 per squad. it is quite easy to see and kill them. if you cant do that it is just skill issue. and we could only be happy if only one BR is flooded with them. now we have them every match with multiple people fielding them.
still i dont see any playstyle change. you will use same tactics against flametroopers as you use them now. only variable that may change is their quantity, but overall you will still have same playstyle against them.
i change tactics/playstyle according to situation on terrain and not cause someone has thompson instead of m3.
almost every match in the last month i have seen at least one, if not multiple combinations of these:
end game tanks
end game planes
flametroopers
AR squads
artillery/bombers spam
and yes i know how bad it is going to be. have you played even fight event? well it will be easier cause most people will not have premium with slots unlocked.
the word you want to use there is not interesting. it is easy/softcore/limp d.
unlike stuart vs tiger, that pnz3 will be destroyable with vast array of weapons and you wont need to take the plane out just to destroy it.
with your selfish brain you dont seem to understand that i am not doing this for myself (well mostly), but for new players. i could easily say i dont care and keep status quo and just use meta end game KT with stg44 or is2 with fedorov against newbies and bots, but that is boring. i want challenge from the players and not boring matches where you either just roflstomp enemy or get roflstomped. my favorite matches are those where you dont know to whom the victory will go until last second. easy victories are boring.
there you go again with select quotes. why dont you quote whole paragraph
if you need clarification i will give you. there is no problem with currently using end game meta equipment cause there is no MM and you will end up against other veterans with end game equipment. is there problem with newbies ending in crossfire? yes, but it is necessary evil if you want option to carry the game.
so where is the problem about seal clubbing? when given opportunity to fix that problem (with BR MM), you refuse it cause keeping status quo gives you more power in match.
and you dont get it that i can at same time care about newbies and dont care. i care about basic integrity and weapon balance of the game. when 2 players are matched against each other, one player shouldnt have vastly superior weapon/vehicle without other player also having a chance to obtain similarly superior weapon/vehicle in same match. if you have vastly superior weapons on basis of paying you make game p2w, if you have vastly superior weapons cause of grind, you make the game grind2win (and cause you can accelerate grind with money it is ultimately p2w). do you understand that?
when player has somewhat equal ground against other player, i dont care about how that player uses that weapon. he may be more skilled than veterans or he may be utter noob. enlisted is not only fps, nor only ww2 fps around.
again with lies. i never said it is ok. i said there is no good solution to solve it so we must tolerate it cause solution could be worse than current situation.
you admitted it and you fight for your right to seal club.
i am using it cause i want to win. i am matched against other people who use meta stuff, against stacks that use meta stuff etc. only way to carry game in those situation is to use meta end game stuff also.
and currently enlisted is not segregated? crossplay on/off each divided by 3 regions/servers, each divided by 6 campaigns. you obviously dont understand that you wont be having hard limits in BR MM so there will be less segregation than enlisted currently has.
and if you believe that you should play is2 against pz2, or KT against t60, or fedorov against mp28 then you are welcome to customs.
you only need one slot though for a plane, if you want to argue about the limitations on free to play, that is a totally different topic and has nothing to do with players not using the stuff available to counter stuff that is annoying, I agree that the party line that is balance is stupid, but that is not an excuse for you not knowing how to easily use a level 4 plane to easily destroy an end game Tiger.
It’s like the grey zone problem, you blame the issue on the tier of tank, when really you admitted yourself the issue is that the grey zone
I would also point out at this point that there are usually 9 other players in a match on Normandy if no one is bothering to kill the Tiger, that is not a problem with the equipment, that is a problem of the players being idiots lol
like I already said, tigers getting flattened on Normandy currently, so your entire argument is dead
no there are solutions, you are just saying there aren’t. But there are, it’s called not matchmaking premades against solos, it’s far more effective than destroying the game by segregating the games toys into ridiculous tiers that will ruin the entire game, which fixes nothing btw as we have realized by discussing it in detail.
if you want to base anything off trash games as a model for this game, I can see why you have no idea or good taste
Yes, the unbalance is in the players not the weapons when the weapons were already balanced to begin with, like I said, if you get smashed by 2 full premade groups it hardly makes a difference if they do it with grease guns or M2 carbines or any other weapon for that matter. If there is one particular weapon that is super powerful and dominant, which is ok, then they are individually supposed to be balanced so they aren’t completely broken, but that is adjusted with weapon handling and stats, not segregating it all into divisions like some kind of sport hierarchy, that’s just the wrong way to go about it in this game, even you have admitted that saying this is casual game and not some serious sport affair
It’s not unfair though, you just worked hard for that, they can easily kill you
and they will, just run around and don’t shoot them, let them kill you and let them grab your high end weapons if it makes you feel any better, but stop trying to ruin the entire game for everyone else
I said that I want to play this game to enjoy all the wonderful toys of that war era in one pool
I never said I needed 100% historical accuracy
you pushed that rubbish on me
Says the guy that doesn’t know how to use a p38 from level 4 to easily kill a tiger
I don’t get a choice in what opponents I face idiot, so I face vets, I face noobs, and I face all kinds of variety of toys of war from that era, and I like it that way, it’s fun, it’s interesting, and it can be very challenging and rewarding at times, and yes other times it’s unbalanced, but that’s just part of the charm of it. I wouldn’t replace with limited segregation by choice, and that is a big issue with this, it’s being forced as the core mode of the game, completely changing this game forever, and ruining it
If I wanted full sim, I’d go play some rubbish sim, but I don’t play that because it’s a bore fest. But I also don’t play full arcade, otherwise I would go play Team Fortress 2 or some trash like that. No, what players like me want is an immersive experience that is in the middle. This new BR system is moving too far away from that sweet spot, too much. And just enough to kill the game for me.
So you are going to play the mode that holds your hand and you will never face a challenge like playing as level 1 vs an end level and you are now pretending like you are the big man, fckn hilarious
you cry about tigers for petes sake, you are a baby, and you want BR because you are a baby
and you are also upset that vets earned the right to use their high end gear, you even say you feel guilty like a bitch.
When you kill someone tell me which thought resonates best with you
“eat shit bitch”
or
“oh, i’m so sorry, didn’t realize you only had a rifle”
because if you gravitate more to the bottom thought, then you are likely just a little bit of a cuck bitch
no because you clearly missed the point that selling equality as propaganda is not actual equality, and it’s usually a lying scam, just like you are doing, thus the reference, and that’s historically accurate and you are I assume a living breathing example of it.
If you want to be moral you are playing the wrong game, this game is literally a repeated exercise in virtual game murdering people. If you want to get all moral about it, you are playing the wrong game.
Also there is not a single mechanic in this game that makes you have god mode, I have never played anything in this game that makes me invincible or invulnerable, so you are again full of shit and exaggerating crap, sure I have had some epic moments where if the opponent fails to deal with me I have had some nice streaks, but so what? That’s part of the appeal, others have same opportunity to do it, not like I’m special in any way, I just played the game and earned my way like anybody else has
You are painting this picture like I am some kind of cheater now for simply playing? Is that it? If I’m a cheater for playing the game as it is, then so are you and everyone else. If the game makes you feel like it’s unfair and not moral, then you are playing the wrong game, you probably should go play something with ponies and rainbows or something, this game is about war and killing, and there is no real fair, you eat shit on the battlefield and that’s just how it goes sometimes, I have eaten my fair share of it, and somehow survived to enjoy past it and want it to remain that way and figured out that it’s part of the journey to start at the bottom of each campaign and enjoy a rise and progression to the end of it, something that will be dead after the update because campaigns are being destroyed and because all the weapons and gear are being limited into stupid limited pools that make no sense and there is actually no logical argument in support of it that isn’t a delusional lie
When in reality it could have been done much better without ruining the actual core of the game, we could have added a noob friendly entry point mode, we could have added a rifle only mode and infantry only mode, and the core game would remain in tact
and by the way, I have started several campaigns from scratch and progressed from nothing, and was going to continue to do that in other campaigns if the game wasn’t going to destroy that, so you pretending that all i do is play with my end game stuff is just more rubbish coming from you, but even then, with the variety of campaigns now, the game has more longevity, it won’t after the merge, the game will be shrinking and being condensed into trash
yes and there are other issues at play there beyond crap players, such as we discussed, grey area issue, crap map design issue, player being idiots issue, quitters issue etc…
but you want to only focus on the one thing that is largely irrelevant most matches, because some matches it can be dominant, I would have thought that someone who is into stats would appreciate that most the issues in this game are because of players doing the mob bandwagon following business, and you have mentioned it before, yet you want to apply a different issue as a solution and cannot see the new issues that will arise and how it won’t actually fix anything, since the map will remain, the grey area will remain, the players that flock will remain, only now they have to suffer because gear has been separated into stupid tiers that make absolutely no sense other than to appease the babies, even thought that could be done many other better ways
ok so that’s great, getting some extra thinking here
So why is the game past the point of no return exactly? If the game is better now as is, than it will be with BR, that will be a point of no return for me, because it will ruin everything that is keeping me playing this game. So I would say we avoid this mistake, so that we don’t step over the cliff
Meanwhile you want to thrust us over the damn cliff WTF
Let’s talk about different ways of approaching the issues that clearly this BR is not actually addressing, if you are aware of the issues, are you not able to think of better ways without ruining the game? Seriously, have a think, sure you must realize this BR thing is a terrible idea to be forced on the entire playerbase when it is only really to satisfy something that isn’t really as big of a deal as you are making it out to be. And even if it is, there has to be better ways to approach it without bullshitting the players on the reasons for doing it
Nah it’s still on the neck
No, we don’t. At least I don’t, but if I play in that BR I know I will, because they will all be condensed into only that BR, so it’s going to be a nightmare, it will likely make that BR one of the worst in the game going forward
and why ruin the entire game just for that? Why put something separated from everything else like that? Clearly it’s not for historical sake, it’s not for balance, because even in the new BR which ever team fields the most is going to be the most cancerous, so now we playing flametrooper mode thanks to BR…this is why this type of rubbish idea belongs in custom or side modes, not as the core of the game
Playstyles vary, it’s just how it is, depends on how the player feels too, if you feel like a flamethrower fest then that BR will be for you, but if you want a balanced match where you might only see one or two like we do now in matches, that is going to be very difficult if you want to play flamer and don’t want to be matched against a tonne of them, which the BR will ensure you do, which is a nightmare scenario unless you want that kind of thing
well in the BR system at those BR levels you going to be seeing much more than one, because there will be certain BR metas that will develop, so the game diversity will be split into these false blocks
if the issue is mixing premiums with free to play, then fix that, BR won’t fix that, you still going to get premiums abusing free to play players, especially like we said with pre made stacked squads still being a thing and quitters still being a thing
nope, the word is interesting, and exciting and full filling and satisfying and a touch of wild mixed with immersive and challenging, not like a boring gated limited fake BR that ruins the game
not if they are in the grey zone, and not if at that tier that tank is the new tiger, because there are still going to be dominant vehicle metas at each BR, and then what are you going to do? You still going to have to pull your plane, and then come complain that the PNZR3 or whatever tank dominating a BR is op, can see it now.
The issue will remain the grey area, and players complaining because one player is better than another, or one team is better than the other, but now you are playing with limited toys and won’t have that stupid reason as an excuse anymore but by that point the damage will already be done
Then follow your own advice play with free to play only slots and with only the low level gear, you will find it challenging and not boring right now, you don’t need BR for that
Let you in on a little secret, the BR isn’t going to solve that. Don’t tell anyone I told you, ok?
Agreed, but as above, the BR isn’t going to change that in any way, because MM still going to poorly match players and doesn’t matter if BR limits the toys, the gameplay is still dependent on the players in the match and how they play. So when you get matched as a solo vs two 4 men premade squads of elite players, you going to get rolfstomped regardless of BR weapons, and you still not going to be able to deal with their pnzr3 and low level planes because your team will suck and you will suck because one team is just so inferior to the other and they will just steam roll, BR won’t stop that from happening, it will just look a little different because of the limited gear in each BR
well this is how you want to do things, this is how we do things, quote me properly and in full with everything I say, or I will do the same to you.
That is not the best opportunity nor does it fix the problem properly, and it brings with it many other new problems that are not welcome
And no, I don’t refuse it because I want more power, I would be soon starting a new campaign from zero and would very much prefer the existing system than this BR rubbish, and that was my plan until this stupidity came up.
I rather rise up through the fire like I have always done than be a pussy and rise up in a fake BR environment, but that’s just me. I like it that way. So why do I have to suffer and be forced into this baby mode just because this is your only limited idea.
Like I have said, it has to be optional or side more, otherwise it’s a game breaker for people like me
but they do, I did, so can anybody else, it takes hard work and dedication and commitment, which is actually very satisfying. But you babies want to make it all easy for the babies and coddle them
I played the game long time as free player and always won and lost games, and then I tried premium and somehow still won and lost games, only difference was having more slots, and having increased xp earning rate which helped speed up progress, but how exactly is this any different in BR? It won’t, will still have extra slots as premium or not as free, and will still win and lose matches all the same, except now can’t enjoy a wide variety of appearances in the same battlefield because this idiocy of a fake BR is ruining the immersion in the game era and decided to limit everything in weird tiers so there is less interaction between the full roster of the game toys
BR isn’t going to solve it either, so that is not a solution at all, and BR is also going to make a lot of things worse than current situation and you seem all for that
It happens, I don’t have control over what the match puts me in, sometimes I enter matches where the other team is doing the clubbing and it doesn’t matter if it’s seals, it’s just a clubbing roflstomp that will happen regardless of BR or levels, it’s just sometimes the teams are just very uneven in all ways, player skill and player disposition being a huge part of it more than what toys they have
I have witnessed matches where the low level players dominate the ranked players, because they are just savages, they didn’t need no BR to hold their hand
You keep making this about seal clubbing, but the new BR will still have that, noobies are going to enjoy getting seal clubbed by players that deliberately lower their BR just for that purpose, make no difference if they do it with a grease gun or M2 carbine
yes and in BR system you will have to do the same thing, you will be limited to choose the meta of each BR, and only difference is that pool of choices is very limited as will be the opponents pool, which will make for some very boring gameplay, it might be interesting at first because it’s new. But it will get old very quickly
Not by weapons, gear and vehicles, no.
The type of segregation is very important to distinguish, Campaigns makes sense, because different theatres of war, servers makes sense probably for regions of the world for different players in those regions (don’t think we all have elite internet to play from just one server location in the world), crossplay is whatever for me, but guess some people don’t like it and if there is a significant difference in capability between them, it makes sense to give the player the choice and experiment.
Also none of those things ruin the actual gameplay, the BR does. If the campaigns is an issue, ok, look at ways to fix that, don’t ruin the gameplay for it. That’s just stupid.
If the servers is the issue, then have to look at servers
If the crossplay is an issue, then look at that and what can be done there
but fixing or adjusting any of those does not mean go and destroy the gameplay foundation inside the actual battles themselves.
Different segregation, BR is a failure of looking at the other segregation causes and creating a new worse cause that is a massive mistake
Thanks but your BR should be in custom and not ruining the game
I will welcome myself to uninstalling at some point after the BR ruins the game
Generally speaking, I hope to play the weak side to defeat the strong opponent. But only if the opponent is not spam, otherwise my victory will be meaningless
I would like to see the narrative where 10 T-34-76 tanks take on 1 Tiger tank in the Kursk battlefield and beat him.
The game had the potential to do that kind of narrative, but it never did.
They tried to make a change, but brought BR that didn’t make sense, BR wouldn’t really change the experience of the game, and it wouldn’t make life easier for so-called newbies.
BR is just the direction of failure. The problems it is meant to solve are fictional. If novices can’t live well in an environment full of PvE, to be honest, it’s not a weapon problem, BR doesn’t solve the fundamental problem.
They probably didn’t want to position the game as PvE, they kind of avoided the status quo of PvE, which is why we never had a PvE mode. But on the other hand we are full of actually PvE games in a failured PvP battle mode.
The failure of the game’s status quo comes from various aspects, such as the map is too small, the player’s preferred gameplay is not satisfied, and the game is full of spam, but it is definitely not from the difference in weapon performance itself.
At the same time, the linear BR level can’t meet the possibility of adding other content to the game, such as infantry half-track vehicles, which the community has requested countless times, such as self-propelled artillery, such as various other interesting things. BR does not provide buffs for this aspect.
BR can’t handle anything. At the same time, it will also bring new problems, which once again divide the players meaninglessly.
It also doesn’t change how players hate a certain game mode, or join a losing battle. Players will still keep running away in the new game match, oh yes, the developers are preparing to punish these deserters, which is actually driving some players away.
BR is probably trying to deal with a hypothetical proposition that new players aren’t staying because they’ve been pinched by more advanced players. But this proposition is not real, at least it is not the main pain point. Even if the new players still leave the current game full of PvE, can they not beat the robot? This is clearly not a weapon performance issue.
Another function of BR is to arrange weapons of different ages into maps of different ages, but this assumption is also false, and he cannot handle the situation of weapons such as MP3008. The status of KV-1 and King Tiger is still awkward, they are too weak or strong in BR. Tank destroyers like the M10, M18 are still pointless, and the BR does nothing to deal with them.
And BR can’t handle the situation of difference in quantity, such as the novice who initially got FG-42-2, he took a 1xFG42 and 3 98k-war, you have to combine this player with an infantry squad of 9 FG-42-2 Treat them equally, there is no balance at all.
Too many examples and deductions are telling us why BR failed before it was born. It just perhaps panders to the preferences of a small group of spammers who don’t want to be limited, and provides an illusory and unrealistic scenario for some unconsidered masses that the so-called balance will not be achieved through BR at all.
Of course, this game has no so-called historical accuracy for a long time, and BR is another trampling on historical accuracy.
Copying the BR system with only vehicle combat in mind straight from War Thunder is not going to work on an FPS game like Enlisted. Imagine Desert Eagle from CS despite being a cheap gun to buy as its a pistol can still kill someone armed with an M4 at the right situation. Even a glock is still as deadly as an AK.
You know something’s really wrong when people talk or complain more about desertion instead of addressing the causes with the bad design of game mechanics.
Regarding “my fun vs other players’ fun” its a dog eat dog world or kill or be killed since other players especially bad teammates ruin an individual’s fun so the response is to “ruin the fun” to find something better like a better team in a better match.
if game cant guarantee that you have vehicle capable of destroying another vehicle in match, then that makes that vehicle invulnerable. yes counters exist, but they are not in every match. it doesnt matter if tank is 5%, 90% or 100% of the time invulnerable. point is that game forces you into confrontation against vehicle that your whole team doesnt have counter.
can that be fixed by removing gray zone? yes, but then you have another set of the problems and it would take long time to fix all maps.
can that be fixed by adding second vehicle slot? yes, but DF will never implement it cause of financial reasons.
will that be fixed with BR? in most cases yes cause you wont be matched against vastly superior armor that your gun cant penetrate.
do you understand word good solutions? there are loads of bad solutions. if you remove ability to have premade teams you will lose 100x more players than what you would risk by implementing BR MM and you would lose friends recommendation. giving them separate MM queue will just make them play PvE and people will just quit.
lol CSGO trash game. you are calling one of the best fps games, if not the best trash? you have hole for brain.
ffs it is not only CSGO and Valorant. every other multiplayer fps game has balance in weapons and/or everyone has access to every weapon. enlisted is unique in that not only has locked weapons behind grind, but it also doesnt have them in tiers to remove extreme seal clubbing.
it is not problem if player makes a choice to take k98k against m2 carbine if both are available to him. but if one player only has a choice of k98k and other player has choice of 50 other weapons then that is the problem. this is bad game design.
do you understand p2w mechanic? i could also argue that if they ever sell nuke for 10000$ in shop and i dropped it on map killing every player that i worked very hard to earn money for it. does it mean that this is good game mechanic? if 99% of the players wont be having access to it. but you know what? it is fair cause i worked hard for it.
no. you said you wanted war. and in war soldiers dont always have brightest and shiniest toys.
yes cause stupid arguments make you feel smart. i already explained the reason. if you can guarantee plane in every match with tiger then i will agree that plane is counter to tiger. if you cant then it isnt.
btw this was typical d-day/ver-su-mer match a year ago. and this is not even close to highest scoring one.
big man with insults… oh…
like i said i dont care about me cause i already have most high level gear. i can easily seal club whenever i want now. but i dont want it.
if you want challenge you can easily take k98k and some t10 weapon and go against veterans. but you dont want it. you want easy way out with t10 weapons killing newbies with t1 and then say that it is “diversity”.
well i have. when you put tiger on hill and game matches you against only allied low level tanks this isnt god mode? there is absolutely 0 counter play they could do to you in those situations.
no i am not saying that you are cheater. game design and current MM (or to be correct lack of it) is at fault for letting these kind of situations to even happen.
and you are twisting words again and again and again. ffs how many times will you lie about what i am telling.
is fedorov vastly superior weapon to k98k/mp28? yes?
is fedorov only available after grinding for hundreds hours? yes?
how many more enemies can you kill with fedorov vs mp28/k98k in 10 seconds? 2? 3? 4? 5? 6?
do newbies have access to fedorov? no?
is it unfair for one player to have access to fedorov and other player not to have access to fedorov in same match? yes? or no?
and you would be crippling game experience for newbies. this is combined arms game
campaigns are trash when you have
big playerbase disparity between sides
lots of bots in every campaign.
only games with PvP can guarantee longevity. and with campaigns you would just force the game to shorten its lifespan by turning it into PvE.
and i agree. but they can solve those issues without at least 2-3 years of dev time even if they are willing to do so.
i will take any solution given.
also you are wrong in many of your assumptions. but simply it is pointless to disprove them to you.
do you think all those issues werent raised years ago? and do you know what we got?
nothing. absolutely nothing.
do you know how hard it is to implement BR MM and new tech tree? you can do it in half a month with a good team. and most of that time would be spent on actually making the tech tree balanced. and do you know how long since announcement it was? it is almost 6 months and we only got half a tech tree that was completely unbalanced. do you think that devs that had problem with implementing relatively easy tech tree BR MM in short time can resolve issues on 128 maps and change game mechanics to a satisfactory degree? did you see backlog of bug reports?
only chance that this game has at surviving is to implement BR MM.
only your game is “ruined”. many people are happy with the changes.
fix everything that BR should fix by fixing multiple other problems that devs wont touch. yes that is excellent suggestion. nobody ever thought about suggesting to devs about fixing core components of the game.
do you know why pz3 wont be a problem? cause almost everything can penetrate pz3. AT guns can penetrate it, most of the low level tanks can penetrate it (except starter tanks), planes can destroy it.
like i said i want to have ability to carry. i cant have that ability if team is full of veterans with end game equipment and i have low level equipment.
let you in on a little secret. roflstomps wont be as easily achievable as they are now. i am perfectly aware that it wont stop them, but it will nerf them.
you are obviously ignoring all the issues game has with campaign system.
no grinding is never satisfying. also why dont other similar games have t1 and t10 in same match? like WT, WoT, WoWS, WoWP? i am sure that players in those game would be thrilled to have accurate representation of WW2 with such system.
this is stupid argument. if you talk about immersion then we should talk about HA and you dont want to go there.
it will actually solve numerous things, you just refuse to admit it.
it makes very big difference. with higher tier weapon you are much more efficient at killing enemy. if veterans are forced to use lower tier weapons their efficiency at killing enemies and clearing caps will drop giving newbies fighting chance.
so you are saying that i can have tiger, stg44 and WP grenades in moscow campaign? or you will tell me that the weapons and vehicle are not actually segregated by campaign and it is all my imagination? or paratroopers in stalingrad?
so you are saying that having multiple queues with not enough players is not ruining the gameplay? when MM needs to often put lots of bots in the game even without players quitting?
in beginning campaigns served as ±BR MM and they were balanced in first 20 levels or even somewhere in first 25 levels. but shit show after 25 levels in all campaigns ruined them. and new BR MM will more or less restore that balance cause it will not be strict ±0 or ±1 MM.
yes it is pointless for you to play the game if you hate BR so much. btw campaigns are just BR with bigger ± MM difference.
btw it is pointless to argue with you over this. devs as well as me think that your opinion is shit. i am glad they implemented core of this thread into the new progression system (and made it actually viable, unlike that suggestion)
i am not against playing weaker side against stronger, but you need to have tools for it to be actually viable. when you are forced into frontal confrontation against enemy that you cant frontally penetrate it becomes pointless. you basically have invulnerable tank that would not be invulnerable if you could actually flank it.
i agree that game has lots of potential, but it was never realized and it will probably never be. i hoped that mods could transform this game into new pubg or m&b:NW based on core game, but they have too tight control on what mods can actually do.
there are numerous problem in current anything goes MM and with BR MM lots of this problems will be either fixed or at least mitigated.
do you know what BR MM will fix and that is currently problem for newbies?
getting matched against veterans with end game equipment (now they will be only matched against veterans with same level equipment)
getting matched against vehicles that they cant penetrate with any means (and they dont have plane in loadout)
choosing campaign/side with less players and getting half the team as bots, e.g. tunisia axis.
lots of veterans will be diverted to other BR tiers making low-mid tiers more enjoyable. (now you have veterans in almost every game and it is usually only on one side)
what will BR MM fix for veterans?
there will be no more just end game meta weapons/vehicles. many other weapon/vehicle combinations actually become viable without end game meta.
what will BR MM ruin for veterans?
destroying newbies with overwhelming firepower with current end game meta weapons.
is BR MM cure all for enlisted problems? far from it. but it is still crumbs we got after numerous topics on how to fix current grind, bot and balance problem.
weapon performance contributes to the problem. you cant say that you arent much more effective with drum ppsh41 or fedorov compared to when you have e.g. ppd 34 with box magazine. game has compound problem and anything that solves or mitigates even part of it helps.
it will not really divide them like campaigns. cause of flexible MM you can still have chance to end up with anywhere between ±2 to ±4 MM in peak hours. this is more or less spread of 20-25 levels in one campaign.
arranging weapons by age is not function of BR MM. this needs to be done with separate algorithm. i agree with tank destroyers (they should probably be tier or two below panther and tiger), but they can still destroy tiger and sherman 76w, firefly and jumbo 76w should be more direct alternative against tiger and panther. too bad that 2 of those are premium.
idk how novice would get hand on fg42-2, but as long as he is warned that mixing high tier weapon will directly put him on t9 or t10 (or whatever tier fg42-2 is) this is ok.
i see BR as step in positive direction. simply there are too many problems in the game that arent addressed alongside huge backlog of bugs. BR is not cure all, but at least it fixes some things and mitigates some others.
and it is not exactly copying. with ±2 to ±4 MM you will basically have spread of ~20-25 levels of some campaign.
do you know why your CS analogy is wrong? cause in CS you can have all guns in same match. yes you can use DE or glock and kill someone with M4, but with eco and pistols you will fail to win 90% of the times. in enlisted you dont have access to all weapons in same match, so according to that analogy you are destined to lose 90% of the time cause you are using inferior weapons all the time and not just occasionally when you dont have the economy for it.
people have accepted the fact that game will not change its game mechanics. just look at last 2 year of suggestions. see how many people have suggested fixes for current game mechanics. check bug report section on forum and new CBR and see the backlog of bugs.
If it’s just for novices, they only need 4 ranks of BR, the first 3 are for novices protection, all the rest of the weapons don’t need BR
Due to the existence of BR, you basically can’t make any combination, because once you bring a higher-level weapon, he will match you to a higher-level room. Unless they make some kind of more dynamic weighting mechanism.
As mentioned above, 1xFg42+4x98k and 9xFG42, there is no reasonable combination.
It’s like saying some player claims he’s having fun entering the game with a SPAA, false, most players end up choosing a tank with better protection if they need to win in the game. There is no rational room for any combination. How do you combine a Fw-189 in BR0, too many such useless things in game.
As mentioned above, BR does not solve these problems.
As mentioned above, for(2.1)., it is not the main problem, it is not the main reason why players leave here.
Since most players are playing PvE, this is just a contradictory inference. In an unbalanced battle, the player joins a weaker faction, and he faces a bad gameplay experience, which basically has nothing to do with weapons.
So now the novice can’t even directly play with the weapon he just turned on right? He’ll even get a warning that your newest weapon will lead you into a bad match. Here’s another ludicrous thing about unlimited spam.
It cuts the players from the other direction, which makes no sense, as mentioned above.
PvE combat is a very important part of this game, whether DF wants to admit it or not, it becomes the main impression of the player.
Players who really stay here and are used to playing the random part. They’ve gotten used to playing in PvE. Most of this core player base loves the novice combat of PvE.
I don’t belong in this type of player, I hope they add more suitable modes for HA and strategic players. (I don’t mean lone wolf mode that removes the UI.)
The appearance of BR ruined the game experience of those PvE players. At the same time he did not bring new things to other players
yeah players that combine weapons are f*** in this scenario. they will either need to play high BR, play custom or make their combination tighter in BR spread. but lot of players choose end game meta and then even more players choose end game meta to counter them. this is vicious cycle. in normandy i am constantly against stg44, m2 carbine, p47, tigers and flamethrowers.
it is not only novices. it also brings reusability of old weapons and vehicles for veterans. i would like to have a game with low or mid game weapons without worrying that if i take stuart i will end up against tiger.
this is exactly reason for BR MM. this sentence. players have fun with SPAA, but they will choose tank with better protection and higher caliber guns cause enemy is also having better vehicles which they will not destroy with SPAA. with BR MM, players are free to choose SPAA without worrying too much about unkillable tanks.
it solves stuart vs tiger situation, it solves k98k/mp28 vs fedorov/ppsh41. in peak hours you will be able to penetrate almost all tanks that you are matched against (if they dont f*** the table again) and infantry weapons shouldnt have big difference in performance.
erm… most players are playing PvP(vE). yes there are bots in the game, but most players dont even know that some players arent actually players, but bots. they are under impression that they are just playing against bad players.
i agree, but weapons are still factor there. you cant say that they dont have influence on bad match.
my experience from ally normandy grind from last year was particularly bad. team full of noobs and bots on allies vs full veteran team on axis. and do you know what would have really helped in those matches? that i am not against 5 players that are constantly spamming mp43 and tigers every match. if they had mp40 and pz4, experience would be much better and i could actually carry more matches.
it is not warning about bad match, but about bad matchup if he only has 1 high tier weapon or 1 squads with high tier weapons. also i think you meant FG42 GL and not FG42-2.
like i said game is not PvE. it is PvP(vE) and game was slowly turning into pure PvE cause of lack of players. idk about others, but i am playing multiplayer online game to play against other humans, not bots and DF is also at fault for masking bots as human players.
i disagree with this statement. it will bring reusability of old weapons/vehicles and this is major part of why this is good. check other topics and you will see that people usually used mostly end game weapons/vehicles and lots of people are happy to play low-mid BR.
Punishment is shit in a game, no matter what. Who says otherwise is a clown. I would drop like i did WT if that be the case(and i never desert unless connection or rl get in way, i kind of a masochist myself and i like axis tunisia)
i found m13 plenty of fun when i was against only first 2 or maybe 3 tanks/SPAA and even used it after i unlocked other tank.
also if you were thinking about those reward squads in moscow, then i understand completely why people are taking tanks. but pacific SPAA are fun if you have restricted MM.
The truth is that most of the combat these days is happening at low level weapon levels, you just have to look at the weapons of your teammates that you see in the game, I doubt players are happy about this situation
Everything good about BR comes from these unfounded conjectures.
We will see the result after it comes. Generally speaking, in these discussions, whether our views are understood by the other party or not, he does not affect the facts themselves.
I always think BR is bad, he doesn’t have any successful precedent, WT doesn’t belong, because he is a relatively simple vehicle combat. And here, you have more complex weapon scenarios, infantry and all sorts of things, successful examples, based on resource and score mechanics.
I’ve said a lot about why BR fails. Including yours. there’s nothing new about why BR fails, and they don’t change the outcome of my inferences
seems like lots of players want to play in low-mid tiers. and lot of them are veterans with end game unlocks.
i found WoWS as successful precedent. with ±2 MM it is generally quite balanced even when up tiered. it would be pure shitshow without BR MM where t1 ship would need half an hour of constant fire to kill t10 yamato from short range, but yamato could one shot him from other side of the map.
WT、WOT、WOWS . These games using BR or similar to BR, they are all monotonous vehicle games, you have air, sea, underwater submarines and aircraft carriers, but they only have one very main vehicle element.
They’re not about infantry and combinations of different types of vehicles.
This is an inappropriate association, and why BR is questioned, many players have mentioned that BR on vehicle combat will not work well here.
I agree with some players that this game is closer to some RTS elements, and similar games about infantry do not use BR, they use other resource mechanisms to achieve the combination and balance of weapons. This one is about infantry vehicle aircraft.
—-
They used to assume that in the battle of Stalingrad, the player would enjoy the battle faster by getting 4x the experience to unlock the weapons, which didn’t happen, the game never became replayable, it was more of a monotonous repetition Combat, these problems do not come from the weapon.
BR isolates the weapon without changing the game mode, which you also mentioned. But at the same time their merged tech tree will also lead to more PvP.
If players enjoyed the game modes themselves, they’re stuck by now, which doesn’t explain the player’s departure.
Now you have PvP and PvP and sweaty combat, but does that keep players?
As in the case the OP enumerated, we escaped the game, leaving one game to join another easy one. Note that those of us on the forum are high-level players, they are definitely not the role of using pz2 and t60.
BR is a major game change and I highly doubt it has any positive effects.
It doesn’t answer why players, like I don’t want to click to start the game, have this conflicting feeling. I think BR is wrongly answering what players want.
As we talked about the SPAA example, when I throw this example, I see it as the same thing as 10 t-34-76 vs 1 Tiger in the Kursk field. Then the BR forbids the t-34-76 to meet the tiger. It also doesn’t allow the heroic narrative of the 1x t-70 defeating the not spamming 3x Phanter to happen in the game.
For SPAA, he is still not fun in the new BR. Since I’m one of the players who likes to use these weapons the most, how he really does it from the player’s point of view, I don’t know how it does it, is highly questionable.
You can’t change player preferences and opinions through literal debate. Of course, these inferences will not affect the facts that are about to happen. I want to see how this all happens.
I see this as a poor replacement for the devs’ reluctance to implement the respawn score mechanic. And for historical battles and balance battles, rebirth score is obviously a more suitable tool than BR.
and similar games about infantry dont use locking mechanism behind grind. if every player had access to every weapon i wouldnt be against any other way for MM or resource management. problem is not k98k vs fedorov or drum ppsh41. problem is that one player is forced to play that rifle, while other player has freedom of choice to bring whatever he wants. and fedorov/drum ppsh41 will be 5-10x more effective than k98k, specially when you need to go into cqc.
that is what i find as unfair advantage and why BR MM is needed to fix or at least mitigate problem.
if my first campaign was allies normandy last year when germans had overwhelming advantage, i would just uninstall the game after few matches, specially after learning that tiger cant be penetrated frontally by any allied tank before i invest hundreds of hours into the game.
you know that he isolation wont be tight or fixed? in most cases it will work to prevent extreme disparity between weapons (like matching pz2 vs IS). my predictions is that it will work on ±2 to ±4 MM in peak hours. so check their table and see what you would be matched against. even if that table is bad it can still work as reference. if you play on t5, sooner or later you will get every weapon/vehicle with or against you. just that it wont be in same match.
yes, it keeps them. but do you know what is driving away newbies? extreme seal clubbing, playerbase disparity between sides/campaigns, bots masked as players, uncountable bugs that arent fixed, bad game mechanics etc.
we will see after they implement it. i am hopeful and could theoretically see good points in it.
game also forbids 10 tanks so there is no problem in that regard
it could though with proper MM without a BR system based on tiers
for example a system that makes an effort to find players that have sufficient gear, and if it’s not possible because none in the pool currently available, they could develop a decent system of ai bot support to help in such situations to compensate, all part of advanced game development and planning for such situations, something that is clearly missing in this game and instead we are being guided by people who think csgo is a good game, you lost all my respect with that comment, sorry
There are other possibilities, a failure to look at that, is a dev failure, sorry to be brutally honest
it’s like trying to put out a fire with fuel, that isn’t smart, but you seem to think it is
and if you only focus on them then the result is a bad solution being implemented such as BR, which as we have established is not a good solution, and it’s not a solution either, since we also already established it’s bringing more and other problems, ergo, fuel to fire
not necessarily if the game can still do adequate job balancing players into matches and it hasn’t been bad design so far, the game has been quite ok because even in worst case scenarios you can just quit and find a new match, and I know for a fact I have enjoyed this version of enlisted and will not enjoy a limited BR future that this game is going in, so BR is bad game design. I rather have a match where there is potential of 50 weapon variety than say 5 weapon variety
There is no such thing as nuke in the game, and anything that has wide area of destruction/killing power such as bombs and rockets do so because the map design and objective design insists on pushing tiny areas to fight over, which again is a side issue, design/game planning issue. So you make pointless arguments again, reaching for straws as all your arguments that make an honest attempt are
I never said that they should always have the brightest and shiniest toys, which is why the diversity currently works so well, and it will be ruined by BR, it’s very obvious to anyone with a brain
your BR at top tier will be that, only the shiniest end game toys, so you are the one that wants that
there you have it, the actual solution
which can be achieved various other ways without this nonsense BR system
but bare in mind that as I said, even in the new BR system, if you have a pnz3 and nobody on the team wants to play pilot or only has low end BR tank and nobody can reach the PZ3 in grey area, like I said, problem persists, and you are still left with having to quit the match, so BR didn’t solve the issue
you don’t know shit about what I want because you don’t pay attention and only select what is convenient and then it shows in your arguments, already explained thing, but you don’t understand them
just indulging in some of your tactics back to you, to see how you enjoy it, it’s fun isn’t it?
easy to argue that way and avoid the subjects, you do that, I will do it to you
Both players can have access to it, you however want to blame the poor matchmaking of the game on the player that has worked hard to unlock the higher capacity weapon.
So what you should be blaming is the game for doing that in the first place and for the game not having an adequate MM for all 50 weapons instead of splitting the match making into say 10 gun tiers for example
We just have different ideas on how to fix the MM, yours is shit, mine isn’t.
And BR is already crippling that experience not just at the entry level BR, but throughout the entire BR tier list, so it’s essentially ruining the game for all players, which is far more severe than having an entry point for noobs
and yes agreed combined arms, which means the entire variety of a campaign or theatre of war widely available in battles, not just extremely fake tiers that the BR is doing
That is not necessarily true, I can have a good time playing in uneven matches sometimes, not always, but sometimes, some unpopulated campaigns are actually fun for a section of the player base, and ruining that is likely going to push those players away, as they thrive in those environments and enjoy the more casual pve experience or extra challenge of being outnumbered
nope, I have played populated and non populated, and both essentially suffer from the same uneven fights problem and quitting problems, longevity comes from having more extended goals to achieve such as completing extra campaigns in the future, with that removed from the game, no longer have those long term goals because they were merged all into one tree so there is very little left to achieve or do, especially in a limited game format as BR, so game instantly dies for such players as me, as not even the battles will be as interesting to play anymore due to the limited BR setting taking over the entire game
also some big successful games like POE have longevity and nobody cares about PVP, it’s all about PVE and a lot of things to grind and try different things
well this is stuff that should be thought of ahead of time especially when we are so deep into first person shooter games and there is already a history of these issues, a good team needs to prepare for these things when launching such projects in the future, let this be a lesson to future devs that plan on doing a proper game, and not ruin their game. It’s not too late though, there is still time available to work on things, what is the urgency to ruin the game right now with this BR nonsense?
no you are wrong about them being assumptions, most of what I have said is just how it is, so you can’t disprove it, unless you literally invent a fake story, which I have caught you doing already a couple of times and squirming around with ridiculous comments
I can see that, but at least the game now is in a better state than it will be after the BR idiocy, unless of course the goal is to make this into another trash game, then we are heading in the right direction
Not by splitting it by Weapons, Gear & Vehicles tiers, it would have to be done differently
Many people are also happy with many other rubbish situations in the world, doesn’t make it right or the best way of doing things, so that’s not really a good argument to stand on
But That’s fine if I’m only one guy even, but many other people aren’t happy with the changes either, and if we are all to be sacrificed, so be it. I will move on, was just looking at a game called Graviteam Tactics Mius Front, they seem to have a proper handling on Military History and making a proper WW era game and really know their stuff and aren’t turning their game into some arcade joke. Just saw one detail which really stood out to me, where guys in the tanks will actually throw grenades out their hatches, never heard of any game doing that.
Yes, I have seen them also penetrate and kill a Tiger, but in grey zone mostly planes have to deal with it, just like in the new BR system
some campaigns you can pretty much still do that, and in the ones you can’t then you are getting the challenge you wanted, so win win. I played some game on Tunisia where I carried with only using a rifle, was actually really surprised how dominant a player can be with a rifle in some campaigns. But I see your point you want these limited modes, and I am not against that being available in the game, just not as the only mode and ruining what we have now.
it will barely be noticeable, perhaps it will be more noticeable at the very lowest BR, but if you play the other games by this group that run this tier system you will see all their games are mostly unbalanced stomp fests, despite using this BR tier system, because the players are the big determining factor
Ok what issue specifically do you want to focus on? Because I’m ok playing the campaign system in Enlisted as it is now. I don’t really care if some are more populated than others, I see that as part of the interesting part of the game. For example you talk about wanting more of a challenge, and not wanting to use your end game gear against weaker opponents. So Why don’t you go play on the low pop campaign on the side that has the least players? Then you don’t have to feel bad about using top end stuff, you will need it. And you would be helping to be part of the solution instead of being part of the problem, why aren’t you thriving in that challenge? It’s there right now waiting for you.
Well speak for yourself, I enjoy being rewarded for my time. And then enjoying something I worked hard to earn. Enlisted was one of the most rewarding grinding games I’ve played, finally having access to the top end stuff was a very satisfying pay off for my hard work and dedication.
they are not similar games, and there is a reason why I don’t play them same reason I won’t play this one when that shit is implemented, they are totally different games and we already been over this with totally different eras of war, of course we don’t want Modern day equipment in vs WW ERA stuff in Enlisted, you are just reaching for more straws, just stop, it’s embarrassing
It is not a stupid argument, especially when you yourself want to further destroy both Immersion and HA, you are the last person to judge, go play csgo
and each one we discussed is not actually solving anything, and your strongest argument is something that could be fixed another way, not by ruining the entire game, so you have nothing
thought you weren’t about forcing players to do anything, so much for that
I’m ok with the correct weapons being available in each campaign as per history or close to history, but not completely removing weapons from those campaigns or breaking it down into a tier system where some weapons will rarely share the same battlefield anymore, the current system doesn’t do that, the BR will be extremely focused on doing exactly that
I looked at your stats, they are all quit ok by me from my own gameplay experience in populated and not populated campaigns. I have no issue with it as it stands. What problem are you having with it?
Sure I can understand that, but surely that would be easier to just have a tick box with a cut off and the players decide if they want to queue into late war or not? Wouldn’t that be much easier without ruining the entire game?
Well that’s why we will be going our separate ways after this, it’s just tragic that this game could actually have gone the right way and instead it’s just doing it the wrong way
It’s only pointless to argue because you have no clue about quality gaming, you think csgo is a good game ffs you should go play that instead of being here helping to ruin this game
One the reasons why I played this game was exactly that reason, the infantry side is something that is missing in those other games and I had long yearned for a good combined arms game once again
and splitting this game in this tiered manner is the absolute worst thing they could have done, It’s extremely disappointing
This doesn’t explain the fact that players who are consistently victorious still leave the game, in fact almost all players have an average win rate well over 50% due to the extremely high PvE combat rate.
So why didn’t they stay here when they kept winning.
So the first few propositions of your answer are misleading.
Because you assume that novices leave because they lost the battle. In fact, many players still leave even if they win, because of the boredom of the battle, not only the boredom of PvE, but also the boredom of sweaty battles.
The game is full of newcomers with a lot of starting weapons, they fight each other, and there are also a lot of pure PvE battles. It is equivalent to a low-level BR battle, but there are still only a few of them left in the game with such low-level battlesssss. many of these players just leave.
I’ve seen a lot of players claim that it’s an infantry version of War Thunder, that it’s a first person COH, that it’s a BF replacement that combines hardcore and entertainment.
Even you can still search for these videos introducing this game from a few years ago on YouTube.
But these players, almost all of them ended up silent and immediately
This game has changed from a certain history-oriented and hardcore style a long time ago to a deformed fantasy World War II PvE style FPS, PvPvE like L2D, Starship Paratroopers, and Deep Rock Galaxy
Of course, the remaining high-level players are already used to the “fun” of PvE and “pinch the rookie” (Not fun for me always), but now BR wants to change this habit to some extent. It is useless in every way.
BR didn’t change every bad game mode, but it may take away a certain game style, although this PvE feature may not be what the development team wanted in the first place. This is how I understand a lot of players think about BR and merging tech trees.
The development team spent a lot of work here, but I regret that the gains brought about by this work may be pessimistic.
They should probably focus on adding a whole new mode to try what they want to try.
Things have come to a point where BR is already a pre-determined option.
But I think they should add as few BR levels as possible, such as level 5, to minimize this effect.
At the same time, transfer their limited workload to other more effective game content development as soon as possible
this is not strawman argument. this is about p2w or grind 2 win weapons. when you have weapon that severely outperforms anything that other player in match could have it is bad game design. do you know that universally p2w games are hated and they die fast.
can you guarantee that the player with only plane in the game will use that plane? can you guarantee that the player with the plane wont quit?
solution must be implemented so the player himself can have counter. it was suggested numerous times that they introduce second vehicle slot for f2p players, but it was shot down by DF cause it could cut into their profit margins.
only starter tanks cant penetrate later pz3 tanks. and if you have pz3 tank there should also be numerous players with tanks that can penetrate him. also grind past first tank is fast, unlike grind to get high level tank.
in same match they cant.
cause that is mmorpg. different audience than FPS. if people want PvE in FPS they will play single player game.
it is too late. game is loosing players and they diluted playerbase too much across campaigns. why do you think they suddenly decided on merge and BR MM. this is last ditch attempt to save the game.
it is pointless to argue with you on this. i see logic in my arguments and you dont.
you are deluded if you think that game is in better state now. ffs crossplay off is botland, crossplay on is on good way to get there. new player retention is shit. out of 300k players only less than a third plays 1 battle daily, with quarter of them playing 1 battle in little over a week.
whole last year there were dozens of rework ideas cause people recognized that game was dying. people begged DF to stop adding new campaigns and to focus on fixing the game.
and game currently doesnt have split weapons gear and vehicles across campaigns cause they dont represent early, mid and late war? BR MM will more or less represent half of the current campaign in peak hours.
also if you could have done it differently, why didnt you make suggestion on the forum? explain exactly how you would solve merge+new MM+fixing the problems and that it is viable and that people like it. btw hint… keeping current campaign system is impossible.
AT gun in normandy cant penetrate tiger frontally. it can only penetrate it from the sides. also with new BR system tiger should be matched against m4a1(76)w, m10, m18, jumbo 76, firefly, t-34-85, su-85M, is-1, su-100, is-2 which can penetrate it.
you managed to carry in tunisia
how did you mange to do that? did you use cheats?
or maybe just play against team full of bots?
well i am not ok with current campaign system as well as many other people are not ok with campaign system. rework idea is popular idea that was highly requested on forum cause campaign system sucked.
already did it. played normandy allies at worst time for them, playing berlin allies sometimes now (overall i dont like berlin maps), played pacific axis when everyone was on allies, even played allies when everyone was on axis. but i simply dont have time and am currently grinding moscow allies.
i dont find any grind satisfying cause it is ultimately work. you should play games to have fun, not to have second job. i understand why you like this cause of gamification and sense of achievement are rooted in psychology.
yes it is. there are so many things wrong in HA and immersion aspects of this game that goes beyond topic of weapon/vehicle inaccuracies. from squads, tactics, weapon distribution in campaigns, meta spam, nation/squad insignias, game mechanics, weapon usage etc.
this game is just another arcade shooter with ww2 theme. there is no immersion nor HA. ffs from what i saw in cbt it had better immersion cause of gore.
no you didnt discuss. you declared that it doesnt fix anything. i disagreed. your strongest argument is that it could be fixed in another way, but you dont provide solution nor timeline in which DF can implement it, neither do you provide negative effects of those fixed solutions. tell me solution for grey zone? there are 128 maps that you would need to fix and how would you deal with spawn protection? can you tell me man hours for this to be fixed? or when DF could approximately fix this? can you think of any other negative effects that this change would bring?
and everyone has different vision what is or isnt ok.
bots masked as players, big difference between start equipment and end equipment on campaign, fictional weapons/vehicles for certain campaigns, playerbase disparity, veteran disparity.
no.
yes counter strike is trash game that somehow survived 24 years despite almost no change in gameplay and weapons balance. and cause it is such trash it had tens of millions if not hundreds millions of players.
but i could understand why you specifically think it is trash. after all to be good in it you need skill and brain.
