I ve played every campaign until 13-14 levels every faction possible, and nearly finished pacific and normandy on axis side.
Countless of times i tried to tale that the real game changer is not equipment but player numbers and quality. I am not developer/tester whatsoever but even i realised little differences between weapon and vehicles is not real problem for balance .Yet we still see compalints about unbalance. Lets look our history:
In first days of moscow, everybody rushed for germans and russian mains crying, now its opposite. Every axis mains crying about how soviet smgs are op and they are losing etc…
Just 1 year before , normandy axis were suffering heavily due to lack of players .now alliy mains crying about german tanks are op etc
In first 2 weeks of pacific japanese are crushing us now everybody claims japanese weapons are worst( excluding tanks, which they are not). And after the high caliber update now everybody complains about us suffer in pacific again.
Tunisia started decently balanced, then axis players depleted and for one godamn year everybody was screaming about how axis suffers, how thier armor is bad. After pacific allies are suffering now
These constant bickerings show that gamers are not trustable about long term memory.
I hope devs dont care about what majority says and avoid meaningless populist demands like “nerf x buff y”
All this game needs is good matchmaker nothingmore for now
there is imbalance. specially between early and late campaign levels. yes playerbase imbalance is a thing, but so is equipment imbalance. first 20-25 levels are usually somewhat balanced, but everything after that is usually stupidly OP
Yes!
When teams are more or less (more than less) balanced, matches are fun, unpredictable, challenging and worth playing til the end, win or loss.
Those are the best matches.
When it’s one full golden team vs an entirely beginner one however… it’s a waste of time.
Quite hopeful to see what devs will do about this complicated issue.
Amen to that…
It’s either a boring stomp for the Golden side, not even time to build rps, and ultimately not even gaining meaningful xp…
… Or an annoying and humiliation session for the silver side.
One day, there will be some basis of mm of sorts. One day, I’m sure of it.
The player numbers and quality won’t change dramatically by it self. It must be something to cause it be like that. Equipment is one of the major thing that affect player number. In most cases, player will favor the campaign with better equipment.
I was not there, but I heard it was cause by dev buffing Soviet equipment and nerf German equipment.
The player base literally change because of equipment, the update that bring panther mp43/1 and panzerfaust.
Everyone rush for a brand new faction, then they go to US side because they think US have better equipment.
Japan received several buff, so the player base begin to change.
Enlisted’s playerbase has a fine memory. It’s just that theres only veterans and new players. All the veterans here definitely remember Axis Tunisia being a joke, Allies Normandy being easy mode, Berlin Axis being impossible challenge etc.
But Enlisted is a revolving door of new players. People constantly come in, but the vast majority of them are quitting within a few weeks of playing for reason “xyz”. Those new players filter through the campaigns and everything gets flip flopped as the game is balanced around skewed numbers in the first place.
The garbage ticket balancing and constant increased cap time for x on map y are to blame for the constant swing.
They try to balance underdog faction, but increase cap times based on matches that were 10v1, so any time there are 2 good players on that side they can win against 10.
Then more people catch on, that one side is waaaay easier to win with their 4-stack, and it swing playerbase in other direction.
Remember planting bombs for 30 seconds, while defenders defuse them in 4? Or defusing longer than it takes bomb to explode? When You cap on invasion it takes full minute to cap, yet two enemy bots sit on Your cap for 5 seconds alone and You lost game.
Now it’s clear in pacific confrontation, allies can farm axis for kills all game and still lose, even if they capture more objectives.
This trash attempt at balancing need to go, and we need longer queues or matchmaking, but for that we need campaign rework so people don’t leave this game after 10 minutes of being farmed by veterans.
(campaign rework coming soon, in two years when playerbase is nearly dead)
balancing would be ok if it was done per match basis depending on number and quality of players. but now with its global modifier just makes game broken.
i thought about it too, but it still has problems.
Those invasion defence matches where it’s 10 players farming bot while emeny team leaves? It’ll just make it pointlessly longer.
Ironically I actually see full gold sides lose all the time to silver teams because I personally find a huge number of gold players, Marshalls in particular don’t play the objective
well nothing is perfect… you can only make do with lesser evil.
Should I post the link to my suggestion again? It’s getting kind of annoying, in terms that it seems like spam.
Overall, the devs should focus more on… realism, on how the weapons actually performed, or at least should perform, if their intention is to maintain the current quick pace of the game:
And:
As for more folks demanding adrenaline…
Maybe warthunder’s arcade battles could be added?
AR would reign supreme in that case… even now they are top tier weapons, but if they lean towards realism, they would be unbeatable. you would either nerf bolties, or buff AR and SMG and SA rifle. LMG would be mostly unusable without mounting. flamethrowers would receive nerf in movement and in range
and if you want realism it would be impossible to repair tanks after damage (engine/drivetrain/turret).
I already don’t like the fact that Mkbs are in Moscow. They should be restricted weapons at least, removed at most.
While as the war progresses chronologically, more OP stuff could appear. Berlin should be alright with the early Assault Rifle fest. But early war campaigns… They don’t feel like early war with these.
I don’t know how one could already nerf a 1-shot weapon.
As for buffing these… well, world war 2 in some ways can be said as the small arms evolution, as naturally the older bolt-actions were phased out to snipers and long-range fights.
But a proper life mowers when mounted. They literally should be the best weapons in terms of damage.
I guess the bots need to be taught to fear fire, and we’re all set.
I’m actually okay with this. The best that tankers could and should do is to fix up the minor mobility problems and then carry on. Otherwise, they should leave the vehicle and continue the fight on foot.
well same. i would like BA to be predominant rifles, with only few SA and SMG specially in early war. getting rifles that were mostly in prototype/early phase of production at time of battle is stupid. ffs mkb 42h prototypes first saw action in APRIL 1942 around leningrad and battle of moscow ended in january of 1942. even when they were produced they werent produced in large quantities.
you could nerf damage to pre buff levels. damage would be in line with AR damage.
they were phased out, but they were still in use for the most of the war. germany and USSR couldnt make enough SA, SMG and AR for all of their army. even US who has adopted garand much earlier had to use m1903 springfield alongside garand. BA were infantry mainstay for most of the war.
overall point of my post is that you would get a lot different gameplay if you leaned more towards realism. and game really doesnt need it considering there are alternatives geared more towards realism and tactical gameplay already on market.
I am not aware of those, which are free to play.
Enlisted is free to play.
Currently, it is the only game that offers something close enough to realism (barring a few weak spots), that is also being offered for free.
I played Heroes and Generals back in the day.
well i like realism in enlisted mostly the way it is now (with some minor changes). i dont want to play some mil sim, nor i want to play cod/battlefield. this is perfectly in middle.
if f2p is your only criteria, then there are many games that dont have f2p variants. if you want more realistic game i would suggest HLL. sure it costs 40$, but you can save that money in month or 2 even if you are student.
A lot of words for basically saying: The devs are incapable of creating a lasting balance for each campaign.
A back and forth changing by the devs has nothing to do with a player base complaining too much or having a little memory.
Well, this means that none of them are easily accesible for me.
So, enlisted is the only one.