This event, literally a slap in the face to all “historically accurate” players.
And it’s much needed. A lot of them forgot this is a game and not a history lesson.
This is a step in the right direction. Use history to balance out the game, but the matches themself don’t have to be historically accurate in itself. Perhaps in the future this will allow you to experiment with having several factions battling it out in maps that historically wasn’t relevant
This also is a stepping stone in making a timeline based matchmaking rather than campaign-based, though it’s a much more extreme step than I initially thought you would take, haha. I hope that you do focus more on what’s good for the game’s lifespan and fun, and use history simply as a balancing factor.
Props to the devs for trying something new and this extreme without letting history getting in the way of fun.
I played my first couple of rounds just now, as Russians. While I am actually one of this historical accuracy types, this is fun and very out of sight for the haters if they want it to be. My one glaring criticism so far though, Barret .50 cal sniper rifle for Russian faction? No thought for SVD, most famous Russian sniper rifle of all time and still used today?
There you go, that’s the right way to go about it, I’m glad there are people like you here who enjoy historical accuracy but also appreciate a game structure that is simply fun.
I see this as a stepping stone in which it will evolve into the main part of the game, not just a side-event.
A timeline based matchmaking system would be wonderful for the game. You can play in WW2, or modern warfare. You can have several factions (axis vs allies), or some weird matchup of factions in the modern era.
And the best of all, it would make the progression for a faction united, not separated by campaigns, nobody is really having fun unlocking that MP40 for the 4th time, grinding levels over and over unlocking the same crap.
Making progression timeline based will allow a war-thunder like progression system in which you can unlock WW2 units and maybe even modern units without having to play 8 different German factions in 8 different campaigns.
But there will be historical mode, to satisfy those who do care about history more than fun game structures made for the average player.
Lmao, you’re so up ur own ass when it comes to the whole “Historically Accurate” players in this game that it’s insane. I’m one of these players but I think it’s cool that they did this for a little event. But I don’t think it’s any sign that they’re going to do anything extreme with the main matchmaking like you wish they would. Like doing cross-faction or anything like that. It’s just a fun little thing the devs did within the confines of their own mechanics. It’s cool, but right now the main game WW2 stuff is what should be focused on.
But also, if you want cross-faction stuff just leave that to be implemented into custom modes where something like that belongs. Don’t try and taint the main game with that kind of stuff. That’s what games like H&G and COD are for.
I have no problem with players who enjoy historical accuracy, but I do have a problem with those that criticize good suggestions and good game design that happens to not be historically accurate.
I’m glad you’re enjoying the new mode even though it’s not historically accurate. It is in my strong belief, the final version of the game will primarily have a matchmaking system that isn’t historically accurate. But the option will be there for those that prefer the latter.
Ok now that’s a more reasonable stance right there. As long as the community lets that happen, then yeah I too can see this type of matchmaking being implemented into the final game sadly.
Like yeah this is something I personally wouldn’t want, but as long as the opportunity to still have fun in a more historically accurate manner is there, then that’ll be good. It’d just be a sad thing to see imo since it’s not what this game has advertised itself on this whole time.
I will not mention Tunis bcs I don’t play it at all.
Moscow: Axis doesn’t have any meaningfull advantage in anything after all rebalances and game mechanic’s nerfs. Allies are superior to that point that some of their equipment is better than german’s top ones.
Some maps are for cqc only and worsen balance problems.
Berlin: Axis has extremely bad campaighn to get top tier equipment to compete with Allies. That’s why very few ppl are playing for Axis and even less leveled full campaighn to be able to fight on fair ground with Soviets.
Normandy: if we speak about lategame equipment then Allies have good cqc equipment while Axis has good equipment for mid ranges. Allies are stronger in air while Axis is stronger in tanks. Allies also have better LMG that fills the role of mid-long range weapon for them.
If we speak about leveling both campaigns then it’s pretty bad. Lategame and some midgame (Jumbo) equipment just wreck the balance of previous things.
Well I will give my point of view of someone who already has everything to the maximum in both factions and it is that when I started to play with the axis (I almost always defended) what I did was to put a good meeting point and that was enough to stop me. the allies and that is to say when the profiles were filtered momentarily I could see my percentage of victories with both factions and both of the 75% of victories are balanced.
Regarding the other, some factions are stronger at the beginning, others in the middle, and others near the end is true, but it is something that I already had planned, because, it is the Second World War and each army had something to do with it. that stood out. So I do not think that there is a balance in the whole concept of the word, everything will depend on the way you play and know how to destroy all the enemy’s strategy. Enlisted is just not just another shooter, but a complex game and that’s why I love it.
the game you’re describing enlisted becoming sounds like CoD or one of those games. also your wording makes it sound like you dislike realism in the historical accuracy department. the point of the game is fighting in different WWII factions in different historical locations, with fairly historically accurate equipment. what you’re describing would have to lose some of the game’s immersion, since the maps would not be tied to anything anymore (at least thats how it seems to me) and regarding 3+ factions in one match, thats not too many steps from the game becoming a squad-based deathmatch with factions having no effect on the maps you get to fight in or the factions of your allies and opponents. and before you bring up the jumbo, panther, fg-42 or one of those, i never said the devs have done a perfect job of balance and accuracy. making MM be based on time period wouldn’t make the playerbase be less divided, it would make it be divided in a different way. and i get that the game being fun is important but if thats your view of fun there are other games you can play rather than doing that to this game
How far in the campaign are you? Because having maxed out Normandy on both sides, I could never make such statement with a straight face. Are you trying to suggest that FGs and MP43 aren’t that good in cqc?!
This is correct.
…This one, instead, is straight up fantasy.
BARs are good, but nowhere as deadly in LMG role as MG34 / 42.
I have both sides maxed in everything.
MP43 has lower rof and FG has low ammo count and not very stable with autofire mode, that’s why.
Why?
BAR is more accurate in terms of stabilization in mobile war while MG-34/42 needs bypods and good position to be working.
In terms of firepower BAR shoots more bullets with it’s all rof and reloads than MG’s ammo firing with reload. As I remember it was like 53 against 50 or something like that.
BAR also have less bullet spread bcs it 20 round automatic weapon and get nerfed less.