Hard pass on the new event:

Suggestions
1

It will all sound a little salty, so I’am sorry for that. But I still have an suggestion. So let’s start with that right away.

There is, like, endless opportunities to create “Sub-campaign like” famous battles in the form of an event. Each time, from a existing campaign, rotating nicely, introducing new units, weapons, and rewards. Just need at least some dedication, just that. Some event ideas:

Battle of Stalingrad, Battle of Kursk, Battle of Kiev, Siege of Sevastopol, Siege of Leningrad, Battle of the Bulge, Battle of the Ardennes, Battle of Monte Cassino, Operation Bagration, Courland Pocket, and so on and on, and on …

Isn’t it really that hard to come up with events that match a representative period in the game while maintaining the overall style of the game? Are game developers really so tired already with their own game that, without “turning their heads”, they come up with an “innovation” that does nothing wrong with itself, but makes you think about what the priorities really are then?

Isn’t this event just a desire, on new Battlefield’s release day (November 19), to try to seduce at least some of playerbase with “modern stylistics”? Just my thoughts.

Everything is fine, and everything is justified and possible. Just, I will admit, for me, it was a very unexpected occurrence of such an event in the Enlisted game. Which we all love for, namely, the stylistics of World War II and its further development without wasting so cheaply (again no offence) on resources. Which could be used to correct problems in the game, or to make a representative period of events at very least.

Ps. Also sorry for my English guys.

14 Likes
2

i like the ideas, but Stalingrad and battles like that could merge with Moscow to make a Early Eastern Front campaign, and similar types of merging for the other campaigns.

Battle of the Bulge might not even be possible, and my evidence is i forget which episode of the show Band of Brothers (great show. y’all should watch it). there was an episode in which they had to hold a position with little to no backup, and at the end of the episode it was revealed that that was part of the Battle of the Bulge. it would have to be quite similar to lone fighters to work at all imo, and there would not be an easy way for it to not be a team deathmatch, unless each player got a different objective or something like that.

Kursk would be a cool event, the others i’m not sure about, but might fit in the existing campaigns if they expand them to be a broader part of the war. (btw sry if it seems im just picking ur idea apart. im not good at wording stuff)

1 Like
3

Isn’t this event just a desire, on new Battlefield’s release day (November 19), to try to seduce at least some of playerbase with “modern stylistics”?

Very poor and lame try, to be honest. Having massive lack of interesting and different weaponry, making just other models of guns with same sounds and weird t-34s and shermans walking 50 km/h instead of 20 thats pretty poor even in comparison to BF with fullscale battles on big maps with different weaponry and vehicles.

First game needs now is fixing last balance issues and bugs and continue to improve maps and campaigns, including missions leading to victory as they are oversimplified now as well as whole freakin gameplay. Missiles and helicopters will wait, issues and stability won’t

1 Like
4

For some it might be very poor and lame attempt by dev. But for some, including me, it’s a nice fun 4 day event. It’s an event and i’m not forced to play them so I can’t really complaint beside the “what are they trying to test this time. why modern combat”

I’m on dev side on this one and I’m glad dev didn’t put more effort that they already give.
Cause you know why? if dev had put more effort like making the maps and more weapon, people would be like
“omg, wtf dev doing wasting valuable making a 4 day event rather than fixing the game” aka more backlash by forum member.

as we all know, all asset from the event already exist. Guns from CRSED, tanks from WT, map from Tunisia, so it’s just a copy-paste.

true, more than any new campaign, be it WW2 like pacific or post WW2 like Vietnam, this game need more polishing for the existing campaign.

1 Like
5

It’s an event and i’m not forced to play

Everything is done for some purpose.

People would be like

Rotten mentality of gaijin’s fanbase is based. Nobody should care. But better give this “pie” some strawberry like infantry AT missiles to encrease interest instead of trying to keep disappointed playerbase

6

I guess another way of looking at this event is that the current relatively “cheap and cheerful” / “good enough for government work” or just flat out “dodgy” implementation of units, their uniforms and equipment, interlaced with significant historical aberrations within the Campaign milieu are just failing to attract and grow the player base at a rate that meets Gaijin’s profit forecasts.

So if expanding the vehicle BRs into the modern milleu worked for WT why not Enlisted…

Whilst I have a strong preference for WWII and will not be playing “Modern Warfare” Gaijin style, maybe some of those players attracted by modern warfare, may join the WWII games - so why not.

Active players > Bots is the preferred outcome. More money will = more Dev and hopefully they will sort out the current issues that exist in the WWII Campaigns over time.

7

Yeah, I have zero interest.
I started playing this game because of the WWII setting.
I’ve really enjoyed my time playing, but I feel my interest waning.
It’s only natural, been there, done that.
It’s a video game…… good for 4 months or so, then time to move on.
Not a knock on the game……but limited re-playability (if that’s a word)

8

They really, really need to implement a true MMO like battlefield, that you drop in and out of, with huge sectors, and secondary objectives that help the entire team, lie capture motor pool get +1 vehicle for the side. Have bots be protecting areas even if player can’t make it in time. But with half tracks, jeeps, motorcycles, ect. It’s doable.