Since gaijin wants to do the merge so bad, why can’t we instead of dividing it by BR and tier, if we can divide it into three time periods. Early, mid and late war. We can still keep the countries too. And with each time period we can add more maps and campaigns like for early we can have the winter war added as well as the invasion of France and Crete. And for mid war we can add Leningrad and Sicily. And for late we can add fights like the battle of the bulge, Aachen and even the battle of narva Estonia or late war Finland. We can add so many battles with this system instead and at the same even simplify the queues and putting the guns and vehicles in the right places.
7 Likes
Nice. That would be awesome and entertaining to spam AVS-36/PPD-40/PPsH/Fedorov/AVT/SVT/KV-1/T34 in the early war time period, I am sure new players are going to like this game, I mean, what would even be the point of playing later war soviets if all of your good weapons are already available in early war?
I am speaking about the soviets but I’m pretty sure that all faction would have some broken weaponry as well from the get go…
10 Likes
Germans might be happy with Tiger in Tunisa lol
but Soviets would stack Early
Germans probably stack Mid
and USA stack Late?
Im indifferent by the way, I “would” even prefer the OP and the HA route if weapons behaved accordingly. buut they dont.
2 Likes
Japan stack never 
5 Likes
Maybe stack early? First part of pacific usa wasnt well armed
3 Likes
I’m just saying they knew what they were signing up for when they got a combined arms war game. I literally never complain about being killed by this or that. They should roll with the punches and have thicker skin
Sometimes you’re the guy getting the kill, sometimes you’re the one getting killed
It’s war, que sera sera.
1 Like
yeah but people dont generally do that on their leisure time. (or anytime lol)
They generally just flock to the place for the best/easiest/Most gratifying time. Why get pwned here when you can face roll there?
Thats why we have bot farm campaigns now.
3 Likes
I don’t really understand this perspective. Imagine you are someone who has never played the game and finds it by searching google. You install it and give it a 1-2 day run.
You start of without even explosive packs and maybe a crappy Kar98. You’ll be facing T-34, Federov’s and several other weapons that are difficult to battle at low level. Many who have the weapons today earned them when not so many people had them and don’t have the proper perspective on how much this dissuades new players from giving Enlisted more than a cursory look (if that). The unspoken truth (in my opinion) is than a substantial portion of Enlisted’s player base went through the grind together and have no perspective on what it would be like to jump into the game now as a new player.
The game must be welcoming to new players. They don’t need to be competitive with everyone but if they have a massive grind combined with a learning curve then we’ll never have new players and the end would be in sight.
7 Likes
I’d argue that has more to do with a relatively small community as well as the campaign system itself. (Personally I didn’t have a problem with campaigns but I understand their cons)
I am pretty sure Normandy is the de facto most popular and populated campaign, because D-Day is probably the only thing people think about when it comes to WW2.
I’ve always said if every campaign had the population of Normandy we wouldn’t have any problems (or the merge).
That’s why I think one of the good things about the update is going to be full teams, but now the next issue will be if matches get too sweaty and fast
1 Like
I might agree if I hadnt seen entire teams on the populated side leave time and time again when they run into some “actual” resistance for a change. Or the moment its clear they might actually lose.
it is so common its normal…and predictable
2 Likes
But we were all that “noob” once, and I wasn’t complaining then getting blown up just as I’m getting blown up now.
And in many ways I’m a different kind of player. For example, I would never give my whole entire armies M2 carbines or FG 42s. 99% of my Americans have M1 Garands and Germans have Kars. At most maybe I’d give 1 or maybe 2 M2 carbines, but I’m more likely to give more M1 carbines than M2 carbines. I prefer a slightly immersive experience. But that’s relative
2 Likes
hehe when I was a noob the strongest tank I had to worry about was a BT-7. I had it real easy.
1 Like
As you have stated repeatedly. You should use this point to disqualify yourself from debates on how to make this game succeed. You are NOT a typical player and you admit that your priorities are massively differentiated from the norm.
That said, what’s your objective? To tailor a game to suit your need while you admit you are on the tail end of the bell curve?
I believe those kinds of players aren’t noobs, but very experienced sweaters. It’s my opinion but I have that hunch that they are the ones looking for super hero bot mowdown simulators
It’s a shame, I never quit matches if we’re losing. I fight to the bitter end
1 Like
Exactly. I estimate this is the case for a substantial amount of the meaningful player base.
1 Like
It goes without saying, but we all love this game and are part of this community. And we all have different ideas of how it should be
It’s like whenever we have arguments about historical accuracy or atmosphere. What should we tell one side just to shut up. I believe X, other guy believes Y
We’re basically this game’s legislative branch. May the best ideas win
Like in this thread some think we should make the game a little softer for noobs, me I think we should fully sell the chaotic war sandbox experience
I have literally seen players quit the moment their vehicle gets destroyed, then they shouldn’t be playing a combined arms game in the first place. I get destroyed, welp onto the next spawn. Obviously I think that’s the better mentality
3 Likes
Darkflow and Gaijin would not be pursuing such massive changes to the game if they thought it could thrive in it’s current state.
This makes your assertion essentially pointless. If the game can’t succeed commercially, it will go away and everyone’s precious premium squads, gold order weapons, skins, etc lose value by 100% AND we have lost the game that many of us love.
So. We must consider that the commercial interests will execute some control and the best we can do is to hope they take some input.
If your input is on the tail end of the bell curve (which you basically self-advertise) then it is commercially useless.
1 Like
I think you misunderstand. I agree that the merge and BR are necessary for the game. I personally liked campaigns but I understand their cons and know that overall it is better to have a full matches. Personally I think who knows maybe one day campaigns may return, but I accept for the foreseeable future this is the way forward
We all agree on the broad things, we just disagree over the finer details. Like I say the VG 1-5 should only be in Berlin, others say it’s a weak gun and should be in Moscow
instead of a br or tier what about a point system, bolt action is worth say five points, a semi auto twenty five and a full auto a hundred, same goes for adding more troops to a squad, and so on and so on the more you bring to battle the more points, there would be brackets like under 250 points, 250 to a thousand and over 2500 points, don’t hold me to this that way be would be group up y points you can bring that tiger tank but it would be being in the highest bracket or cuts to say your squad of infantry to only semi auto or bolt action
Laughs in the Greatest Battle Implement ever devised
1 Like