Incorrect. Rather, it’s the lack of skill and thinking ability of the Allied/Soviet players to overcome the problem. Germany experienced the same thing with the Jumbo jet in Normandy with the Panzer IV and in Moscow with Soviet submachine guns and tanks. But the German players did see how to combat that.Unlike the others who just sat around complaining to the Developers
And yet, when one side has automatic weapons that can be equipped to any soldier, and the other does not, it’s an unsolvable balance problem. The other problems described can be solved by upgrading machine guns and adding good assault aircrafts, bombers and self-propelled guns.
Wasn’t the first Enlisted balance before Japan like:
Soviets strong on pushing and in CQB environment, decent to better tanks
GE strong on defensive, weapons great and flexible for any range engagement, tank superiority
US mediocre weaponry, however allowing for complete map control via planes and CAS unless contested, tanks good enough for inf support
Might be wrong, but I’d wager that was the case. Each faction was unique in it’s pros and cons and had different headaches to worry about.
Now we have a suggestion each week hoping to balance stats, nerf or buff something because it’s weaker than it’s counterpart, slowly but surely destroying any hint of factions feeling unique, except maybe for their visual appearance.
2 Likes
No, you haven’t adressed them.
You are saying that the game should still be the same, except without the prototypes. How is that fair in a game sense? That german players get to abuse and have infinite quantities of weapons produced on a microscopic scale. That is the same level of impossible as the prototypes, simply because if you allow players to abuse these above average weapons they WILL abuse them, for their own benefit. Which by your stance, is ahistorical fantasy. What I see here is a hypocrite.
Yes, I did, and several times with different examples.
How is it fair that Germany has to deal with its problems using whatever it has at hand to overcome the problem While the Allies and Soviets are not only complaining that their weaponry is useless With the Developers With the advantages they have in sections of their weaponry where they are even given the requested weaponry German weapons captured in their TT and prototypes They’re still complaining that it doesn’t work And Germany has to face all this just for being Germany And it also doesn’t have Prototypes in its TT like the other Factions
This is hypocrisy.
German weapons were used in large quantities relative to German numbers, and their impact was significant. Just as the Allies and Soviets use weapons in large quantities, Germany also has that right. But you don’t complain about the prototypes that weren’t used; you just want to justify why Germany He also uses his REAL weapons
So you’re just admitting it. You want every german to have FG42s while the rest are stuck with bolt actions and garands.
I’m glad the devs don’t listen to your suggestions.
That crap might’ve worked before the merge, where the proximity of an item to the start would make it more common, but guess what? The campaigns are gone, with their levelling system.
1 Like
If the Allies and Soviets use their weapons—as they were used in large quantities in WWII—there’s no problem. But if Germany does it, there is a problem. How ironic But you say NOTHING about the rest Aid to those factions is legal and fair according to your verdict. But for Germany to see the FG42 and other weapons in large quantities is unacceptable.How funny you are with the other blinded fanatics of your Faction
That you don’t like my Realistic Suggestions and my point of view that adheres to the idea that Enlisted sold me in 2020-2021It doesn’t make it bad, you just don’t like the advantages of a Faction that is better and has things that the other Factions don’t have.
The campaigns may be over, but even so, prototypes shouldn’t have been introduced and thrown in Germany’s face.
Depending on the campaign, this allowed you to equip your soldiers with weapons, tanks, and aircraft that were used in that campaign AUTHENTICITY Whether they were used and saw combat in WW2 in that campaign Whether the weapon saw combat in large, medium, or small quantities for its incorporation And the FG42 fulfills this Not the PROTOTYPES
holy shit you are a fanatic
How is every german in BR5 running around with an StG or FG42 equal to and fair against the allies with only BR 1-3 weapons to face them? HOW??
Because most of the time there wasn’t enough of them. The prototypes were introduced as a way to be the LITERAL COUNTERPARTS to the german small-batch wonder weapons in the TT. We’ve told you multiple times!
Stop strawmanning. I’m saying the rest needed an equal counterpart.
Let me ask you a question. If all the prototypes and nonsense were removed, how would you balance Ge vs USSR BR 5?
FG 42 vs AVT-40 (15)?
MP 717(r) vs PPSh?
StG vs what?
MG 81 / MG 42 (100) with your 1500 rpm vs what?
King tiger vs IS-2?
Me-262 vs La-7?
How would that be fair, if they were all in equal quantities?
A fanatic for telling the truth, what hatred towards the German faction
Therein lies the answer; after all, they were weapons actually used by the Germans in WW2. It is also not Germany’s fault that the Allies only had these weaponsIt’s not the modern Cold War where there are many weapons to choose from.
They were used by German soldiers in COMBAT Until the Fall of Berlin, in large quantities for the Germans And they saw a great, significant fight like the 80s Ferdinand/Elephant
I’ve told you MANY TIMES The inclusion of PROTOTYPES It is not justified to be in the TT just to cover up the lack of skill and intelligence of the player base of those Factions.,So if Germany receives prototypes in its TT, they’re going to complain, and that’s where the problems will arise.
They didn’t need it because that wasn’t in WW2, and Enlisted didn’t start with this idea of artificial balance.
With the same weaponry they won the war with, and precisely there was none PROTOTYPES This underlines the Great LACK OF ABILITY AND HEAD to solve the PROBLEMS themselves that they have in front
The FG42/Gewehr 43 vs Avt 40, MP40 is inferior to any Soviet submachine gun And the STG44 filled this gap for greater firepower and, moreover, should have no counterpart, being the ONLY AND FIRST Assault rifle from both WW2 and in history, seeing combat in that conflict
Blame the Soviet/Allied doctrine; Germany has nothing to do with this, as it has a different doctrine regarding machine guns.
This has to be a jokeThey are exactly the same; the IS-2 was the counterpart of the Tiger 2. If the recharge is slow, that’s the Soviets’ problem.
Just like the STG44, it was the only jet to be used in combat in WW2 along with the AR-234, which should be the only jets that should be in the game.
Artificial balancing only ruins the game and takes steps towards becoming another War Thunder, despite empty promises from developers who claim it won’t be like that. , NOTHING What Repliques is valid or justifies the PROTOTYPES Enlisted I stand by the idea that attracted me to this game, but I don’t want anything from it PROTOTYPES in the TT,You have your wrong point of view, and I have the correct one, which adheres to what Enlisted originally promised me.
I’ve heard all I needed to hear. You’re basically stuck in the past. BRs need to be balanced as such, because NOW you’re not seeing a mix of the diffrent BRs of weapons in each match (Like it was pre-merge), it’s only weapons on the corresponding BR.
Additionally:
- things like the AS-44 and the RD-44 already were in the game pre-merge
- What you’re suggesting now would make certain BRs obsolete, because nobody would play them, because their faction wouldn’t be able to compete with the germans
- The “They just need to be smarter with using their inferior weapons” argument is false, because allied powers won the war by out-producing Germany, which cannot be replicated in-game.
- You’re a hypocrite, because you want the game to be on the perfect-for-germany cusp between total horseshit (prototypes & Unreal numbers of axis weaponary) and realism (Only using real weapons, Axis powers flooded by Allied manpower), where allies get the worst of the both worlds, because neither can they have good weapons, but they also cannot have more manpower than germany
You are narrow-mined & you don’t care about injustice.
I also perferred the pre-merge battlegrounds, but we either need to quit the game or adapt, including our suggestion making, because it’s not going to revert.
1 Like
But what is the cost of such uniqueness? Players simply leave the factions that don’t have the advantage they want. The balance mechanism you mentioned don’t really work well.
Imagine having a favourite faction and your own favoured play style. Of course people flock to the faction they prefer, be it due to weapons or vehicles. Yet it’s not like they’re not interested to try the others, specifically because they offer something their own does not. Take that away and there will never be a reason to migrate across factions.
So you think catering to each faction so eventually they are all the same is the best way to do balance? How long do you think it’ll take a person to lose any interest in the game, if he’s fed the same slop, regardless of which faction he chooses to play, I’d love to see that player retention, if that were to happen.
Why even have factions at that point? For “historical” feel and different weapon/uniform skins, yeah gl with that. Might as well just be Red VS Blue or whatever simplification we can come up with.
If that is the case why most of the campaigns were one sided with one faction have significant more players than other faction?
Lol it is funny that you are talking about player retention when the previous balance method literally cause players to leave certain factions.
Because not everybody migrates immediately? Like you do know people stick to their main, unless they lose interest or finish the whole TT? Or they just stay, since they just like the faction’s feel of weapons/vehicles?
Migration of players is/was often either:
- Forced en masse via balancing - making something clearly OP for a while, thus attracting players to flock to said faction.
- Or it is a slow process that the player does only partly - finish his TT, start TT of another faction, but he’ll still play with his main favoured faction in the end.
Most average player’s are easy to influence by the 1st option.
Vets are more keen on the 2nd option. I do it myself - main Soviets, have their TT finished, yet did occasionally go over to GE to get their TT done and now I am also almost done with US. Can’t seem to get interested in Japan though, don’t offer much and being locked to Pacific maps is ehh.
But they still stayed with the game. Unlike the situation right now which is bleeding players slowly each month.
The only increases as of late are updates with new maps/TT weapons, yet even those only last to boost the count for a month or two, before the players lose interest once again.
Why you are talking about tech tree? I though you were talking the first Enlisted balance before Japan? That was before the merge.
Do you have actual player count statistic before Japan was added? Or else how do you prove they stayed with the game?
And how do you prove this is because of the current balance method? In my opinion the lack of content released and slow efficiency of dev is more likely the cause of this.
I didn’t mention Japan, because I did not play Pacific campaign. Can’t speak of something If I have no experience or knowledge of it. Though I did mean campaigns pre-merge.
As for numbers. Robihr had a post about it, here Enlisted stats- postmerge edition. If you have access to any recent player counts data mined, then you can compare the counts.
How else other than with numbers can you prove a bland balancing method is partly at fault here. True, add to it slow updates, game features still not working as intended and I think most can guess where it’ll lead to, especially with WT Inf around the corner.
And if you wish to ask, how I am sure of it happening, let’s just say a certain other predecessor WW2 shooter tried doing the same. Enlisted’s current development/balancing methods quite mirror it.
I didn’t mean you play Japan or what. But you said the method of balancing change after Japan was added.
The data is from May 2023. Japan was added on September 2022. So it didn’t have the data to show the player base number difference between two balance mechanism.
So your point is other game do the same so it loose player? Fine, what about War Thunder that uses br matchmaking like Enlisted and add a lot of copy paste and prototype to the tech tree for balancing? Why is its player base growing?