The devs try to preserve some semblance of the campaign system for people whining about HA, and here they are, still whining, because it’s not enough HA.
If you care more about HA than the game’s health and balance, then you really don’t like the game
2 Likes
Post this smug bullmess in an already-existing topic, dude
3 Likes
I am a fan of historical accuracy.
From the devblog today, I agree that the developers is on the correct way and have done a nice job for now.
I understand that we have limitation of player count, so different options of game mode including “arcade” and “realistic battle” like War Thunder is the future solution.
7 Likes
LOL, what about go to play COD? BF?
When a game is giving up on its OG playerbase. It’s done.
Look at what BF has gone to.
New players like you dont care about sticking to the game. They come quick and leave quick.
11 Likes
I think many players plays this game casue it has a little HA … if you dont care its not really your game and you can go back to fortnite
7 Likes
BF and CoD don’t play anything like Enlisted
I’ve been playing since early 22, sooo?
? Seriously?
I’ve been here since 2020 OK?
And what’s the difference between BF and Enlisted when enlisted is as E-SPORT as BF series?
And more greedy and more expensive, also lots worse than a proper triple A games?
1 Like
ok?
BF plays nothing like enlisted
it’s kinda funny yet sad that people voice or take the more noisy ones as an example of everyone else.
and… kinda shows the lack of argument regarding other topics.
but perhaps i can’t really blain as things are stale before the update comes.
1 Like
I’m assuming you are an advocate for HA? What are your thoughts on the update?
This would be fine, as long as the playerbase can support it
i’ve grown to be indifferent about things if i have to be honest.
the thing that i liked though, was the ability and had somewhat of a place for both.
( this was more of a thing during the alpha then it is currently. but anyway )
neutral for the moment.
as in all honesty, there are still more questions to be asked than answers that has been given
at first though, not a huge fan of the arcady stuff that we’re headed to. because i roughly agree with how @sfh0525 putted it.
pleasing casuals / randoms is just gonna get you so far.
( Bfv was a clear example )
on the other hand, i can somewhat understand that for business reasons and growth. perhaps mixing stuff altogether like a mash up is beneficial.
i just wished that we would have at least got 2 matchmakers. on for realism and the other arcady as it is now ( or will be )
you know. similar to war thunder since… looks like we’re headed there.
but that’s just my opinion.
for the moment, gotta wait for the editor upgrades. i’ll be spending my time there most likely. and get in game for cosmetics ( admitting and hoping that those will be expanded and not left untouched like they are now ). perhaps get some premiums tanks and that’s it guess.
other thing that worries me that i think about it, seal clubbing. but for the rest, it’s gonna be somewhat better for everyone.
outside those who advocates for HA.
they will be happier, but not any time soon.
( on a second though, not sure they will be happy as they’ll have to play an arcady mess that they didn’t asked just to progress and get equipment. )
all devs did for the HA community as a starter point,
they did made the first step of having the limitator of equipments on custom games. which i reccomend them for doing so and have somewhat of my prasies. problems are, it still relies on the custom games which it’s less then idea and in some occasions, less than working. and lastly, it’s good for us editors. but yeah, gotta sunk in alot of time. and generally, no xps.
anyway, we’ll see.
sounds good, gotta see how it will all play out.
5 Likes
(not sure are you asking me, but I am willing to share my opinion)
Nice update, reduced grinding and new matchmaking is much more attractive to new players, more new players will let the game to continue developing with healthy environment, and most importantly bring income to developers.
From today’s devblog, the previous negative idea have been reduced a lot. There could still be improvements, but a this stage, at least the developers have realised that they should make a compromise between historical accuracy and balancing. Before further discussion on future improvements, I think the currently planned system have more potential than the currently running or the previously planned one.
2 Likes
Thinking HA and the health of the game are mutually exclusive is a mistake.
- More compromises are possible.
- It’s a WWII game, people wanting to play a WWII game ae interested in WWII to varying degrees but are still interested, a lot of people that came to Enlisted went because of being more arcade and lay back than things like HLL of PS, but also being more realistic (HA included) than CoD WWII, CoD Vanguard, BF V.
Why do you think those games died so quickly ?
If you want to make a good game in an historical setting, one of the most important aspect of it is immersion.
For me, “immersion” in an historical setting can be done in two ways :
-
You do it the BF 1 way with great environment, map designs, tremendous work on the graphics and sound design, this allow you to take more liberty on historical accuracy because it still feel like the setting your game is suppose to be in.
I’m pretty hardcore on historical accuracy most of the time but BF 1 is my favorite Battlefield game to date.
But this is extremely expensive an not guarenteed to work, so you need a lot of money to create and promote the game to ensure its success, an amount of money Gaijin and even less Darkflow is going to have. -
Or you do it with a certain amount of HA, don’t get me wrong complete HA is impossible and anything near it is not going to be fun at all.
And it goes to even the smaller details that actually carry a game long term.
People passionate about a game are goig to be the ones promoting it to everyone, and most people passionate about a WWII game are waaaaay more likely to be military History nerds.
Removing the WWII part of a WWII game is just setting yourself for failure, being F2P won’t solve that.
As I said, compromises are still possible, ones that are going to please the HA accuracy crowd (which in the vast majority are not unerasonable, because they wouldn’t play enlisted in the first place if they were) and not change anything for peopl fearing (and rightfully so for the future of the game.
Not to mention than even more the “health of the game” alone, those future changes are going to have extremely negative impacts if added as they are currently announced.
I mean how do you think the player base is going to fluctuate when a new campaign drop with a new faction for one side (which is going to happened that way giving that almost every major factions is already in the game) and due to BR being taken in account only for a set time while queueing the campaign launch with one side being entirely at the lowest BR possible and the other being at every BR possibl, including the very top ones ?
A France 1940 dropping with H35 facing Panthers is going to destroy the one-time player influx this kind of launch create. And those new players won’t come back for sure.
And for the same reason that when you see a good movie you tell 3 people about it but when you see a bad one you tell 10, this will have a long term negative impact on the health of the game.
7 Likes
That won’t happen
That’s fair enough
But at the same time, I think a lot of people came to Enlisted because of the squad system.
It’s a PvPvE game, and it does it rather well.
I can’t comment on WW2, but Vanguard and BF V died because they were just shit games at launch (Vanguard never really got better)
BF V is actually a fun game now, same for BF2042.
It litterally can’t go other way with how the future system is described by the devs themselves, so please elaborate.
Definitely, that’s also one of the big reason I came to.
But I guarantee you the WWII aspect is at least if not more important on what brought people in.
Because let’s be real, how may of us would have play Enlisted in the first place or at least being as dedicated if it was in an other setting ?
Especially that some of the most efficient marketing materials like trailers for new campaign don’t really mention it.
But also because they failed to bring the pretty large population interested about WWII, witch is the type of people that will make your game survive on the long run, the dedicated and passionate ones.
It’s all about immersion when it comes to game in historical settings, people want it to “feel” like the setting it’s supposed to represent.
-
You either do it the BF1 way with all the work in the graphics, incredible sound design and gunplay (also great campaign that make you want to play against other people), this allow you to be more free regarding Historical Accuracy, but, required an budget nowhere near what Enlisted has.
-
Or you go for historical accuracy (to a point, extreme HA is not fun and not doable), with a set limit.
And starting to go back on where you put the limit on HA after accumulating a fan base which was fine with that is not a good idea.
I have no doubt those two games are fun I have never played them, but I would bet that they both have a lower player base than BF1 for exemple, I mean I pretty sure they have less players than Enlisted.
Because especially for BF V, people only their for the Battlefield experience mostly moved to BF2042, and people there for the WWII part left way before that if at all.
I don’t know.
I personally came because it was a squad shooter (not a sweaty PvP shooter like CS or Valorant, although I like Valorant when I want that experience)
I wouldn’t care if it was WW2 or some other era, in fact, I actually am hoping for a Korean War addition.
But, that is just me, perhaps it is different for most of the playerbase
The MM will match you with players with similar loadouts, so starting a new nation (your example of France) would pit you against likewise low-tier loadouts.
And in fact, with the new blog, they said the MM will try to put you on maps accurate to your loadout, so it also pleases HA fans that did not want to have Tiger 2s in Moscow.
Of course, it’s a soft rule, so sometimes there will be time travel, but I think it’s a good enough compromise
There’s no proof of that.
If the games were good at launch and still dropped in popularity I would agree, but they weren’t, so we’ll never know.
BF1 is an incredible game, and you’re right. The immersion is incredible.
Even though I know WW1 was nothing like it, I still feel like i’m in a gritty, early-modern warfare battle
I don’t think Enlisted should do that. Game’s like Arma, PA, HLL are for people who want that.
Like I said above though, people don’t play BF5 because it was tainted by a crappy launch.
BF1 had a pretty decent launch iirc.
BF42 had a shit launch as well, but they bounced back and now it’s a fun game (DICE is pretty good at bringing games back from the dead)
Overall I think the changes Darkflow is making are good.
It’s a compromise that is best for the game. If HA don’t think it’s enough, I’m sorry, but I just don’t think they have the best interest for the game in mind, they’re just thinking about what THEY want.
1 Like
Im always fascinated by people who cant afford the latest CoD or Siege or whatever and try to turn any other F2P game they can into it.
Like dude if you want an ahistorical arcade ww2 game just buy bfV or cod its better polished and has less grind its not rocket science
1 Like
I play Paradox games, but yeah. I’m sooo poor
Well, it wouldnt be suprising if you are poor AFTER playing Para games.
1 Like
With all the money you need for play EU4 im not surprised if you are posting this from a cordboard in a subways