It really, really isn’t. If we were going full historical, the M1 Garand would be the US’s base rifle in Normandy, FG-42s would only be available to Fallschirmjaeger, the Federov wouldn’t really be around, etc. This really isn’t a game for people who can’t get over their own desperate need for perfect historical accuracy, and I barely ignore the inconsistencies with history and weapons function enough to enjoy this game.
You’ve been playing a beta. Things were bound to change, and it’s become pretty clear that the current progression and campaign system falls apart if there’s too many campaigns. German mains are split across five progressions, US three, USSR three. Shit, the reason Pacific is so hard for US right now is because people that want to play Japanese only have one, so the enemy team is always more populated than yours.
Dude’s arguing his side of things, and doing a good job of not responding to insults in kind.
I see the concern, but don’t think it’s likely to be a problem. By getting rid of campaigns and going to gear-tier MM, they’ll be consolidating the currently split playerbase, so the lliklihood of unpopulated queues is decreased. As for the Japanese, they’ve annouced that they’ll be getting preferential matchmaking because their tree isn’t flushed out well enough to be competitive at higher tiers
Right? Game’s always been arcade, and the lack of MM showed more and more the more levels and campaigns were added.
This. There’s loads of innacuracy and they’ve just kept adding more, at least with gear-tier MM they’ll be less. Then they just have to fix things like weapons that had bayonets that lack them in game, weapons that can’t take a bayonet but have them in game (looking at you, Mosin 1907 and 38 carbines), and guns that don’t work like they should (IE S&W 1917, probably Nagant Revolver.)
Like I said, probably won’t be an issue between gear-tier MM and japanese preferential MM. Keep in mind, too, that the MM spread is set up for ten tiers already. US players that don’t want to fight Germans with FG42 and STG will intentionally play at lower tier, instead of just flocking to Tunisia. I think what we’re more likely to see is some tiers being more populated than others, leading to things like high-tier Germans stomping all comers, or mostly getting matching with high-tier soviets because high-tier US is going to struggle against FG/STG squads and Tiger 2’s
Have they proposed a BR MM system yet? All I’ve seen is a gear-tier spreadsheet, and talk about how MM will be based on gear level, but haven’t heard anything about if that just means the tiers or if they’re adding BR, or what the MM spread would be.
I’m not one that’s gonna harp too hard about HA in what’s been an arcade shooter from the start, and I know it wasn’t for me, but it’s an interesting challenge, so:
- could go for HA in how weapons actually work, which they’ve messed up a lot
- HA in what weapons were actually available and in common use for a given battle/.campaign, which they’ve messed up
- HA in what vehicles were available and in common use for a given battle/campaign, which they’ve messed up
4)HA in individual soldier combat load, they’ve never come close
5)HA in squad/section composition and equipment, again, not close
6)HA in squad/section type/battlefield role, again not close
7)HA by more closely replicating actual historical battlefield, AFAIK not close
8)HA in the environmental effects, like actually effective naval artillery in Normandy or any at all in Pacific, not close
9)HA in ammunition selection, for both small arms and vehicle mounted weapons, especially MG belt composition instead of all tracer all the time
10)Cheating, there’s arguable degrees of each of the preceding.
How do you know this? Not saying it’s wrong, I just don’t have that information and haven’t seen it anywhere.
Logically, if it’s a 1 BR spread and they have 10 BR already, it’s way more than 27. Germans are queueing across all ten tiers against US and USSR at all ten tiers, USSR is only queing against Germany, US against German for ten and Japan for what, six? Complicated.
And the Garand was issued before US involvement in Europe, and there’s loads of prototype weapons that were never issued or tested on the battlefield. equipment HA isn’t a thing this game’s really ever had, and it’s not going to get it.
Your’e not wrong, but
Enlisted’s balance has never been “fair” even ignoring HA
For a game that’s supposedly favoring HA over fun or balance, it’s doing a shit job and two thirds of them (it’s reasonably fun most of the time)
Arcade argument. Enlisted is obviously on the arcadey side of things, but from this gun nerd’s perspective, it’s not as unrealistic as CoD or BF. I get that it’s my opinion, and it’s arguable in shades, and I have my own problems where I believe the game could stand to be more realistic, but it’s not nearly the worst offender even in the WW2 sphere.
Shit, I’ma stop. Went to deep.
