I’ve played quite a few matches (all on Axis side) since I began playing Enlisted and I have noticed that the Axis side usually does not do anywhere near as well as the Allies most of the time. Most Axis teams I get sit around capture zones instead of inside them when it’s being captured and the engineers do not know how to place rally points. Most of the time I am the only person placing down rally points as an engineer.
I understand this is a player base issue, however there definitely needs to be more direction in-game on what to do. When you begin playing the game, you have no idea what a rally even is, even if you’re playing engineer, and you also have no real idea on how to capture and defend objectives. If you’re on the attacking side and versing a team that is mostly people who don’t know what a rally is, or how to defend a capture zone, it’s extremely easy to win.
I suggest that there should be more direction on where to defend and attack, for example, a defend or attack marker above the current capture zone. The map view (when you press M) also needs to be clear, as all you see is an objective with no real direction on what to do once you get there, or where you need to be to capture/defend besides the zone marker on the ground. I know the objective marker indicates who is controlling the capture zone, but it’s not clear to beginners.
The tutorial should probably be updated to show how to build things as an engineer (mainly rally points.) At least then beginners will know what a rally is.
I also suggest that rally’s should be able to be built in capture zones, or at least much closer to them, to assist with defending. That way, at least if your team doesn’t know how to defend or attack, they will spawn inside the capture zone instead of outside it and running around like headless chickens while their bots are farmed by the enemy team.
I know this won’t completely fix the problem of most Axis teams not knowing what to do and being farmed easily by Allied teams, but it’s a start and there needs to be a more clear direction on what to do for beginners instead of playing the tutorial where you just shoot a rifle then get thrown into a match with no idea what to do.
5 Likes
Most of the actual german player are all troll/boots/noob sadly, we have to wait dev finally decide to fix matchmaking and add an incentive like 50-100% exp boost in join a random faction in battle
It’s less of a match making issue as it is a poorly balanced squad design issue and a ahistorical distribution of automatic weapons.
Some of the squad make ups are unbalanced - 3 LMGs is not realistic, most squads had one, some like the US had none, because they used BARs (different doctrine) and the Germans had 2 at most, but again that’s because their doctrine revolved around the MG, which is why they kept the bolt action rifle until very late in the war, when they began to introduce the first assault rifles. But as we all know that was too little too late.
1 Like
You speak only for normandy ,all player wo have played for at least a month know normandy and berlin are unbalanced because are new, moscovy in the other hand is very well balanced (expect CAS) the huge issues here is the matchmaking wo place new player aganaist 30lv old player and the progression of germany campagni wo actual is the same for all campagni
No I do not, I’m talking about all campaigns, the STG44 reference is historical not campaign focused, and no I was not referring to the FG42.
New players will start with bolt action rifles and maybe one SMG for their assault squad IF they’re not spending money on premium.
The disparity is so large that the game design forces players to get at least one premium squad to even value add to their team for the first few games. That may not be a bad thing per se, but the issue is that it just becomes a race to accumulate as much automatic weaponry on a given soldier as possible, which is just ahistorical and ultimately erodes the end game value. The mismatch of weapons in the progression trees leaves players skipping areas of content just to get to the optimal set up for a given campaign, and in many cases that doesn’t even need unlocking the final few squads.
That along with ahistorical mismatches in equipment - ie Jumbos in Normandy is a poor game design choice…
So i not understand wy you spoke of wapon balance in this topic dont help the game now, with a playerbase issues the game need a good matchmaking for make new figth new and old figth old,(so no equipment unfair advantage)this help a little even the wapon balance and help the new learn slowly the game
While I agree that there is some unbalance, there are still a large majority of Axis players who do not place rally points when playing engineer. A lot of the team also doesn’t properly attack/defend capture zones. I think what I’m talking about is less of a game balance issue and is mainly due to new players.
This is of course also somewhat of a matchmaking issue, with new players who only have 1 SMG and the rest bolt action rifles being thrown into games against medium-high level players who mostly have automatic and semi-automatic weapons on almost all of their soldiers. Not to mention going up against good tankers and pilots and being bombed and not being able to do anything about it.
Exactly nerfing wapon is stupid, if i join the game for the first time and i have to figth a guys with this
This is matchmaking problem and this reflect with old guys actually eat the new in battle withaut the new are able to think
Because weapon balance in a sensible linear fashion does not create a huge disparity between starting and end game players. The disparity will obviously exist based on Rank, Perks and skill/map knowledge, but if you don’t overcook the weapons then MM has less of an impact.
I hope this makes better sense, you seem to need pictures not words, but sadly I don’t communicate in those.
And I’m not talking about nerfs (not even sure if this applies at all) merely suggesting that automatic weapon distribution is re-considered. There are too many assault squad variants currently able to be fielded - one core, and several premium…
Sorry but this game is made for create disparity, if the basic rifle doing the same job of a semi-auto one wy i have to pick the new one? Enlisted is similiar to an mmo we have wapons lv,veichle lv,soldier lv,soldier tier,soldier perk,campagni lv and characthers progression and possibility to upgrade wapons and veichle, balance the wapon at realistic lv make buy new wapon usless and i think the dev know this so they dont doing a wapon balance similiar to other realistic fps because they lose money from premium ,gold order, gold squad, premium veichle , gold soldier and wapon ecc so in the end after all i see i think a matchmaking fix help better than an slowly wapon balance
because the game becomes gimmicky and ahistorical
??? Sorry explain yourself
Yea because 3 word for a non eng with a translator dont help him to understand
Wy the game now is ahistorical for the sake of the microtransaction
umm its not about the micro transactions either.
Which bit of there are “ahistorically too many automatic weapons in the game” do you not understand?
Particularly if you understand the fact that there are limited slots for infantry, and you can fill most of them with both core and premium assault/MG squads…
Now multiply that by a random number of players per team and you may begin to see the issue…
Probably is the fact this game is heavy made for grinding and spending money we have so many semi-auto in later campagni actually enlisted is historical and realistic only wen him want to be for the rest
a soldier hit 4 time in the hearts survive because him have 4 medpacks so totally realistic
This game is not made for being realistic so i dont have problem to have all player armed with smg,mg,semi-auto if they figth player with same equipement the problem born wen they figth people with only basic one
You don’t seem to get it, there is nothing wrong with monetising the game, infact I’m not criticising any of their pay for experiences as other ppl may have, I don’t have an issue with them looking to fund the game through various purchases or even the accelerated system they have for perks or just buying your weapons instead of waiting for the cards to drop etc…
I’m just stating an opinion that doubling down on insane amounts of illogically arranged (if you consider the concept of progression) weapon systems weakens the appeal for the average punter who can’t spell history much less know much of it, but also, as has been pointed out in multiple threads, makes progression pointless, confusing or outright redundant across the different campaigns.
Ok now i have understand say it before
Yes the progression is shitty but because the dev are working on it so its normal have end game gun at level 7 for example in normandy with semi-auto garand ,in later dev diary/update the dev say the has at work to resolve this issue for example they have changed the m2 in normandy with the m1 and m1a1 this need time because the campagni in the end have + 50 level
Ps
for historical reason germany sucks with semi-auto wapon
Depends on your region . Germans on EU are much more Tryhards than any others
1 Like