Are you implying theres reason why we havent ever seen “forwarded” in topics regarding bodyarmor or ppsh stick ?
5 Likes
I noticed what is forwarded does not only depends on what the community really wants, but mostly what the person who forwards, wants.
Nashorn is a great example. The thread asking to lower it’s br got an overwhelming response as forum goes, majority positive.
But silence. Completely ignored by the staff who usually forwards. No acknowledgement at all. Questions ignored as well.
Then, the ISU152, well it got lowered in a few days after the staff member was happy to notify the devs about it.
[…]
I’ll let you be the judge, but I find absolutely hilarious they act surprised when the community think they are biased.
Also in light of this, polls are completely useless, since the intermediate between us and the devs cherry pick what she personally likes and ignores the rest.
6 Likes
The nashorn is the natural predator for the future KV8 (KV1 with flamethrower) so it cant go to br3, see i know what the dev are thinking since apparently when i suggest nashorn to be br3 it was consider “stupid” for some reason.
If the KV8 is br3 then nashorn can be br3 as well but until then i guess it is how it is.
Sad how the world work isnt it huh?
Well game development isnt democracy.
They obviously want people to quit the game by refusing to fix body armor.
I think body armor is a core foundational mechanic of the game. It’s been widely promoted to players and is a purchasable staple item at that.
If they remove it without advance notice or any official statement, the backlash and player outrage will be far worse than when the gold card shop got taken down—Soviet players make up a huge portion of the community, after all.
It’s obvious the dev team running the server heavily favors Japan and half of Germany’s tech tree. Germany’s basically treated like Japan’s sidekick.
Where are the devs supposed to favour Japan?
The only nation that gets advantages for no real reason are the soviets. They are the best nation on BR2,3 and 5 and have an advantage through body armour, which should be purely cosmetic as any cosmetic items should be, in the entire game.
The Official statement could be that the community favours it. 70% in favour here, 60% here and 65% here. Is the majority of the community to be ignored in favour of keeping the game unbalanced? Someone with body armour is going to win any firefight with everything else being equal simply because they have a 10% damage reduction for torso shots, even those that don’t hit the actual armour part of it.
5 Likes
ignore jap swords all you want 
Care to point out the event body armour?
2 Likes
what are you implying with this?
That other factions have free, as in not requiring the spending of money, access to the speed boost afforded by swords. While it is through events there is no such option for body armour.
May I also say that they removed the Japanese bodyarmor and the armored german stahlhelms cause it wouldn’t be fair? And yet, the soviets STILL has their bodyarmor
2 Likes
The stats shows there isn’t advantages on win rate for soviet faction
I see no bias, and I support a balance adjustment that brings the win rate closer to 50/50.
When Japan nerfs? When US 10% damage reduction? When do good players get hit with debuffs? When do bad players get booted and replaced with bots? Are all of those acceptable decisions to bring “balance”?
The Soviet tech tree also deserves proper refinement, same as Germany’s.
We can’t just fixate on their heavy armor and overlook how Soviet troops were stuck with the AVT, a 15-round gun firing at 690 RPM, forced to fight against the 422 with its 700 RPM rate of fire and no safety switch.
The Soviet side hasn’t gotten any new BR 5 vehicles for years. They’re still stuck relying on the lackluster IS-2 to this day.
I can accept minor preferential treatment for Japan at first, since their roster of equipment is limited. But this favoritism just keeps expanding nonstop, to the point where there’s no restraint at all.
Take this new Japanese anti-tank rifle as an example. Its inflated stats trace all the way back to a random fan-made hypothetical claiming 200mm penetration.
They only nerfed it slightly to 180mm penetration based on this completely unsubstantiated guess. Forum users have already laid out all the scientific reasons why this value is unrealistic. Japan’s balance buffs need to be reined in right now—devs keep throwing out historical and scientific constraints just to make up for their small equipment lineup.
Revamping body armor mechanics is comparable to requesting brand-new map assets.
It would take years of planning and development work to implement properly, and it all boils down to whether the dev team is willing to put in the effort.
But we all know how lazy they are.
1 Like
Wow, there’s actual statistical data to back this up?
Japan’s win rate is somehow the highest of all nations.
Honestly, the maps in Enlisted are way too tiny overall. There’s no room to maneuver for proper combat, nor any viable spots to lay ambushes. Tank fights always devolve into quick-draw duels like old west cowboys—you spot me the second I shoot you. There’s no way to strike enemies from hidden long-range positions behind cover. Lots of map structures are indestructible and can’t be penetrated at all. So most tank engagements just turn into face-to-face showdowns. The best tanks are simply those packing the thickest armor paired with the heaviest firepower, combining both strengths in one package.
As long as the map sizes don’t get expanded—take the Ardennes and Tunisia maps for instance—buildings are packed so tightly that tanks have to push up close to clear infantry. This makes turretless, thinly armored vehicles completely useless.
Vehicles like the Dicker Max, SU-76, Jagdpanther, Marder, and StuG III F/G almost never show up in matches, precisely because they lack turrets.
These tank destroyers desperately need large open maps to shine, yet Enlisted’s maps are cramped and uneven, offering no decent terrain to leverage their strengths, rendering them nearly worthless.
Compare this to War Thunder, which features vast maps that let these vehicles hide and ambush targets. These tank destroyers should be rebalanced and dropped a full battle rating to fit Enlisted’s cramped battlefield environments.
Take the Chaffee as an example. It shares the same battle rating as Shermans in War Thunder, but here it’s stuck at just BR 2. The original devs knew full well how small the maps are; nearly every fight boils down to head-on clashes at the central chokepoints. There’s barely any space to flank enemies or engage targets at extreme range.
These map constraints strip specialized tank destroyers of every chance to use their unique advantages.
They even nerfed the Hellcat’s battle rating to fit the meta, so I don’t understand why they didn’t re-evaluate the new Rhino based on the map layout too. This is a widely shared consensus among the playerbase. We all know how cramped these battlefields are—only the Moscow map has enough space to fight at longer ranges. None of the other maps can replicate the long-distance combat gameplay from War Thunder at all.
That’s a very important word you chose to ignore. They were disadvantaged but now they very much are not. The AVT and AVS 20 are more than on par with the FG42, the Fedorov Avtomat is better than the STG, the RD-44 is far better than the MG-42 and they get the Panzerfaust copy pasted.
Of course changing one line from the code would of course take years of planning and testing. And it’s of course the same amount of work as building and testing new assets.
2 Likes
It’s obvious they’ve been showing blatant favoritism toward Japan lately.
Take this new rifle grenade for instance. Right before its implementation, a player suggestion thread popped up, and the devs greenlit it in no time at all. The mods even explicitly stated they’d add this experimental weapon to the tech tree. This thread got the fastest official approval out of every suggestion on the forum.
All its stats are built purely on a random fan’s hypothetical guess. The absurdity of it is on par with that fake 1,000-horsepower Japanese engine the Korean data researcher pulled out of thin air a while back.
It’s basically a case of “dream up any stat you want, and we’ll just plug it into the game no questions asked.”
Compare this to the Soviet body armor mechanics, and this blatant bias completely shatters the game’s core premise of being grounded in authentic World War Two history.
How can anyone claim Japan doesn’t get unfair preferential treatment? Why does Japan’s Me 262 variant get to carry an 800-kilogram bomb load? Just because their map terrain is supposedly worse? The Type 5 fighter at BR 3 is flat-out the best fighter aircraft at its battle rating across all nations.
If players hadn’t kicked up such a fuss back then, the AVT-40 and AVS-36 would’ve been delayed even longer.
The Soviet tech tree has decent infantry weapons, but their tank lineup is still a mess. The IS-2’s flaws have been widely hated by everyone for ages. Hardly anyone plays Soviet tanks at BR 5 unless they’ve got no other choice.
The body armor mechanic definitely needs a proper rework.
But we all know how incompetent Gaijin’s dev team is. Removing the gold card shop alone dragged on for ages and ages.
They tried deleting relevant code and stripping back core underlying mechanics, yet it only created more bugs that they couldn’t keep up with fixing.
If they fully remove body armor entirely, all sorts of glitches will pop up overnight—players might not be able to equip uniforms, helmets won’t render properly, all kinds of broken visual and functional bugs tied to that code.
Body armor was a core feature implemented extremely early in the game’s development. Making major changes to it could break countless interconnected systems, so they’ve avoided addressing or responding to community feedback on it entirely.
Forum users have long proposed reasonable nerfs or reworks for body armor:
Limit damage reduction to only frontal torso coverage, make it solely block sub-calibre rounds and shrapnel from explosives, or add significant movement weight penalties, among other ideas.
At current BR 5 battle ratings, most automatic rifles can take down Soviet infantry with a single shot anyway, so body armor’s practical value keeps shrinking more and more.
Still, this all boils down to the game’s glacial update pace. Every balance patch always feels like a reactive afterthought. A perfect example is how they only gave the Allies the Jumbo Sherman long after the King Tiger was already added to the game.
Most of these issues stem from DF’s abysmally low work efficiency. Loads of unresolved problems pile up. They’ll take the first tiny step of a fix, yet never follow through with the second half of the adjustments
It seems you have the story completely wrong with this. The post (which I made BTW, here’s the link 試製ジテ弾 / Experimental Ji-Te AT grenade launched from the Type 97 AT rifle - A domestic BR4 weapon for Japan) was all the way back from November of last year, so not “right before it’s implementation” by any means. It had also been suggested plenty before I made said suggestion as well.
To balance out its 30mm guns having next to no ammunition compared to the other jets. Only 50 rounds per gun is a huge nerf - especially so when games against high BR US players typically have a decent amount of planes.
2 Likes