First let me preface this with the fact that I do have the Pacific campaign para squads. I have not tried the Normandy campaign ones but have been on the receiving end of them. I view the para squad as a troll squad that can completely disrupt the game especially the ones where you are playing with either half your team being bots or one of those dsync games where one side has a definitive ping advantage. A simple example is that the Normandy campaign is where the enemy para squads (there were 3 different players) would continuously deploy their squads on either the cap points or machine gun nests behind our defensive positions and completely obliterate any defensive positions so the assault teams had no resistance at all. As soon as you kill off one squad there would be 2 more being airdropped and they would suicide their other squads just to para drop again within 30 seconds. A simple example is that at the beginning of the round I dropped back to build a spawn point just to have a para squad land directly on me and kill of my whole squad before I even realized what was happening or having them deploy and chose anti tank and kill of both of our tanks from behind from points that we could not get to in time. Im not saying they need to be completely removed but they definitely need to be nerfed and limited to where they can deploy especially on big maps like DDay where its a cauldron.
Yeah, sounds like they were giving you defenders a hard time âŚ
But it also sounds it was a continuously problem⌠aka they didnât manage to cap the point so soon? Since they were able to send reinforcements ?
In other words. Although their capabilities to disrupt your reinforcements they werenât able to capture the actual zone?
So what about paras?
IMO; theyâre not only unique and fun, theyâre only good if used properly.
In bad or non-experienced hands theyâre nothing special. When Iâm brain-dead or just drunk my stats with paras is horribly bad. Itâs definitely not âpress-a-button-to-winâ and ⌠and Iâm yet to see successful jumps on the first objective, tbh ⌠You will be moved down. For sure.
And as I said the only scenarios where paras is OP is when they drop on the next, just opened objective.
That should be changed.
Iâm not trying to hurt your feelings. Iâm just showing you the bigger picture.
This right here 
They are definitely more powerful than the average squad, if used correctly. So what they need is an increased travel time while in the plane.
Yeah they are powerful, but they certainly have downsides
- you hear a plane coming, Pretty good indicator you should look up a bit now that paras are in
- helpless in their chutes
- Their Supply drop show you EXACTLY where they are going to landâŚhello killzone, prep grenade
- To benefit from their Kit, they have to interact with it. So not only do you know where they are, they are a sitting duck while choosing kit.
I been on the receiving end of paras dropping right on top many times. Earned them a free trip back to the spawn menu.
I wouldnât be opposed to Paras not being able to immediately drop on the next point after its open. But many games if you push hard you can get there on foot before the defenders anyway.
People just havenât adapted yet.
As for defending (invasion), Ive always find it better to defend by actively counter attacking, not sitting and waiting (not saying its not valid). If for whatever reason you get broken on the point, thats itâŚthey are on itâŚBut if they break you in a counter attack, you got time to get back before they do, and you dont have the burden of ticket bleed (invasion)
In Confrontation however, Hunkering down is quite good, if you bleed them out. Had many games where your team cant match the other teams aggressiveness for the caps, So fortifying t, and making them take losses can turn many games.
the spawning zone of para should be shorter, but its absolutely insane to see the that Para + useless noobs in normandy are making a team gap, i just wanted to see what would it be to face the 2 new american para squads and all the times, my team get whipe out instantly, iâm okay to see dumb clueless teammates in my team its classic shit, but now i cant even prepare a defense or to make a strategy LMAO like okay at the begining of this campaing the axis was strong but now⌠i have already max lvl this campaing and i dont know if i will start it again if nothing change
Im right there with you. Im maxed out in this campaign and the round that Im talking about I ended up with like 80 kills but we pretty much got swept. The constant air bombing raids their two planes bombing us and their 3 para players were way too much. My team had 3 other competant players that put up a resistance but the rest of my team were not much help and were most limely bots. This type of gameplay just really takes away the fun away from the game. Im ok with losing if its still fun and competitive but this was rediculous.
Youâre correct in OP. Paratroopers have ruined the game.
Donât waste your time arguing with these knuckleheads, because all they are going to do is bring you down to their level, and then try and rationalize their viewpoints about paratroopers.
If you want an example of my own arguments with these guys, on the very exact issue as your OP.
Feel free to read at your own leisure.
Paratroopers should be allowed to drop at a flank, however they should not be allowed to drop into the capture zone or behind it on top of the enemy spawn points - this only destroys the structure of a map.
Also they arrive comically fast and fly way too low. Its insanely difficult to intercept them - thus it is not possible to punish them for reckless drop zone placement.
I agree with you 100%, its one of the major reasons Iâve been pushing so hard for updates (buffs) to defense game mechanics, fortifications, and mines.
In the same token however, there should be no reason that the defense isnât given a chance to set up in advance.
âenemy linesâ being an interesting terminology here. It infers that there is a line to break, not just the jumbled shit-show that defenders have to deal with currently. There usually is no âfront-sideâ other than that side being where the MAIN enemy force is coming from. There isnât anything that even resembles fortifications in âfrontâ of objectives currently, either made by players or even made as part of the map.
Stop with the âdonât campâ nonsense. This isnât COD. Players need to be able to DEFEND when they are on the defending side. That might include taking up a firing position somewhere. Holding down a chokepoint. Keeping an alley clear of tanks.
Itâs not âCampingâ, its using strategic gameplay in an attempt to level out the run-and-gun playing field.
In your mind, what are you SUPPOSED to do against paratroopers? If you arenât âcampingâ the objective, they arrive with one or two squads, and they already have the objective taken before you have a chance to finish your paintball match in the front yard.
By definition:
- Dynamic gameplay is when a scenario can be accomplished by more than one solution due to variable gameplay elements.
- Dynamic gameplay is changing the scape of the scenario by using dynamic elements within the game to reach a different outcome.
Paratroopers do fall into this category. However, so does engineer fortifications. If you want to advocate for âdynamic gameplayâ you need to accept fortifications that make gameplay more dynamic as well.
Funny you should say that. I would say that setting up a solid defense to hold back against both the main force AND paratroopers requires the largest amount of situational awareness in the game! It requires not just being aware of what is currently happening, but also what WILL happen, and how they adjust for both attackers and defenders.
I WISH this game was becoming more skill based, because skill requires more than just being quick on the trigger. However, most of the recent changes feel like it is going in the opposite direction.
I will have to respectfully disagree on this. I have used them and I agree full-heartedly that they are extremely overpowered and in need of various nerfs.
I donât think the âmajorityâ is hating on it because of the reason you stated, rather that they are just genuinely overpowered and its recognized as such. The same way that people are in agreeance that fire burning people through walls when the flame isnât even visible is overpowered.
Iâm actually curious. Could you detail what you are talking about?
As far as Iâm concerned, trying to hold the âfrontâ of the objective from the main invading force is extremely difficult as is, let alone with trying to stop Paras from coming in the back and ripping your team to shreds. In my personal experience, both as a ground defender and on the side of the paratroopers, I often see them take 2+ hits/ soldier from an AA weapon to stop them in the sky. So unless we have a MG squad with handheld MGs constantly watching the sky, I really donât see what âmore active gameplayâ could help.
At least we can agree a little bit. Unfortunately, 10 seconds isnât really going to make much of a difference though. Even just pulling defenders back from the last position requires an average of 50 - 120 seconds. Paras shouldnât even be an OPTION until at the very least the main force is able to reach the objective. They shouldnât be the âtip of the spearâ so to speak. Their âjobâ is to flank by dropping in from the side or rear, not be the first ones to touch the objective.
Thatâs not even to mention that in that short of a period of time, defenders donât even get the opportunity to set up a defense even against the main force at the âfrontâ of the objective, let alone attempt to contend with Paras coming in on top of their heads or making it to the point before they have a chance to get to the objective in the first place.
Normandy can now have a maximum of 2 paratroopers, but only those who paid $50.
In many cases, you have to wait to be wiped twice before you can spawn with airborne. They do not come that often.
If they do come often, they are a good XP bonus if you build an AA and wait.
Donât blame the paratroopers for the laziness of the defenders who only watch the front of the CP.
You must make an effort to adapt to the new tactics.
While I really like that idea, at the very minimum they need to remove the construction hammer as an option. Paratroopers being able to drop in behind enemy lines is one thing, but being able to immediately build a rally point that teleports the rest of their team, regardless of equipment, to that location is absolutely gamebreaking. The ONLY way we should be having to deal with a flametrooper from the back is if they were able to flank all the way around themselves, not via magic spawn that Paratroopers put in.
Your argument is this.
âMake my fortress superior to all players. My style of play should be the center of the game. Destroy all other new toys. Fun for other players? Itâs none of my business.â
To add to this, I would like to note that the special part of Paratroopers is their ability to get behind âenemy linesâ and move in from there. So the fact they are able to get a construction hammer and set up a rally point that the rest of their team can now just magically come through is absurdly overpowered.
Dropping in troops with that much firepower alone can make a potentially huge difference, but now the rest of their team is allowed to come from there too? No. That needs to end. Completely.
I do think that increased travel time in the plane is necessary as well. Both to help reduce the spam but also to give defenders the chance to shoot down the plane, rather than it magically popping into existence and dropping troops before there is even a possibility of it getting shot down.
A possible solution might actually be that there are constant para planes flying about when a team has players with Para troops equipped. They may only move over the objective when players select the Para squad. However, the planes themselves can be shot down in the meantime, restricting possible spawns from the Para squads themselves.
This keeps fighter planes and AA users busy, a way to counter Paras, and adds an interesting dynamic element to the game.
Why not make an effort to go destroy the rally point created by the enemy?
There is not much space for the attackers to operate behind and to the sides of the CP. Are you so lazy that you cannot even extend your legs that far when you are the defender?
You start a story in every thread that has nothing to do with the subject matter, and that story usually goes unjustifiably connected to your insistence on favoring your own fortress building. Then you repeatedly collect surveys that lack objectivity and spam the suggestion threads.
What you are doing is lobbying to turn the game into a crappy tower defense or minecraft.
Your claims cannot be âtrustedâ at all.
-
Stop attacking me specifically. Its beyond rude and is also breaking the forum rules.
The second that the rally point becomes active, another squad is going to immediately spawn in. Even if it is a bot squad, that is twice the number of troops that are supposed to be in that location. On top of that, the moment that a flame trooper squad spawns from that rally point, the enemy team trying to come from their spawn is absolutely screwed.
The whole entire point of a paratrooper squad dropping in from the sky to that location is to move THOSE troops in from there. Yet Iâm mostly seeing them drop in, set up a rally point, kill themselves off, and spawn in with a flame squad. That is the issue.
I have only just recently started doing surveys, in an attempt to hear other peopleâs experiences with elements of the game that I believe need a rework.
As far as âspam the suggestion threadsâ, every single post that I make, I make sure that they are well-thought out, and well-formatted for ease of reading. If I see an issue that I think I have an interesting solution to, I post it. Thatâs literally what the forums are for.
I donât go after people personally for their opinions, though I do have to defend my opinions from the scrutiny of trolls quite frequently, as I am doing now.
Ultimately, I see actual potential with this game after COD and Battlefield severely let down their playerbases in recent years, with Enlisted seeing an influx of players from both of these franchises.
The core idea behind the game has attracted myself and many others. I think the best way to make it flourish is to take full account of the players opinions, and not just listen to a single side of the argument.
You obviously enjoy a fast-paced shooter. More run-and-gun in nature.
Personally I enjoy mid and slow paced shooters with strategic gameplay and tactics being a viable game strategy against the run-and-gun playstyle.
The trick is to find a middle ground that we can both enjoy.
The only way that is going to happen is if we can be civil and discuss suggestions and compromises that can benefit the game as whole.
How is that different from one lone engineer (could be a squad too, but less likely) sneaking through the flank and setting up a rally? Itâs not like that part of the map is inaccessible. Paratroopers canât drop in the gray zone or any part of the map that ground troops canât.
Also:
This is irrelevant if weâre talking about rally points, because itâs completely nonsensical to build rallies behind enemy lines. At that point, itâs not a matter of if theyâll be discovered, itâs when.
Paras in enlisted work best in the same way as their real world counterparts: by dropping in underdefended areas and flanking. Dropping behind enemy lines is suicide, as is dropping on an objective, since it is impossible to conceal yourself. You leave you and your entire squad vulnerable to whatever enemies are already on the point.
The only time it is justified to drop on or near an objective is when the enemy is using shady tactics like camping or creating bottlenecks, and you need to help your team fast. Otherwise, youâre just going to get yourself killed and waste your teamâs resources.
At this point GuardianReaper0 no one cares about what we say our comments are falling on deaf ears I agree with most of the stuff you talk and about clearly No oneâs here cares about the defenders everyone just cares about the attackers
Because that still requires the engineer to sneak through to that location to set up the rally. Even if its a lone soldier, that is still considerably more difficult to do than just simply dropping in from above.
They bypass the entire middle ground area that any other ground troops have to encounter. This significantly reduces their exposure time, and greatly increases their element of stealth/ surprise.
- The Ai will often alert on enemies at midrange before they even focus on enemies close to them. I read somewhere it was done that way for some âimmersionâ purpose, making it so you could âsneak upâ on enemy squads. It also explains why they are often so easy to pick off at close range.
My point of this note is that I have watched on many occasions as AI will be focusing on those targets at mid-range and basically ignore the paratroopers that land right next to them.
It is meant to be that way.
Whether on foot or parachuting, it is the correct mechanism that requires a hasty response when the enemy turns to the rear or flank.
Failure to defend against flanking attacks or having the defending force rush too far forward and collapse the base has been a recurring problem since before the paratroopers were implemented.
If you donât want paratroopers shooting you in the back, you should be wary of them.
Donât abort all the way to the front, build an AA and watch the skies once in a while. If you see them descending, just try to stop them from reaching the supply box or killing the only paratrooper with a hammer.
If a rally point has been created behind the CP, and many enemies spring from it, the defenders can pin them down from the default spawn point and the front rally point. Because of the rule that rally points involved in combat cannot be used, you can also prevent reinforcements from spawning by simply firing bullets in the direction they spawn.
If the attackers concentrate on the back door, the momentum of the front attackers will be diluted, which will also cause the attackers to fall back significantly when the rear attack fails.
In other words, your concern is unlikely to occur. Back attacks require considerable effort and skill on the part of the paratroopers.
If they succeed in doing so, we should applaud the coordination of the opposing team, not begrudge them the game system or their opponents.
What the paratroopers are being given is a very fair chance.
I will point out again the fact that you are ignoring or going off topic when I have pointed this out many times.
Collecting the number of mines and grenades âseenâ does not constitute a survey of the total number. Yet you use that half-assed collected data to make yet another overzealous buff or nerf suggestion. If by any chance the developers take your suggestions into account, the balance of the game will only go even further awry.
Stop shifting the blame to the players of the game who have nothing to do with it based on your unobjective opinion.
There may be plenty of players who play the game because of the game design, but the players did not change the game design.
Do not blame them for the game design.
There are other games that require more in-depth communication, building fun and teamwork." SQUAD", for example.
What you are looking for is in games other than Enlisted, so why donât you go play those games? Why are you trying to make Enlisted into a different game?