they even said that the game will be asymetrical with no teams in equals strength but again same thing has been removed if you want i can give you the outlet
Enlisted’s big hook is that its campaigns are meant to recreate actual battles, rather than “sports-like competitions,” with multiple phases, unequal conditions, and differing goals. “Battles involving equal teams in equal conditions are, of course, interesting as a competition. But they do not have the immersion or the thrill of real battle, where balanced forces and symmetrical objectives are unlikely,” the Enlisted website says. “You may be a defender of Moscow in the trenches dug around the city, facing advancing enemy tanks and superior forces, with an objective to hold the enemy, to stop the advancing army in its tracks with all the resources you have.” How many enemy players you kill is irrelevant—all that matters is holding the line.
this was what enlisted meant to be which created the hype lol
According to the Wayback Machine, FAQ as of April 2020 (no reason why I picked that date specifically) used to state
How many soldiers will there be in one battle?
«
The game will have different scenarios. We have tested battles of 120-150 soldiers in one battle and it seems that it will be close to the maximum. Greater numbers require another approach to detalization, since it means higher system requirements - at least with this level of detail. However the exact number of actual players in one battle is not yet defined.
And that is something we would like to see again, but such is a minor adjustment later, they have not lied at all. But you seem incapable of understanding logic anf what is and isn’t lying lol.
What are you talking about LMAO? You state a blatantly, provably wrong point and then expect people to not call you on it, then you push that point in another manner, not understanding what is and isn’t lying and that things change (for testing purposes etc.) But asymmetric teams is something we may want to see again, depends how it works, though balanced players are working fine atm.
WTF are you talking about LMAO, please learn how to read, what I was talking about was player balance in game and any minor rebalancing is really not that hard at all, simply testing different adjustments of numbers LMAO.
what was said and what I get to see in game is totally different unless your brain fuctions differently mate I simply asked few questions with yes or no answers but you all just going around the point with no concrete answers and if your minor adjustment ever comes to the game I shall change my view point
Just use internet archive to search for data that is no longer available. I can’t find any mentions of “100 players per battle”. If you could do that, I’m sure it would convince everyone. I don’t think it matters thought. Trying to catch them on a “lie” from years ago won’t do anything for the game we have here and now.
If people want more players per battle, I think they should just ask for more players per battle. Invoking old promises will do nothing. Even if they did promise something only to go back on that promise, there must have been a reason for that. A reason that won’t go away from people accusing them of something.
Changing ammount of players to asymmetrical would require rebalancing the guns so that the side with less players gets more powerful guns to compensate for that.
