Suggestion for a change to how weapons are upgraded

So, I think many of us are not completely satisfied with how weapons are upgraded, even before they changed the system to require more effort to achieve a fully upgraded weapon. There are also some upgrades that don’t make complete sense (I have already made a topic requesting the removal of damage buff upgrades). In light of this, I have been thinking of ways to improve the current system while also adding some depth to it, and think I have thought of something interesting.

My idea is to split the weapon upgrading process into two parts: the first is dependent on the soldier using the weapon (familiarization), and the second being the actual physical upgrades to the weapon itself.

Weapon Familiarization:
This process will be soldier specific, and so improvements made on the weapon with one soldier will not pass on to another. The idea behind this is that as a soldier uses his weapon, he will become more skilled in aspects regarding the handling or use of his weapon over time. Different progressions can then be made for different aspects of weapon handling, such as:

  • Recoil control: as your character continues to make accurate shots, he will learn how to better control his weapon over time.
  • Decreased weapon sway while moving: making shots on the move will train the character to be more accurate on the move over time.
  • Hold breath time: as the character makes shots while holding his breath, he will be able to hold his breath for longer over time.
  • Reloading: as the character reloads a certain weapon over and over again, he gets used to the process and is able to speed it up over time.

Of course, with all of these skills, there will be an upper limit to how good they can get, but in my eyes, this would be a welcome change as it actually makes the player feel that his character is improving progressively, rather than just going from poor too great in just one upgrade. It also adds more to your characters than just what overall level they are.

Weapon Upgrades:
This part is fairly self explanatory and honestly would not change too much from how it is currently. The player can upgrade his weapons by spending parts, and of course since the upgrades are tied to the weapon, they can be transferred from character to character.

The way a player might receive weapons parts would be the same as before, except for the removal of much of the RNG for how many parts you get when scrapping a weapon, and when gotten from a weapons crate, you would receive as much parts as you would get from disassembling a rifle (currently you only get one part iirc).
Spending the parts on an upgrade also should eliminate the punishing RNG. If the developers would still like to have a failure system in place, I suggest that a “failure” should still give you half of the benefit of the upgrade, and you can try again for full benefits at half the price of parts.

I believe the upgrades should be as follows:

  • Repeating rifles: new barrel (higher accuracy and better damage falloff), lubricated action (faster rate of fire, eliminates jams), and rifle bedding (increases accuracy, maybe lower recoil).

  • Self loading rifles and machine/submachine guns: new barrel (higher accuracy and better damage falloff), operating system maintenance (lower recoil, higher cyclic rate), and stock bedding (increased accuracy, lower recoil randomness).

  • Handguns: new barrel (higher accuracy and better damage falloff) and new springs/new grips (lower recoil, increased cyclic rate for pistols).

  • Single shot weapons: new barrel (higher accuracy and better damage falloff)

One of my ideas here is to limit the upgrading of the weapon so that the player is only able to choose two of the three available upgrades (or one of the two, in the cases where I have currently only thought of two upgrades). This will make it so that the player has to choose what aspects of the gun he may want to prioritize, and what aspects he is willing to forego. This would make it so the player can fit the weapon more to his playstyle rather than just simply having every single upgrade possible for it.

So, that is about all that I have in mind for the upgrade system right now. I’ll probably think of some other upgrades later, but I think the ones I have thought of so far should be adequate. I’d love to hear your feedback on what you think about this suggestion. Do you like it, or are there things that you don’t like and think you should be changed?

[poll type=regular results=on_vote chartType=bar]

  • I support this suggestion
  • I like this suggestion, but I think some things should be changed
  • I do not support this suggestion
    [/poll]
2 Likes

I like the suggestion but there are some things I disagree with:

  1. The whole upgrade rifles system in general is not very good as it gives veterans a lot of advantage over the noobs. It will just make elitism and toxicity inside the community

  2. Your suggestion is cool and looks better than what we have now but it doesn’t solve the main issue, just shows it in a different way.

  3. What we as a community need to focus is bringing down the whole upgrade system and find other ways for devs to force us to spend money (cosmetics, special squads with rare weapons…)
    Skill is important, not weapon upgrades

I made a suggestion a while ago about a system that could change the whole upgrading system with something more noob-friendly. The idea is about fixed squads so even noobs can get the best out of the game Better squads! (with poll)

3 Likes

I am proud of you and agree wholeheartedly

3 Likes

I support all of it.

Just a personal gripe that has almost nothing to do with the thread itself- holding your breath to shoot isn’t proper handling. In reality you control your breath, but don’t hold it.
So “hold breath” needs to be changed to “focus” or something that would still be applicable to the suggestion.

Mechanically it would be exactly the same.

These are some good suggestions but I’d just flat out leave Enlisted forever if there was Weapon Familiarization. I already know how to use the weapons in-game, and don’t want that drastically altered by individual units not working the way I already play.

1 Like

I did always hold my breath right before I shoot during my time I was in a shooting club, but only for half a second or so, just to make my breath not affect my shot.

I agree, that applying weapon familiarization would be a over a top.
But the rest of suggestion is something I would be willing to accept.

1 Like

Yeah that I can agree with. Weapon Familiarization is something that’s an actual soldiers job, especially during training. I’m not gonna put up with that kind of system, since it would have to either be done with each squad, for each army, for each campaign. Fuck no. I could already envision Darkflow butchering it. I don’t think OP accounted for the scale of this system and how much extra work it would take for players to reach their peak.

I would rather see sidegrades than upgrades as you describe it. It would allow for personalization while not giving veterans upper hand.

1 Like

I’m a big fan of familiarization personally. Maybe trading soldier perks for that would be better for everyone.

No more absurd abilities like lightspeed crawling and tank mode.
Veteran soldiers would be familiar with more weapons.

My idea with the familiarization aspect of this is that it would completely circumvent needing parts and RNG to start seeing a difference in your weapon. All you need to do is play the game and the “reward” will come from it. It’s not something that would make a night and day difference in the performance, maybe just 7-15% improvement.

I think a good compromise in order to recognize this fact is that new soldiers should all have either full or most effects of familiarization for the weapon that they have equipped at the start. In this case being the starter rifles, Mosin M1907 and the German counterpart (can’t remember if it’s the Vz.24 or G33/40

True, this is a much better way to put it.

I don’t necessarily agree here. If there are no upgrades whatsoever, it will be just as “noob-unfriendly”, as there is still really no way for a new player to overcome a more seasoned player. My idea was to make the system to be easy to get into (half of the idea was that the player wouldn’t need to actively look into the system itself, as the familiarization progression would automatically get better as they just play the game). To be able to get some upgrades or better handling for their guns, a newer player may actually stand a better chance than otherwise, in my opinion.

or… we could just… remove the RNG aspect of the existing system?

So removing the upgrades for those guns, as that is what the devs will do, instead of giving the existing upgrades for free.

Nope. If there are sidegrades, there are downsides. Now, a newbie will be facing premium soldiers with +800% DPS, 135% health, 300% medkit effectiveness, many more grenades, medkits, on top of 110% movement speed, compared to their starter troopers with bolt action rifles.

No, we should just advocate for the removal of upgrades entirely, as with your system, new players will not have these upgrades, just like the current system.

imo, idea is decent, but proposed execution of it is absolutely terrible and it should NOT be implemented like this, ever.

4 Likes

Enlisted would be a much nicer place had people not fucking voted for it to be F2P, in my opinion.

3 Likes

agreed

The size of the community as you see it now is the best it would get without being f2p. It would have more potential but never reach it.

F2P will at least breathe life into the community. Sub-80-iq life, but life.

1 Like

Until 95% of those F2P players will realise the game is P2W trash and leave - leaving nobody to play the game, as they had to make the game predatory enough to “earn enough money” to keep running, instead of just making each campaign 30-40$ to play, and actually be enjoyable.

The player base can be larger on F2P games, no arguments there. But is it really the player base you want? To some degree I’d like quality over quantity. Enlisted would probably have more potential if it were a paid game, because it would not rely on garbage freemium mechanics and pay-to-win packs. I should also mention the shitty anti-cheat (EAC) which the devs will insist on using despite it being garbage. Because Enlisted is a F2P game it will most certainly bring tons of cheaters post-launch.

The only things I see actively going for this game are the exceptional graphics and somewhat-realistic weapon mechanics. Everything else are things I’m personally expecting but aren’t yet guaranteed.

It’s better than the alternative, being the empty lobbies you see in Post Scriptum and the like.

As far as looks and weapon mechanics- looks are about even, Enlisted wins some, PS wins some. Weapon mechanics, PS weapons and vehicles feel absolutely amazing.

Of course PS plays much more milsim, but the audience is realistically the same pool of players regardless, and if Enlisted wasn’t F2P, reviews would pit them against eachother.
Being f2p makes enlisted win by default.

Removing the RNG is fine by me, though I don’t think it will happen. There were other issues with the current system besides RNG anyway.

So you’re judging this based on the hypothetical actions of the dev team rather than judging the idea by itself?

When did I every say that I support the way premium squads are implemented? Obviously they are overpowered. That’s not even what this topic is about.

If you think it’s decent, then what about it is decent? How would you change the implementation of the idea in order for it to work better in game?

If Enlisted was priced at 19.99 it would have a fine player base if the game was packed with high quality content and balanced game/weapon mechanics, but that is entirely up to the developers to fix them and entice new people into playing the game.

Post Scriptum runs on Squad’s framework, and it’s clear that most people prefer the real deal, Squad. With that being said, Post Scriptum isn’t a bad game but it has it’s own reasons for it’s decline such as poor optimization, average visuals, and most importantly it’s a milsim title, meaning it’ll have a smaller player base because it’s a niche genre. The dev team is relatively small so there’s only so much they can do for each update.

Enlisted right now has the design layout of a casual shooter with fantastic visuals and realistic weapon mechanics to stand out from other generic shooters. It’s not perfect but it’s formula has a chance to stay in the spotlight if the devs act upon it’s potential.

1 Like