First time seriously dumping a whole slew of ideas, here’s how I’m gonna do this;
If an idea presented here makes it into the game, I’m striking the idea off the list.
I’m going to timestamp the ideas so I can differentiate old ideas that I came up with a long time ago from ideas I just came up with recently, making it easier for people to discern which ideas of mine are old and which ideas of mine are new.
Unless stricken off the list, I’m going to keep repackaging old ideas into further future rehashes of the same thread that are refurbished with a substantial quantity or quality of new ideas. The timestamps should also alleviate confusion on which new ideas I’m introducing and which ideas I’ve already talked about.
[GAMEPLAY] * * *
Weapons
Flamethrowers suck because of the way they works.
First, the Extinguish Fire proc only procs if you can lead enemy soldiers through residual flames left on the ground. (28/05/2021)
Residual flames left on the ground spawn erraticly over the place and are more RNG than consistent. (28/05/2021)
Enemy players afflicted with the Extinguish Fire proc can STILL SHOOT AT YOU. I’ve died at least once or twice to someone shooting through the proc already. (28/05/2021)
Directly firing the flamethrower at enemy players and hitting them doesn’t seem to proc the proc as often as residual flametraps. (28/05/2021)
Is it actually a projectile weapon??? Are you serious? (Not being hitscan means conventional firearms can kill you before you “land a puff” of flamer on an enemy, so yes… This basically underpowers the hell out of this type of weapon, regardless of whether you think a 20 foot hitscan chainsaw is overpowered, making this thing UNDERPOWERED instead.) (28/05/2021)
Tank Gameplay
RNG damaged parts is stupid, I came in a full health endgame level tank and got my engine taken out on the first shot so I couldn’t move. Way to waste my time. Can we just make it so certain parts take a certain amount of damage first in order to be at risk or something? [Might be outdated, didn’t they switch out the tank damage models lately?] (28/05/2021)
Collision Detection
Minimum Wall Height where if a player hits a minimum cap for scaling a wall the game acts as if the player actually did vault over the obstacle in question by teleporting them to the top of the obstacle they’re trying to scale and initiating the vaulting animation to bring them over the surface they’re trying to climb. (28/05/2021)
If a player initiates the vaulting, they CLIMB the surface. NO GETTING STUCK ON THE SURFACE or ANYTHING of the sort. There’s some fences I’ve personally gotten STUCK on trying to climb. (28/05/2021)
Squad AI
AI-controlled Squadmates can’t vault over obstacles, which leads to them taking scenic routes that get them killed. (28/05/2021)
If they spot an enemy, they to “engage” it(as in shoot at it for a little bit) even if it’s a tank instead of following you to whatever point you wish to go to in order to set yourself up. Resending an order to the squad does not break them out of this state. (28/05/2021)
Custom behaviors need to be given to individual soldiers. It’s stupid honestly that sensitive roles such as engineers, radio operators and snipers are just standing outside cover or blatantly peeking out of cover waiting to get killed instead of being completely hidden and only engaging when enemy players are within their LOS. (28/05/2021)
There’s no setting for determining how close in proximity squadmates should be to each other, along with the wonky follow order, making it hard to taxi your squad to a good vantage or backdoor point. (28/05/2021)
If you’re in one place and you issue an order to hold position and then you switch to the other squad member when they’re far away the order gets called off which is terrible for AI management. (28/05/2021)
AI has trouble climbing up cliffs such as in D-Day’s right flank or the fences around the castle on Chateau Du Bosc, 2nd/3rd checkpoint. This coincidentally makes managing the AI on such maps difficult. (28/05/2021)
Map
A clear and concise indicator for showing where the player is on the map would be nice. Technically, there is one but if I remember correctly it’s literally a symbol with a semi-transparent cone indicating Line of Sight on the map. A You Are Here symbol would be nice. (28/05/2021)
Respawning
The timer just counts down to 0 and tries to force respawn you somewhere, that’s not how I feel it should work… Mainly because it keeps stopping me from trying to pick a good spawn point and setting up some strategies of my own. I’d rather a timer counts down from 10 to 0 and lets me pick a spawn point first and then lets me respawn… Something akin to Battlefield 3 or Bad Company 2’s system. (28/05/2021)
Artillery
Artillery shells should probably have a team-wide cooldown so that players simply cannot spend their shells at the same time. Maybe put individual players’ fire orders in queues and space them ten seconds apart??? That should make artillery more manageable. I mean, one artillery regiment maybe for an entire platoon of players? It’s World War II so supplies ought to be scarce and stuff. (28/05/2021)
Airplanes
If Artillery Shells can’t deal damage through the rooftops of buildings, neither should planes. That goes for fighter rockets too. (28/05/2021)
[ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS] * * *
I’d like to thank forumgoers for being patient with my sorry arse. I said I’d get around to doing this a few days ago and I’ve been trailing my feet. Cheers, let me know what you think! In the meantime, I’d like to write a few more detailed pieces focusing on specific aspects of the game such as the Map Design, Progression, and the State of Premium Accounts. See you for the next piece!
I agree that they could use a buff to their direct fire damage, or at least the “soldier on fire” mechanic should be revamped to be more incapacitating, like a downed state.
NO ranged weapon is hitscan in Enlisted. Even rifle/MG bullets, although fast, have a “flight time” to target. And anyway, it makes sense for bullets to still fly faster than a stream of pressured burning fluid.
Enemy reaction would be a non-issue if, as suggested above, a direct flamethrower hit would guarantee at least incapacitating the target(s). That way, a successful ambush from close range would effectively allow a flametrooper to clean a room or to wipe a grouped squad, as it should be.
I think that instead of simply buffing the damage devs should make them just more consinstent. Sometimes enemies die in the moment you spary their faces with fire, but sometimes the fire doesn’t want to catch on, even if enemy head is in the middle of it. And of course no shooting when you are set on fire .
Dear lord, please NO. Late game tanks are better because they have better guns and stronger frontal armors, but their internal components must NOT be artificially buffed. Tankers should know that if they leave their flank or rear exposed, they are going to regret it. It is historical, and it is an essential way to let early tanks still be somewhat relevant thanks to their superior mobility, so they stand a chance against top tanks if they can outflank them.
I’ll address the hitscan part; I didn’t realize that the weapons were using FastProjectiles. I think I’d appreciate flamethrowers using FastProjectiles too in order for them to come out faster. It’s pressurized fuel after all.
And yeah, muzzle velocity doesn’t have to be the same. Also, I think the Extinguish proc needs to be reworked too. It’s just a boolean right now. I have a few ideas on changing the mechanics of flamethrowers that I will include in a future update to the thread.
I don’t think what you described is the problem. I agree to squishy tanks having mobility and fatter tanks having thicker frontal plating, but when I wrote this I “tanked” a shot to my frontal armor and I instantly lost my engine. To be fair, I got shot by a Sherman I think while I was in one of my fatty Axis tanks for Norm but I still think it’s bullshit to lose the ability to move on the first shot of a trade.
I’m not saying that the damage model of tanks is perfect and bug-proof as it is, but I think it would be even more bullshitty to have engines, transmissions and the like designed to tank penetrating hits like nothing.
This means that you didn’t “tank” that shot at all and it was instead a penetrating hit. If that was supposed to happen or a bug, I can’t tell without details (tanks, range, angling etc.)
I might withdraw the comment about vehicles in the future or I might edit it and leave out the ideas, so good point there. I still have misgivings about losing something important on the first shot unless it’s a dynamite underneath my tank… That should be punishable proper.
Oh, I didn’t see the part of your post about needing details… I think I was using one of the Panzer IV’s, the J version and not the H. It was D-Day and I was at the beginning of the beach where the country trails end. The enemy tank in question was a little to my right and I turned my tank to the right to tank the shots on frontally. I’m assuming there was almost 100 feet between us… 70 or 80 at least.
Well, I obviously can’t talk with absolute certainty on your specific episode, and I don’t know your level of tank warfare knowledge, but from experience in War Thunder I can tell you that:
Pz.IV, even with extra armor layers, is more protected than a Stuart but still significantly less armored than tanks like Jumbo or Panther. Moreover, since its armor is flat and not inclined, the best possible protection is not achieved by facing the enemy from straight front, but rather being slightly angled left or right (to maximize the line-of-sight thickness of frontal plates without exposing the side too much);
The lower part of the frontal armor is less thick than the upper one, therefore easier to pierce. Enemies may and will deliberately aim there to inflict maximum damage, rather than aiming to your most armored parts like upper plate or turret front and risk a bounce.
Anyway, 30 meters or so (metric > imperial XD) is an extremely close distance in tank vs tank combat. Tank shells lose kinetic power over distance, so a shot that you may tank from 400m may as well shred you from under 100.
TLDR, from such short distance and aiming at your lower armor, it makes sense that the enemy tank damaged you. Especially if it was a Sherman or a jumbo, with the 75mm gun.
Ahhh man, I’m just a good driver but I don’t know my cannon matchups. I wish someone could help me out with that… Well anyways, thanks for the feedback, lots to digest here honestly. I remember hearing from somewhere that 75 is better than 60. I just wish the tank knowledge wasn’t just guesswork for Enlisted. =/
Explosive (HE) shells are great vs infantry but terrible vs tanks, unless you have howitzer-sized caliber (120mm or more) and so the shell is big enough to contain a ludicrous amount of explosive. No such gun in Enlisted yet AFAIK.
Against tanks: if you have a long barrel cannon (= high speed shell) you want to go with armor piercing (AP) shells. APHE (armor piercing high explosive) are even better because they explode inside the enemy tank after a successful penetration, the tradeoff is that they may have less penetrating power than a pure AP.
With short barrel cannons, instead, you want to go with HEAT (high explosive, anti tank). Those have a shaped explosive charge that, thanks to physic and stuff, “melts” through armor, but in a very narrow cone of damage, and spaced armor (like side skirts) mostly nullifies them.
Any chance to shoot at sides or rear of an enemy tank is better than engaging from the front.
A well placed shot into an ammo rack SHOULD OHK a tank, but since damage models appear to be somewhat unreliable in Enlisted so far, your best option is to try and disable the gun first, then go for engine or transmission. You don’t even necessarily need to destroy the tank here, it is sufficient to damage it badly enough that the crew is forced to ditch.
I knew sides and rear had higher multipliers than the front… IDK where to aim for specific tank parts though. Also, I’ll be sure to take a look at my tank cannon but considering that I’m leveling up all my non-main factions right now I basically won’t have access to the anti-fun tanks any time soon…
A tip about that, even if perhaps a little overkill:
If you download and launch War Thunder (it’s still free and you can access with the same account as in Enlisted), and have a look at the research trees of ground vehicles, you will be able to preview ANY tank, even if you don’t own it. From there, you can activate the armor viewer, which will highlight for you with different colors the different armor thickness all around the tank.
Furthermore, you can access the “protection analysis” function: it allows you to choose any available shell in game, choose a distance from target, and then simulate a shot against the tank, observing the effects.
Enlisted models are the same as in WT. So, even though there could be some differences in how the damage model works, you can use WT to learn the strong and weak spots of all vehicles in Enlisted.