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 is what the game promised but right now there is nothing in common so did the Devs have already ditched this approach and moved to the normal capture point games?
I too think they ditched the asymmetrical approach.
And I am really hesitant towards the idea of that approach in general.
Asymmetrical gameplay gets poorly executed 99% of the time (you don’t have to look further than the MP41 for this) and results in poorly balanced games.
And because of the aforementioned MP41, I think that Darkflow has already demonstrated to be uncapable of being in that 1% of proper execution.
I wouldn’t mind those, but the current state of the game has already proven to be unable to match 25v25 in Lone soldier, or 10v10 in squad reliably, without bots filling gaps, especially on odd hours.
Fully asymmetrical matches were probably something that was a too big bite to handle, but I don´t feel like the idea was discarded completely. Invasion modes in Normandy and Moscow (monastery) are kind of proof of that.
While I don´t think we will see literal trench fights (but I still really hope that later this may become a thing through some “commander or ““clan”” modes” (I know the very idea of “clan” like concept in Enlisted sounds utterly riddiculous and stupid, but players may eventually need something that will group them together or allow them to play together in larger scale than group).
So… yeah as long as there is at least some semblance of asymmetry in invasion modes, I don´t mind standard and mostly symmetrical domination matches that are reasonably appealing to the most casual or basic style of gameplay (but I still think, that devs should try to be a bit more inovative than copy paste from war thunder in this aspect)
It probably did not seem to be so hard thing to handle originaly, because of expected support from umbrella held above them by gaijin, but reality turned out to be hesistant gaijin to promote Enlisted (first attempt took quite a long time).
And we don´t know how much gaijin actually supports Darkflow (besides dictating P2W monetization of War Thunder style or allowing them to copy vehicles/game modes/using their engine).
Now I will take on my personal tinfoil hat, but I kind of suspect, that they don´t seem to want this game to outshine their main cash cow (that is War Thunder) anymore, which may also explain why things are THAT slow.
Call me fool, but the utter lack of any word about Enlisted for so long is kind of suspicious to me, and would exactly fit into how gaijin does bussiness.
Of course I hope nobody gets offended because as I said, that is me wearing a tinfoil hat for a moment.
At this point, I’m presuming whatever they had planned before the vote for F2P was thrown out of the window in terms of gameplay. Not sure what to expect of this game anymore.
Lots of players likes RO/RS series because of its asymmetric gameplay. Also lots of complains of unbalanced (pro german) game. In RS1 and RS2, they are failing more at balancing. RS2 is dead because of NVA is too weak.
As for Enlisted‘s current situation, I think make more asymmetrics can bring a disaster. Though I really hope they can learn something from RO2.
For example not have to have all weapons exactly balanced, but with some asymmetrical features, like Ura charge to compensate for weaker soviet weapons, german soldiers have a slight higher attributes, and some tweak in infantry AT for PZ4 vs T34.
All this imagination needs much more complex mechanism, I dont think they can do it.
Healthy AND more than wanting to see a game that can actually compete with War Thunder, which would naturaly lead to more quality control. But we can´t have that under snail, can we.
Yeah, it may depend on scale and execution. I mean I never heard anyone complaining about beach bunkers mowing down US troops without mercy if defenders are at least a bit skilled (not to mention the rest of opportunities defenders have).
Or alternatively monastery hill that, thanks to hands of few engineers and some coordination, can be easily turned into the hell for attackers to breach.
Asymmetry only works if it results to balance in practice. You can easily double the health on one side, but it will only be damaged if the other side gets either doubly health, or double damage.
Because you can snipe the nests. They are clearly visible and the defenders do not know where you are. And once you cap the first point, you start getting chances to use pre-built MGs yourself