as my opinion,Berlin is the most balanced campaign over this game.most powerful team on both sides is infantry squad with 9 avt and fg422.Soviet has speed advantage,cause they have bayonet avt and no need to change full auto for every solider.German have powerful fg422(themost powerful weapon over game).
You want a solid idea for a “campaign” rework?
Well first off… The development team needs to have matches be continuous.
Meaning… once a game ends, we would be taken to the next map/match (rather than being taken to the main lobby, and having to enter the queue again)
By having lobbies be continuous, players can come and go at their leisure.
This will allow new players to fill the empty A.I. slots.
Currently, when a player leaves a match… they are replaced with A.I…
If a match has exceeded a certain time limit… no new players are allowed to enter the game.
When people quit (mid-game), the entire match becomes stagnant…
What we need are for lobbies to remain open for the entire duration of the match.
This will allow new people to enter at any given time…
and allow people to leave at any given time…
So long as the lobby remains open, players can play match after match with the same people.
This would consolidate *all the current matches that are often 4//10 human players per team, into matches that are 10/10 and 20/20 human players (or close to it).
THIS CHANGE, WOULD ENTIRELY FIX THE EMPTY LOBBIES THAT ARE MOSTLY COMPOSED OF A.I.
THIS CHANGE WOULD ENTIRELY FIX THE SLOW-HOURS OF THE DAY… AND ALLOW PEOPLE TO PLAY IN FULL LOBBIES, RATHER THAN CONSTANTLY SEARCH FOR A NEW GAME (ONLY TO BE PLACED IN A MATCH THAT IS 90% A.I.)
Another change…
Allow players to customize their soldier load-outs while in the game, rather than from the “home screen”.
When leveling up in any given campaign, have the leveling system count for BOTH factions simultaneously.
For example: If you unlock a tank at level 10… when you reach this level, you receive a tank for both the axis and allied faction. Same goes for weapons and equipment.
Remove the option for players to “choose which side” they want to play on…
And incorporate a “balancing system” that takes into consideration, each player’s rank.
Whatever level you have progressed to…
Whatever team you are placed on…
You will have access to everything unlocked “up until level 10”.
So if you can customize your loadout from a simple menu (while in a match)…
You can decide which primary and secondary weapons that you want your soldiers to carry (as well as grenade type)…
(At the home screen, perhaps give players the options to customize all of the “gear” that the squad will carry (ammo, medical bags, grenade pouches, tool kits, etc…)
There are many games (out there), where players are not given the choice to decide which team they play on…
Sometimes it’s nice to have the option…
However, considering Enlisted has a real problem with factions that are stacked with veteran players, while other factions are not nearly as populated… we are experiencing games that are very one-sided and boring to play.
did you even read what he wrote… nothing to do with game. he just sucks at it and doesnt like that he cant heavily fortify cap when attackers come.
this is not exactly what he wrote. “you spawn in shitload of explosions” is mostly response that i was responding. i would agree with flamethrowers going through walls, but rest is just rant on how he sucks and game sucks.
great ideas? idk about that. if you have 6/4 allies/axis distribution, nothing you do in MM will fix playerbase imbalance. at best you can mitigate severe player disadvantage with unified grind+multiple campaigns MM+equipment based MM. and maybe put those extra players against bots, but that only makes shit game for those people who play against bots.
just see how this is popular now. most people just quit when they are put into match that is already underway. continuous matches work if you have rounds and reset on them. not when you have objective and you are put into half lost match.
this would actually improve game. loadouts need to be map specific and not campaign specific.
i am proponent of equipment based MM, so if someone has tiger+stg44 they need to be matched against people that have similar equipment and not against stuart+m1903 newbies. i am not against veteran vs newbie if they both have similar equipment.
1 Like
I do not necessarily believe people will quit if they are placed in the middle of a match.
If this mechanic was implemented, players would understand there is a good chance to be placed in a match that is more than 50% complete.
Once the player-base understands this and accepts it… then it’s simply a matter of “playing the match out, in order to get to a fresh game”.
Fortunately most matches ranged anywhere from 10 minutes to 30 minutes (and sometimes a GOOD match will go even longer).
So for players to be thrown into a game that is more than 50% complete, they will only have to play 5-10 minutes before being placed in a fresh match.
The benefit of this type of mechanic, will enable people who find a lobby full of competent players (on both sides), and all of these people will be allowed to continue playing with each other, so long as they choose not to exit to the main lobby.
Theoretically… if nobody were to quit, then you could literally play a dozen matches with the exact same people in a FULL LOBBY.
But of course, people will leave because they have things to do outside of the video game…
And new people will be thrown into an already “fun lobby”…
You can have everything stated above…
Or…
We can keep things as they are, and every single match is RANDOM people mixed together with A LOT of squads that are fully controlled by the A.I.
Aye, I will not dispute you. As you say you were focused on one part of the message, while I was looking at a single part of yours.
Both are valid.
I feel like if they implemented a mechanic that allowed players to change their load out while in a match, this does not necessarily mean they have to get rid of classes and class-specific weapons…
For example:
-An assault rifle that is unlocked at level 13, would be unlocked for BOTH factions simultaneously.
-That way, “whatever team you are placed on”, you have access to this newly unlocked weapon.
-However, this weapon can only be equipped by the assaulter class.
-Same goes for AT launchers
-During in-game soldier loadout, whatever soldier class you are choosing to use, you can only select specific weapons that are available to that class-of-soldier
-You would not have the option of giving a sniper rifle to a machine gunner (another example).
-But the same machine gunner, will have the option of choosing from a MG 34, MG34 petromenonl mag, or MG 42
-Same applies to the allied machine gunner (who gets to choose from allied machine gun choices)
Thats why you have multiple squads and even multiple troops.
Oh really? Tell me more than just an obvious answer.
Why are you an “Enlisted_CBT”, if you are unable to provide anything of substance?
I provided an idea… and you are welcome to expand upon it.
You could literally use the menu that we already have…
But expand on it, allowing players to individually select any given troop, from any given squad, and allow them to select which weapons they want to equip their soldiers with while in a match
Keep the weapons “class-specific”…
i am for selecting squad loadout when map is loaded. considering f2p can only have 1 vehicle+3 squads, selecting appropriate squads can boost win %. sometimes i quit when i have plane and it puts me on urban maps cause of this reason. or you could take mortar/arty/MG squads cause maps are good for them or not cause they are bad. it would remove stale meta loadouts that work on every map and there could be some fun map specific tactics/loadouts.
but i am against micro management with selecting guns/equipment when you are in battle. that would be just stupid mechanic.
That’s all you needed to say without wasting any more of your own time.
You specifically do not like me, so it doesn’t really matter “what” it is I am sharing…
I could share a “million dollar, idea”…
You’d literally ignore my ideas, even if they would benefit this game and 100% the players…
You’d ignore everything, and go straight for my neck.
All you know how to do is personally insult the people you do not agree with, while offering NOTHING of substance in return.
I think you should look in the mirror.
Because I don’t give a flying fuck if I have your approval or not.
I. do. not. care. about. your. opinion.
You follow me around on this forum, like a shadow.
If I didnt know any better… I’d say you are my number #1 fan.
You give me so much attention, when I have never asked for it.
Therefore, I simply see you as an admirer and a poser.
Keep trying.
problems go well beyond mm balance
one narrow point for defence is utterly ridiculous
maps are too small for vehicle play
lmg mechanics are broken as f…
zero team coordination
zero communication and planning
not enough rally builders
absolutely horrible playerbase
having no standardization principles on premiums and paywalled content (cough cough stug 3 )
useless populist regulations based on “nerf x buff y” bickerings
8766584454… number of bugs
i can count for all day
1 Like
Well. Again, use a rifle/ squad with rifle and Assaulter squad and use the other one for a special squad. You could also just use the engineer squad as rifle squad and have a free slot. Two birds, one stone.
Its overall pointless what kind of map you have since the battle distances are mostly the same anyway.
The differences of the maps are not really significant outside of Berlin where you sometimes need to cross a river. Other than that SMG are fine on most distances.
Unless its a drum ofc because dums are bad.
Then how do you wanna do it otherwise? Only alternative could be that you create layouts and can select the layouts but even then it would be probably not enough for some people who for some reason need as many templates as possible for 100m maps.
We could argue about this when the maps are bigger and we get more classes/ the game actually becomes tactical but for the moment I simply do not see the urgency to introduce this feature since this game is a meta-clusterfuck 95% of the time and the 5% are no big deal, at least for me.
1 Like
I barely know you, interacted with you maybe three or four times/ threads now (which is not impressive for my standards) and regardless of who propose this idea, it still should be bad.
If you have a good idea, I will like it but this is not a good idea for me and thats how it is. You can either try to convince me/ anyone who disagrees, leave it as it is or come with pointless ranting which I can gurantee you will not help your idea at all.
This was like your first idea I noticed. Maybe you wrote them in other threads because so far you didnt create any idea thread. Maybe you came or will come with better ideas but this idea simply suck in my opinion.
I did not insult you until your nasty reply here so I dont see the point of this reaction at all.
Well. @robihr argues with me in reasonable way so its not me who is disfunctional here. Looking at the way how you renamed your soldiers is also… interesting.
Then why replying at all?e
i dont want micro management hell. i just want option to select squad that is already premade in battle menu for that map… so e.g. if there is open map i would want plane+arty/mortar+assaulters+engineer squad. or if there is urban map i would want tank+flamethrowers+assaulters+engineer squad. now i have to make meta squads layout for specific campaign which is mostly assaulters+engineer+assaulters/flamethrowers+whatever is most OP from tank/plane in that campaign.
so selecting your squads based on map is good idea, but selecting weapons for squad mates is stupid.
Engineering stuff full stop gets blown up way too easily.
Now they’ve put the airstrike bomber wave on every campaing, it’s a complete joke. The bombers come and clear the entire maps of everything… on Normandy which is outdoors this means everything gets instantly blown up on the beaches etc.
1 Like
I agree with you. Even with the update they did to make the bombers “easier to take down” they are still too difficult for ground based AA and even most planes to take down. Even when they begin falling out of formation they will drop bombs roughly over target zone. On top of the fact that different players get different timers, they are coming in far too often as well.
A single player shouldn’t get access to such a strong strike unless its something that a single player can adequately fight from the ground with an AA.
Often when I am making a rally point, a bot will come and stand or sit in front of me. It reminds me of a cat I used to have.
What I would like to ask the developers of Darkflow to do is to advise the bots not to enter buildings under construction.
Let’s see… based off our previous discussions from other threads:
A Hitler joke? Really?
.
.
“Pls dont make **us**laugh more of you” (which makes sense why it’s always the same people making personal attacks as a group… you guys feed off each other)
.
.
And whenever someone else speaks up, and simply says “Try supporting your counter-argument with something concrete… provide some data or information to keep the conversation productive and moving forward instead of starting a hearsay argument…”
And home boy’s reply was:
Please you go support his crazyness theory?*
.
.
Every time I provided evidence, my content was censored…
And you sincerely ask:
More insults. It gets old, after awhile… but this “group” is persistent.
And so, upon investigating your own contributions… I found a great example of you craving the attention of the community… By asking “why you chose the profile picture that you did”…
And then you went into a rant about a character from a german movie.
So, I’m struggling to understand how you can claim “I’m craving attention”?.. when your profile literally SCREAMS the very thing you accuse me of.
It’s a good thing I know how to spot gaslighting when I see it. Same goes for narcissists.
If you have a problem with someone it’s better to just ignore the guy. 90% of players on online “communities” are toxic people who don’t even play the game anymore and try to give a meaning to their virtual existence. Whenever a new thread is opened or suggestions are made there are always a few barking watchdogs. Is it worth your time to answer? Most of the time it’s not.