They didn’t say it was going to be f2p when I bought it in alpha. But I don’t mind, it got way more content by the time it was released in 2014. The shitshow started later, a year before the steam release. They basically understood that they are not making enough money but at the same time they really didn’t want to lock anything behind a pay wall. The problem was, old players already had a ton of things unlocked, because grind was super easy at the start. There weren’t much of new content either. The “generals” started to grind gold in war matches, in coordinated “swarms” of infantry against everything. So any new player, who wants to play WAR, instead of some random matches, is now playing against an organized group of bunny hoppers with top equipment (but only infantry) that just point hopping and ends match in 5 minutes. And on top of that noobs now had to deal with new repair costs, where older players had millions of silver, accumulated from the first year. Which didn’t help with player retention. And many other things like rather toxic community for one.
I rarely spend silver on weapons. Just getting randoms weapons for bronze was so far enough, but that’s just for me. I see if someone is trying to upgrade all weapons to full then it would probably make sense. Personally stopped doing that because those guns get obsolete by new unlocks.
Same for the tanks and airplanes, used upgraded one time on some german tank and that’s it.
The new soldiers are a problem. When I started playing on Tunisia I didn’t even noticed that I’ve almost burned all my silver on new soldiers. But dev did recognized that it’s a problem and will be (maybe already) fixing it.
You don’t have to have more than one, just that you can re-spawn it earlier. If player A has 3 squads of infantry and 1 tank and player B has 4 squads of infantry, 1 tank and 1 plane. Then player A just needs to “cycle” 3 of his infantry squads to respawn in tank. While player B has more flexibility in what to deploy but has to “burn” through more squads or just wait more, to re-spawn in specific squad.
Fortunately I think devs removed limit of respawns. Before it was that you can’t spawn more than 10 times as attacker, now I see that some people re-spawned even 20 times.
I honestly doubt that. I think that they had a sufficient income back in 2014/2015 and 2016 since they got loans and you cant easily get loans if you neither have a sufficient income and/ or a “good” business plan (or they tricksed the loaner).
For me too but that ship is sailed with ramdon orders since they are going to change it this year too like they screwed ehm changed the soldier logistic. Guess we have to enjoy it as long as possible.
Huh. If I remember correctly you cant spawn a used spawn until you died two times (plus minus if vehicle slots are not used), regardless how many squads you take into the battle. Maybe they ninja-“fixed” that again.
Stema releases in general are a two-bladed sword. On the one hand, Steam is big and has lots of potential costumers. On the other hand, Steam demands fees and sometimes can censor stuff,
The 2016 “release” was a short-term growth as people quickly realized how bad the game was at start.
Somehow edited over previous post instead of posting a new one…
Yes, you can re-spawn for example in bomber just after 2 deaths, even if one of them was a fighter. I guess the same is with a tank. So I could just cycle bomber/tank/fighter… this is ridiculous. Now wonder people just kamikaze.
tbh, I can’t catch up with the conversation. Kinda goes off the rail sometimes.
Usually duck boy @DieJagdente comes and lock the topic.
Personally speaking, less grind would be cool. If you do well it took about 100 hours to grind from 1 to 32 lvl in one campaign (for F2P). If it can go down to 70-75 hours, it’s enough. Right now it better than WT at least. Dont know about the future where there’s more campaign.
Thing is, if they keep adding 180k+ XP levels on top of existing ones, every campaign will become so long to max out, than newer players may be discouraged and don’t even try. Especially since the jump from a maxed out (or nearly) faction to a fresh new one, without most of late level commodities like plenty of specialists and large pouches, can be brutal.
So I’ve been out of town and just saw this post (or more that I was pinged about it.) Reading through, (random BS aside) it’s obvious that those who dont mind the grind either didn’t watch or didn’t understand my main points about the video (which might be my fault). My biggest issue with the current grind state of Enlisted is that Enlisted, as a game, needs a large playerbase to survive. That is a fact that is built into the core systems of the game. Without a large playerbase, matches get filled with AI squads because what players DO exist are split between the campaigns, and this issue is only going to be compounded with more campaigns added. The Balance between early and late players is utterly irrelevant to this point, and is a separate argument entirely.
Games like War Thunder and the World of Whatevers can get by on this model because they simply don’t have the competition that Enlisted does. They exist in a vacuum where the only competition is the other, and so if you want to play a vehicle based war game, you either get World of Tanks or you get War Thunder. Enlisted does not have that luxury. Enlisted exists in the most crowded genre in gaming, and it has direct competition with games like Hell Let Loose, which already siphons players from Enlisted (as is evident from the comments of the video). I’m not even advocating for the removal of Premium, I’m simply advocating for the F2P experience to be changed in such a way to increase player retention, because as it stands it’s not working as well as it could be, and that problem is only going to increase as more campaigns are added.
Not directly. BP only provides boosters, and more silver that can indirectly help you get better results. It’s premium account that doubles XP earnings.
In which way it is build into a core? There are no shooters out there, who set 10 vs 10 players max as a normal round. Well besides RainbowSix I guess. 10 vs 10 max would be considered too small to do anything meaningful. If we limit ourselves to a single campaign, you need just a 100 people to have 5 matches going in parallel full of players. Yes, we get a lot of bots now, but I can’t say that it’s because player numbers are small. It could be done intentionally to test more AI. To see how little players per match you need for it to stay active and etc.
Games like Hell Let Loose, BF, Post Scriptum are in very different category, it’s only setting that is the same, game mechanics are too different, on top of not being f2p.
That is not the case, there is still a f2p competition to them, like Armored Warfare and other projects came and gone. The reason they both still doing well is lots of development put into the game, that just kills competition at inability to grow to the same level and the fact that they serve two different niche markets. There is very little overlap in their player base. They don’t have much competition because it would be incredibly hard to compete with them. Given time, Enlisted can do the same.
Having a better game is better for everyone. But I doubt any of us have access to the player stats, to make any sort of statements that retention is low or player numbers are going down would be just a guess game, not a fact.
The game is still in Beta, if devs are playing long game then it might not even matter how those numbers are changing right now. During CBTs they could test only against paying clients. Now as it;s open it’s not only more people but different kind of clients too. Meanwhile, there is practically no marketing done for it since initial public release. I’m sure Gaijin would advertise it way more if the game would be “ready”.
It’s not hard to notice the amount of matches with teams that have barely 1-2 players in one side.
And since playing from begining of open beta I notcied it way more oftern recently, mainly in new campaigns (Tunisia empty axis), or switch in meta in Normandy that left allies unplayable for months.
If they want to test out bots we all would love more of them in custom, yet we get scraps there, barely 2-3 matches with players.
So we don’t need gaijin secret numbers to tell that we have less players in matches, and with new campaigns coming it’s not gonna get better
And how long are you waiting for those matches to start? 10-20 seconds, doubling that would double amount of players, but devs are not doing it for some reason.
Yes, I’ve seen matches like that, and then you get a match full of players on both sides, how does that happen?
Obviously some people left since game went open, that happens to every game, happens even more to those who don’t do any marketing to bring new players. You do need numbers to tell if there is disproportion in how many people leave and how many stay. Otherwise it’s just your perception over some other time that you’ve played the game.
Is that a core game mode that devs are focused on?
That was first thing that really was exciting since the game launched obt. Mostly positive reactions except people whining about xp exploits and people xp exploiting it, in effect killing it day after it was born.
There is no pain of playing maps that suck there, diffrent factions can play in diffrent maps - so blessing for people who don’t play all campaigns, as they get new maps to test. I was gonna switch mainly there as i was starting to like lone fighters before it rolled out.
Now we have 2 LF matches in customs, that have random settings, and 20 matches with 1 dude doing something.
If they want to test bots, they have more ways to do so, and we have already tons of bugs and complains here on forum. Also all squads are mainly bots with one dude, so that should be priority in making better, not striving for all out bot vs bot matches - is this the game focus?
So You think they make matches have less players on purpose or what? This is retarded
