but the more i look around, and the more i see severe members stating that enlisted is a competitive game.
( and how it would improve with competitive matchmaker )
but how is that the case.
how does that exactely work.
i struggle to see what this game " screams " competitive to certain individuals.
they have either never played one, or … there must be something to it that i’m missing.
so, the question is, should be even brought to enlisted?
i’d personally say no to both questions, but i would like to know more from the other perspective.
having weapons that are better than others does not make the game competitive, nor i’m sure should become one in the first place.
i’m fairly sure that if you have played several competitive games, they have settings, differences ( to enlisted ) and above all, standards.
i don’t really see many similarities within enlisted.
hence, i’d say it’s objectively debatable.
( about enlisted being competitive… nor yet understand why devs are hiting some sort of competitive stuff as well in the Q&A. )
Imo the thing that makes the game “”“competetive”"" is the behaviour of players.
Ppl play the most optimal way to get as much exp as possible.
And because of this the game is not enjoyable. At least imo.
If you ask me, any BF is far more chill game than any populated enlisted campaign.
(Also that’s why every now and then I make a suggestion to introduce a mechanic hostile to competetive players.)
The game does a good job at tricking average players into thinking they’re hella good, since usually doing anything else than standing with both hands up the nose is enough to top the scoreboard.
So eventually someone ends up believing he’s good for real, and asks for competitive ranked events to brag about.
Except the game survives on fresh meat turnover. The bar is SUPPOSED to stay low.
Which I personally like, being one of those who enjoys more relaxed playing.
So as someone who does support Enlisted’s ‘competitive’ scene, I will definitely chime in.
To start, its important to distinguish the type of competitive environment that I support. Do I think that an E-sports scene is necessary? No. Do I think that there should be a distinct Ranked queue? No.
I think occasional temporary competitive events throughout the season is the best approach.
Now why do I think Enlisted has a competitive nature? It has good skill expression and high skill ceilings with various mechanics.
Engineer placements, their best locations, managing AI to build for you to quickly deploy defenses and support items
AT soldiers, and having the skill and knowledge to knock out tanks and emplacements from far distances
AI micromanagement, positioning soldiers quickly and effectively, and having them perform tasks for you while you are actively fighting to save time.
Mind games and squad rotations. Staying on top of enemy squads and the tactics/movements they might attempt to try and defeat you.
I could continue with more details but I think you get the point. Are there things that need to be improved like team communication and general balance? Of course. But as the game improves, the more the competitive nature shines thru (so long as the lobby is properly populated)
For example, I had a game earlier today on pacific where the enemy team was coordinated doing multi para-drops, different flank routes, you name it. But we were able to still hold by the last point because of teamwork and the above mentioned to counter their moves along the way.
Games like those make me believe that Enlisted can definitely have competitive matches. Just my two cents
I agree. There is a reason most games 1 person is usually responsible for winning games or scoring higher than the rest of teams combined.
There is something to be said for Low skill floor, reasonable ceiling. And although people do gravitate to certain weapons and tactics or “meta”…Ive never found it “essential” to play the “meta”
Besides competitiveness.
What else do you think of the game?
How entertaining is it?
Aside from a few fun limited-time official events, is it entertaining enough? There is still no official funding for good editorial writers and things are moving extremely slowly on that front. Do you remember when they said they were going to collate input from editorial writers?
Historicity?
There’s a lot of debate on this one.
Authenticity?
What do you think?
Is it has both everything and nothing?
It’s a Möbius loop.
I’m all fine with that though personally dont care that much.
However if these kind of events are done, then they should be done properly. Aka no squading up with your buddies to play in a “competitive” event.
In general:
I don’t think players trying to win in itself makes the game competitive. I would actually say that right now due to the wild imbalances between campaign sides and the fact that stacks can join to play against solo teams, the game is in reality hilariously uncompetitive.
Not, if the odds are fundamentally rigged which they in some cases are.
I have 56% win rate in allies and 88% with japan in pacific. I play more sweaty in allies, where 75% of time i have to carry hard bc. the team is just bad. On japanese side i can chill and win. Neither is in reality competitive for the opposite reasons.
Throw in a stack of veteran players on the opposing japanese team and any semblance of competition goes away and you’re just running down the tickets to get out of the game.
Competition =/= competitive
If one side has an involuntary handicap → not competitive.
At least we tried once, the decision makers didn’t choose and favour us, we can only wait and see how the path chosen by the decision makers will stretch out, be it bloodletting, prefrontal lobotomy, the October revolution, or the storming of the Bastille. And what the future holds.
No offence but this “skill expression” mostly is who can abuse the game and farm AI to get the most points from my experience. Typically this involves copious ammounts of explosives.
