Balance by game size

Jump back to quoted post16 Aug 2014, 18:02 PMArclyte

You can't understand why someone would like their own baseline infantry unit that can compete with enemy baseline infantry?

Does your mom tie your shoes in the morning or do you have velcro?

Jump back to quoted post16 Aug 2014, 18:07 PMOZtheWiZARD

Play US then.

Guards are your LMG Grenadiers

Changing Soviets to have core infantry unit that scales into late game would require complete faction re design.

Giving PPSH as a non doctrinal upgrade or doing something to Conscripts will tweak balance completely in Soviet favor and brake it completely.

Jump back to quoted post16 Aug 2014, 21:38 PMvoltardark

An option would be to have some commanders only playable in 3vs3 and 4vs4.

Those would do the bring the balance more even by having global modifiers affecting the units in need of adjustments for those play mode.

what do you think ?

Jump back to quoted post16 Aug 2014, 18:16 PMArclyte

Requires 2cp, costs 120mp and 15 munitions more, and has a balanced hand grenade instead of an insta-win rifle grenade.

You guys complain about T-34 "spam". If Guards are the closest we have to competing with LMG Grens/Obers, there's your reason.




lolwut? why is that? can you give me a reason, or is this just some slippery slope argument you keep throwing out there and hoping it sticks?



LOL. Yes, we can't have those conscripts doing anything past 5 minutes, it would ruin the game!

Let's ignore the fact that LMG grens are superior to everything except 2x M1919 Riflemen, and even then an accurate rifle grenade will win that fight for you.

Oh, and they cost as much as a Conscript (less if you take into the molotov/at nade that Soviet have to pay for, when OH get faust and rifle nade for free)

Jump back to quoted post16 Aug 2014, 23:41 PMBartonPL

in my opinion all game modes favors allies because soviets in 3v3 or 4v4 can troll so much with their epic doctrines like winustry or cunterattack B-4 spam while ostheer doesnt have anything great like dat, in 1v1 soviets dominate all the time and 2v2 is simple, one guy spam maxims or snipers while other spam conscripts and its gg

Jump back to quoted post17 Aug 2014, 00:23 AMDarthBong420

+1 so many people dont know how to play, but, if you do soviets are the most powerful by far.

Jump back to quoted post16 Aug 2014, 23:14 PMQueenRatchet123

Allies need to be more viable in teamgames 3v3 and 4v4. If we want any hope for this game to grow. Especially since the ESL anouncement. Many new people will learn of the game, play it, and realize how bad allies are in 3v3's and 4v4's. Thats where a large amount of the playerbase is at.

Making this game Fun for all factions should be the #1 prioty with balance being 2nd.

Frustration should only happen due to bad play. Not the faulty faction design leaving You usless during the late game.

Jump back to quoted post16 Aug 2014, 23:41 PMBartonPL

in my opinion all game modes favors allies because soviets in 3v3 or 4v4 can troll so much with their epic doctrines like winustry or cunterattack B-4 spam while ostheer doesnt have anything great like dat, in 1v1 soviets dominate all the time and 2v2 is simple, one guy spam maxims or snipers while other spam conscripts and its gg

Jump back to quoted post17 Aug 2014, 00:39 AMbroodwarjc

If the game is going competitive then they need to focus on 1v1 which is where competitive play is at. Right now because of the lack of competitive support the majority are casual players who play 3v3 and 4v4. If the game goes competitive then expect 1v1 and 2v2 to become a lot more popular.

So no, they don't need to balance the game for 3v3 and 4v4, they need to balance the game for 1v1 and 2v2. I hate to be nasty about it, but people asking them to balance 4 factions across 4 modes and make it "fun" it just unrealistic. The game being "fun" is purely objective and some players think fun is playing as the Germans and others as the Allies. You can have fun in 3v3 and 4v4 playing as the Allies. You just will have a harder time winning.

If you think winning as the Allies is fun then you should play 1v1 and 2v2 which is more skewed towards those factions.[/quote

This game need as much balance in 3vs3 and 4vs4 as the other modes.

Clans need those larger modes of play to have fun. We paid for this game as much as the others and we are also numerous.
They should not have put those modes of play if they don't want to support it. They just have to tell us that they will do nothing, and we will drop the game.

Play you games and let us have our balance. This is the way we like to play the game. If the game lose our support, it won't go anywhere.

It's that kind of comment that kill a game.

Thank you.

Jump back to quoted post17 Aug 2014, 00:39 AMbroodwarjc

If the game is going competitive then they need to focus on 1v1 which is where competitive play is at. Right now because of the lack of competitive support the majority are casual players who play 3v3 and 4v4. If the game goes competitive then expect 1v1 and 2v2 to become a lot more popular.

So no, they don't need to balance the game for 3v3 and 4v4, they need to balance the game for 1v1 and 2v2. I hate to be nasty about it, but people asking them to balance 4 factions across 4 modes and make it "fun" it just unrealistic. The game being "fun" is purely objective and some players think fun is playing as the Germans and others as the Allies. You can have fun in 3v3 and 4v4 playing as the Allies. You just will have a harder time winning.

If you think winning as the Allies is fun then you should play 1v1 and 2v2 which is more skewed towards those factions.

Jump back to quoted post16 Aug 2014, 23:41 PMBartonPL

in my opinion all game modes favors allies because soviets in 3v3 or 4v4 can troll so much with their epic doctrines like winustry or cunterattack B-4 spam while ostheer doesnt have anything great like dat, in 1v1 soviets dominate all the time and 2v2 is simple, one guy spam maxims or snipers while other spam conscripts and its gg