Balancing is one of the major issues I continually encounter with this game (see screenshot below). Balancing is nonexistent. This game was one of the worst I have ever played. The entire enemy team knew exactly where our spawns were and were able to find vantage points that permitted them to mow us down as we spawned into the game. Not a single player from my team ever made it to the point, or even close for that matter. There were far more enemy players than players on my team, and about half of the players on my team that are visible in the screenshot quit shortly after I took the screenshot (for which I can’t fault them, although it worsened the experience for the rest of us).
Over half the players on the other side were gold-ranked, and not a single player on my side, which was clearly evident when our measly Stuarts ran into Tigers. I’m not a particularly experienced player, so there’s no way I should have placed first in my team, especially while only managing 30 kills (by the end), which would have placed me 8th on the enemy team. The campaign progression system in this game is broken as well, and I believe it contributes significantly to the balancing issues. I’m of the opinion that match balancing should consider the experience and ranking of players when assigning them to teams, and should also consider campaign progression (because that determines the weapons and vehicles players will be able to bring). Perhaps a card system limiting the number of certain weapons, squads, or especially vehicles available to each team could help as well. If each team could only bring a finite number of aircraft, heavy tanks, etc. into the game, I think it would help to limit the one-sided games that are so common.
However, I think the best way to address campaign balance issues without placing artificial limits (or maybe in conjunction with lighter limits) would be a scoring system that factors in the type of weapon or squad used when rewarding points. A baseline could be established with the mid-tier weapons, such as (using Normandy as an example) M1 Garands, Panzer IV J/Hs, base-level Shermans, and Gewehr 41/43s, etc. Those weapons would receive points normally without penalty or bonus. Kills and assists scored with lower-tier weapons and vehicles would receive multipliers to the points they earn, and using upper-tier weapons and vehicles would result in a reduction to the number of points earned. For example, scoring a kill with a bolt-action rifle might earn 50% more points, while a Sturmgewehr would earn only half the number of points, and a Gewehr 41 would earn points normally. These point reductions or bonuses would need to count towards all aspects of progression, not just campaign progression, to be effective. This would hopefully encourage players to opt for mid-tier weapons and vehicles or to bring low-tier ones in order to maximize point multipliers. It would simultaneously provide an early boost to new players who struggle to combat upper-level players wielding Tigers, Thompsons, MG34s, etc., using only bolt action rifles and the pitiful low-level submachine guns.
Those are my thoughts, and they may be unpopular, but I’m tired of having a miserable experience with this game, and I think changes of this nature might aid in new-player retention, which seems to be one of the biggest obstacles facing the game and community (the length and difficulty of the grind is another one, but one better left for another discussion).
Looks like they keept crashing them lol