I’d say remove the restrictions of squad cycling.
F2P players get 3 of each squad eventually anyways. Most players with extra squads from pre merge have rank 1, 2 and 3 somewhere anyways so would have been able to run 3 of 1 squad already with or without the excess squads. I don’t see how “new players” are negatively affected more after the merge than before. Thats like saying “new players have unlocked less, it’s unfair”. Well duh, it’s a grindy game, you need to unlock stuff…like multiple squads of the same type.
The Stalingrad stuff, now we can’t keep the extra slots AND the ability for assault rifles on engineers?
More and more promises taken away that were paid for
better give some good compensation.
no fuc_k you Nazis! they always can use MG 42, and they cry for Russians having automatic weapons? fuc_k you !!
---– only Nazis like this idea of removing Engineers from using automatic, which means is not balanced—---- many players like to play nazi cause they admire the axis --- but the truth is that Russia made pretty cool weapons too
--Keep it balanced–- Nazis always have their MG 42 for Christ sake!!
Limitations are necessary to shape the rules of the game.
I’m not totally opposed to restrictions. But I object to this kind of rigid restriction that prohibits players from choosing or combining.
They should be inclusive of all combinations, with different combinations requiring different payment conditions, and any combination can appear in the game, rather than prohibiting players from making choices.
Their update is just a self-restraint on the development of the game.
Players are prohibited from doing things. This doesn’t make the game better, more just defensive.
This measure doesn’t make the game any worse. But after making changes, he stayed still.
This seems to me to be a step back for the game.
Yes they are removing features and content that have been in the game for a long time. Just to avoid extreme situations.
They add this measure to avoid the problem rather than face and deal with it.
And they also claim that this is to protect or balance for newbies.
This restriction was never intended to protect newbies or prohibit spam. Premium squads can still do round-robin spam, which is how the game worked before the merge.
The cycle of 3 paratroopers also still exists, because there is 1 premium paratrooper in the game, so any player can make a 2+1 paratrooper cycle, and there is also a Tunisian flamethrower squad that can also create a 2+1 cycle.
After making such a big change, it prohibits new combinations in the game without improving the game experience. Even their purported purposes are not really achieved.
This is what makes me angry as a player who expects more new things and combinations to appear in the game.
I’ve already stated that I hope they take more flexible measures in restricting and shaping the rules, rather than rigidly banning players.
Any restrictions should be inclusive rather than an absolute ban on new combinations.
How about being flexible and even spending 1000 points when a player deploys a third identical squad? I’ve talked about flexibility time and time again.
To avoid misunderstandings, the following examples about how to use spawn score cost to do the same thing.
Which is more flexable able to be change in the future for adaptting different things.
the respawn score cost, it is not used to prohibit players from deploying things.
Instead, it is used to restrict players while allowing them to choose.
One stays off the forum for one day, and boom, 500 posts to catch up on a red-hot topic.
GREAT news, thank you guys for listening and making everything cheaper (and soldiers worth more to sell). An affordable economy is very, very important not only to ease the grind, but also to let players experiment with more options without regrets.
I can see the reasoning behind this choice, and TBH it doesn’t really affect my usual playstyle. Allowing premiums to bypass the rule is a double edged sword, though.
This was SO MUCH needed.
BUT please, don’t forget that similar filters for SOLDIERS IN RESERVE are JUST AS NEEDED!
Ehhh, this is controversial. I can see why you would remove gun privileges for these guys, even though I’m a full access owner…
Despite having purchased a stockpile of engineers myself, I’m not mad, since the new changes to silver will let me rearrange my reserve with little or no losses.
Eventually, it will only really make a difference at low and mid tiers, since at high tier you can just slap automatic rifles on anyone (including engineers) and everyone can blaze away at will.
Ofc Serpiko will come in with a reasoned and mature point of view.
Did you see how they made Italians wear German uniforms?
This must be fixed.
This is my only crusade for this merger. Well that and Premium squads getting special uniforms for all campaigns. I don’t see why they can’t repeat some of the same uniforms for some of the more similar campaigns.
They need only fix that for moscow and stalingrad and for new pre armistice map, but for any other new map after the armistice italian soldier was already incorporated in SS divison or Wehrmacht so is accurate for them use german uniform
The one time dev do something historically accurate people complain
Hey, I’ve never cared about historical accuracy that much. I want micro accuracy, uniforms, weapons, unit names. But who fought where? Don’t care. It makes no sense anyway. Historically after 1941 the axis did nothign but lose
If anything that STG45 need a buff it’s inferior to even mkb42(h) (450rof vs 500) so why do you want to nerf it further? it’s one of the worst premium packs in a game but that’s mostly because you are forced to play in Berlin where soviets have most op guns with high dps. AS-44 is fine since f2p players can grind them now plus you have a bipod so recoil will be the same if not lower than a premium squad. Paras are def way too strong in current iteration. There are zero reason why they are removing Stalingrad AR engineers if they keep countless premium packs that are way stronger than them.
Terrible shtt opinion. Lower rof isn’t bad, especially on ARs.
I bought it because of it.
I really hate this clowns which is constantly trying to change things I bought.
It’s not like you can’t use a fkn mkb42 instead, if you think it’s better.
great just amazing i hope you are having fun getting obliterated by as-44 and fedorovs all the time
I can’t because you can’t replace main gun of premium squads, you can only give them secondary weapon but it removes backpack function with ammo pouches. This squad is pay 2 lose.
How are you going to explain previously removed gold order weapons to new players then?
If I equip my engineers with 4x Gewehr 43 Kurz, a post-merge newcomer may ask “How do these engineers have burst-fire rifles almost like the Stg-44?”
Or are you going to remove Gold Order weapons too? G43 Kurz, RMN-50? Mkb 35? They’re all unobtainable by new players.
This situation needs to be remedied. You’ve hurt Stalingrad pass owners enough in the past, and it was understood that you’ve realized your mistakes and it was a closed book in terms of what they’re losing and what they’re keeping.
Is a selective fire rifle/battle rifle who everyone can use, as helper said assault rifle should be used only by assaulter not because they are OP fg2 is better than every stg anwy
but
“because assaulter use assault weapon (pistol caliber,intermedie caliber)”
“engi and other use (full rifle caliber except carabine)”
How are they going to explain that they can’t buy any of older premium squads that they will remove with the merge? How about event squads, gold order weapons that you just mentioned, even gold order vehicles or troopers? They are just convenient excuse to remove legacy squad and then sell more premium squads How are they going to explain how overpowered 100 mag Tommy going to obliterate their entire Axis team and capture 5 points one after another by suicide->next para->cap strat.
PS how are you going to explain this to the new players:
This is fine, 100 mag size? who cares about the balance it’s balanced because we keep silent, just buy this squad now!
This is “killing the game’s balance!!!” “just think about childr… i meant new players!!!11” we gotta remove it soon because we say so with are mental gymnastics and lies.
How about being flexible and even spending 1000 points when a player deploys a third identical squad? I’ve talked about flexibility time and time again.
To avoid misunderstandings, the following examples about how to use spawn score cost to do the same thing, which is more flexable able to be change in the future for adaptting different things.
Squads Queue To Battle:
// In order to prevent players from being unable to deploy, it can allow players to place at least two different types of squads in the queue. (same as what happen by changes in the news)
Infantry I (never cost anything)
Assualt I (never cost anything)
Assualt II (never cost anything)
Assualt III (1000/2000/3000) // if set this to 99999 which means same change described in the news
Premiums Assualt IV (0?) // premiums units exempted? same as described in the news
Tank I (never cost anything)
Tank II (never cost anything)
Tank III (1000/2000/3000) // if set this to 99999 which means same change described in the news
Premiums Assualt IV (0?) // premiums units exempted? same as described in the news
I’ve noticed that some players are neurotic when it comes to SpawnCost, thinking it will result in them being banned from deploying anything.
In this example, every player will never be in a situation where they can’t deploy something. And allows you to bring a third squad of the same type into the game.
In this example above uses this tool to solve the problem of a third identical squad that the developer wanted to handle, while allowing the player to choose.
the respawn score cost, it is not used to prohibit players from deploying things.
Instead, it is used to restrict players while allowing them to choose.
Instead of completely banning us from bringing 3 identical normal/event squads into the game
It can also be applied to more controversial squads, such as flamethrowers or paratroopers, by setting separate numerical rules for them.
