this is cause WR is ratio between win and loss and desertions count separately. they should at least show percentage of matches you deserted.
i am against counting desertions into WR ratio cause there are legitimate reasons to desert a match, specially if it is prematch desertions.
this would obviously count separately, or not count at all because why would it.
mid-game desertions should either count as losses or desertions as you said.
if they were to implement any desetrion penalties obviously prematch desertions wouldn’t count.
I’m a new player, came over from playing Battlefield 1 and 5. I have been really disappointed with the balance issues. Every game either my team absolutely stomps, or gets stomped by a bunch of generals. It seems maybe that the player count is too low in individual campaigns to actually have fair and balanced games. I find myself sitting and wondering if this is really a game I want to commit myself to grinding, because I can already see the grind is huge, but really onesided games are no fun, and if it is a constant issue, I will probably choose to spend my time elsewere.
I like to feel like my team has a chance. I remember playing tons of BF1, and having the tickets go down to the final last couple, both sides nailbiting as we try not to die, knowing our precious tickets could be the one that wins or loses the game. I have had none of that so far… and it is disappointing. When I’m against a full team of hardcores, I know that there is absolutely nothing I can do to avoid getting stomped, and when my team has some crazy clan, I know that it doesn’t matter what I do, we are going to win.
Maybe it is just being a new player, but it is really not that fun.
It is not about the experience, campaigns are indeed unbalanced.
Some campaigns are in fact unplayable (Stalingrad Axis).
i think the biggest problem here is that one or two experienced players can change the tides of the battle easily, this is because players have many intentions of playing this game, which leads to some people not playing objective at all, which then experienced players take advantage of. Countless times i’ve taken the objective by myself, if your team consists of 2-3 people who actually care about the objective, the game is decided from the start.
Players cycling the best tanks and planes can destroy the enemy side unless those are doing the same too, in Normandy for example which infamous for that.
wait, tunisia is easier for axis?i thought they’re rather balanced with some easier time for allies vehicle quality.
the others i either agree or not qualified to comment on, but i played tunisia a lot and when both sides have similar amount of players and gear tier thingy wise, it’s surprisingly balanced and fun enough IMO.
for normandy… i guess? normandy felt balanced until some asshole with half a skill rolls in with a jumbo IMO.
it is not about vehicle quality, but about playerbase shift. currently all those campaign have either ~20% for one side or veteran advantage on one side. before the paratrooper event for tunisia, tunisia allies even had up to 100% more players than tunisia axis making the games extremely easy cause half the enemy team were bots. now ratio is 1:1, but there is higher percentage of veterans in tunisia axis making the axis easier side.
so basically, you are talking about player base balance and not how the gears, vehicle, and map layout is balanced?
yes. side with more human players has advantage cause other side has more bots. and when there are even number of human players then it is important to see what side has more PC players and players with max level gear.