-
Two teams with similar strengths in the same game should not have any differences other than camps, i.e. all mechanics are the same (speed of control point occupation, number of manpower increases for occupied control points, speed of special mode mechanics).
-
In a game where both players have the same mechanism, if the number of real players on both sides is not the same, the manpower will be compensated. Such as 8:10, manpower value should be 1200:1000 (a real player is equal to 100 manpower) so that in a more fair at the same time, but also more accurate, the specific gap between the two teams.
-
The actual combat area becomes bigger, and the control point becomes bigger.
-
The number of carrier limit 2, changed to according to the different carriers are limited, such as (Armo vehicle/light tank/APC) is limited to 4.
[Low BR is still 2] (BR1-2)
Medium tanks are limited to 2
Heavy tanks are limited to 1. -
expand the number of current squad members 5-6 7-8 9-10 Also link the number of manpower consumed by different squads to the actual number of squads.
Its change to an even number of behaviours, making the expansion of the tactical flexibility of the actual battle, as well as for the mechanism of the calculation are more simple. -
BR is adjusted to a separate matching queue for each weight, unless there are not enough candidates in the queue, then BR +/-1 matching weight (1,2 2,3 3,4 4,5) is implemented.
If I understood this correctly…
You’re asking for:
- Equal cap timers and ticket counts for equal teams
- Automatic adjustment of tickets for inequal teams
- Larger playable areas
- Limitations on vehicle count, based on their classification
- Bigger squad sizes
- BR rework
Correct?
There is an inherent inequality even in a same-player-count lobby due to faction-specific equipment and vehicles.
If your goal is for relative parity between teams, it is first necessary for each faction to have an equivalent for each category and classification of equipment and vehicles.
That’s gonna take a LOT of artificial nerfs and balances that would make absolutely 0 sense outside of “muh balance”
Each nation having almost like a “specialty” (Commies get SMG’s, Krauts get armor, Allies get air power, Japs get…something) is much more interesting to play with. Everyone being a mirror of each other…nah I’m good
@James_Grove
@Redmisty
@Euthymia07
@KitsuneLord91
Can your please forward it to the development department
You’re making a wild assumption past the words used at face value.
“Relative parity” doesn’t mean “equal”.
Hi, please do not pin forum moderator in this situation, we are in role of peace-keeper.
For your suggestion, our developers would check suggestions on the forum time for time. So don’t worry they will miss your suggestion.
For point 1.
Helper has stated that normalization of caps will be done later
When do these changes happen?
If the longer it takes, the less good it is for the game
well…
As it is, they tend not to comment, and we usually get no response, which is the reason for my concern
You really shouldn’t expect the devs to respond to every suggestion post, especially ones gaining very little traction… on a saturday.
Points 1 and 6 are good.
Point 2 only serves to make the games longer, if a team has less players than another team giving them more tickets will just prolong their suffering.
Point 3 makes attacking easier, but I really don’t think this should be applied universally and only on few specific points.
Point 4 is interesting, I think it would be nice to encourage people to bring stuff other than super heavy tanks all the time. I just worry that vehicle spam would get much worse as teams have more slots for vehicles. It would be super frustrating trying to defend a point while there are 5 teammates in tanks and 2 in airplanes.
Point 5 just nerfs rifle squads, which really don’t need a nerf imo.
I’m not asking them to respond to every post, but I don’t think it’s right to not have the slightest response to people who make valid suggestions
Back on topic.
The no.2 suggestion does make the game longer, but I think it’s a positive thing, because the current common 8-9 minute endgame proves that the game is seriously lacking in balance, and balancing the manpower values so that slightly unbalanced teams can be more likely to win the game, and after a hard fought victory, I think it’s even more rare and valuable!
No.3 is a suggestion to make the game more possible, just because the map is bigger doesn’t mean that the attacking team can attack more easily. It is easier for the defending team to destroy the attacking team in the space outside the point if they defend properly. This is just a balance change to balance out Vehicle’s ability to easily destroy the defender in the current game.
No.4 suggests that for your concern about too many people staying on the Vehicles, the corresponding increase should be the maximum number of players on both teams (now in Enlisted, the total number of players can be capped at 40, with 20 on both sides), and the map expansion is also a change to accommodate the slight increase in Vehicle.
The no.5 suggestion could also be my OCD, but its change to an even number makes sense, and facilitating better calculations while the teams are expanding makes a lot of sense to me, and isn’t a nerf to infantry teams.