Part of why I say to use campaign levels instead of gear.
Only problem there is it doesn’t distinguish between “just hit max” and “owns everything there is to own”
i think ur idea is great to give more exp for killing people with better equipment.
I don’t want equipment or level based match making, I have explained why in the past. If you are a high level, you will always be going against other high levels. It would just be the best tanks fighting the best tanks constantly. It is not realistic or fun. In real life, there was a chance that a strong tank would meet a much weaker tank, and take it out in one hit.
1 Like
If you are a high level, you should be able to use your equipment against lower levels. As I said, it is realistic. And there is nothing wrong with low level equipment, it can work just as well as higher level equipment. I can easily win games with a kar 98k, the starting gun.
1 Like
I’m against any restrictions on high level equipment or any squads since what’s the point of grinding them and the “f2p and new players” argument doesn’t cut it but instead defeats the reason of buying more squad slots besides grinding. Sure there are situations like Tiger vs Stuart in Normandy but when it comes to small arms, bolt actions have been more competitive since the buff
I have been suggesting unlockable squad slots for free to play players before to atleast make them a bit more flexible. Another thing I would suggest is to fix the matchmaking and atleast try to balance out the player levels like I don’t want to babysit a whole team of noobs armed with low level equipment while I’m only one with high level equipment against an enemy team of sweats.
5 Likes
I like the idea of getting more XP for killing people with high level gear. So slaughtering bots with basic BAs won’t be the best source of XP anymore.
2 Likes
dont go with realism and historical cause there is nothing realistic and historical with squads full of mp43/stg44 and fg42 just running around and fighting allied squads armed with springfields.
and while it was realistic to have strong vs weak tanks in real life, also it was realistic for those weak tanks to outnumber the strong tanks (number of tiger I built was 1347, panther A 6 000, while number of sherman built was over 50 000, stuarts 23 000,). and if this game had big maps that allowed flanking with vehicles and light and medium tanks outnumbered heavy tanks, i would be for such fight. but game doesnt allow flanking in most maps and there are equal number of tanks on both sides regardless of their type.
and if you can easily win games with kar98k good job. then you shouldnt have problem with my proposal…
and while BA are more competitive than before, they dont come close to effectiveness of auto/SA potential in close and medium range fights (which are most fights in game). and even with assaulter squads there is big difference between early and late game weapon effectiveness.
yeah it sucks to suddenly have even equipment fights after you grinded against enemy with superior equipment, but most other games have similar balance. WT has BR, WoT and WoWs have tiers, other fps shooters dont restrict guns into grind so you can equip whatever you want/find.
Forget defender still have unlimited ticket? a spammar can simply desert all the attack and play only defense
1 Like
Ticket per soldier.
Not ticket per squad.
The end.
3 Likes
It could help by giving the defenders a higher ticket that does not replenish. For instance, Attackers get 1000 that replenish some whenever a point is capped, defenders get like a static 5000 or 10000 for the whole game that doesn’t replenish.
still too much tickets for defenders and it could lead to more camping from attackers to whittle down the number of defenders. idk if that would be good or bad thing for the game.
How would that be too much tickets for the Defenders? They don’t get more, the attackers get more by capping the points. The attackers, should they decide to camp to fight the defenders, will run out of tickets faster by camping and not doing the objective. If they are camping on the first point, they have to kill 5000 vs the 1000 they have. They literally have to cap points to keep fighting. However, if the Defenders are dumb and keep throwing away squads, they will also be punished by losing their tickets.
5000 or unlimited doesnt really matter at that point. unless defenders are suicide rushing into allies, they will never spend 5000 tickets. attackers usually get 1000 + ~200 tickets (depending on balance) per captured cap point, so overall they get ~2000 tickets per game if they get all caps.
so if ticket for defenders ever get introduced they would need to be at 2000-3000 tickets which makes it more manageable for attackers to kill defenders. and cause defenders need to be around cap point and attackers can flank from wherever, attackers can get better k/d ratio if they dont zerg rush.
The reason I set it around 5000 is that the point isn’t to kill all the defenders, it’s to punish the defenders who are not being strategic and are just throwing bodies at the enemy. If the Defenders are just wasting units, then yes, they will reach 0.
you would need to suicide rush for at least half hour to spend 5000 tickets. it is absurd number. even 2000-3000 tickets for defenders may be too much.
I don’t agree. The best way would to see it implemented in game. As far as I know, they can’t make custom games that do that to test it yet.
Why is everyone so afraid of the meta ? I nuke every meta squad with the default BA rifle if it is necessary. Using meta gear is not equivalent of being OP.
Besides:
I wont see myself restricted for dev´s balance issues like in Moscow or Berlin.
check to see how long does it take for attackers to spend 1000 tickets when they are zerg rushing. you will see that they need at least 10-20 minutes even when they cant take the first cap point. and you would give defenders 5k or 10k tickets? they could be dying for an hour straight and they could have tickets left.
It could also impact attacker cap time.
It’s not like when a guy is in my sights I take the time to think if he’s a player or a bot, and then “nah, if he’s a bot I’m not shooting him, let’s look for a real player instead”.