It’s fustrating. Last game I just played I was the only one building rallies as defender. You cannot win that way. Once my rally goes down everyone has to spawn at main base. And this one dude on my team (that was just ahead of me in kills) didn’t have a single engineer point. Then proceeds to call us a trash team without building a single rally. Horrible.
I played one game as German and that was a win. Multiple rallies always up.
I understand you is like this everywhere, even in german normandy you can end up in a battle with players worse than bots, the playerbase is too thin for 5 campaigns
on a real note…
have you ever wondered your self why?
let me guess. you did, but in your own cloud.
alright, so, the soviet loses, because the players might not be actually experienced.
have you ever thought about that?
i think you must be new, because this problem it’s almost present in all campaigns.
does nerfing guns works?
let’s see the history.
back your bag, because we are going for an adventure scholar trip:
here i present you CAT. also known as Closed Alpha Test.
a place where everything begun in enlisted. where people only had moscow to play. germany against Russia.
and here was the result:
65% of win rates for the germans compared to the russians.
what devs did?
they nerfed all german weapons across the board.
bolt actions did less damage, smgs had much more recoil, and mgs had a rof reduction.
what happened after those nerfs?
Russia Kept Losing despite the nerfs made on germans.
you know why?
because the russian playerbase was horrendeus and kept asking for nerfs.
Fun fact,
those nerfs are still present now days in moscow. for example, the k98 does not make the same damage as the mosins. so they apporached the " symetrical balanced route " which means, there are disparity between factions. and those disparities have proes, and cons against the opponents. which you should capitalize on.
so, making your favorite faction stronger just because you get killed one or two times more from the opponents doesn’t make you good.
and does not work like that.
people can play bad. and that’s the players fault for once, and not the game one.
son, the MKHB requires 3 to 4 shots at medium distances to kill someone. and if you allow people that had to research it the time and the ammount of cost that it requires to posess one, i’d say fair game.
i don’t think 10 points of less rate of fire would make a difference.
and, why would you ever want that
this i can somewhat get behind.
but you kinda sounds like a main crying for buff and nerfs that aren’t needed though.
I have a big plan for this game to nerf FG42, 422, MG34/42, MKB42, MP43. Sadly Im not in charge
Yes. Otherwise why ppl play Axis rather than Soviets? It’s always about guns
Oh camon this is wastedwoodsman second account
that does not surprises me.
and i’d say, thankfully that you are not in charge.
we don’t need someone else to ruin the already somewhat crambling balance.
( not the one you talk about. but the level disparity between new players against veterans. that should be your only concern. like tigers that goes against m5s m8s, t50s against pz IIIBs, PZII and such ).
Lol Axis players are just bad. But in Stalingrad and Berlin, when both teams have equal number of experienced players Soviet still lose. German guns must be nerfed or this game would die
Sadly, it just shows that this forum is full of brainless and toxic german mains who never play the opposite side
yet, i don’t see them crying about low % of win rates like you mister?
maybe because they think more about kills than playing the objective.
for personal experience, you have no idea how it’s easy to get passed all the bravados that don’t even care about the objectives and cap them behind them.
every faction has good and bad players if i have to be honest, but in these days, i’m not seeing many good russian soldiers as i used to.
more like, the opposite.
matter of fact, we have 5 germanies in this game, nerf those, and no campaing would have opponents.
if you want PVE you can just wait instead of forcing it.
it’s funny, because you don’t know anything about it, and yet you talk.
assumptions won’t get you very further i’m afraid.
because lots of people on the forum that are usually around have basically finished almost every campaign.
Allies also have 5 campaings to split the playerbase up. The “split up playerbase” issue is completely a bullshit. The truth is that german players have lower average skill, if you don’t believe just play any campaign except Stalingrad.
American 2
Soviet 3
German 5
If they don’t nerf MKB42H, danuvia 39m stalingrad would end up in a german bot-farming simulator. This game would die
Literally you.
If I got a dolar each time somebody says that, until now I’d have bought stalingrad full access for me and my friends.
PS.
And I’d spend the rest on pizza and beer.
Yeah, but that one is very fun to use.
The scope is perfect, and upgraded with 14.4 hitpower it absolutely kicks ass.
you’re a troll or just delusional
nitpicking parts of arguments does not make your point any more valid?
but sure, let’s see the playerbase.
( i’ll skip over the fact that you claim germany players are not skilled without any actual evidence )
Moscow = Seems pretty balanced to me in terms of win rates, but i have to give credit to the russians where it’s dued.
Tunisia = Allied Victory Prevails. Germans are slowing gainin their ground, but i don’t blain them. tunisia simply have bad campaign levels
Normandy = German Victory
Stalingrad = German Victory
Belin = Total Soviet Victory dunno why though if i have to be honest. i guess gg to them
so far, despite the playerbase thin or not, they have somewhat of a point 2.5 out of 5.
i’d say pretty balanced ?
weather the russians loses in stalingrad, are averange in moscow, and win over berlin.
i don’t know chief. you tell me.
Honestly, he’s both
Oh yes thank u for reminding me that Normandy is also an extremly unbalanced campaign. I suggest to replace FG42 with ZH29 first, then replace 76mm M4A1 with 76mm M4A3E2