Another good one btw.
I donāt like this video either, but for different reasons.
I donāt get it exactly. Correct me if Iām wrong, but didnāt Germany get the Kiraly at the same time that the USSR got the PPSh?
But heās somewhat right.
Thatās why I wouldnāt call it Soviet bias. But rather soviet compensation.
Itās quite clear devs are trying to balance the average very bad skill of Soviets teams by this hand holding approach.
1 Like
By that logic they should either buff Allied to the moon or give the Japanese some S18 treatment.
No, the Kiraly was a level 30+ gun and came alongside the DT-29.
3 Likes
Why? Have you played Germans recently? Across all BRs I have played (BR2, BR3 and BR5), matches against allies were overall harder than against Soviets.
1 Like
Both sides captured in about 40s.
And this is why this system is stupid when done by hand (like devs did). You canāt change values and pump updates fast enough to keep up with playerbase trends.
And automatical system would be very funny. Who wants to gamble: cap in 10ses or 1min30sec?
Well, not with the update schedule of the devs.
Soviets teams were pretty bad as long as I remember. The only exceptions are 4 stacks and when soviets had option to play completely dead campaign against bots.
Equipment balance is extremely overrated in Enlisted. Iād rather have a team of people who actually know what to do. Rather than full of minmaxers chasing the best KD ratio.
1 Like
they were dominating on stalingrad and moscow while getting dominated on berlin(at least year before merge). idk how was balance on berlin before stg44 and KT(H), but soviets were usually more popular in campaigns where they had great equipment advantage.
1 Like
Because majority of German core playerbase was grinding Berlin/Tunisia to get stuff before the merge.
Because until then, the exact opposite was a case. And Berlin/Tunisia were completely dead campaigns for Germans for months (if not for years). So basically no one (except for day 1 players) had stuff from those campaigns.
And there was literally no reason (until merge) to play dead campaigns as solo player. Extremely frustrating experience.
Thatās why I said:
Dead campaigns dont come from the sudden.
Moscow was once more or less balanced, but when they added the T-34s and the PPSh and gave Axis the 20rd Beretta and the J1, people left Axis because both German mains and non-mains had better things to do than fighting T-34 and PPSh spammers although shit was maybe already hot with the T-50.
The same applies to Normandy where people spamed the Jumbo which was unfun for the enemy until they added the Panther and the Allies only had the M10 and premium Firefly.
Tunisia was probably the worst because the Allies had more interesting and better gear, while the Axisā best tank was usually an SPG without MG and nerfed payload (not to mention the more they added, the less Italian the gear became).
Normandy campaign was never dead campaign as long as I play the game.
It literally had more popularity than all the other campaigns combined.
There, I think the main imbalance was created by the German stacks. Either they played it = the allies had no chance in average matches. Or they switched to another campaign when something happened (mainly events or shift in popularity of some other campaign). And suddenly it was pretty even.
I canāt say anything about a time when jumbo was against PZ IV. I didnāt play the game at the time. But I still doubt that campaign was dead. More likely there were no active German stacks.
1 Like
Quote?
It wasnt dead but unbalanced in terms of playerbase for the most part depending on what toys they released.
Well, it was the birth of ālol just flank broā.
5 Likes
idk if i would call it dead, but there was definitely heavy faction imbalance. when i did normandy grind i had ~75-80% WR with germany and ~50% WR with allies.
also i wouldnt attribute this to stacks, just to loads of veterans just choosing one side over other cause of equipment/events.
I do. Because stacks have an incredible impact on match results. The fact that only other experienced players who have an understanding of the game and know whatās going on then hook up with them. Itās just a consequence.
Which was always supported by the fact that a large number of experienced players wanted easy wins simply for the 50% win bonus.
(Which I think has been a mistake ever since. Such a large win bonus simply shouldnāt be in a game where the outcome of a match is so easily manipulated in completely artificial ways & in game where desertion is not punished in any way)
Thatās why I think if anything should really be addressed, itās stacks. I think they have a much bigger impact on game balance than equipment balance.
1 Like