No, the whole point of the game is tu build more rally points on better positions than your enemy.
Everything else is just filler gameplay.
Lmao your comparison is stupid. It’s literally a measly 10% in a game that has an extremely fast TTK. It makes NO difference in the slightest. No skilled player is going to complain about it or use it as an excuse when they are losing. The soviets have the weakest airpower in this game but you don’t see soviet mains complaining. The US have no assault rifles but you don’t see American mains crying. Every faction has its strengths and weaknesses but they’re so insignificant that they barely affect the game. The only justifiable imbalance in this game was the No counter to the Tiger 2 for the US, but that has been fixed and this petty argument is nowhere near on the same level as that imbalance. Cope harder and stop using slight differences as a skill issue excuse.
2 Likes
I’d argue that those are side objectives that help you achieve the main objective.
I am stone solid on this. I would not argue about it.
Can’t win games without capturing objectives or bleeding the enemy tickets aka getting kills. Building rally points enables that yes, but that only makes up 2% of a match. What are you doing after you’ve built your 1 rally point?
To me it’s just 4 different camp choices,
I played all 4 camps evenly.
I pointed out many unreasonable places in the game,
Hopefully the game will improve and get better.
for example
For players who deliberately build barbed wire fences at their own rally points, I propose that there should be a punishment mechanism.
New players to the German army face many unreasonable difficulties in the technology tree.
BR3’s shortcomings in the game have led to more and more people choosing to leave the game.
More and more players use the method of leaving the game to choose maps and opponents.
As a result, almost 2 to 6 players will leave every game now.
This means that almost every game is a boring massacre of bots.
Your logic is quite strange,
I use your logic to show you and let you see for yourself.
When many players reacted to the problem of non-Dutch people using Dutch soldiers,
you respond
Lmao your comparison is stupid. It’s literally a measly Dutch soldiers in a game that has an extremely fast TTK. It makes NO difference in the slightest. No skilled player is going to complain about it or use it as an excuse when they are losing. The soviets have the weakest airpower in this game but you don’t see soviet mains complaining. The US have no assault rifles but you don’t see American mains crying. Every faction has its strengths and weaknesses but they’re so insignificant that they barely affect the game. The only justifiable imbalance in this game was the No counter to the Tiger 2 for the US, but that has been fixed and this petty argument is nowhere near on the same level as that imbalance. Cope harder and stop using slight differences as a skill issue excuse.
I don’t know what you think of what you said, I just know that your logic is very good.
Your grammar and logic is all over the place, no clue what you’re trying to preach.
We’re not talking about the Dutch soldiers with the increased perk points. That’s a blatant advantage because perks in this game are game changing and influence every gunfight. 10% damage reduction to the chest isn’t the same so no clue why you would even try to compare the 2.
Do you finally know what everyone thinks of you now?
I’m debating that one of the factions shouldn’t have 10% damage reduction.
Whether it is jp, us or ussr
You answer my question about US military tanks.
Have you ever thought carefully about your logic and even your values.
How excellent is it?
You’re not making any sense and spitting completely irrelevant facts to the argument. Majority of the playerbase don’t care about 10% damage reduction but actually care about not having a counter to the Tiger II.
Because one is irrelevant and the other is a balance issue.
1 Like
I just sprint to objectives and kill everyone I see. That’s what every player who wants to win should do.
And a team with multiple such players (=rally points ) will usually always win the battle for objectives.
The most important part is the part with the rally points (spawns) which are closer to the objectives than classic spawn.
Individual skills of players in enlisted is of small relevance.
You’re not making any sense and spitting completely irrelevant facts to the argument. Majority of the playerbase don’t care about having a counter to the Tiger II but actually care about 10% damage reduction .
Because one is irrelevant and the other is a balance issue.
See what you said?
Do you think you have raised the balance issue that everyone is concerned about?
I only see your excellent logic.
That’s what I’m saying! Rally points help you achieve the primary goal of getting kills. Getting kills = bleeding tickets and enabling objective captures. Thus winning the game.
1 Like
Okay you’re either mentally challenged or taking the piss now.
1 Like
A few days ago, I used the 2% you mentioned to defeat the live host’s 4-person team.
Your 2% seems to be 98% of me.
I suspect there is something wrong with my perception, the 98% I think seems to be exactly 2% of yours.
But I happened to use the 2% you mentioned to defeat the live host’s 4-person team.
You need to lay off the substances mate.
In order to confirm, I watched the video of the live broadcaster repeatedly.
I also downloaded rp and determined that we finally won because 3 players kept building rally points.
Very strange, your arguments and views are completely opposite to mine.
But I still respect your statement.
Although I don’t care about German tanks at all.
The hell are you even on about at this point?
This feels like reading the ravings of a mad man.
1 Like
Yeah I feel like this guy is smoking something a bit too strong.
This Is not a pub
1 Like