Its hilarious how the FG42/II Is initialy set on Semi-Auto while AVT and M2 are initialy set on Auto. XD
3 Likes
realistically you don’t need to set the FG on full auto outside room clearing
Make it lower than Hell Let Loose too in terms of overall reviews. Reviewers could say game is poor man’s HLL or extremely P2W game with stupid restrictions like the carousel.
They tried to nerf rally points before but backlash got to them.
1 Like
Good they will deserve it for being so greedy with premiums, removing content that we paid for and not fixing bugs for years (Bipod, weird explosive behavior, getting stuck constantly with the vehicles, bots not reacting or overreacting)
1 Like
Banning the diversity of spamming Assaulters and Flamers.
Really bad.
5 Likes
the same way we are against free and unregolated choices.
those are simply bad for the game.
which, yes, you will.
but if you take the premium flamethrower, you will be forced at mid tiers cuz that is a type II flame. not I.
hence. it’s not used against newbies.
i truly, truly hope they put the long flamethrower at the very end of the BR, for all BR downtiering goodness it could bring if it is at mid tier.
not because it dont belong there, but more like a safeguard for BR fluctuations to lower tiers.
1 Like
i too would have hoped for flame throwers be much higer,
but from the chart that was given, unfortunately flamethrowers were relatively earlier tier ( Type 1 in the mid of tier 1 ) and the Type 2 was in tier III
2 Likes
i can handle the short one being mid, i plan to play as below as comfortably possible of them, but i am terrorized of the BR tiering they havent revealed yet
1 Like
well the ranks on the test server are only for “unlocking” those weapons, their “battle rating” isn’t known yet
for all we know, even the MKB being a super late unlock might still be a low BR - kinda like a “reversed unlock”
but I doubt that will be the case.
Ok, now I have my commando, nine soldiers with three grenades and flamers. It seems that I can make you experience a variety of pains.Only by strengthening the weak squads can they solve the problem, not make such meaningless restrictions.
Ah, by the way, this looks just P2W.Balance? Looks like an excuse.
That kinds of defeats the point, the MKb (H) is thoroughly mediocre. No sane person would give them MKbs over FG-42s. What they should have done was what they originally said they were going to do, which was restrict the ability to the Stalingrad Engineer squads. I suspect it’s more difficult than it’s worth along with potentially upsetting people to move the internal ability tag from the engineers to the squads so they just elected to drop it.
2 Likes
Well in fairness, neither do you. They gotta get paid somehow to keep developing and servers open.
2 Likes
They make the game more P2W in the name of “protecting new players”. In fact, it’s totally meaningless to have more than three squads, but they have to put forward five or ten to scare people and trick some guys into supporting such a decision, and then say, "No one is against it."As long as we think about it carefully, we will find that new players will not even encounter rifle grenades and fire-breathing soldiers, and the restriction of two squads will not stop tanks and planes from bombing in turn at all, and there is still no restriction on advanced squads.
For balance? This is ridiculous, and it is clearly for P2W.(Not to mention that the senior team seems to have a lower level.) A certain degree of P2W is not a problem, but for this excessive restriction,we should be sober and oppose these things, although we don’t know if they will help.
4 Likes
I have dug up this statement right here
New Meta: answers - News - Enlisted here’s the link.
6 Likes
Limitations are necessary to shape the rules of the game.
I’m not totally opposed to restrictions. But I object to this kind of rigid restriction that prohibits players from choosing or combining.
They should be inclusive of all combinations, with different combinations requiring different payment conditions, and any combination can appear in the game, rather than prohibiting players from making choices.
Their update is just a self-restraint on the development of the game.
Players are prohibited from doing things. This doesn’t make the game better, more just defensive.
This measure doesn’t make the game any worse. But after making changes, he stayed still.
This seems to me to be a step back for the game.
Yes they are removing features and content that have been in the game for a long time. Just to avoid extreme situations.
They add this measure to avoid the problem rather than face and deal with it.
And they also claim that this is to protect or balance for newbies.
This restriction was never intended to protect newbies or prohibit spam. Premium squads can still do round-robin spam, which is how the game worked before the merge.
The cycle of 3 paratroopers also still exists, because there is 1 premium paratrooper in the game, so any player can make a 2+1 paratrooper cycle, and there is also a Tunisian flamethrower squad that can also create a 2+1 cycle.
After making such a big change, it prohibits new combinations in the game without improving the game experience. Even their purported purposes are not really achieved.
This is what makes me angry as a player who expects more new things and combinations to appear in the game.
I’ve already stated that I hope they take more flexible measures in restricting and shaping the rules, rather than rigidly banning players.
Any restrictions should be inclusive rather than an absolute ban on new combinations.
3 Likes
We do not plan =/= we won’t do it.
Corpo talk my friend.
2 Likes
Obviously not the first time they lied and not the last time either knowing the Stalingrad Full Access pack.
3 Likes
They didn’t lie.
They said they didn’t plan any restrictions back then. But they do now. Everything checks out.
The problem is that you’ve missunderstood the statement and you’ve build certain expectations baced on this. And this is the effect.
Similar thing happened to HA topic.
8 Likes
it’s not rigid at all.
heck, i’d argue they could have done more.
but i’m happy with what they did/went with.
no.
there should be not.
if you want to play against all types of shitlords who has to compenate to play a game, we are better off from them.
a game who only gets played for meta often than not becomes empty. and most of all, boring.
because there’s no variety.
Everyone will run with fgs, Everyone will run with atvs, Everyone will run with stgs.
this way, to the very least, it’s limited of such option to an extent.
now, it is somewhat true that premium “free-out-of-jail” card it’s still somewhat of an issue and will become un fun for top tier.
but one step at a time.
idk how can you conveicve this change as a step back.
the step back would have be to not make any changes at all.
after all, why not. let’s give mkhbs or assault rifles to everyone.
for the sake of choice! 
no.
you out of all people should recognize balance.
it’s not necessarely removing.
just not accessible.
as you argued, and i do recognize such problem and differences, will be within older / averange memebers that did played and grinded some campaigns unlike fresh members post merge.
they won’t have the ability to get more than one type I / II.
but i believe that’s what they wanted the game to be.
a controlled enivorement rather than a total mess.
hence, to not bother old time players or new players, they went for a middle route.
which i recommend in any way.
because it’s actually a good compromise.
it won’t hurt you, and it will only slight hurt newcomers in the long run.
again. those will only happen after merge.
since majority if not all squads are for mid to late tier.
not early tier.
let’s not twist things just for the sake of your own argument.
you’re overreacting.
no one is being banned.
nope.
restrictions as the name implies, should restrict.
not allow more choice for boring and repetitive gameplay.
which also limit the capabilities to an extent for bad actors to seal club.
5 Likes