I always said restrictions are necessary,
but the current restriction method is not good and it lacks scalability.
I don’t understand why you keep trying to refute noething any response to you?
You are just pointlessly objecting to something
This pointless argument is very annoying.
As far as the current statement is concerned, we do not have any conflict with the restriction itself.
I think something like soft limit based on spawnCost is more flexible. He should never have banned player combinations.
More combination possibilities is one of my expectations for the merger.
Of course they should set limits on combinations, but I don’t think it’s a ban on combinations.
1 Like
What do you loose by not being able to bring 3 assault squads. What is good about assault squad?
they can have SMG, SMG is automatic
Rifleman can have M2, FGs, AVTS, etc. MG squads get autos too (BAR > M2 Carbine any day), and almost every squad in game can have atleast 1 assaulter in it (some even 2, like Mortar and Flame Trooper)
So basically any squad in game can be an Assault squad, and honestly a large chunk of the playerbase already uses any squad like its an Assault squad, which just results in zerg rush gameplay
3 Likes
Your argument is off topic and misunderstood. Please re-read all my words.
before you attempt to participate in a discussion
gastanofrizzi:
0 restrictions free
We predicted this would happen a long time ago.
1 Like
and that’s their attempt to tackle that
( which, at least does it )
but, as said above:
i might suggest you to make a suggestion with your tab score and what not.
helpers might have missed that. and offers you a chance to also provide a counter suggestion based on the problem that you have. after all, you did somewhat implemented it and can somewhat show it’s functionality or effect.
but i highly suggest you to provide some pictures and examples.
rather than sounding emotional af with " nooooo banning players " or stuff like that.
and i wish you luck. you’ll probably need it.
ah.
so you do only read what you care or interested about.
no wonders why this convo hasn’t moved anywhere.
you lack understanding of what is being presented to you and refuse to make something out of it.
I think we must stop this pointless argument right away and make a final statement.
First we believe that restrictions are necessary. We all agree with this.
Secondly, you think the measures they are proposing now are good to you/some of you.
The current measures in the news do not affect the main experience of the game.
Third
And I’ve already stated why they are bad, namely the part about limiting the combinatorial possibilities.
And the current major changes are only to prevent extreme situations, they do not enhance the game experience.
As a change from standing still, I think it’s regressive.
Your meaningless nono rebuttal cannot affect my above point.
And they don’t really have the restriction on spam that you think should be imposed on premium squads. If it was the goal
And I have been against these hard limits from the beginning.
I’d rather they use soft restrictions and allow players to choose.
2 Likes
If you refuse to understand that spam X 3 time equipped with Y on all soldier is not combination of any kind because you are refusing to use the 13 other soldier class and 300+ gun and veichle
Idk… i guess you like spam X with Y
3 Likes
gastanofrizzi:
i guess you like spam
This is completely misinterpreted.
I wish players could do combos like this, but they should be restricted, i.e. paying 2500 points to deploy a nuke for example, rather than banning them from doing so
I have always supported restrictions.
Players should be allowed to deploy nukes, but should pay 99,999 points, rather than being prohibited from doing anything they can already do or have the opportunity to do.
2 Likes
we’re on angreement.
but… did you had to highlight it?
we’re not at school lmao.
just because you failed to comprehend it, doesn’t mean it didn’t actually do it.
just want to throw it out there.
and we always stated why free choice is bad for balancement.
you see, it’s not about feelings or subjectivy. but actual objective comprehension of the matter.
again, i suppose a matter of opinions and i’m starting to believe you’re part of the problem.
i haven’t really seen your line up. so i’m not gonna indulge. but i have some suspect.
As a change from standing still, I think it’s regressive.
Your meaningless nono rebuttal cannot affect my above point.
neither your " NOOOOOOOOO LIMITS FOR SAKE OF BALANCE IS BADDDD "
that is correct.
it did not.
but we’re way more happy with what we got.
might not be ideal or perfect in all situations.
but safe to say, in most of them.
which that’s what devs went with too.
no wonders why now they changed their mind.
you or some of you
not me
can’t always make everyone happy i’m afraid.
similar to how editor works.
some gets what they want, others do not.
now you’ll start to argue about that too?
as they say, circle of life.
most maps are close range maps, that’s it, that is the entire problem why people use only smgs and auto guns.
why would anyone consider people who use close range weapons for close range maps as “spammers” is insane - there are too many “wanna be tacticians” here on this forum that have zero clue about gameplay.
3 Likes
This is the pointlessness of the above argument. He brought no new information.
Some responders try to use no as a final response rather than discussing the matter itself. The current state of the game and possible examples. Even programmed deductions.
Some responses were just nonono
1 Like
Restricting weapon types to specific classes also restricts “combinatorial”(lololol
1 Like
this whole spam argument is complete nonsense.
1 Like
you see.
you seem to fail realize something else.
we did asked for bigger maps.
and since you’re a cbt member, you should know better.
and since we didn’t got many ( beside tunisia, which almost no one liked either )
we kept having small maps.
name me a map that is actually big.
perhaps the pacific, but mostly debatable as you keep fighting over 5 meters buildings / caves.
hence, if the game wants to be cqc, fine.
i don’t see why then creating lots of weapons of ww2 if you are not gonna use them.
it just creates a boring loops and put at distadvantage those people who wants to play a ww2 game with the equipment given.
it shouldn’t come all down just because it’s a cqc fest.
and apparently, devs agreed.
it might not totally solve the cqc can of worms, but sure it will to the very least, tackle it.
Whe are not talking about spam, no one is aganaist use auto weapon but only use that same only gun all time
This discussion is born only because tommy Think use 3 enginer squad with fedorov or another AR give more diversity
Wen in reality you see all player use that combo because is meta
1 Like
I might be more palatable if they allowed different rules in different modes.
But current recommendations for restrictions don’t really solve the problem of spam in the first place.
Secondly some of the players above actually like to spam (for short TTK battles)
They’re just trying to limit some spamming by free players in smaller maps, but spamming is still widespread.
Because this is part of the short TTK mini-map battle, some of the players above thought it was the main part of the game.
Their restrictions on squad usage actually limited possibilities that could have worked well in different scenarios.
Unrestricted spam is pretty extreme, and I pointed that out from the beginning.
I also expected them to take some lame step of disabling player choice.
But I’m still disappointed.
Do you think it will works?
Well, I already told you it doesn’t work. (2+1 2+1)
These changes do not change the game, it remains as it is.
The function of Trojan rotation in the news is only to prevent extreme spam in the merged game. It is not a solution to the spam problem.
2 Likes
) possibilities but no one is going to advocate for every soldier being able to equipt flamethrower.