As the great economists Thomas Sowell has said, “There are no solutions, there are only trade-offs”
2 Likes
With these measures in place, it only avoids corner cases in the test server, namely some of the examples listed by gastanofrizzi above. But that’s not all.
And compared to the main version, the game will not undergo positive changes.
This is where I’m disappointed.
I would have liked you to respond proactively to the changes rather than ban them, but you have chosen to ban them so far.
As the topic states, you even removed some possibilities and gameplay features to maintain some boring status quo after the merger.
2 Likes
again.
it does for a larger parts.
not everywhere, as… they went for the business model practice,
but i can guarantee you right here, and right there, meta will be somewhat affected and reduced.
it’s one thing facing someone with 27 ( which it’s the worst case scenario with 3 riflemen squads . or fg for that matter )
or even 3 flame throwers squads at once.
if you want to do that, you somewhat can at a much reducted capacity with premium.
or pick other squads with less number of men.
your denial won’t change the danger that free choice would have unleashed.
it will reduce meta.
i heard some people like to do Fentanyl.
should we let them?
no.
those people don’t really count as a part of solution when they are actively part of the problem.
which it’s why they made these changes to begin with.
to reduce it to an extent.
how many times do we have to repeat our selves?
never heard of wrongful thinking?
and we told you it will 
-1 +6 +8 +3 -2 +7 /41 *2 / 5 - 6 + 2 +5 +2
fairly sure it won’t.
the game will be much more enjoyable with less meta bullshits.
Yes. (I never reply NO mindlessly in the first line)
Content about yes
Because there are fewer paying players compared to free players, the spam cycle has always only been applied to paying players, even for most campaigns now.
Only in the test server, free players can assemble very extreme situations
Send spam only to paying players
That’s the logic of this statement.
1 Like
much better than the " let the free choice for everyone to spam whatever they want " 
i can assure you.
i might not agree with it either ( of letting premium the free gateaway card ), but it’s still something that i will take over free total anarchy choice thank you very much.
but, you seem to not care either way. so it’s fine.
If Assaulers, Pioneers, Troopers, Snipers, MG gunners and all squads had equal potential - then people would use all of them equally.
Balance is such a straight forward logical goal that needs to be achieved - yet you think this restriction will change anything.
I want the ability to use a type of weapon that fits a specific role - for the entirety of the match. Why is that spamming?
If I want to snipe, then I want to snipe - why would that be spamming when I want to focus on that role?
If i want to build defences for my team, then why shouldn’t I be allowed to do so consistently?
Again non of this will even effect the Meta AT ALL, people will just pick one flamer or some other Meta squad, so that means it ONLY specifically removes the ability to pick 3 times the same squad type.
Why is this a problem? Who would hate you for having 3 full trooper squads with bolt action rifles because you feel like using those weapons? Why should the game force you to pick something else, where is the logic?
I don’t understand you guys, this makes no sense what so ever!
3 Likes
It’s nice that more players can’t spam and I can freely choose to spam
How? What will stop people from still using Meta squads? For the love of god why am I apparently the only one seeing how this argument makes zero sense?
2 Likes
because reduced significantly the squad you can carry and in some occasions, how many people can use those said weapons.
for example, no more 3 rifleman squads full of fgs, no more 3 flamethrowers ( at least from f2ps. which are the majority ) no more 3 assaulters and what not.
probably because you are not thinking it through. ( or letting others affect your perception by unecessary overractions or generally from people who are part of the problem and don’t see it. at least, imo )
now, granted. suicide bomb allows to directly skip such " limit ".
but that’s another thing for another time.
as far as it goes, the changes them selves limit alot in what players can " spam " / " reuse ".
how you wanna call it.
Because the game itself ask you to do multiple role in the same battle not stick with one single role
No one care of you are going to add sniper in every squad and snipe all the game but is supposed you can use even enginer and assaulter/machinegunner squad wen the battle shift the pace, What dev has done only make sure people have a different squad with different ability for do it
But again they dont stop you to use sniper in every squad, what they do is only stop enginer be the endgame universal squad in endgame because thy already can carry Selective-Fire AR are too much
So again
No one is removing your ability to camp from 100m but is only asking you to have a plan b just in case
Yes, that’s why this restriction is completely meaningless and will only make people unhappy.Simply put, there is a limit, but it can’t solve the balance problem, so it is shit.
3 Likes
Requirements? It was imposed these two days, wasn’t it?Ah, yes, they didn’t actually do anything. After all, I can still use the senior team.All they do is force players to change their rhythm and pay.
Imagine a game saying to you: You can’t just use this weapon, you must also use something else.(Even if your squad already has a variety of weapons, you still have to use other squads with different soldier configurations, and you are forced to change the manipulation mode.)It’s disgusting to have to bundle something you don’t want to do with what you want to do today.
Since some squads are very strong, it is ridiculous to make such clumsy restrictions instead of strengthening others.
By the way, I just prepared three squads of perfect soldiers for all kinds of squads and used up all my resources, damn it.
1 Like
This the screenshot from current version of the game (only 1 paratrooper squad for Allies and Axis in Tunisia).
Now imagine what will happen with everyone (Axis and Allies) running with 3 paratroopers squads.
4 Likes
Didn’t the text already said about it?
This has not changed at all.
This is the 2+1 case.
The topic of this post was never about being against restrictions.
I really don’t like it when they force players to not allow this, if they want to restriction something, they should make players who do this pay scores and let players choose instead of disabling players to do something.
It’s about what we think they should do with appropriate restrictions, rather than rigid and double-standard rules. And it doesn’t fundamentally solve the issues in your screenshot.
We many palyers already have 3 paratroopers sqauds. And we can still use it.
As you can see, 3 Paratroopers and 3 Flamethrower still occur.
It’s just that some people above are happy that these combos are being recycled from free players.
1 Like
Fyi I and many others will still be able to do that.
Lucky its not my style
2 Likes
But right this here is the nonsense and completely illogical way of thinking.
You claim that Meta squads are overpowered, and instead of limiting or nerfing Meta squads you want to limit the ability to use the same meta squad.
This is not the same thing!
If you limit my ability to bring Meta squad “A” three times with me, what hinders me at using meta squad “B” instead? ITS STILL THE SAME META!
If I want to use STGs or FGs - both are meta and by your own logic considered as “spamming”, I will not be hindered AT ALL from “spamming” Meta squads,
the only thing that is gonna change is taking my ability to choose whether I want to play STG or FG.
2 Likes
Paratroopers are OP, restriction or not they need a change - and if this change is gonna “fix” them, then why would there be a problem with having 3 of those squads available?
because meta B will be less powerful and somewhat easily counter-able than meta A.
dunno how you struggle to understand even that.
Yes it will have an effect.
and many side effects. And this change lacks scalability and flexibility (I don’t know if you understand what I mean by flexibility)
But this restriction means nothing against otherwise useless squads. He won’t achieve the diversity goals they claim.
Meta-squads and meta-vehicles have always been the best choices in the game. Unlimited deployment allows most rational players to choose their strongest squad.
Players will only use the squad with the next highest strength as a third option instead of the strongest squad, such as replaced as a light machine gun squad, instead of an anti-tank gun squad.
So it means nothing about so-called diversity, which is not the main intention of this change to solve the problem.
Obviously this change is not spam-oriented, it is mainly to solve the problem that many free players can loop.
It addresses a stage situation in the test server, not the main game.
Even in the main game, there is no difference between players carrying 3 assault squads and 3 assault squads + 1 flamethrower squad in the Battle of Moscow, and many players will know that it is more appropriate to use the flamethrower squad for CQC
It’s just that many players misunderstood the intention of this change.
For example, in the paratrooper screenshot above, some players thought it could solve the paratrooper spam. In fact, the paratrooper has not changed at all. It is still 2+1 (in the main game, the camp with the most paratrooper squads only has 3 such squads).
If they want to deal with spam they should choose a more flexible approach.
For example, the third team needs 1000/2000/3000 points to deploy, which can achieve almost the same effect and provide developers with room for adjustment and modification (because the performance of each weapon is different)
I don’t know if you understand what I mean by flexibility, It means these numbers can be changed more granularly to account for more situations
2 Likes
If it were like that then way do people keep complaining about tanks currently?
Nothing is stoping them from equiping the latest bazooka vs “insert OP tank” but somehow people do complain regardless…