Does Germany have better equipment than Soviets? Overall yes but barely. But it’s when tryhards see Germany winning and all flock to Germany as a result when the problems come in. You have Russia which is mostly low-level players, versus Germany with a much higher concentration of high levels and Premium squads.
Soviets get filled with bots thats prob why this win rate is much higher for Germany.
Now we have this same situation but opposite in Battle for Berlin, where everybody flocks to Soviet side,while making Germans more filled with bots !
In both cases it proves game is getting ruined by mostly players who make balance issues even worse by trying to take advantage of what they perceive to be the case.
There was a question for Battle for Moscow :
If a faction is on an even match with the opposing faction, how come that so few people want to play on USSR to the point that more than half of the USSR team is filled with bots?
Now there is a same question for Battle for Berlin :
If a faction is on an even match with the opposing faction, how come that so few people want to play on Germany to the point that more than half of the German team is filled with bots?
That’s over half a year old. They should give us more up-to-date data.
Anyway, that’s long before I started playing, so I can’t take part in this discussion.
It’s very difficult to find practical application to this kind of statistics because factions actually aren’t equal - by design. One attacks much more than the other. This affects everything in ways that are difficult to quantify. What’s even worse, these factions carry a lot of heavy baggage despite the war being 70+ years removed from present day. Which means people are unlikely to both choose factions and perceive balance rationally.
There is no easy solution to any of this other than mirror balance, but that’s hardly a solution. Maybe there are no real solutions at all. The way I see it they should have never even tried to “balance” things.
Just implement all easily quantifiable parameters of equipment (rate of fire, armor thickness, weight, mechanical accuracy, etc.) as is and adjust secondary, “human factor” and difficult to measure variables (reload time, damage etc) only if absolutely necessary. All the other issues - resolve through map design and game mode rules.
As a secondary measure they could also remove as many barriers to switching factions as possible to make sure the issue self-corrects over time. Unfortunately, they’ve done the opposite in almost all instances.
The only factor is there are good player and bad player if you play with a team of bad player even if you use the MJOLNIR Powered Assault Armor/Mark VII and the BFG 9000 LASER you lose always
So you’re saying that the only thing win/loss and effectiveness statsitics demonstrate is where good players are? This logic is one-sided at best and falls apart under its own weight upon further examination.
Although I guess this isn’t the worst approach as long as you’re applying it to everyone equally. All too often on the forums it’s all about skill when one side is dominating, but when anyone else gets good results it can only be due to unfair advantage and developer bias.
think you have 2 players:
A has been playing fps for 20 years and has played from the first medal of honor to the open beta of enlisted
B is a new player who only played Battlefield 5 and cod black ops (remake) / warzone and enlisted
Now both have only 6 soldiers
B soldier: 4 armed with submachine guns and 2 armed with semi-automatic / full rifles, 1 grenade 1 medpack
A soldier: all 6 with Bolt action 1 granade 1 medpack
the map where they compete is manor, both know the map well and spwan 100m away from each other
so in your opinion who wins A with more experience or B who has less?
In my opinion this artificial scenario has no bearing on faction balance and official statistics presented here. This example is just as pointless as comparing two perfectly equal players with different weapons.
You’re even asking the wrong questions in order to get simple and convenient conclusions. Trying to paint everything in black and white doesn’t help either. Don’t see a point in further explaining anything as people tend to only see what they want to see anyway. Probably shouldn’t have replied to begin with.
So whats you say the skill dosent matters? For me the skill matter indipendent they use the the shitty basic rifle or the BFG 9000 if you are bad to play game, you not win says this faction win because have best wapons dosent matter, is a semplification all things have strong point and weak point a player know this and know of use them.
I thinks the skill is the most important things
Im level 17 soviet and 27 germany. The main reason germany has more win because it has stuka. Armored support is key role on advancing point. When playing as germany, you could bring any tank without worrying any threat from sky that could destroy your tank and wipe your infrantry teammate. While playing as soviet, you under constant threat from stuka. So when playing as soviet, they need to have fighter to clear up the sky. I just start to bring Yak-1 and patrol the sky to farm every Junker on sight and my team could hold a bit longer.
Actually soviet could balance the situation if they could bring Sb2m a bit early.
this !!
i agree … z germans have it tough on Berlin with panzer IV vs t34 but once they got the panther they have the upper hand ! + like you said almoust no worry from the air even tho IL2 have 100 kg bombs and rockets but its rarley seen . while german planes eat tanks like its nothing !
So i see no reason for tank balance when plane is such an easy counter !
I can say for sure than while playing tank , 70% of time gets killed by plane !
It started to happen so much that i also switched my tank to yak 3 but then cant spawn it becouse vehicle slot is taken or bugged !
Well its allways easyer to quickfix nerf things then to implement more or better mechanics to improve balance !
