Dev is pretty much gave up on Pacific balance


After being send to wrong server and still get unbalanced player count.
I supposed to get 100ms PING, not 150!
Such unbalanced playerbase.

As solo player, win rate as Allies is <30% recently. While seldom lose as Axis.
The only reason why I still playing this :poop: faction is because this is my last unfinished faction. Only <300k XP left. Then byebye s**ker.

Just do as most players do, dont play Pacific Allies. Join the Axis side if you want to play this campaign. Dont be so difficult for yourself on a game!
*Only applied to EU/EEU. Obviously NA has a different playerbase situation.

Just checked its mission data:
Gavutu (Confrontation)
Allies spawncost: 15.625
Axis spawncost: 12.5

sector 3/middle sector capture time:
Allies: 90s
Axis: 70s

Also the rest of sectors are all favored to Axis, they always get a shorter capture time, thus faster capture speed.
LOL :sweat_smile:

The devs need more maps all fronts and not adjust things with a sledgehammer. Fine tuning is just that.

1 Like

I don’t know if you have been in the forum long enough but, back then Pacific Axis players used to cry about Pacific Allies being OP. The devvies did nerf Pacific Allies and now the tables have turned :rofl:

1 Like

I mean, its all players fault anyway always taking easier side first.

6 Likes

Actually it’s not. It will be always devs fault for this problem. Pacific was fine till they decided to mess up with the ticket system because they like the ‘‘easy’’ way to deal out with ‘‘balancing’’ campaigns.

1 Like

But they had to touch those tickets because players were stacking on one side to have grind easier. It happens always when there is new campaign.

But devs bad.

1 Like

Not to mention that axis players hadn’t even learned the “META” of the maps yet (routes, placements, flanks, dig spots, etc) to warrant such complaining. I have played pacific since the beginning and while it was reallllly difficult at first, once I got the equipment and learned the maps, it was easy to fight back.

But I definitely noticed the sharp turn in victories when they made the changes and I think it might have been slightly overturned. But who knows, their data could say otherwise.

Pacific Stats

EDIT: How do you make something marked as a spoiler so the image doesn’t show unless you click it down? Answered

1 Like
Summary

2 Likes

And why do we have this? Shifting sides? Even their ticket system ‘‘balance’’ ain’t working. Defo players fault for sure.

And whose else? Players will always pick easier side, if they see they more often win as Allies, they will stick with them until change comes. Lets not pretend its otherwise.

3 Likes

If these devs tried a different approach balancing out their games/teams might be a different story. Players don’t programme games it’s the devs. Will be always their fault.

1 Like

Players sticking to side that is winning more - its devs fault that players are more keen to play with winning side, giving it more unbalance. Same happend in Tunisia, same happend in Berlin, same happened in Stalingrad.

1 Like

Yes it’s devs fault and you can’t convince me otherwise.

1 Like

Okay.

It’s the devs fault and playerbase’s fault.

-Devs fault because they made a unbalanced campaign (M13 too easy to use and wont die, HA GO having no HE and shitty MG, BAR being unlocked too early so it’s spammed)

-Playerbase fault because they can’t have any discipline to try both sides out but stick to the stronger one ALWAYS because small brain is attracted to easy kills and easy wins because they’re probably call of duty players.

4 Likes

150 ping its normal dude
i play whit 200 or 300

Maybe it is because the problem with the games leveling system. It take sooo many resources and times to get one faction to leveling up and dont even mention get the faction fully armed. I started as berlin ger and then finished both side on stalingrad because of the 4x xp. Now I just want to stay in these factions because it is just sooo hard for me to go to other factions and start from 0 even for berlin ussr with as44 team.
Mnaybe the game will be better if it uses a war thunder like tech tree and uses war thunder matching system.

i’m going to doubt that because you can see some stupid shit in WT’s MM such as literal cold war vehicles fighting late ww2 tanks such as tiger 1 versus m56, or jumbo 76 versus the leopard 1 MBT. In naval you will facing cruisers within a 10km radius while you are only armed with 127mm cannons, also WT TT grind is fucking horded with the somewhat decent player earn 2k towards a vehicle per match with later vehicles costing 180k, 220k, up to 400k research thus forcing the player to either:
A) become insane
or
B) paying premium time and premium vehicles to make it bearable

Yea you are right. WT’s matching is pretty fucked up too. If enlisted uses the same system we might have a chance to see mp431 vs m16 or avt vs m4a1.

1 Like

i mean MP43/STG would probably fare well against an m16 just depends on the variant since the A1s and A4s are full autos though the m16a1 would be a 20 round mag with an rpm, the a2 is burst with a 30 round mag while the m16a4 would be objective better since it has rpm advantage though both weapon systems would be about 8.0 damage