It definitely wasn’t (and still isn’t) for me. If I wanted easy victories I’d go play some other kiddy game.
No variety = boring to me. Heck, there would be no point whatsoever trying to improve or grind lvls to unlock things, since the other side would always have mirrored things.
So yeah, some may want easy challenge less battles, but not everyone.
As such, a strict mm would not be good IN THE LONG RUN for the game, players would tire of it fast. To take some example, why such a flawed game like H&G managed to stay up this long? Progression. You want to have the powerful guns others have for yourself 🤷
Solutions:
wait for custom matchs to come, and play those satisfying your lvl requirements.
Or
add a MM that would still allow mixed lvls, but have both side have the same total power in player lvl.
Balance would be much easier if more people would play the game.
Therefor bugs need to be fixed. Yes.
More useful and badly needed options need to be implemented such as:
Squad Chat
Chat with friends when in Menu (not in combat)
See if a Friend is in combat rather than just Online/Offline
Clans should be able to form, no matter if there is a possibility yet to actually have Clan matches
But its all kinda dead fish in the water. Slow pace. Very slow. Zzz.
Man which server you play? Allies must be sleeping lmao.
no matter what hours i play (i do 9 daily tasks daily) i cant get a good/close game as axis on normandy.
I win them all.
I refuse to switch to other campaigns because weapon damage is lowered on them (see damage from tunisia vs normandy) and I like the ‘fast paced’ normandy gameplay. Also Normandy is ‘least’ campy due to map design i feel.
Today I saw a lot of players who seemed to be console players, some of them were good, some of them were worse than bots, but unless these people have mices and keyboards they dont stand a chance. it just feels i have to either quit playing or return with new content update as I just cant get a good game mate ;/
In my experience, my friends and the people I met on Enlisted, people who start the game have no problem fighting against players who have reached the maximum level of the campaign. The basic equipment is so good that there is no big gap between the equipment that is unlocked at a later stage. Basic rifles, explosives and vehicles provide sufficiently effective firepower.
I have experienced more than once that a new player at level 1-5 of the campaign performed better than a person at level 20-30.
Performing battle tasks in which I have to play on a given campaign on which I don’t play on a daily basis, I have no problems with achieving good statistics, having only a basic four-stroke rifle at my disposal when fighting an opponent equipped with a machine guns.
The game is so well-balanced when it comes to weapons and equipment that I don’t see any point in pigeonholing players.
In terms of tanks… If the starting one is so weak for someone against the enemy… Level up the campaign by playing with other units and unlock a better tank? I did it… My friends did it… It didn’t took much time. Or buy a booster or a ready-made squad.
People like to complain a lot about the weapons balance and while automatic weapons are great, a bolt action can deal with them with a bit of range and a well aimed shot. They are slow and as the first weapons you get you might think they are the weakest, but they offer the highest damage and the most accuracy. Their main weakness would be their slowness, because while they are great at 1v1s, they can easily get overwhelmed by numbers.
What people complain about the most by far is the tanks balance. The way I see it, tanks are mainly there to support infantry, because even in game they are excellent at that. However, their greatest weakness is also the infantry. One well placed detpack can make any steel beast turn into a huge pillar of flames. If you know it’s a much more advanced tank, most of the time you can either flank it or hide behind something while still being able to shoot at the enemy infantry. Or as you said it, you could also avoid playing tanks if you know bigger ones are around. But an easier and a lot more boring game is what some people prefer.
Balance would be much easier if more people would play the game.
Which won’t happen if new players get stomped by veterans.
The requests you make won’t attract new players. They don’t leave because of bugs, or lack of friends/teams.
They are overwhelmed by a horribly slow progression system (for F2P begginers) and matches were their bolt-actions get destroyed by experienced players.
I do want more community elements, and bug fixes, but those are minor to the elephant in the room. Slow grinding
Once, while playing on the Moscow campaign, I managed to lose a battle by playing 8 (minus me because I was flying the plane throughout the whole battle and at the last point I only watched the stupidity of my allies) on 2, based on the statistics at the end of the battle - 8 players in the Russian team with 30/10-20 and 2 Germans with statistics 50-60/5-10. In my team I saw at least 3 men with DP-27 at the same time running on the last point (level 20 of the campaign). One of the Germans used only PZII for almost the entire battle (I assume that if he had the 8th campaign level, he would have used PZIII). The rest of the “people” in the battle on both sides did not exceed the statistics 15-10/15-10.
This is the clearest example I can give from my own experience that a higher level of a player’s campaign does not make them play better. As well as the fact that some players are less useful than BOTs.
I know this by my own example, why are you trying to prove what I agree with?
A bad player with a t50 will get better stats than a bad player with a t60, that’s what you don’t take into account.
How good i not play,my stupid team bots can play vs mg 34 and fg 42 2 with panther.
Their first place with fg 42 2…
Apparently, only he was of a high level, but having a premium he was able to play extremely effectively, unlike my idiots.
I’d like to know where you have it guaranteed?
If the person playing t60, being aware that he has no better chance in a duel with PZIII, focuses on fighting enemy infantry, and the person playing t50 goes mindlessly to the center of the map and gets blown up without firing any shot at the opponent, who will finally have better statistics?
The t50 tank has a better chance against the PZIII. It is a better tank than the t60. And that would be it. You can NEVER guarantee that the battle will go in such a way that the t60 will have worse stats than the t50.
As long as every player starting the game has access to the explosion pack and Molotov cocktails, I don’t see much sense in that.
I see nothing more in it than insistently asking for a balance of the game in terms of something that does not require it.
Or maybe the enemy could’ve used det.packs? It’s so easy to get 4-5 tank kills on most maps, some guy thinking he’s going to rekt everyone from the side just outside the gray area is the easiest target ever. They have 0 awareness, refuse to look to their side and just want to farm bots. It’s way too easy to blow them up. Those that push up in front of their infantry are also really easy to kill.
