skip this first paragraph to read the actual suggestion.
So first off, let me explain where I'm coming from. I've been playing Axis in Germany ever since I first started playing this game, and before the last big update it was agony with how unbalanced it was, the Axis probably lost 9 out of 10 matches and it was pure frustration, but now it's swung right around in the other direction, and it's gotten to the point where the Allies can barely win, and I don't want that for them because I know it sucks.
Suggestion
So, assuming the unbalance stems from a large portion of the experienced player base moving to other campaigns, as well as an influx of new unexperienced players, I feel that it should not be achieved through nerfing or buffing, my idea is a type of dynamic balancing, what I mean by this is that the state of the match is monitored, and changes are made actively as the match progresses.
suggestions:
Decrease spawn times for side losing badly
Decrease spawn distance for the side losing badly, and increase the spawn distance for side winning easily
Add more bot squads during match to side losing badly
Increase respawn limit (not sure what it's called) of side losing badly, or decrease amount gained if one side is winning easily
These are only a few ideas, they are certainly not very refined, and might be bad ideas in some ways, but the main idea is that matches are balanced dynamically.
Easier suggestions
This is mostly what I see in game, from my own experience and what I assume to be due to inexperienced players. Add tips like, being able to cook grenades and explosives, tips emphasizing the importance of engineers and respawn points etc.
I understand that some of these ideas might be awful, but I am making the suggestions since right now I think it could help, but if you disagree, give feedback, or explain why it is not a good idea.
Yeah it’s a playerbase problem, throwing more bots into mg’s isn’t it though, it will only help to make axis grind to max faster and jump to diffrent campaign so we have balanced matches again.
Respawn limit increase will jusrt make them suffer longer, i jsut played 40min match where 90% of team had <1000score. Imagine playing for hour to get 1k xp. Even more players will jump to other campaigns.
Spawn distances should be already shorter, new players don’t bother putting up rally points and waste 2x the time running to objective making it even harder to win. So this is best bet
These are actually really good ideas, and would work in both conquest and invasion. I have nothing to say, no criticisms.
This doesn’t work so well in invasion. In conquest, giving a badly losing team more than ten lives per player is a potentially good idea, but it might make conquest matches drag on and I’m not sure how I feel about that. In invasion, giving a badly losing attacking team more tickets is only a nerf to the defense, or could force the losing team to keep playing a match that’s not going to end favorably anyway. There’s a solution here, but I don’t think this one is perfect.
As far as normandy balance goes, I think there’s two big culprits for the Axis winrate at the moment: The FG42 for troops (wouldn’t be as big a deal if the axis players were spread out in other campaigns instead of concentrating in Normandy) and the Panther existing. The FG42 should be an LMG choice, but I’d settle for seeing it go to Assaulters. The Panther is an overreaction to the Jumbo, and both of them should go. Replace Panther with a TD, such as Stug III, as a counterpart to M10, and replace Jumbo with M4A3E8, which has a better gun but not much better armor than previous Shermans and can kill or be killed easily by PzIVs.
Give a flat XP bonus per minute, and that’s not such a big deal. Without XP rewards for time spent though, it would be rough.
I feel this in my soul, but it does make getting engineer points easy for those who know what they’re doing building rallys. I put an engineer in basically every squad in normandy just for this.
An example of this is airfield. If the allies keep up on destroying the balloons to get more tickets, and keep capturing points, it’s hell trying to stop us since we can basically just die and keep coming.
If the devs totally agreed with you and started working on these changes tomorrow, by the time they were ready to update the game….the Axis veteran player base will have maxed Normandy and moved to the next juicy campaign. In other words, it will revert back on it’s own soon enough.
this. yall aren’t old enough to realize this has happened in Normandy and Berlin multiple times. For various reasons one side will stomp for a few months then it will switch rapidly as populations move between campaigns grinding out more dakka.
There is a MM problem first, not player and there is a map problem on the beach.
It is totally pointless to start a game using level 10 player against lvl 32 Panther A. Better not start the server if it is bolt against MG.
I start the game on Sept and on the first lvl the MM is balanced to attract new players.
As soon as you progress more, you get mixed with lvl 32 with Panther A, mg42 while the best thing you got is the garand and m3. The solution is to have better MM and not force the 1 minute MM and game start with such bad result. I am ready to wait longer.
Like everyone else, I just keep quitting the server until I got something balanced. So Axis end fighting against bots only.
Map problem. On the beaches the panther A are shooting behind the no go zone on high ground. So it is impossible to destroy it by getting close. The suggestion is to enlarged the map in the beaches so infantry can commando behind the lines.
More bots squads are useless coz their AI let them sit in the beach and shoot from distance then walk and shoot with bolt rifles. That’s just easy target for Panther A HE letting you loose tickets even faster.
That’s the reason I stopped playing axis. In the beach maps, you can drive in the middle of the infantry and they will just walk in front of you like nothing. You are just shooting bots swam going strait. Since you cannot cap objectives, you are just shooting during 20 mins on the same spot again and again.
I understand your thought process but I don’t think your suggestions will have that much impact on an unbalanced match. It will probably just lead to faster losses.
An easier fix would be add 25% xp boost to the join any side option when you que for battles. This would lead to a better split of experienced players playing both sides.
Even if they are maxed level 25% xp is still a good incentive because it means more bronze orders and faster squad levels.
Another one of these threads where people dont realize that if you team up with your buddies as allies (2-3 man squad) and you are not braindead and you win.
All you need is bolt action rifles and engineers to spawn points.
Its not campaign level thats the problem, its the lack of players of equal skill on both sides
I could document this but i wont even bother, casual players making posts about balance.
If some of you actually tried to plant that flanking spawn point you would see the improvement.
Allied players like to get their shiny springfields and camp from 100m, doing absolutely nothing to help their team.
If any allied player is interested and feels hes top3 every game feel free to PM me to grind together,
I win 90-100% games if i match with someone equal +/- my skill = which only proves my point, that the game has to be balanced SKILL wise
edit
and if you ever camped in a tank in grey zone then please dont even bother msging me
Honestly, rather than worsen ahistorical issues by introducing the E8, another tank that wouldn’t have been present in Normandy (not to mention any 76 Sherman makes the M10 pointless), I’d like to see the Sherman 105. I like asymmetric balance, and it would be neat to have an Allied infantry mulcher to balance out the Axis tank mulcher. The HEAT rounds are still more than capable of of dealing with PZIII and IV, and can slice right through a Panther from the side, but it’s HE rounds could clear buildings, fields, and bunkers easily and should be able to destroy obstacles like the large destructible walls on the D-Day map. Also, just a side nitpick, but the M5 should get canister shot instead of its anemic HE. I’d love for them to go for a “US tanks are superior against infantry and DE tanks are superior against tanks” balance, with the US needing to rely on TDs or infantry to kill cats.
This actually gives me an idea to deal with gray zone camping. What if they added a very small, say two or three man, squad of “Commandos” with the unique ability to go in the grey zone. They cannot go out of map boundaries, only in the area that’s open to the enemy team. The squad can’t get engies so no building crap behind the lines or infinite ammo, and can only get one specialty unit, perhaps an AT, Radio, or Sniper. Then you have a squad that can sneak around and take out important things (like camping tanks or rally points) behind the lines, but is generally fucked if detected. Spawn protection should be enough to prevent serious spawn killing, and the small size would allow them to be dispatched with ease. Plus, if whole teams end up trying to abuse them that means considerably fewer bodies on the objective. Just a thought.
After they make the game at consoles its way worse and its mostly player base problem. There is no tutorial to show them what this game is about and what to do in those modes. Instead throw them into a game and they just camp behind, dont defend / attack points and more. Its not only Normandy but every campaign
The E8 was introduced in 1944, how would it be ahistorical? If it is, would it be worse than other blatantly ahistorical problems already in the game? If we’re gonna argue from a historical standpoint, there should never be more than one FG42 per squad(section) and it takes the place of an MG.
m10 is already pretty pointless. Yeah, the gun can deal with Panther, but it’s not armored well enough, the maps in normandy largely don’t support trying to be sneaky in an open topped TD, and you can kill it with basically any of the german planes available.
I wouldn’t mind seeing the 105 replace the current sherman, but I suspect that’s my american bias talking.
A big part of the issue with balance like other have mentioned is player base. Before console players came over, I was winning about 40% of my matches in solo queue as germany. Then suddenly we started winning most of them.
We went from being fewer players on germany with bots filling our ranks to having console players who don’t know the maps very well or how to play very well. They didn’t spot the tanks on the hills for bombers to bomb, they didn’t snipe the MG-42s the axis used to mow down their allies. They where pretty much just like bots. Then when word spread that normandy axis was suddenly easy a bunch of people swap over to it. So you had teams of 6-8 PC players, 1-2 axis console players and a few bots vs 10 console players and 2 PC players.
But thankfully, it seems to be getting better now, console players are doing better, many moved over to axis so the number of console players is more even now.
