The game is already p2w
And money whales make it even worse
You still aren’t answering my original question.
If weapons like STG are limited to one trooper, a lot of people, myself included, will be taking our money to another game.
The developers don’t get money from Freeloaders screeching at the top of their lungs like you are that everything should be F2P and those who spend money should get nothing of equal value to what they spend.
It’s a simple question of, with this limitation, what is your solution to keeping those of us that can spend a lot of money on the game interested in it when we can’t use what we grind/pay for properly and we are extremely limited in using it.
Edit: I will say again, I am completely in favor of just outright removing the option to pay for weapons with real life currency entirely.
It’s called balance
I didn’t pay for premium squads because I don’t pay when something is clearly p2w
Sorry but that’s everything I’m going to answer you, now please stop waisting my time and go spend another 180 $ for greedy developers
His suggestion was to make it impossible to obtain/buy spares after you got enough to upgrade in addition of making the upgrades consistent enough to support this change, which you could have read if you didn’t prioritize calling someone out for saying that your post sounded like something a whale would post and subsequently starting a flame war over it over reading the thread.
3 Likes
You aren’t answering what I asked either.
What interest would others and myself have to financially support the game if we are limited to use only one good weapon and forced to use trash for the rest of the infantry?
Good =/= fun and fun =/= good. You can surely bring plenty of fun weapons without having to take the best of the best. It would take away the variety of different weapons, as well as remove the need for the other guns to exist in the first place. I personally do not think this has anything to do with interest towards supporting the game financially either.
To be perfectly honest, I am not sure whether PvP games are the best thing for you to do if you only want the best of the best. After all, games are meant to be fun, and PvP games are meant to be balanced. As such, changes should be made to ensure the game is in fact balanced. Nothing personal against you. Just a word of advice.
I’m sorry but as things are now, I cannot agree to this idea.
There are too few weapons available in the game in it’s current version to be able to implement any sort of weapon limitation without causing problems down the line. Currently it’s a case of, a very short list of weapons are very good, while the rest are quite bad.
IF we get more weapons that are relatively balanced so we can have more variety and we don’t have to give the few good weapons to every infantry in order to be competitive, then my opinion will likely change. But as things are now with the equipment in the game right now, a system like this would only cause frustration.
We already have official confirmation for the amount of weapons to be doubled in open beta.
Adding more weapons is one thing, that one I’m already aware of, having those weapons be balanced and competitive is another.
My concern is that we’ll get a lot of weapons added, out of which only a handful are worth using while the majority are underpowered.
This suggestion is in a way meant to make those OP weapons less OP, by making them more limited in their use. Risk/reward, I suppose. We can’t artificially nerf all weapons into a level playing field.
he will even be happy if he is able to arm everyone with bazooka and secondary smgs …thats all left now
Well in Normandy playtest we had one guy carrying both StG-44 and Mortar
Two of the best weapons in the game on one soldier
actually people agree’s with him. and how you want limit use of better tanks? give them longer cooldown?
maybe
or limit the use of 1-3 better tanks per battle
But this is off-topic
My topic is mostly about guns, if you want to argue about tanks, visit this thread Tank class limits (for current and future updates)
You will not have any fun if you don’t have anyone to play against.
I am late to the party as I started playing two weeks ago. But I have the same concerns as the author of the topic has. If at late campaign levels, let’s say Moscow, we get whole squads of Germans equipped with semi auto rifles, I don’t see how will I be able to feel good while playing. Limiting number of troops II or III to one or two per squad will force you to still use bolt actions as game is set in WW2, not some modern shajt. If you want to get high tier guns, pay for progressing through campaign faster and do spend money on getting STG44, I don’t have anything against that. But amusing yourself against others with full STG44 squad is just not balanced. Which gun on US, Brit or any other side can match this?
Trash? Why are you playing this game if you obviously want AK47 run and gun game?
1 Like
Took you a month to reply
Seethe
Cope
It just proves you don’t read anything… I said I started playing two weeks ago.
Don’t argue with him, I tried but it lead to nowhere
How I understood what @101737576 said is that he wants to feel ‘‘rewarded’’ after unlocking the StG. But the reward is not the rifle itself, the reward are all those noobs he will be able to slaughter
Just like you I disagree with this ideology because as an experienced FPS player I can say that all players should be equal no matter which campaign level they are and skill is what matters
What I mean, for example:
I just installed Enlisted and saw my first enemy. This enemy is armed with full FG-42’s and despite being worse at FPS than me, he kills me with ease
Or if we add Limits, it will look like this:
I installed Enlisted and saw my first enemy, he has one FG-42, one G43 and four K98’s, his squad is a bit stronger than mine but at the end I won the fight because I have more skill than him
lmao.
I lost therefore it must not be my fault.
Why we should limit a weapon which is produced more than 400,000? Compared with it only 90,000 PPD were produced.