You know I have to post this after what you said. It’s somewhat expected:
11 Likes
The alpha test team tests things before release- Like what the name suggests.
The idea is to have someone whose literal job is to pick up, discuss and submit balancing concerns- The pre phase.
The alpha test team is more “Please make sure the changes we introduced aren’t broken.”
Ahha I m doing my part 
2 Likes
All you say is true,
But they’re supposed to release a test branch server, before making big final updates official. Every player (with a pc) will be free to try the test builds and give their feedback.
Hopefully if the feedback is acknowledged by the majority, devs will take notice… I’m hopeful at least. Because the new economy especially must NOT be released WITHOUT extensive testing…
There’s also a very important criteria you forgot for those supposed to give feedback. All the criterion mentioned only take into account us: veterans who bough many premiums and already unlocked everything.
Our feedback, and the feedback of the alphas must not be the only feedback taken into account, because economy is irrelevant for us; many said “meh I unlocked everything, new prices are fine.” When in truth, they are not, if we consider new players, OR f2p players.
I hope new test servers will help create a better game for everyone, newcomers and f2p players included. Not just us, the 5%.
2 Likes
That’s why whenever I make my argument when x or y is expensive, I put it up next to the rates one would acquire currency, and to put things to perspective, how much experience it takes to max a campaign.
I also like to think that anyone with half a mind to discuss economy changes, having maxed everything out, would be well aware of how particularly grindy the game currently is would appreciate differences in how sooner or later players get more competitive gear.
At that point, I’d argue what even would be the point of a dedicated alpha test team if everyone ends up playtesting.
1 Like
Ah, if only…
You know as well as I do, that you grossly overestimate the average player’s common sense (or empathy towards newcomers). 
As for the alphas, I think they’re here expressly to find out bugs in quick updates. Having a test branch for each of those would greatly delay releases, and we also both know how impatient the community is…
The last thing we need is an elitist entitled group of gamers thinking their opinions on game balance is superior because they play the longest or paid the most money and now they have a small bit of power in decision making.
I’m strongly against this idea, it always goes badly
2 Likes
It’s a fair point you bring into this discussion, but a player is a player. A issue is a issue at the end of the day.
Same as a suggestion. All must be considered if, our objective is to trully make the game better.
Alot over the past has been done over our (as players) suggestions ideas or reports. We are the ones playing the game. And I m sure, all of us want the game to be better, not one sided because I payed a b or c value over any other.
1 Like
There’s a difference between “recognizing an issue” and “having the practical skill to prove it”.
More than anything, their own statistics prove that their opinions have turned into a commitment- And the ability to recognize how you can game those statistics in practice shows your knowledge as a player.
Even further, the fact that the in-game statcards on weapons do not necessarily reflect their actual performance due to hidden factors muddles balancing discussions between those aware of the issue, and those arguing in good faith using those same misleading numbers- Which distracts from more pressing concerns.
You may think it’s a bad thing, but the reality is that the common player neither knows nor cares about the nitty gritty details that make their game tic, up until it becomes a genuine issue when those with the knowledge start to abuse them en masse.
Take, for example, the flamethrower bug that permitted paratroopers outside of the event reward squad to equip flamethrowers, and the implications it had in the Normandy and the Pacific campaigns.
Maybe it’s just my opinion, but that gold badge changed you fundamentally. You became like a person who turned to politics. A lot of enthusiasm and maximalism - and now only an official pose and correct propaganda. Don’t be afraid to be yourself, they (devs) won’t take this status away from you anyway. You are one of the veterans.
I’m going to take a leap and assume that you don’t consider yourself among the “commoners” who just don’t understand the game well enough for their opinions to matter. In fact I’d venture to guess that every criteria you gave just happens to fit you yourself.
I could further assume that this whole idea is basically saying that you’re opinion of balance should be considered the correct one, and you and those you consider worthy should be the ones the devs listen to.
That’s just the kind of elitism I’d like to avoid. If somebody plays the game their opinion should have the same weight as anyone else. The more ideas the better, good and bad alike. Those opinions should be considered by the devs, and they should make the final call as to how their game is balanced.
2 Likes
No, not at all 
I just have to pick my words carefully, I can’t display myself on a negative image for others to pick and follow, since I m part of a team that is part of a company. Like here, and on any job I can talk what ever I wanna talk, Because my opinion, is always mine and will always come from me. I just hope you consider, that if I, or anyone display a bad behavior, others might follow. Isn’t hard for me to type nice and still share my point of view on a subject. I still can look into a topic and after read disagree with it, but I can’t go nuts around it got obvious reasons x)… But, above all, I intend to share a nice image, since it’s important for players to feel they are on a place they can share,submit ideas, discussions, issues and so on.
On groups of private discords, or player groups I play with i m Totaly diferent, but, there is a time and a place for everything
But in a side note, I always was and, o still am very positive in enlisted development. You might follow some of my past on the forum I rarely went of my usuall, and always pointed updates or ideas that went live because of our suggestions.
For example, I pushed engineers on old premium squads every devlog I saw back then, untill it was finnaly live into the game. And as a player I still think, Vg1. 5 could and should be a trooper weapon for example.
Tldr I m a player too, but, I also part of a team for a company, i must stay polite not because anyone asked me to, but by my own decision since I feel it’s better for everyone.
1 Like
That’s where a good chunk of my concern is though. I know those of us that play on console would like to have a say, but with test servers only being allowed to PC and a lot of PC members being toxic toward console players when we ask for some balancing mechanics (As the game plays a bit different on console), it often seems like that is not the case.
Even PUBG for example released a test server that could be accessed on console. I know that it would cost devs a bit and that goes against the bottom line however.
That is why that I suggested a dedicated section:
That’s the thing with balancing concerns. It necessitates game knowledge. It’s one thing to suggest adding features or new content, it’s another to look at things as they presently are and try to make sense of it.
It’s uh… Not exactly a leap given my post history from about 2 years ago.
Though, I am perfectly average in practice, with plenty better not being as vocal on the forums.
good ideas here mate, yet
→ that seems like an incredibly bad idea…
Explain why it would be to have that requirement.
I do think this promotes much worse elitism than we have now like Germany players constantly complain about Soviet weapons in Moscow all the time. Or those who defend the stacking of Berlin Axis with reasons like Soviets have good guns or something when the problem is actually the playerbase turning campaigns like Berlin and Tunisia into bot farms.
1 Like
Pay to win feedback
Premium squads aren’t pay to win though. They have smaller soldier counts and usually have gear that is worse than what you can already unlock in campaigns.
Many of the premium squads are victims of power creep especially vehicles yes but there are vehicles like Calliope and Sherman Firefly that can be a game changer depending if Germans have Tigers or just Pumas.
Sure a Moscow German player can spam panzers with the premium stuff they have + the tech tree but those are rare and even worse being a liability to the team especially if Soviets have capable tankers even more with T-34s.
Also Paratrooper squads mostly behind a paywall or have to play insanely long events with time gated rewards. Normandy has the worst of the paratroopers where a 4 stack with paratroopers can just drop on the objective then clear every defender then spawn another paratrooper squad on the next point with the possibility to put 2 paratrooper squads in the lineup.