"You" doesn't equal "most people". Sorry bud. Ask the balance team what criteria they use for balancing and they'll tell you 1v1, and good balance for 1v1 will carry over to balance for teamgames generally. Note: even though it doesn't look like it from my playercard, I play a lot of teamgames too but only with friends.
Also if they balanced to teamgames they'd have to buff USF and nerf both axis factions lol.
I know the balance team better than you. Maybe I get a strike, but most community members are simply salty trolls, not more, not less.
Maybe start modding and make something for the community instead?
Do you know what they are marking with the current patch? They make the fraction more similar. That is how to balance a multiplayer-game. That is balancing for larger modes, not 1vs1. See it, or stay blind.
Edit: This forum is twisting around, repeating everything over the last years. It becomes boring. |
Imagine thinking 1v1 is a dead gamemode when its literally the most competive mode and what the game gets balanced around.
True, I also play it, to teach friends of mine.
Still, that is no excuse that most people play an other game-mode and most unbalanced things are, because game is balanced for 1vs1. |
Then you should watch less annihilation 4v4 custom games.
3vs3 and 4vs4 random. I don't play custom game, if, then Wikinger-Mod.
Hm, maybe because I have friends? hm... |
Since when US base can be put forward to shoot anyone attempting to decap the point?
Also, ost and soviets do not need that at all.
Often saw games end because a base got destroyed. I also made same, because the game isn't balanced.
So, easy. Let US and Brits work like all other fraction, I am fine with that. That would nearly saved me over 100 hours in that game, because it needs years to destroy their bases. And they have to rebuild them, what a nice change!
God, let rain brain for that community. Herr, lass Hirn regnen! |
Any chance we could get an IRHT rework with this patch? It's a really really stupid unit that incentivizes cheesy unfun strategies and shuts down any allied units that rely on camo as well as support weapon play with minimal effort, and all it's analogues have already been nerfed or reworked.
Lol 1v1 is what this game's balance is designed around. Why don't you actually get to know what you're talking about before you make yourself sound ignorant again.
You know balancing the game for 1vs1 is the reason why it is so shitty? ;D
Most people play other game modes, hmm... maybe the balance-team should make the game for the gamers? |
1) If you're getting your base buildings completely blown up constantly as USF then you have bigger problems than balance (namely your own skill level).
2) USF bases don't pin infantry and pen tanks and can't be placed wherever the hell one likes.
You have to balance the free, effective area denial capabilities of the schwerer with the risk of it getting attacked and destroyed, which isn't even that hard of a thing to deal with on 1v1 maps since cutoffs/important points are oftentimes extremely close to your base anyway (langreskaya, lost glider). If you're that worried about your schwerer getting dumpstered build it in the corner of your base, and you're still on exactly even footing with every other faction that doesn't literally get a giant gun on top of their tech buildings (except maybe USF free officers but they have an asston of sidetechs and more MP bleed anyway).
We are speaking about full tech costs, and not 1vs1.
Stop bringing 1vs1 arugments, this gamemode is dead.
Edit: And I don't play OKW that often, because it is a shitty fraction. The fraction is simply bad designed. |
"potentially not losing any resources or temporarily losing access to production is less risky then certainly losing resources and having to pay again to resume production"
Where the fuck is logic in that?
I can see plenty of entitlement and denial tho.
Same for Allii and US bases? Same bias for Ostheer and Soviet base, where I would also want that mechanism. |
|
Small update of my recherche, depending the deathloop:
Like I said, the movement and crew-mechanic of Maxim works like PaK. That means, that the maxim is allways an on-map-enity, unlike other HMGs. The other versions have a transportation mode, which makes the HMS more like a slot-item.
I found two solutions for work-arounds. BUT the animation will be the problem, it is simply not possible to make Maxim working like other weapons.
1. Adding an other weapon-profile, which will be activated if the squad is on retreat. Changing the setup-time to 0. -> That means, that the gunner (the mover) will switch faster the position so the deathloop will be shorten.
2. Adding an invisible ghost crew on retreat, moving the Maxim (looks stupid) which dies when last squad-member died. (Seems to be buggy).
Edit: I will keep looking for other solutions.
|
It became a bug when it became problem. Snipers in clowncar - were bug or problem? It was coded that snipers can sit inside vehicle, but was reworked.
It is still not a bug, it would be, if it has a problem as working enity.
Or is the Püppchen bugged, because it needs a Crew to operate? No, it is not.
What you want is that Maxim becomes buged, switching around and have broken movement animators. That isn't like this blue-print works.
I am working one something, something doesn't destroy the eyes. |
it IS a bug... and it MAKES the maxims survivability lower than what you would expect from a 6 man machinegun
No it isn't. Maxim simply works like a PaK. It needs a crew to operate, or it looks like sh*t. |
Relic Entertainment
[c.B] Guard2707 
[c.B] Brosras 
女性主意 
101 Airborne Divison 
