Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'balancing'.
Found 3 results
Inspired by the above thread I have read, where the beginning of the match is far too predictable for the end in many cases, I propose a balancing measure. I propose that in Warzone matches, the winning team needs an additional soldier in order to capture objectives - for instance, if one team is winning and is attacking an objective, at least two soldiers from that team are needed to claim that objective - objectives cannot be claimed when only one soldier from the winning team is present, even if no opponent from the losing team is present at an objective. The losing team only needs at least one soldier to claim it back. In the case that the winning team outnumbers the losing team by a significant amount, more soldiers from the winning team are needed to defend an objective. For instance, if the winning team has 16 soldiers, but the losing team has around 10 or 11 soldiers, 3 members of the winning team are needed to (re)capture an objective at the same rate that one soldier from the losing team can. To further illustrate examples, in the unlikely scenario that the winning team has 16 soldiers, but the losing team has around 4 or 5 soldiers, 4 members of the winning team are needed to do the same. I'm not sure how well this will balance the game, or if it will even serve the intended purpose. This would still make organized players who are part of a clan or whatever fight effectively. At the same time though, it would encourage more individualistic players who are on the winning team to work harder with their team and/or squad to ensure their objectives are defended. I admit I have thought of this based on my rather recent experiences of playing Warzone matches, where I have trouble staying alive when either playing the objective or simply just coming across enemies (more of this on another thread - I don't blame all of this on TTK tweaks from recent patches). I also admit I prefer to play in a more individualistic manner, too. If I am on the winning team, in many of my experiences, it's either because it's as a result of good team work from the squad leader, or as a result of enough players being able to capture and defend enough objectives closer to the start of the game. I wonder what the World War 3 community thinks of this.
I have played loads of matches with different loadouts, gadgets and weapons. To my surprise most weapons seem pretty evenly balanced. I felt like i could totally choose my own preferred weapon without being punished for that choice. It doesn`t matter if using Shotguns, Assault rifles or Semi automatic rifles. It is a little bit annoying to get a TOR in the knee and just fly 30 meters high in the air like i would have been hit from a tank, but considering that it`s a very heavy weapon and therefor probably the main class of that player it`s okay. There is plenty of cover and smoke grenades to play against it. Personally i feel like the power of certain automatic rifles can compete with the speed of others and i was quite enjoying to use different weapons actually. I did play a little bit of sniper, but that`s not really my preferred way to go. However the other sniper rifles did feel like they can match the TOR, especially usefully is the light sniper rifle as a secondary weapon and a light assault rifle as primary weapon. What i didn`t like is the light machine guns. I think the damage output is okay, it`s not too weak and not too strong. The main thing with these guys is that you kind of have a role in the match, which you usually can`t play. There is to many obstacles, to much this, not enough of that. I mean when you are inside a building you don`t exactly want to lie down on the floor so you can shoot people, but if you don`t the recoil is so bad that you can`t hit a damn thing even when it`s directly in front of you. On short distances it`s a killer (if you can lie down), on medium to long distances it`s a great supportive weapon for your team. The main problem is, that you can not use it on areas where you would be needed the most. The Bullpup in particular seems okay to be carried around, but can not quite compete with assault rifles or semi automatic rifles, even when the ammunition type is equal to the ammunition of other assault rifles. In close combat it`s pretty much the other way around, where you have the handling to simply walk into a room and blast away everything you see, where sometimes you`re thinking man this weapon is ridiculous. The other LMG`s can not be carried around like that but have a greater range that most of the time you can not take advantage of. I`m not quite sure what to suggest here. As mentioned before it doesn`t seem like they totally out-power other weapons, it`s more or less that only 1 LMG can reliably brought into the fight (i do know that people play other LMG`s with great success, don`t panic). I had some extremely funny and great moments, where i was lying down with one of the LMG`s and i killed multiple people in a row, but quickly died due to the fact that i couldn`t really move or take cover, but that`s rather rare. I would like to know the opinion of other people. I mean particularly using it, not getting shot by it (as i totally understand that`s rather negative).
Why do 10 round mags weigh the same amount as 20 round mags and 30 round mags, it makes no sense. They really need to adjust the weight on all the mags ingame since they are all the same besides the 50/60 round mags meaning there is no reason to run anything lower than a 30rd magazine. Honestly the weight difference between a 30 round mag and a 50/60 is almost nothing so if your not using 50/60 your at least a 30 just putting yourself at a disadvantage.