Not a single Top-15 player, plays as PACT.

[vitmerc]

Even better, out of those 15, 12 have a aircraft unit % in the range of 10-15% of all units they used.
I mean, think how it sounds.
1 aircraft per 6.6-10 ground units of any type? Sounds familiar for NATO players eh?

[Kamil]

If you want talk about rank as example of balance plz wait when we got normal game mode (conquest) not retarded destruction and every possible easy spam or exploit ll be fixed. (Im glad that chopper spam was partially fixed but still freaking inf could kill CV fast right after crash).

[Darasuum]

I fail to see the hate against mixed pact decks. Works fine for me, only thing missing would be something like the chaparrel(then again a 2800m ranged Tunguska works 'okey-ish', except against Hellfire missiles...).

But back on topic, it is kinda suspisious that most the ranked peeps play NATO only. Although I do see the problem with a couple of my buddies as well. They preffer playing NATO only.

[HaryPL]

mixed NATO is the only deck option for NATO on par with the USSR - every other deck is lacking in specific (and often: important) areas.

the thing is - to create an optimal deck with NATO you *have* to mix your units, while for PACT creating an optimal deck means mostly taking the USSR deck (and gaining access to approx. 60% of PACTs prototypes - which usually outperform the rest of the mixed PACT units by a good margin).

Exactly that.
USSR is the best deck, it has everything - now, even a napalm bomber.

The only reason there is so few players in ranked or in 1vs1 is that while it's generally superior to any other deck, the NATO still has some small possibility of 'faster' start with laser-guided Nighthawk, Humvees and stuff - and with current default 'destruction', small games are all about the start.

It's also worth a note that mixed NATO is only comparable deck to USSR but on the same time USSR thanks to national bonus gets +1 activation point ( hello 6/8 Hinds) and profits from prototypes while loosing in fact nothing to *theoretical* benefits from mixed deck.

Sounding bold or not, the USSR should have 33 activation points and mixed PACT 34..

[Jawehawk]

You can't use ranked games in discussions about balance, as those people will exploit every single thing they can. If there is some broken game design, they'll exploit it. They aren't good players. They just know how to abuse stuff.

[Babubudu]

I would like to answer this. As a PACT player (not mixed, I play USSR) I must say that with various "fixes" it became too hard to win with PACT in ranked games.
Ranked games is most about cheap and fast units, NATO side here has big advantage, so PACT is much weaker in this aspect.

Most of top players play NATO because in this way they can earn victory much easier than playing for PACT.

I don't play ranked games anymore - to play ranked I must play for NATO (to win), but I like to play for PACT so 10 vs 10 is only option for me.

P.S. Wanna fix it? Buf all AA, Nerf F-117, Decrease price for all PACT tanks.

[tiago]

I would like to answer this. As a PACT player (not mixed, I play USSR) I must say that with various "fixes" it became too hard to win with PACT in ranked games.
Ranked games is most about cheap and fast units, NATO side here has big advantage, so PACT is much weaker in this aspect.

Most of top players play NATO because in this way they can earn victory much easier than playing for PACT.

I don't play ranked games anymore - to play ranked I must play for NATO, but I like to play for PACT so 10 vs 10 is only option for me.

P.S. Wanna fix it? Buf all AA, Nerf F-117, Decrease price for all PACT tanks.

If the correct tank balance was pursued we would not have this issue. Pact tanks should probably loose some AP (at least 1 on the 125mm cannons).. and most of their tanks should have availability increased with a light reduction on cost.

Before counter whined.. a reduction of 1 AP would make huge difference on most tank against high end NATO tanks. And I would almost love if t80U was GONE, so that it could not be used any more as an argument for not giving PACT their proper doctrinal tank capabilities ( slightly weaker tanks but in larger numbers).


PACT should have a superior early game tankwise, while nato could keep its superior early game on other mobile units.

[[EUG]MadMat]

Pact / NATO victory ratio in ranked is presently at 48% / 52%.
So it is quite even ...

[xXSunSlayerXx]

Pact / NATO victory ratio in ranked is presently at 48% / 52%.
So it is quite even ...

since the top 15 players are mainly nato, wouldn't that mean that balance is actually slightly in favor of pact? since "the best" 15 players can't get a major win-advantage for their faction?

edit: nevermind that thought, without more statistics about mirror matches my theory doesn't work...

[Hidden Gunman]

It means that fewer Pact dedicated players are punching well above their weight...

...and glorious combat vehicle of model BMP2 is victory bringing!!!