I disagree with your way to think about stars cmdr...

_________________

Uhhh, yes, when you compare a t-62 to a T-80, the T-62 is crap. So, you are talking non-sense there. What is better? A rank 0 Chieftain or a Rank 0 Challenger? We all know the answer to this. I'm not complaining about the way the units are balanced, they are good as far as I am concerned, but a higher star player will have far superior units to someone on say...the starter deck. Saying otherwise is just dishonest and disingenuous.

_________________

Im sorry, its just the truth. A 7 star tank will spank a star one any day of the week. More stars, means more units of better quality. We SHOULD know how many stars a player has so that we can choose balanced matches. Or, have a rating system. Bronze, Silver, Gold and Platinum star on a player profile. The more stars a player has the higher his colour of star or something?

I dunno, but, it needs addressing.

_________________

spot on.

please anyone who understands, we can speak in volumes to the developers politely by requesting this necessary suggestion. there is no argument to be had here just positive outcome. It is not about individual unit balancing.

personally i would go further by making whats happening stop happening. but atleast and its all i can expect - is to have a display warning me about the unfair or fair match im about to have,

I am a nato player but i do know the T-80 costs a lot more.. So how is the T-62 crap? If you flank the the T-80 with leopards it will just die the same.

You are just upset about not having the option to that tank yet and someone else does. The other player will not have the advantage i think because he still has to field them effective. Otherwise its free points for the other team. This makes whatever you say irelevant..

Quess you have to play some more..

As soon as you reach level 10 you've got one faction pretty much finished anyway. Perhaps a bit annoying to start off with, but something that nobody will say anything about in two weeks. It perhaps would have been wiser for them to start people who were greater level 5 in the beta back at level 5 so it's not quite so much of a shock, but it's ok as it is. Doesn't take long to unlock stuff at all.

Forget the money it costs, the fact that the option is available to a player is enough to tip the balance. Sure, a T-62 costs lest, but a T-80 will chew through T-62s in the right hands. And most of the people that play this game properly know how to handle the expensive tanks to a point where 4 of them will chew through battalions of the cheaper tanks.

But I am not here arguing unit balance, we need a visible form of ranking system for players representing how many stars they have. The ranking systems could also take into account how many HIGH star value units that a player has, bumping up his ranking, something like this.

Its not going to affect game play at all in any way shape or form...so, why would anyone be bothered by this? Unless you like picking fights on noobs to make yourself feel better about yourself.

*Oh, and by the way Alixx, I have the T-80 already, and the T-72 line and the T-55 line. So dont try and make me look like some petulant child.

_________________

Most of the responses are people who don't understand the real problem or worse beta players who like beating up on new players.

In a normal RTS having the level indicator represent "multiplayer experience" is fine since there aren't unlocks, decks, etc. A level 1 player is playing with the same game pieces as any other level 1 player. Thus an increase in level only indicates time played or experience. That is not how it works in this game.

When a new player starts a game against another level 1 player they expect to be in an even fight not drastically overpowered. People who say an Apache is no better than large groups of starter decks helos are simply ones who like face stomping people. Do you play with the starter decks or customized decks? If the answer is the latter than you have proven that the unlock units are better or have more value.

The real problem here is this game uses an RTS level system improperly thus causing confusion with their player base.

For the people who say this will even itself out in a few weeks well I can only guess you think the game will fail because any successful long lasting game needs new blood. This will be a continual problem until the game dies which can be in a few weeks or years.

another fix could be to rise peoples levels based upon stars collection. and any further level rising can come from mp based point accumulation. Perfect !

This way if you fight a level 1 player you know hes a proper level 1 player.

If your player abbility to command high value/threat units in multiplayer is inclusive of what you have done in single player then WHY is the levels system not inclusive and indicitive too ? If it was there be no problems here.

wonder what you are compensating for with all the pics in your signature


and if he wants fair match, he should play ranked games