I'm just saying that they could have implement the Campaign system in a much better way. Giving other players radical advantages in MP, for SP performance is just wrong. Why give a player a gun, for just punching a computer?

lol @ mp heros. CAUSE WE'VE GOT STARSSSSSS IN OUR EYESSSSSSSSSSSS!

_________________

It's not a radical advantage after a few weeks. The unlock system is really just there to introduce players to the game. Doesn't take long to have 25 units unlocked for a deck, and after that it's just trying alternatives.

If stars spent instead of level is displayed on MP profiles then I think everyone can be happy. All "levels are is an indicator of how long you have been playing MP. It does not measure skill. If you are playing unearned games and are choosy about your opponents then I think the ladder rank and stars spent are a better indication of what you are going up against. Nothing is broken, and even the basic units when used well can stomp more advanced ones.

As some have already said... give yourself a week or two (its only been out for a few days) and everyone will be balanced out (will have enough stars to unlock most everything)...

However... even with a ton of unlocks, you are only as good as your taticts - i've lost to ppl who have less unlocks... and have beaten ppl with more. In all honesty, the best way to learn is by playing against someone who is much better than you and asking them at the end of the game, "do you have any advice". Most ppl will be more than helpful... I've learned so much from others, and to the same... have passed on info that I have picked up.

Don't stress... keep playing. If you want, friend me and we can play a few nonranked 1v1s, get your stars up, and most importantly BOTH learn this game

I'm sorry but this is just out right wrong. You can't forget the money it costs since that is the whole point. The more expensive unit should perform better under equal circumstance but it ties up more of your resources, making it more painful if the unit is lost. It's a risk vs reward system and a very basic one.

Now please explain how just having a unit in your deck tips the balance in any way? I have units in my deck I never buy and deploy, so how are they affecting anything?



If you display stars as some indicator of "strength in play" then you'll just have other problems. What about the guy that spent enough points to unlock the Apache and nothing else? Someone like the OP will look at his 6 star rating and figure he has no units more powerful than a 10 star deck, which could easily be wrong.

Why can't you just assume that every opponent you play might have access to every unit in the game? The units are balanced by their cost and availability numbers, not by their locked/unlocked status.

If you dont buy and deploy them then they shouldnt be in your deck. I will resist the urge for a snarky comment.

As to the cost Vs Value of an opponent having a T80 when you have only a starter pack...if you cannot see the advantage to that then you are either blind, ignorant or just plain stupid.

So tell me, WHY does a T80 cost more?

_________________

I agree completely, personally I don't have an issue with the rank of my opponent because I play for fun, not to win. I do think that having something like a "stars spent" counter will appease people like the OP without fundamentally changing anything about the game. Maybe stars earned in the campaign shouldn't count for multiplayer, maybe the campaign should just reward experience instead. Either way would fundamentally change the game and anger everyone who has already bought the game, I know I would be if all of my unlocks were taken away. With my recommendation all that would happen is a simple change to the interface which would have zero effect on gameplay.

I know that when I unlocked the Abrams (not Abrahams for crying out loud, I'm a tanker please refer to my chariot by it's proper name) I thought it would kick serious ass, imagine my surprise when they were torn up because I wasn't using them properly. And when I went to call in some more I was even more surprised to discover I didn't have any. Having "better" units helps, but if you know how to play to your units strengths and weaknesses you'll be successful regardless of what you're using.

My first game was a 2v1 (other person lost connection during deployment) and everyone was level 1. I hadn't tried the singleplayer at this point, so I just went into the game and was surprised when I was confronted by Challengers and Apaches. 6000 points for me and 1000 points for them later, it was obvious that expensive tanks and helicopters are just expensive wastes of money if you don't know how to use them.

If you know what units you need you can get everything you need to hold your own from the first 13 comstar SP mission.

Don't resist the urge for a snarky comment - I asked for an explanation on your statement that simply having an advanced unit available is enough to tip the balance. I'd still like to know how that is possible.



Quite a compelling argument you have there. I said that the unit's cost is the balance, not the unlocked/locked status. You have no counter other than to suggest I am either blind, ignorant, or just plain stupid.

Why does a T80 cost more - do you mean in stars to unlock or force points during a game?

They cost more force points because they are a more powerful unit.. well I already explained that in my previous post where I said it's a very simply case of balancing risk vs reward. They can be more effective on a unit per unit basis but also yields more victory points to the enemy on a unit per unit basis.