I've yet to see a match where entente forces actually win

[Silver_GunAZE]

This game is full of German-loving fanatics that have mostly known imperial german commanders as their profile pictures.Naturally they're only joining the central forces every match and because they actually take the match seriously and actually play the objective,the central forces always win.
I'm starting to see same players that has a profile of German empire vibes every time I enter the one single full match.
This isn't a huge deal because Verdun has even more of these fanatics and I saw a lot of entente wins there.Also in Verdun there are a lot of entente fanatics too with profile pictures of some french or Churchill while taking the names.
I don't think being a fanatic in these ww1 titles is the problem,I'm blaming the dwindling player numbers,specifically number of players that play the game regularly and take winning somewhat seriously.
In Tannenberg,there are no serious players in entente side that understands the game and plays objective,unlike in Verdun where everyone from each side fights fiercely doesn't matter if they're noobs or pros.

[TrolleybusFan]

I'm not sure if the game stats are delayed or bugged but I play Latvian Riflemen 99% of the time, I've played for 60 hours or so and my win percentage is currently 39% so its not too one-sided. Although it would be good to see some actual stats from the devs over what side has won/lost more.

[Silver_GunAZE]

Originally posted by Rigafan:

I'm not sure if the game stats are delayed or bugged but I play Latvian Riflemen 99% of the time, I've played for 60 hours or so and my win percentage is currently 39% so its not too one-sided. Although it would be good to see some actual stats from the devs over what side has won/lost more.

yeah it would be nice to have some stats

[drfever]

The big event recently where they tracked all the matches was almost perfectly even between the factions. I'd say those are pretty strong statistics.

[Some Rando]

Originally posted by Black_Vulcan:

...In Tannenberg,there are no serious players in entente side that understands the game and plays objective.

I think this is more a problem of lacking a tutorial. The game allows a person drop right into things without explaining first HOW the game is meant to be played, the importance of acting as part of a 4-man squad, etc.
This is less of a problem in 'Verdun' as the game lets you know if your side is attacking or defending and there's no ambiguity. In Tanny, both attack and defence have to happen at once and requires co-ordination between squad mates, and between squads on a team.
This can be accomplished simply enough to do by using the NCOs ability to interact with the map (i.e. trace attack paths that the rest of the team can see) but even veteran players have often never seen it done before or know how to do it.

[Silver_GunAZE]

Originally posted by Some Rando:

Originally posted by Black_Vulcan:

...In Tannenberg,there are no serious players in entente side that understands the game and plays objective.

I think this is more a problem of lacking a tutorial. The game allows a person drop right into things without explaining first HOW the game is meant to be played, the importance of acting as part of a 4-man squad, etc.
This is less of a problem in 'Verdun' as the game lets you know if your side is attacking or defending and there's no ambiguity. In Tanny, both attack and defence have to happen at once and requires co-ordination between squad mates, and between squads on a team.
This can be accomplished simply enough to do by using the NCOs ability to interact with the map (i.e. trace attack paths that the rest of the team can see) but even veteran players have often never seen it done before or know how to do it.

Strongly agree

[Doctor Faustus]

One of the reasons for the fact that Centrals win like 70% of the matches is also due to the imbalance of weapons wielded by both sides. Centrals have the ridiculously op M95 rifle which seems to have zero weight in game and has a fire rate comparable to a semi-auto rifle (especially inside attack order radius). I know the M95 is a great rifle, but not nearly as op as in game, otherwise the Austrians would have fared way better in the war than they actually did. Entente has very good guns too like the Arisakas and the M93, but none of them are comparable to the "noob guns" M95 and Stutzen. To make things worse, many Entente positions use Mosin type rifles which suffer from heavy weapon sway (which is historically accurate, the Mosin is extremely front heavy and had other problems too). Many players exploit these imbalances simply because they are very obvious. To nerf the M95 would be a good thing gameplay-wise as well as for realism.
The other problem, like OP stated, is that some of the better players don't care much for balanced games and like to gank up on a bunch of weaker players, which is rather shameful, but you have this problem in many team based FPS games. My advice would be to play between 8 and 10 PM on European servers when the more mature player base is online, which doesn't play this game for 'ideological' reasons, but for fun and balanced matches.

[Silver_GunAZE]

Originally posted by Doctor Faustus:

One of the reasons for the fact that Centrals win like 70% of the matches is also due to the imbalance of weapons wielded by both sides. Centrals have the ridiculously op M95 rifle which seems to have zero weight in game and has a fire rate comparable to a semi-auto rifle (especially inside attack order radius). I know the M95 is a great rifle, but not nearly as op as in game, otherwise the Austrians would have fared way better in the war than they actually did. Entente has very good guns too like the Arisakas and the M93, but none of them are comparable to the "noob guns" M95 and Stutzen. To make things worse, many Entente positions use Mosin type rifles which suffer from heavy weapon sway (which is historically accurate, the Mosin is extremely front heavy and had other problems too). Many players exploit these imbalances simply because they are very obvious. To nerf the M95 would be a good thing gameplay-wise as well as for realism.
The other problem, like OP stated, is that some of the better players don't care much for balanced games and like to gank up on a bunch of weaker players, which is rather shameful, but you have this problem in many team based FPS games. My advice would be to play between 8 and 10 PM on European servers when the more mature player base is online, which doesn't play this game for 'ideological' reasons, but for fun and balanced matches.

Good analysis,that reminds me,I'm mostly even killed by m95 in tannenberg

[PhunkyJazzLord]

To be fair, there's a sizable crowd of Entente fanatics also. I don't have hard statistics, but it seems like most of them are Russians who like to play as the Russians. In fact, about 60% of the time, the Central powers has less teammates than the Entente side does (according to my experience).

I have seen the Entente win many times. Teamwork and player skills are the number one determiners of success in this game, as it should be. As for which side does better, it often is lopsided, even over the course of a match as people leave and join mid-game.

Some Rando is right: it's painful to think of all the noobs who went into a match cold and had a bad experience because they had no idea what they were doing, never to return again. There needs to be better in-game tutorial information.

As for the imbalance of sides, Doctor Faustus hit the nail on the head: the Central powers have superior weapons any day of the week, mostly derived from weapon sway. Whoever thought that this dose of "realism" justified a lopsided game balance and a tainted game experience should actually play the game more often (not that the game is unplayable, just frustrating at times). Bad sway robs a player an extra 0.5 to 2 seconds of aiming, which frequently does make the difference between life and death. It is for this reason that I have a harder time enjoying the game if I'm not playing as the Central powers, especially on wide open maps where sway issues are severely multiplied by longer distance shots. On the other hand, this does make me grateful or all the Entente fanboys out there!

[Silver_GunAZE]

Damn,wouldn't have imagine that my whining thread would attract this many solutions,a dev should read these!
You guys are absolutely right

[Rozumny(PL)]

Real problem are players who does not follow orders. They always join winnig side, so sometimes they made it losing side. I realy fell more able to take some objective as squad leader of squad full of bots instead real random players :P

[Silver_GunAZE]

Originally posted by Rozumny(PL):

Real problem are players who does not follow orders. They always join winnig side, so sometimes they made it losing side. I realy fell more able to take some objective as squad leader of squad full of bots instead real random players :P

Hell,I've seen a bot squad leader do his job better than real human

[Sirsucksalot]

My best Entente weapon is with the Cossack sword, which I think says it all.

[Europa Defender]

im sure there are ww1 fanitics on both sides, with me included, but its alot better than the fanitics of ww2.

[Europa Defender]

i think the biggest problem with the game is the bots, as although easy to kill, they tend to go on one single point, and i often have to capture the objective by myself against a bunch of bots and the occional player

[General WVPM]

In my experience the game is reasonably balanced. Ive seen bith sides win on all maps. In terms of kdr the entente has a statistical advantage, see the campaign results. Entente wins every campaign because a campaign is about kdr which is strange, since the rest of the game is about sectors.

I find that the largest balance issue is overcompensation. I've often seen a team score a minor victory capturing 75% of the map, followed by too many winning long term players defecting. This results in a one sided victory for the side that was losing initialy.