This is really cool, but shows an odd trend in favor of the Nazis. Only one statistic is in favor of the US, and that's the win-rate of the map "Donner," which is parts of a percent higher than the Nazis. Oh, that and the Bazooka's secondary is more accurate on the American side.

My question, to you, is if you think it's lack of balance in level/weapon design, or if better players simply prefer playing as the Nazis?

God knowns Neo Nazism is rampant on DoD.

Oh and: Am I the only one that misses the British maps and weapons? Thier support and assult rifle were awesome, albiet the same thing.

so anyways

I think the issue is more the design of the weapons than an actual balance issue. allied weapons are, for the most part, lower damage, higher rate of fire, thus encouraging more spray-and-pray tactics, resulting in less accurate hit ratios.

the axis weapons are much lower rate of fire, lower ammo count, but high accuracy and high damage, encouraging players to take the time to place their shots (because chances are, if you miss your first shot, you won't get another), thus resulting in a much higher hit ratio.

I don't think so much that the sides are unbalanced in sheer effectiveness as much as their weapons just operate differently.

[edit] okay maybe not. just looked at the percentage of map wins, which kinda destroys my theory. [/edit]

The reason is the K98. Well, and the STG 44. They are just plain better than their Allied equivalents. I got really good with the BAR and the Garand, but they were just never equal to the stg and K98. Not to mention that a lot of the maps are downhill, in favor of the Nazis.

I definitely agree. the K98 does the same damage as a sniper rifle, so especially on servers with the sniper class restricted, the axis has an unfair advantage (more rifles).

and the BAR is very unwieldy to use for an assault weapon. The recoil is insanely high. personally, I think they should bring back the bipod it had in the original DoD, and that might balance out the allies a lot more. it is, after all, supposed to be more of a support weapon than an assault weapon, but as it is there's no real way to offer "support" with it. The thompson is a much better weapon for head-on assaults, and the M1/springfield/.30 cal are all much better for long range support, leaving the BAR essentially useless. If they turned it back into a much more mobile and versatile MG (albeit weaker and with less ammo), it'd definitely be more useful.

I miss that cylinder British gun :-(

the sten?

I think the M1 Carbine (secondary for Bazooka) has too little recoil. You can pop of an entire clip with out the gun moving arounf very much. The BAR is perfectly fine to use. It's a matter of knowing how to use it. Drop to a crouch, get the crosshair in the chest and let the recoil take the rounds up to the head. If trying to get anything at more than medium range, you have to be prone and fire in short bursts.

The nice thing about the recoil in DoD unlike CS is that as long as you can keep the mouse under control, you can minimize the recoil to a degree. In CS, going full auto from any range outside spitting distance is a serious no-no because the accuraccy goes nuts on you. In DoD, you can go full auto with the Thompson from medium range and actually get a kill or two. I always prefered DoD over CS because of this.

i ficksed teh thread :O


I havent played DoD in a while. maybe I will soon.

Not if you know what you're doing.

Exactly.

There are people who have recoils memorized on CS. They'll spray their AK-47 and headshot you every time.

[QUOTE=Cool Matty]There are people who have recoils memorized on CS. They'll spray their AK-47 and headshot you every time.[/QUOTE]