Armed officers feel almost impossible to take down with most firearms, or at least they’re far too difficult to weaken. It becomes frustrating when regular weapons barely deal any damage. Since the game already includes armoured vehicles and officers with stronger weapons, the balance feels off. To deal decent damage, you practically need to rent a £750+ weapon, not even counting permanent purchases. The game was perfect before now it doesn’t seem balanced at all.
Civs has always called this game unbalanced
As it always has been.
I would love to see u play on civ for some time against mo19 and more
I agree. 100%
I agree it’s unbalanced, but @zaperxr is fully aware and of course is in MO19. He knows as much as you and I that the game is the way it is, that there is room for improvement, however, making people feel intimidated whether you agree or not, is not the answer. And I say intimidated because the way you’ve worded your message.
1 Like
Unfortunately this suggestion will go nowhere as the vast majority of MPS cannot possibly comprehend their obvious gameplay advantage.
Civs still have no consistent way of earning money. For the purpose of simply adding features for the sake of it, armour gets introduced and given in varying %'s to MPS ranks / divisions completely free. Naturally civs have to burn through their money to have a similar experience, money that civs are basically forced to spend Robux on because there’s no other way to actually make sustainable money and enjoy the game.
If you don’t have a perm automatic weapon, enjoy spending £800+ cash every life to contest a single armed response officer who spent 450 Robux once to have an unlimited supply of ammo, firearms, armour and numbers. It’s okay though because you’ll get a salary of £40 occasionally.
1 Like
Now, I play on civilian almost exclusively, and have a permanent UMP-45. What is the point of complaining about body armour when you can just reclaim your weapon after every respawn, if you die?
So your logic is deal with having a bad experience fighting armour vs no armour, and that it doesn’t matter because you can just respawn and get your gun again?
I think you’ve mistaken the point I am trying to make here.
Please do clarify, I do want to understand your point.
My entire point is in the paragraph above, I’ve explained my problem with the economy and how it doesn’t work with the armour system for civs.
Would I be asking for you to clarify if I understood your point? Your original post seems more like you rambling on than a point. I still do not get it, thats why I ant you to clarify so I do understand precisely what it is.
I’d happily get in a discord call with you to explain it if you can’t understand what I’m saying.
Armour isn’t economically viable to consistently purchase in a game with no reasonable way of making money. You are then forced to fight without armour, and then at a significant disadvantage to MPS who get 50%+ for free. I think this is crystal clear in terms of what I am putting forward.
Now it makes complete sense thank you, I agree with you
Should have just put that as your original post, and I genuinely mean that
I never said that it was balanced tho.
The game is always unbalanced and it will probably never be balanced I’m just saying that you will still call the game unbalanced if you get this.
He also said that this game was perfect before but most of the civs thought it was unbalanced back then too.
no they didnt LOL, it was alot more fun back then. If even it was more unfair for mps instead off civs
3 Likes
They did end of discussion.
Personally, in my opinion, I would rather agree that they buff ARVs/MO19s gun damage rather adding armour which is skill-less, As of now their guns do some good dmg, but most civs hope to see the armour reduced or even removed as a whole, adding a bit more dmg to the ARV/MO19 guns and reducing armour provides actual skill to take down civs, and not just mag dump into thin air while armour is saving you. This way, as stated provides skill to take down civs but still with a advantage (More Dmg).