Ice_King

Members - Veterans
  • Content count

    2,889
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

138 Good

4 Followers

About Ice_King

  • Rank
    Brigadier General

Faction & Soldier

  • Faction
    All
  • Soldier
    Infantry

Recent Profile Visitors

643 profile views
  1. It's been broken since the Soviets were added. Kinda surprising if this has gone unnoticed.
  2. You're right that wars are controlled by the few. Also sometimes all it takes is a unicum action game player or two to dominate battles. You're wrong to think that Reto can fix it no matter what they do. After Squad 2.0 it should be obvious that anything they do will only make things worse.
  3. Pretty much. It's unfortunate that despite the validity of the OP's complaint, people are already forecasting that the thread will be locked.
  4. Putting the players first

    It looks like the chickens are finally coming home to roost with this game. You can all argue and nitpick about cones and sway and scopes but the underlying issue which covers it all is Reto's attitudes and capabilities. Or lack thereof. I've said in the past that Reto listens, and they do in fact listen to the players. The problem comes when they try to digest that feedback they reach very insane conclusions about what that feedback "actually means" so they end up making bonehead decisions. From Quesada build to whenever I stopped playing (shortly after Squad 2.0) every update except Xylander (for about two weeks until the russian warfund fiasco got patched in) made the game worse overall rather than better, and squad 2.0 was the last straw for me. Squad 2.0 is a pretty good example of Reto decision making. The whole idea on the forums was asking for pilots to be able to platoon up with tankers, ect. Now technically Reto delivered on that promise and players can group with others of a different class.... sort of. But that's the problem. Every other aspect of the game was changed for the worse to accommodate this half-delivered request. Nobody would have asked for cross-class grouping if we knew what we'd actually get. Reto never gives you a present without a few lumps of coal attached.
  5. Germany wins the entire game

    I was originally going to post a comment pointing out that no one wins against reto, we all lose. But I then noticed it was posted by viS. viS is such a badass in this game I can't bring myself to argue with him.
  6. If this game was ever going to be good, it would have been good by now. Instead it's gone the opposite direction for years. Dropping the "strategy" portion of the game would be fine with me and much healthier for Reto, but I understand it's a unique thing and there are probably somehow still people who passionately like it.
  7. The war has and will always be a complete cluster. There's no changing that, ever. I'm sorry to say it but Reto isn't capable or willing to do it. This has been demonstrated over years and years. Creative solutions have been offered in the past. The WF bonus was added for a reason, but naturally somebody is always gonna feel butthurt about anything they don't get. Reason doesn't win in the modern world, only outrage and entitlement. We're in the Age of Outrage unfortunately. The only way to get attention is to scream as loudly and as often as possible.
  8. The Worst Decision Ever Made

    Here we are, years after the fact, still complaining about the same broken things that never get fixed. I only quoted this paragraph but @Flint74's entire post is pure gold. Reto's mentality, attitude, and approach killed the game more than pretty much any other combination of factors.
  9. No more UD was a bad idea

    Anyone else willing to admit that the "strategy game" has always been, and will always be, broken?
  10. Generals 1% rich and wealthy

    Proof that Reto are nothing more than bourgeois and petty bourgeois, exploiting the workers and players and offering baseball returns on warbonds! We need a permanent revolution!
  11. Here's what Reto did with the star polling. They ignored instances where 5/win, 1/lose altogether, they were solely looking for battles which both sides rated either low or high. No problem so far right? Enter Reto-logic. They then took it among themselves to "guess" why these battles were rated the way they were. A drop down list would have given them more accurate information sooner, and limited the amount of Reto-logic creeping its way into the game. Basically they concluded that players like longer battles. That's it. They must really be scratching their heads nowadays because the last 6 times I've tried playing this game the battles lasted effectively less than 5 minutes.
  12. We suggesting this endlessly when the star rating "feature" was first implemented. It was rejected of course, on the grounds that it simply made too much sense to be included in a reto-made game. But seriously, the actual reason given at the time wasn't much better. RedBjarn said they wanted to be able to "draw their own conclusions" based on the ratings, instead of having the conclusions simply handed to them for free. Yet another facepalm moment in Reto's infamous history.
  13. PTRD is compensation for our tanks being complete rubbish.
  14. The real problem with the game is NOT the list of problems with the game. It's the mentality, attitude, and level of competence that brought the list about in the first place. While Operation Glastnost is a commendable initiative, it's at least two years too late. Much like the western economies of the world, collapse is inevitable unless drastic changes are made, and much like in the western economies, those changes wont be made for lack of political will.
  15. Staged has sucked for quite a while, but war has pretty much always sucked. At this point I'm thinking the concept of giving players AT's to be responsible for maybe wasn't the way to go. Too late now though.