Xeator

Members - Veterans
  • Content count

    3,284
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

747 Excellent

1 Follower

About Xeator

  • Rank
    Brigadier General

Faction & Soldier

  • Faction
    All
  • Soldier
    All types

Recent Profile Visitors

2,533 profile views
  1. Apparently even the existence of these maps is uncertain at this point, even though there is clear evidence of them in the game files even at this very moment. Completely unfinished, though just by looking at a few pictures I fail to see how. So, guessing this year wont be the year of maps either. Maybe next year then, lol...
  2. Xeator

    I freaking love the PTRS

    Well the speed at which you can destroy tanks once armor has been worn out is just stupid. I mean its like a 5 shot semiauto bazooka at that point. Damage when penetrated needs to be looked at if nothing else.
  3. I mean the least they could do is let us decide whats worth playing and this goes beyond maps as well, like take mortars for instance. These have been developed and Im guessing were not too far from getting released, so why not weigh in player feedback? Why not open them up on proto to test? Endless opportunities to make sure that if they indeed are garbage either leave them be or just rework them to a better more suitable state. How many times has mountain town been redone at this point? See, it cant be that difficult to iron out the kinks. And Im pretty sure that at this stage its much easier to push these maps out than start over from scratch.
  4. Didnt even remember that there was a whole official topic about it. Now to be fair, it could have design issues, but its one more map. It gets dull playing the same maps over and over for so many years. Just anything at this point would be a fresh breeze.
  5. I remember when tank vs tank was advertised before gamescom some years ago and there was some promo material going around. Back then I was expecting the gamemode to include at least two maps. Here is one of those pictures: Then when you go digging through the game files you can actually find this map. You can clearly see that the bridge on the promo picture is the one shown on the map in the middle in the valley. Where is T04M09? Please release it! Some other maps worth mentioning that I cannot recognize: So, a lot of stuff thats been in the works. We even had the "year of maps" some years ago and in the end received very little in terms of maps. I know the amount of staff is low at this point, but please, one of the biggest things you could be doing for this game at this point is more maps. And it even seems that these are somewhat done, so whats the hold up? MO MAPS PUHLEEZ!
  6. Xeator

    I freaking love the PTRS

    What, I just played a game after posting here soloing tanks with PTRS, 25 ammo is more than plenty when you just motorbike your way to their flank or rear and thats all it takes. The whole armor weakening system makes this possible and its stupid. Weaken enough to guarantee penetration or just hit on thin enough armor to begin with and you will be blazing through HP in seconds. Its so stupid. A 14.5mm bullet dealing huge butt damage so long as it penetrates. Just no. Either get rid of armor weakening all together or tone it down by some significant amount or better yet tone 14.5mm damage down a lot. Its too much of a troll weapon as it is. PTRD is still somewhat tolerable as OHK jeeps etc is no longer possible.
  7. Xeator

    I freaking love the PTRS

    Not just for planes, but tanks too. You can wear down any armor to the point that you penetrate and unload a mag, poof no more tank. This all happens in mere moments and is way cheaper than any other AT. Funny how some obsolete AT rifle can take out a Tiger 2 with ease, better than another tank going up against it.
  8. Xeator

    RedBjarne & devstream memes

    I laughed so hard at the one where he just mumbles and rambles, cannot seem to find it. It was hilarious! The editing made it gold!
  9. Xeator

    New tanks

    Like drhoops said we need some SPGs for infantry. ISU152, Jagdtiger and T28/T29, sure Im all for that as well. Could also add that US is lacking in the light tanks, they have 1 less than the rest so I guess they could add one more there as well. However options are limited so I dunno how they could do it.
  10. Handnukes were incredibly OP for years and years. Im glad they arent as powerful anymore.
  11. I really dont know why I bother debating here when its always crying about bias. You see a little avatar and make your assumptions. There are a few options here. Keeping what little asymmetric balance the game still has, giving MG42 a slight upperhand over the other MGs when you look at overall performance. Or you balance out overall performance making it the same story for everyone, red vs blue isnt that exciting. If it keeps damage and ROF it obviously loses in some other regard. In this case theres probably not a whole lot to go on other than recoil, sway or reload time. The reason I bring up the AT rifle situation is for everyone to see that its ok if some faction overperforms in some area. At least seeing how Reto has done nothing about the situation since the introduction of the PTRS, we can only draw the conclusion that this is indeed the case. So, one gets a better AT rifle, another gets a better MG and the last get a better bazooka. But now you need to go ahead nerfing the one thing GE has going for it? Doesnt seem justified to me. I never asked for exact historical accuracy, only said that as the game is set into WW2 it needs to have some semblance of historical accuracy. Otherwise the whole WW2 setting is pointless and this could just as well be some fantasy game with bows and arrows.
  12. Really dont agree with making one MG 4HK while others remain 3HK. Hard to say what the end result will play out like, but on paper it seems wrong. Why not have K98 2HK and other BA 1HK? Seems fair right? If its performing too well like you say then the balancing IMO needs to happen elsewhere, not with the damage. ROF is out of the question because you still need to keep some semblance of historical accuracy. The game was asymmetrically balanced from the beginning, but then you have made all factions more or less the same with the same amount of gear etc etc. Yet a few exceptions still exist, less light tanks for US, AT rifles none for US, 2 SU and 1 GE and PTRS is clearly overperforming compared to the others when you look at AA capability, or any other capability for that matter. To be frank, its a completely OP weapon as it is. So why does that not get nerfed, but yet the MG42 needs a damage nerf? Also, is the whole AT rifle AA problem ever getting resolved? Is that a part of vehicle balance? When do US get their own AT rifle?
  13. Having to rank up one of each class to 6 and having new ones be able to join would be a working solution IMO. But as you are grinding up your player rank to 12 to get to war you probably get your rank 6 characters easily which is why I still wonder if this sort of system would really be necessary. Take into consideration that like Reto has stated, over and over again, they are a small team (even smaller with the layoffs a year or two ago) so is this something that people would deem necessary to pour valuable development time into, possibly taking up time from other more interesting and better features. They way the RTS and FPS were joined together previously was much better. You could pick the assault team you play for in the FPS so you could guarantee warfund earnings for yourself or your friends. Now with the shared resources in battle you cannot really do this. Also previously you had a certain priority for assault teams which got put into battle first, as there was a limit on how many assault teams could participate at any given time. Now you can stack battles endlessly and everything just gets drawn out randomly from the giant pool of resources. Again, one of the things where development of the game lead to a worse system in many regards. As for infantry battles, thats probably more to do with the limited resources in the RTS. People do not get their toys out of the queue, and even if they do they do not want to waste them aimlessly just to send them back into a week long queue. For making warfunds, infantry is always the best bet, its cheap and you get a ton of ways just as infantry to destroy any imaginable unit in the game with antitank or even free AA guns. The battle director makes it so that you cannot play battles unless you have enough of infantry to start the battle which is why infantry will always be the main focus of the game. Another thing is people avoid sending special troops into battles before they are fully populated to prevent new or poorly performing players from random queueing into those battles filling half of the team with special classes inevitably leading to a loss on their part. No other class will capture points like infantry does, as their playstyle is not suited towards that. I do agree that its frustrating to see your expensive units underperform because they get played by newer or unskilled players, but I really do not see an easy fix for that problem other than having a hard cap on special classes in battles. That however is something Reto has stated they do not wish to implement, even though the previous system I mentioned where you picked the assault team you played for had a limit on for example tank assault teams limiting players to 3 per assault team so you would often end up with just 3 tankers at the most unless the battle was stacked with tank assault teams and they all were picked for the battle even after the priority selection which didnt really happen very much. The RTS overhaul has been in the works for a long butt time at this point, I can only hope that it brings some of the old functions back or something similar to make earning warfunds and leveling up assault teams a bit easier. I think that would solve a lot of what is wrong with this particular issue.
  14. Xeator

    Binoculars and spotting

    Binocs need rangefinding, like they used to have and they need to be usable from the tank hatch. Thats pretty much all they need.
  15. I would say that the first live iteration of armor2.0 was the most successful. Destroyed components actually made a difference, now not so much. I probably would have gone even further with the effects of destroyed components. Giving shells a chance of inflicting critical hits. So lets say you hit an ammo compartment AND you get a critical hit then its a OHK. No critical hit and its just a damage multiplier and possibly something like removal of ammo and a forced resupply timer to put a tank out of commission for a while. Same goes for fuel, crit OHK, non crit can immobilize a tank until repaired. The other compartment effects were appropriate in the first iteration. The only problem damage had is that it could be instarepaired by one swing of a wrench. Thats the only thing that is better at this point. Not a fan of armor weakening, I would like to see it go. Caliber should also mean something. Hitting some light tank with IS2 just to see the light tank continue on as if nothing happened? Please... Im pretty sure this would lead to a lot of frustration among tankers as they can just insta explode, so to remedy that I suggest removing field maintenance timers to be able to spawn when needed. Spawn costs should probably also be looked into when you start making radical changes to survivability.