Kilroy115

Members - Veterans
  • Content count

    3361
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

177 Good

1 Follower

About Kilroy115

  • Rank
    Brigadier General
  • Birthday 11/29/95

Faction & Soldier

  • Faction
    All
  • Soldier
    All types

Recent Profile Visitors

763 profile views
  1. Got to agree here. In Cap points, one can go on quite the murder spree with a carbine and a fast mouse finger
  2. Tanks in danger of extinction!

    Tanks will be faster now though. On and off road and accelerating and stopping. Here, a little tease put up in the Reference Regiment by @Reto.Christiano. This is the Pershing with the new driving system meant for armor 2.0. Note that the Pershing will be the slowest off-road tank in game after this update, which frankly is accurate. It was terribly underpowered in reality, using a Sherman engine for a tank ten or so tons heavier. https://heroesandgenerals.com/forums/topic/86483-vehicle-speed-after-vehicle-20/?do=findComment&comment=1240568
  3. Tanks in danger of extinction!

    Tanks will be slightly slower off road than they are on road. But will still keep a good speed. Jeeps and bikes however will be much slower off road.
  4. NEED ANTI TANK NERF!

    This topic is the ultimate never ending loop, constant back and forth back and forth with no progress. I’m saving this for if I ever have to explain the classic “Unstopable mass vs immovable object.”
  5. Vehicle speed after Vehicle 2.0

    Seconded. I mean, we’ve spent all this time studying and digging for info on these weapons and vehicles. I think a touch of wheel time would be appropriate for those who’ve put time into them. i mean, it’s not like we love doing this or something obsurd like that. Haha. No, not at all.
  6. Vehicle speed after Vehicle 2.0

    @Reto.Christiano Im guessing that while tanks will have the lower speed, terrain vehicles like the jeep will have less handling at speed. After all, these are vehicles without power steering. Would this be correct?
  7. I am all for them making more money for killing me. That's the reward. What I am wondering is why I make less credits than I would normally. Not less than they would for killing me, but less than I would normally. Why not just leave it at this, using the ten credit system in my previous post. I kill anyone in a lower or equal rank to me (Gold and below) I make ten credits as I normally would for killing anyone with the current system. I kill someone above my rank of gold, I get the reward for killing a better player. A bronze player gets 10 credits for killing a fellow bronze or beginner player, but then gets bonuses added to that 10 credits for killing anyone above them. What I am saying here is "Why the downside? Why not just the reward for killing a better player?" If you want to avoid all out seal clubbing, then that isn't something that punishing players should be the solution for. For that there needs to be a properly made matchmaker that either outright separates tiers or that throws in a good balance of each tier into a match.
  8. Okay, I get that, but I think something is still keeping us from understanding each other here. Here is how I interpreted your initial post. Based off your idea, I would be in the Gold level based on my account, irregardless of what character I play. Now, say in a match, war or staged, I wind up running across a team who has some bronze players in it, or even the majority of the team being bronze. For killing me, they would get an extra 25% kill bonus. (100% being the current standard, across the board for all.) This means that if they would normally get say 10 credits for killing me, that would get a multiply of 0.25 (The extra 25%) added onto that score. Meaning they make 12.5 credits. Meanwhile, if I kill one of those Bronze players, which is unavoidable because I am in a match with them and can't simply ignore them, I only get 75% of what would normally earn. Meaning, that if I got 10 credits normally for making that kill, I would get only 7.5 credits for the kill I just made. (0.75*10 = 7.5) Now, am I correct in this assumption? Yes or No?
  9. You literally say in your opening post, that killing certain levels of low ranking players will get you only 50% or 75% of the reward you'd normally get, including credits, warfunds, etc. I take etc to mean XP I get you want to lessen seal clubbing, but hindering vets like that isn't the way to do it. If you're gaining new players, but also driving off vets by saying "You get less because you killed that guy who's lower than you." is no different from driving off new players by letting them get slapped around by vets. In general, I support the idea as a whole, and I try to avoid seal clubbing (If I get in a low ranked match I typically just run a Garand). However I don't see the point in hindering one group of players for the other.
  10. I'm wary of this point. Yes, it will solve last minute AR's, however, it could go back to the old system of blocking, where you could just lock an entire front down and allow no movement, back before auto resolve was a thing. A handful of people could keep a battle, or multiple battles, locked up for hours unless MM intervenes against them.
  11. What Fegaris is saying is why should a Vet player get less XP than what is the current norm for killing a lower rank/skilled player? I mean, you're already giving the lower players an XP boost for taking out high ranking players, which I agree with. However, I don't think the vet players should be adversely affected for killing lower level infantry, just leave it at the standard amount of XP it currently is.
  12. Once again, you are missing something key. Reto.Moto, the developers of this game, have stated that they do not wish to use something that did not see COMBAT during the war. Prototype stage doesn't matter, and testing is not combat trials nor full deployment. Testing is done on a testing range in the US. The Super Hellcat was a scrapped project that did not come to fruition before the wars end, and the US already had the 90 mm Jackson in action, and a handful of Pershing's. In fact, the very labeling of T for these tanks shows that they didn't see combat. T was the period designation for tanks being tested by the US on proving grounds. If it passed the testing phase and got considered for deployment (note considered) then it got an M designation. The 76 mm Hellcat is already a highly effective tank destroyer thanks to its speed. It is by and large considered one of the best overall tanks in this game thanks to its speed and flanking ability and is capable of taking on tanks well above its class. In skilled hands, a Hellcat can melt Tiger II's in this game without trouble.
  13. Do this, then double it for getting the kill on cap points and you'd never have a problem getting new players in the caps again
  14. True, but if that's the case then, with the new armor system (These tanks won't release till it does) it's just a matter of taking out the tracks and getting a shot at the side. Flanks don't have to be close, they just have to expose the soft bits. Either that, or just hammer the armor plate from an angle the J-Panther can't get its gun to till the armor goes weak, which is how Reto has it planned.
  15. Jagdpanther, as has been confirmed by Reto for a while now. And, just as a rebuttal. Casemate TD, meet flanking. Lol