• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About XStormEliteX

  • Rank

Faction & Soldier

  • Faction
  • Soldier
  1. The thing is, it isn't any one specific problem. It's a combination of many. The imbalanced weapons, the lack of restrictions on specialist classes, the fact that clans decide wars, the unwinnable one-line assault attack matches, the 18 vets & 2 noobs vs 2 vets and 18 noobs teams, etc. etc. etc. It all combines to ensure this whole scenario because no measures/restrictions/systems are in place to prevent this.
  2. Well, technically, yes. Not my opinion, but Reto's. Everything except for planes seems to be balanced around a single player, even a simple infantryman, being able to destroy another player, regardless of the other player's class. It's why the current state of pilots is so absurd: AA guns are hard countered by planes, and no handheld weapons are of any real use at countering planes either, so that breaks the "one player should be able to destroy any one other player". Though that isn't super relevant to this topic. I think the problem being discussed here can only really be solved on the higher level of resource management design, such as by making sure that even in War, tanks can only participate in a match if there are enemy tanks, or by redesigning maps, or some other such high level solution.
  3. See, the thing is, if you're playing War, you don't get to choose. You have to contribute to the objective, which is point control. The fun must be part of playing the objective, not arbitrary things that players may or may not consider fun. Driving around the edges of the map hunting tanks all match completely removes the player from the objective-based play (just as the tankers remove themselves from it). You're simply wrong. You are arguing in favor of something that should not exist in an objective-based multiplayer game like H&G.
  4. So a player has to surrender enjoyment and just plain participating in the core action of a match to "stay in the area" to camp a tanker... And you don't see anything wrong with that, for either the camping player or the tanker?
  5. This has been a problem for ages, and Reto have absolutely no clue. There's a reason every multiplayer game developer worth anything separates players into regions, forcefully, not optionally. Reto, instead, have opted to clump everyone together and let some arbitrary factors decide the latency of matches, which is just utterly ridiculous. And since a picture is worth a thousand words... "Entire" was hyperbole, but the overall point is clear, I trust.
  6. Just today... ...NOT ONE infantryman, AND outnumbered 6 vs 10. They had NO chance whatsoever, we took all points and held them for 95% of the match, at which point new players were added, but it was far, far, faaar too late for the US team to have any chance whatsoever. Of course, in most cases, it's Germany on the receiving end, but as shown here, once in a blue moon, it happens to the other side too and is equally absurd.
  7. Good luck destroying a Chaffee with a Luchs, when the Chaffee has a two-hit-kill medium tank level shell, while the Luchs has a barrage where every separate shot has a chance of not penetrating. Good luck bouncing Chaffee shots with a Luchs, while it bounces tons of yours with its insane armor. And no, "flank it" isn't an argument. EVERYONE wins when pulling off a successful flank. You don't balance things around shooting someone in the back unseen.
  8. What I don't get is... we can't fire weapons if we're standing too close to a wall... but not when standing with the gun directly stabbing an enemy soldier in the chest? Either remove the annoying wall-cancellation or make it apply to players in melee range as well. Maybe then we'd actually see people carry knives around.
  9. Two things about tanks also make no sense to this day: 1. Tank destroyers having HE rounds. 2. Tanks being able to hit single soldiers on foot hundreds of meters away (or at any range, really) with their main cannon rounds. If neither of these things were possible, many tank-related problems would be solved.
  10. If your argument is "do your job", then seems pretty obvious that you aren't grasping the point here. This isn't real life. This is a game. Objectives must be secured, so that's a "job" in a sense, but the thing about securing objectives is that in doing so, you're participating in the core aspect of the game. Driving for five minutes or more around the entire edge of the map only to get seen and killed by someone anyway, or even getting there and blowing up a tank, only to have it return and do the exact same thing again from some other position... that is not fun, that is not productive, that is not rewarding. It's a chore. Objectives are fun, as everyone converges on them. Chores are not.
  11. What Reto don't understand with their map design is that players will NEVER feel that flanking for half an hour to get one kill is worth it. It will never feel worth it to players, and so players simply won't do it, even the experienced ones, let alone the newbies. As always, Reto design the game for themselves rather than for the players.
  12. Current UI is super cluttered and has pretty bad UX. Menus popping up over one another and blocking off important content.
  13. This argument doesn't make sense (well, not THIS argument, but the one claiming that bipod machinegunners would somehow be similar to tankers or whatnot). A bipod can be setup and torn down practically instantly, and a machine gunner can turn around and kill a flanking enemy easily, as well as reposition constantly. Adding bipods doesn't stop machine guns from being used without them like now. It just adds an additional mechanic for them.
  14. I play exclusively War matches. My complaint here, including the screenshots, is about War matches.