idiotafilozofus

Members - Veterans
  • Content count

    133
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

56 Neutral

About idiotafilozofus

  • Rank
    Senior Corporal
  • Birthday 07/24/2000

Faction & Soldier

  • Faction
    Germany
  • Soldier
    Recon

Recent Profile Visitors

2,057 profile views
  1. idiotafilozofus

    Fix the National socialist faction Balance

    Isn't it the only para weapon tho? You'd make a great journalist
  2. idiotafilozofus

    [SUB-FACTION] Czechoslovakia

    I'd say there are plenty of weapons listed on page one. @Fegaris already stressed how much of the equipment used was just old Czechoslovakian warmaterial and I entrust him on this: he has compiled way more information that any of us would find on a few Wikipedia articles, such as the one you linked. A large percentage of equipment used during ww2 was not designed during ww2. Just looking at infantry equipment for starters: K98K (1935), Mosin nagant (1891), SVT 40 (1938), M1903 Springfield, M1 Garand (1928 ) and the list goes on. Were you to only add equipment to the game, that was developed during the ww2 period, the game would look vastly different. Nations use not the guns they developed but the ones they have. The Weimar Republic din't ditch the Imperial-era rifles because they weren't "theirs" Bruh, the BREN is listed on Page One™ :D
  3. idiotafilozofus

    Terrain Vehicles upgrades

    Wouldn't it be great, if the US/SU motorcycles could also mount a sidecar? Plus all bikes could have the option of dismounting the sidecar, based on what playstyle the user preffers. I'm no expert on these but after a quick search, it appears that at least the soviets used it. Big oof
  4. idiotafilozofus

    Balanced

    Sadly, the dude isn't quite wrong: This is the latest draft published by Reto.Christiano. I am too dumbfounded at this... maybe it will have high penetrating rounds... or actual tank armor hence it's a modified Stuart? This is deffinatelly worth looking into.
  5. idiotafilozofus

    Repair Bots

    Same for me, I have a universal support dude with bandages, a wrench and an LMG. I've also recently tried out vether this tactic was viable (with a tanker) and always ended up with like 20% of the points of squadmates who actually used tanks. Only repairing is not viable, trust me. Plus tank hitboxes work in a way that they squish you in an instant, if you are standing too close to them. Sorry but I fail to get your point. If you have a ton of guys repairing you and you think it hurts the team, then don't play your tanker so they won't be able to repair you: it's easy as that.
  6. @MrCojonudo Tankers who are whining =/= all tankers. In Hungarian we have a saying that goes: "If it's not your shirt, don't take it upon yourself". He did not offend you, if you are a tanker and who does not whine, simple as that
  7. idiotafilozofus

    Halftracks

    - You say that taking "circumstantial and rare situations" are bad, yet you deem one superior based on the single metric that it is easier to chase down/spawn-camp, which is a "circumstantial situation"... the circumstances are to be on a "shock point" and "without at weapoons". You say that becvause the Sdkfz 250 does better in this *circumstantial situation* it is better in every regard. You comminted both the logical fallacy you acused me of commiting, and the one Deuce443 did: - I never defended equality. Equality would be giving the M3 the ability to shut its side Windows, which I am against. You've played yourself - You assert that neutralisable defense ~ no defense at all, which is just untrue. The M3 has the ability to defend itself from all directions. The bad accuracy/incompetence of the gunner is not the M3's fault, it's the player's fault, for crying out loud. Let me draw an analogy: You have two cars on the highway. One is equiped with wing mirrors, the other is not. The car without mirrors is slammed into from behind by a truck, because the driver had no way of seeing it coming and thus couln't prevent it from happening. The other car is also hit by the truck from behind but because the driver didn't bother looking into the mirrors. You are saying that these cases are the same You've played yourself -Back in the days we used to have a single APC/faction. Now we have 3, one of which has the problem you experience, while the other does not, yet you call for a third option. Instead of finding the solution to the problem within the game's boundries (using the cargo truck) you advocate for "more options". compared to "back in the days", you currently have two additional option (one that is also beneficial for you) yet you still don't use them. In this case "more options are not negative" but they aren't positive either, so "not negative (more options) =/= positive (good solution). - Plus I'm sorry but I can't get over this: either use the M3 or don't, there is no inbetween. If you still play it against its setbacks than these liabilities must be outweighed by the M3's benefits and thus it is better than the other APCs and thus there is no issue. I have two ideas for you: - You should get yourself a competent squadmate that occupies the gunmount while on the move/in critical situations. You might not get such people in randoms but then don't spawn M3s. If you don't, we have no issue but if the strategical significance outweighs the gunner's incompetence, then it is the lesser bad so again, there is no issue. (plus I still don't get why the truck isn't good for you, it literally solves the problem) - Instead of campaigning for chosable gunmounts, let's set the bar lower and try to get a tank-like System, where the APC can run out of ammo and not be recharged. Yeah, yeah, yeah but with your logic, it would be just as beneficial for them as APCs, so it should be also done. What I'm trying to get at is that the arguments you make support a standpoint different from yours: you can't just turn off your own logic once it no longer serves you. Why doesn't this apply when you are being attacked from the sides, trhough the side windowns, to be more exact? It's the same situation with just a 90° turn, and yet in one case you are to blame while in the other you aren't… how does that work? It is not a fallacy but once you base a comparison off a single metric taken in a specific situation, it becomes one. I agree that the M3 is more woulnerable from the side, I never said it wasn't but that doesn't mean it is worse in every situation (I gave an example for the opposite). It can lose out to the Sdkfz 250 in your opinion (for the purposes you use it for) but that doesn't mean that it is inferior to it… it's just not that simple plus I believe that subjective evaluation is no base for game alteration You see, we have had the German recon vehicle, the Sdkfz 222 for a long time. It also has a hatch on the top which can be close to block out grenades and such. It was not movable for a really long time (I think they patched it last year or so, so it could be closed. It is basically the same thing but I came to accept that it is this way and I enjoyed playing with it without being inpragable. This change is also contraversial, hence the M8 Grayhound still does not have such a feature. In this case functionality is against equality, while in yours functionality is for equality, so we are in a bit of a tricky situation here because these two features should not coexist, hence their logical foundations contradict. What you are asking for is not something that hasn't happened before and that's what makes it really difficoult in my eyes. Everyone has their own biases of course, plus I have not much experience with the M3 myself. You may assume I'm biased but beween us, I only play with the Germans because my dad speaks with me in German and thus the cultural association is very dear to me. I didn't chose it for equipment and don't intent to somehow conspire to make german equeipment comparetively better. I'm not even against you, may it sound as weird as it does. You have my fullest respect for voicing your ideas and defending them. I can see the issues you are pointing to, I just disagree with your way of trying to solve them. I might be in the complete wrong here but that's why we are arguing: to find the better solution. My presonal bias is that I believe that one should fix their own problems, as you might've already seen by now. That's why I'm tring push the cargo truck when it comes to the whole Mg thing. This is based on the assumption that the MG being used by fools is your only problem but it has since become obvious that it is not. In this case we do need developer intervention but based of my experience, I would call dibbs on the ammo-running-out solution because it is easier to implement in the short run: we can make the guns removable once vehicle modules have been implemented. As for the hatches, I can take your side if you insist. I just don't like the logical rift it would create once implemented, due to the whole Zdfkz 222 story. But it's notewothy that I'm trying to a "defend fairness and equality" which the community might not agree with. Up until now I've seen many sharing their opinion on which APC they think is but nobody commenting on the M3 Match thing. If it turns out that the majority of player (not necessarrily only the US and SU players, who would benefit from it) I'm happy to give up my point of view.
  8. idiotafilozofus

    Halftracks

    There are APCs without MGs already *curb your enthusiasm theme* Plus you aren't propagating the removal of guns from cars and bikes. They would benefit from the same additional utility, which makes me think that you are emotionally motivated and that's why you aren't taking other vehicles into consideration. Superior *in that regard* It's no surprise that both are open from the back. Now the M3 can open fire on enemies attacking from the back, giving the driver/APC more survivability in this specific situation. Does that mean that the M3 is generally a better APC? No. And I ask you to not commit this exact logical fallacy when stating that the german APC is superior against an attack from the side. Both have strengths and weaknesses: no one is clearly better than the other. Then use an APC without an MG, it's that easy. You either choose the light but silent or the tough but loud approach: I think it's not unfair that a single perfect APC doesn't exist. However, altering the game just because there isn't a perfect vehicle is unresonable, hence your issue can be solved within the boundries of the game.
  9. idiotafilozofus

    A role for another SMG

    Couldn't sound be one of their perks? As these guns would be meant for spoecialised units, I think it'd be great, if they were more silent killers. They fire weaker rounds so it makes sense for them to not be as noisy as to tier SMGs, while it would also benefit players that preffer a more stealthy approach to the game.
  10. idiotafilozofus

    Halftracks

    @Deuce443 I'd say that the basic idea is that the M3 comes with an MG... it was manufactured that way. I can see how you'd want both superior armour and two crates but that would render the trucks useless, as they would be easier to spot and less defensible with no payoff what so ever. The M3's MG is rotatable in 360°, while Sdkfz 250's crearly isn't. The two vehicles are not identical, they both have their own little perks: that means that comparing them in a single field (side windows) and calling one generally superior due to it is surreal... you can't just do that. Plus factions are not 100% mirror images of one another, so I don't see a need to homogenise equipment across the board. I don't agree with you but I could get behind making it so that you could make the MG mount only squad-accessable so as to prevent your average Joe from giving away your position by firing up some bushes along the way. As two cretes can be obtained by the employment of a truck, this is the only reason I see for the removal of the MG. Tho I might be wrong, feel free to enlighten me should it be that way. @MakoSports Both have open tops buddy... due to its geometry, the M3 maybe even more so
  11. Sorry tank police, I ran out of daily upvotes
  12. idiotafilozofus

    Ground Attack Aircraft AT PLS!

    Exactly my two ideas
  13. idiotafilozofus

    Foreign weapon badges

    How about... I don't know...play different factions for not-twice the price? Plus is there any other reason to this than to combine OP equipment across factions?
  14. The problem is that the loss of players is a problem that escalates due to increasing waiting times in matchmaker. If we start getting off the train, it will have a fewer reasons to keep going. I very well understand your frustration but stepping out to raise your voice slowly strips away the life of the game and so makes the raising of your voice increasingly futile. I get that the new update might no be the best but by deffinition you think so because you had something better in mind. Our task should be to find this "better solution". Reverting back an update isn't a solution, it's the reastablishment of the original problem. Indeed
  15. Anything can be a camper if you are brave enough. Honestly, the update does compile a lot of ideas that are great within themselves, but better armour-mechanic won't hugely change the playstyles which the maps enable. Talk tanks or the issue about Heavy set, it has always been about the debate between armour an bullet. Strengthening one of the two Will tip the ballance of the scale but not change the game. The real question is wether we'd like to come up with counter tactics/suggestions for a hotfix or just whine around.