idiotafilozofus

Members
  • Content count

    40
  • Joined

  • Last visited

6 Followers

About idiotafilozofus

  • Rank
    Private First Class
  • Birthday 07/24/00

Faction & Soldier

  • Faction
    Germany
  • Soldier
    Recon

Recent Profile Visitors

407 profile views
  1. More of a good news to you: look at armor assault 11 Looks like, if we pray hard enough,we might even end up getting it Soon™. I'm not sure how many new vehicles armor 2.0 will bring but that would be a good time compleating the line as they proposed in the video up above. It deffinatelly needs a more dynamic playstyle to it. Give it a better engine, and a great deal more ground resistence: back in the Patton vlog they inroduced it as "A low profile tankdestroyer, who's nickname means "Chaser". It's pretty hard to chase anything without mobility, just sayin... PS: Reto.RedBjarne's face could be made an emote.
  2. All we can do is make a blood sacrifice, pray to the RETO gods and hope they bless the vehicle a bit in armor 2.0. "Glass tracks"... you mean slippery tracks? Now that we got weight based impact modules, we could maybe use those to calculate s realistic ground resistance value. The front can be weak if you ask me: purose of this design was to be small and nimble. Once the allies started advancing, the Germans came to the conclusion that their hard-hitting tankdestroyers could't reposition that well after being outflanked: that's why they came up with the hetzer. For now, the engine is legitimatelly crap: the whole tank is based on the panzer 38(t)'s chassi (Jagdpanzer *38(t)*). In-game both suck at climbing mountains just as much, so if we wanna have an engine upgrade both should recieve it. Point is: it should either be lightly armored with a better engine, or get some armor buff if the engine stays the same. As for a direct solution: just pretend it doesn't exist and go buy the Stug insted: worked just fine for me. However if you wanna keep playing the vehicle, just move in a zigzag when climbing steep terrain, if you haven't tried yet. (Probably the most Captain Obvious advice I've given so far)
  3. Well, some day we could have vehicle addons, such as a cannon. I know, the line is not the perfect, since the T20 is not an APC, but I'm sure tankers would love to deal with infatry like this rather than AT rambos. This idea could be developed, since vehicle modules are planned to become a thing, if I'm not mistaken. Why not change/mount them? *some Googling later* Turns out the tripple A was very rarelly mounted with a 76 mm howitzer.
  4. There would not be such camping if not every second soldier would run around with a scope. You know, without aim-adjustment, hitting stuff at range is hard. Thus people who aren't good at it (a lot of these 1HK infantries) would do something that actually fits their combat role. And decreased sight means that you can't overwatch such a big area anymore: repositioning is needed to remain involved in the action. Sounds good against camping to me. But hey, that surelly won't work, let's insted remove all BAs and SAs compleatly. That would also solve the problem.
  5. That was just the single most stupid thing I read today. The fact that this kind of playstyle is hated by many doesn't mean it is illegal/unethical. As for the BA nerf: *Semi-autos* -2HK -lot less sway -~300 max RPM -scopable as well If you kill BAs, people will just go back to SAs, camping with those instead: they'll have a potencial of 150 kills/minute instead of 40. BAs are camping weapons: it's their purose. Even WW1 Mausers were fitted with iron sights that were way overshooting from one trench to the other. The problem is not the quality of the 1HK BAs but their avaliability. I myself too think that infantry scopes are to blame. I also support the hold-breath-system.
  6. Banned for having a stock profile picture
  7. Agreed on that one. Second of all, this would be a perfect map for all the fancy amphibious vehicles... or like... a perfect "new" map to begin with.
  8. Soon™
  9. I had a similar idea some time ago: I think my version is a bit less game-braking, since I don't want to give people a whole second badge... or a second badge at all, if you fancy that more.
  10. There are two maps currently in development, if I remember correctly Together with those should come a tractor, as a disposable suicide-vehicle.
  11. Which rank system do you mean? One's matchmaking tier, player level or the soldiers' overall ranking system? Bellieve it or not, war battles are different from staged ones: this is mainly why they have different names. And I haven't really gotten in touch with any clan but I am pretty sure that they are existing outside of the system: compressing all their folk into multiple squads and queuing up for a battle together. This is a pretty weak reaction but I have a hard time understanding what you mean. Like, you understandably complain that you don't have any goals to achieve, such as getting new weapons, vehicles and so on... and right after that you suggest that adding more weapons and vehicles does more harm than good. As for the rank part, I can't say a word unless you specify what rank-system you meant. Let me be harsh and say, that you should either point at the probelm and maybe offer a solution/idea and work towards the solution, or do this and just go and play the kind of games you like, such as the ones you mentioned. I can understand that you wish to be heard by the devs but you are just a person, like me. A single one of us can't have a notable impact on the game nor i't developement: that's why it's important to pose such suggestions clearly, so that others can understand it and and back the idea if tthey deem it wothy. People have power (Yeah, I know many are imeadiatelly typing "RETO doesn't listen to us no matter what"...). My advice is that you should maximalise the audiance of your post/try to be heard by as many people as you can. Let's say, you go "Let's have [...] like in DOTA2". I don't even know if DOTA2 grows on trees or bushes: you have lost me already. And although I am not the standard for sure, many won't understand what you mean. This is why it is important to propose your idea in depth. I could look it up, if I understood what you meant but it's your job: you are the one who wants this implemented. If you don't care that much, why should the devs?
  12. I'd rather have proportionate travelling speed. Right now, each AT has it's own movement speed: that's great and all but also means that your motorcycles are speeding up the Swiss Alpes just as fast as they move in the Hungarian plains (Why am I complaining, this is what happens in the FPS part as well). It would be really nice to first of all have different types of terrain that would have different properties regarding the ATs' spead moving through them. For instance, if we were to have marshes in Finnland or coastal-Germany, those should have a general movement penalty for foot soldiers, however it would slow down ATs with vehicles even more, depending on their vehicles' weight. Getting a kübel through a swamp is hard but much easier than achieving the same with a Tiger II. We could even have a chance of loosing a certain amount of vehicles on the way, depending on weight and travel-distance: they got stuk and can't be pulled out. (pretty historical and war-like, if you ask me) Such terrain would of course have no effect on aircraft moving over them. I'll probably think the whole thing over and post it some day: this would be a good flavor to the RTS part of the game, because it would reward people who'd plan the route of their ATs rather than just letting them pick the "shortest" distance. Right now, the shortest travelled distance requires the shortes amount of time: that should be changed.
  13. No, I did not: I told you that I can't exactly recall the way APCs work. And this is so surreal that I didn't think such could be the case. The most I can do is apologize for my mistake
  14. Well, as said: my knowledge depleats at this point. I'm sorry I couldn't help
  15. I'm not sure if you are using standaslone or running the game from Steam. Once I had a similar problem: I went into my steam library, right clicked on the game within the list on the left side, clicked "properties" and chose to "varify game cashe" ore something like that (sorry, can't recall the route, nor do I have Steam on this patato-lap-top to check). That should run through your files and compare it to the Steam-standard. each missing file is replanished. In my case it turned out that my game somehow lost ~6700 files one day to the other. I'm not significantly experienced in handling software but I hope this might help. If you run standalone, deinstall-reinstall would be my best idea: most certainly not the best. In that case you should ask more sophisticated people.