Jump to content
Forums closed, discord our new home! Read more... ×
Heroes & Generals


Members - Veterans
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

24 Neutral

About Horrux

  • Rank
    Technician 4th

Faction & Soldier

  • Faction
  • Soldier
    All types

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Horrux

    Stealing vehicles add resource?

    Anybody? Büeller?
  2. I was discussing this with some people there seems to be confusion as to whether or not this is true. Was it only suggested but never implemented? Some people are saying yes it does, some say no it doesn't, and I can't find info on that anywhere. Halp
  3. All these responses - well MOST of them - are of the "whose side are you on, tanker or infantry" kind. As such, they are off-topic. This isn't about being pro-tank or pro-infantry. It's about how a lot of players PREFER the role of AT Rambo to other roles as infantry. You can say that *YOU* don't prefer it, as a veteran. That's fine, I don't either. I also rarely play tanker. THE PROBLEM DESCRIBED IN THE INITIAL POST remains, by and large, unaddressed: Can something be done to diminish the seemingly endless attraction of a large amount of players for Ramboing, which can turn Assault matches into a parody of WW2? I think it is asinine to deny that a lot of players will go AT the moment they see the other team has tanks, even 10 lights against 18 mediums on their own team, therefore losing the match for their team, and ensuring that their tankers are utterly uselessly taking up slots as players. I see it at _LEAST_ a quarter of the war matches I participate in: with half the infantry gone getting the easy ticket to the top of the scoreboard, there is very little pushing being done. THAT is how tanks are "good defense": attackers go Rambo on them and stop pushing objectives and NOT because tanks rack up tons of kills. SOMETIMES they do, but it's the rarer fraction of matches.
  4. THE ONLY DUDE... Read the initial post. Like, every word, then assemble these into sentences. Spend a few seconds deciphering the meaning of what is written. IF YOU CAN. That tank has a 3 minute respawn delay but an infantry that can kill said tank in 15 seconds has no respawn timer. This is the problem because there is no downside to taking on a tank as infantry. BALANCE is about upside and downside. Something with all upside and no downside is not balanced. If you don't agree, then you are free to go post elsewhere. This thread is for people who are capable of understanding the factual nature of the initial post.
  5. I agree... _OR_ Instead of increasing the spawn time for all AT weapons, create a cumulative "careless death" respawn time penalty for throwing infantries at a tank, aka dying to a tank as AT. That way it wouldn't take any longer to spawn as AT than as something else, unless said AT is taking on tanks and losing. This would make for AT rambos being _CAREFUL_ in their AT operations, increasing the difficulty of these maneuvers a bit, instead of standing out in the open with a "yeah kill me, boat, I'll be back within 10 seconds so I DON'T CARE" type of attitude.
  6. They're just trolling to try to derail the topic so we can't have a meaningful discussion. That's literally the definition of trolling.
  7. I use tank ATs quite a bit. I try to ALWAYS pit them against equal tanks on the other side. Mediums against mediums. Sometimes I have to go above, such as mediums against TDs, which are still a decent match. I do this because it makes sense: tanks are the best for fighting tanks. WELL NO OF COURSE NOT. Tanks _SHOULD_ _BE_ the best and privileged option for fighting tanks. That they are not, and the AT Rambo role is THE DREAM JOB of pretty much all infantry makes no sense. Can you imagine soldiers in WW2 gleefully ecstatic that they get to take out tanks with their handheld AT grenades? I don't think so. It had to be an EXTREMELY DANGEROUS job and one that likely only had to be done only when there were no tanks to do the work. Now, let's not talk about actual realism. That has no place in an H&G forum. H&G may not be a WW2 simulator, but it's still a WW2 themed game. As such, it only makes sense that tanks would be the preferred option for fighting tanks. I am looking for ways to restore this basic idea. I think a respawn delay for AT weapons or for a "careless death" for any soldier carrying AT weapons and dying close to a tank might restore this. This way, Ramboing would downgrade from THE DREAM COME TRUE JOB, to something you sometimes do when you have to, because there are no other options, and that you do carefully. It's not going to drastically change the tank VS infantry matches: Infantry will still use AT, obviously. But it certainly would drastically change the tank VS tank matches, where infantry wouldn't have such a huge incentive to go hunting tanks instead of capturing or defending points.
  8. Yes, bravo you posted something true. Now try, something true and ON TOPIC.
  9. Exactly. And let's just ignore the trolls. Even tiny minds can get bored.
  10. Except all the BS posts that were removed. Good job, slick.
  11. Exactly. Now stick to the topic or go troll elsewhere.
  12. Yes, those two or three trolls playing tag with "you tankers are (whatever)" when we all state we are very far from maining tank and that's NOT EVEN THE TOPIC AT HAND. To reiterate: the topic is: Please suggest ideas to prevent the Assault game mode from devolving into the mess described in the first post. <-- THIS IS THE TOPIC.
  13. I am thinking ESPECIALLY the maintenance timers. If an AT Rambo dies while fighting a tank (maybe even a "careless death" respawn delay penalty might be implemented?) then he shoudln't be able to respawn 2 seconds later and come back. By destroying a track on the tank, Rambo has time to respawn twice and the tank will still be there!
  14. So basically pretty much every one of you is happy that players don't play the objective. Impressive. I'm thinking about how spawning an APC and driving all the way around the back of the map for 5 minutes just to position said APC in that perfect little nook without being seen isn't a job you WANT TO DO. But if you are an experienced player, it's a job you will do EVEN THOUGH it's a PITA­ because it can make the difference to victory. You don't do it because it's fun, or prestigious or gives you a trillion points and makes you look like a superstar. You do it for your team because you want to win. I feel this is the kind of spirit that should go along with playing an AT Rambo. You'd do it even though it's risky, because you want to win. So to me, this looks like the solution would be some sort of dis-incentivize to the role, because right now it's a risk-free, fun ride to the top of the scoreboard. Which would be fine, if it didn't completely wreck the flow of what makes H&G Assault work. Again, I rarely play tanker­. I'm not against AT Infantry. What I am against is this game falling apart when there are tanks on both sides because almost everybody goes into tank hunting mode instead of PLAYING THE FRACKING OBJECTIVE. I think in general game design philosophy, incentivizing players to behave according to the fundamental dynamics of the game is just proper game design.