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

Horrux

Members - Veterans
  • Content count

    217
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Horrux

  1. Horrux

    Never got a gift helmet?

    I kept telling myself to look into my inventory for my special helmet, but I never got any. It's not on any of my 30+ soldiers and I don't remember seeing a pop-up or anything to activate it. Can I haz helmet please? Been playing since 2015 here.
  2. Many times when there are tanks on both sides of a battle, most of the infantry goes anti-tank, and the attackers stop going after captures, and defenders don't need to defend anymore. The match transforms from Heroes & Generals War Assault to: THE GREAT TANK HUNTING GAME! This strange game mode goes like this: infantry are roaming the map, looking for enemy tanks to destroy. Tanks, instead of fighting the enemy tanks (that's their intended purpose, right?) now run for their lives, trying to escape brutal infantry bullying and aggression. And captures? They don't exist in this mode, so no need for defenders either. It truly is a COMEDY OF STUPIDITY. So let's break down the elements of the situation: 1) Tanks UPSIDES: a) are powerful against everything but planes; DOWNSIDES: a) are slow; b) are expensive; c) are subject to field maintenance respawn delays; d) are available in very limited numbers; e) are easy to spot; f) require a good deal of skill; g) require at least one teammate sacrificing score, XP, credits and fun for the boring task of supporting the tank; 2) Anti-tank Infantry UPSIDES: a) are fast; b) are inexpensive; c) are not subject to significant field maintenance respawn delays; d) are available in practically infinite numbers e) are hard to spot; f) are powerful against tanks; g) are rewarded with huge amounts of XP from tank kills; h) are rewarded with huge amounts of points from tank kills; i) are rewarded with huge amounts of prestige from tank kills; j) are thrilling to play; DOWNSIDES: ??? - I can't think of any. The risk of death is insignificant because you will respawn within a couple seconds if this happens. Please complete this picture if you see anything missing. From the picture I paint above, there is a clear imbalance: one side has NO DISADVANTAGES and huge advantages, whereas the other has ONE ADVANTAGE and a slew of disadvantages. No wonder people who play tanker complain that it's a miserable experience­. I feel that in order to re-establish some semblance of sanity, steps must be taken to take the role of AT infantry from something you REALLY WANT TO DO to being something YOU WILL DO IF YOU MUST in order to win. Otherwise, this comedy of stupidity will keep on happening. So I would like to discuss ideas on how to achieve this, so RETO can have a basic idea what the crowd would like to see for adjustments.
  3. 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
  4. Horrux

    Stealing vehicles add resource?

    Anybody? Büeller?
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. Yes, bravo you posted something true. Now try, something true and ON TOPIC.
  11. Exactly. And let's just ignore the trolls. Even tiny minds can get bored.
  12. Except all the BS posts that were removed. Good job, slick.
  13. Exactly. Now stick to the topic or go troll elsewhere.
  14. 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.
  15. 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!
  16. 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.
  17. This post is PRECISELY about MATCHES WITH TANKS ON BOTH SIDES. Stop trying to disrupt proper discussion of the topic by trying to derail it.
  18. Tanks don't HE infantry endlessly in tank vs tank battles. They're busy... Shooting tanks. Except that hardly happens anymore because the job of AT Rambo is too attractive and rewarded. YOU might think it's fine for infantry to stop doing its job of you know, capturing and defending points, but the fact is, that's the principle of H&G. THAT IS THE GAME. If you want to do something else, you should probably go play COD or some other shirt.
  19. If you think this is about tanks on one side and no tanks on the other YOU NEED TO LEARN TO READ. When there are tanks on both sides, THE GAME GRINDS TO A HALT because INFANTRY aren't attacking or defending POINTS anymore. I rarely play tanker. As an INFANTRY I find it asinine that the whole match turns into a COMEDY OF STUPIDITY in A WAR ASSAULT MATCH where the objectives are completely ignored. Where's your "salty tanker" now?
  20. This morning I deployed 5 tank ATs, 3 or 4 recon ATs and one paratrooper AT. I moved all but the paras near/into battles, and then left for about an hour. My paratrooper AT I kept very far from combat and "hopped" them from one airport to another. Upon coming back, I have earned NO warfunds, I have no notices of capture, and yet _ALL_ these ATs are vanished, gone. Even the paras. Obviously this is a bug and a big one, that's roughly 40,000 wf up in smoke. What can be done about this?
  21. Horrux

    Assault teams Vanished into thin air?

    As written in the post, no notification at all. OK I logged back on and ... WOW. The game seemingly was loading an old version of the war map without my ATs on it. Now I got a notification of one AT surrendered, some WF and ... Now my remaining ATs appear on the map. Very strange glitch, this.
  22. I'm sure RETO must keep track of the numbers, otherwise how can they even begin to get a sense of the RTS balance of factions?
  23. The game already censors a lot of "bad" words to protect the sensitivity of the perma-victims of everything and everyone. That's enough IMHO.
  24. If somebody has it, I'm interested in all of the data since SU was added, so... 2018, 2019 and 2020 are missing. Anybody? Thanks
×