Members - Veterans
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

651 Excellent

About Rolf_Mützelburg

  • Rank
  • Birthday 06/23/13

Faction & Soldier

  • Faction
  • Soldier
    All types

Recent Profile Visitors

1404 profile views
  1. K98k Sights

    I play K98 with iron sights 50% of the time, automatic weapons the other 50%, and I can out-shoot snipers using only my binoculars and iron sights (Because git gud plebs) but I admit the sights aren't very good for regular combat. The Springfield suffers the opposite problem, it's sights are too blunt for long range use, the K98 is like aiming with a knife edge. It's hard to find that tiny little knife blade in the dark. It is also very reliant on luck, in that if you are running a 1 shoots build, you have to simply pray your opponent isn't wearing heavy set. Running a speed build, (which is redundant since semi-rifles exist) is mathematically useless. And all of this rides entirely on you're MLG skillz, since you only get one shot. The Bolt Acton rifle of all weapons is the most deserving of alot of love, and sadly, BA rifles have been abused for the sake of elevating other classes above them. They were originally Germany's default weapon, and were abandoned to rot for the sake of symmetry. But I'm not going to go down that road, I could spend all night tearing apart Reto's older decisions. Reto is never going to accept they fked up, and this thread is about BA rifles.
  2. About time people start posting some pictures around here. I was starting to think I was the only meme-ster left. To many plebs clogging meh forumz. Where's the memes?
  3. Also... There is only one way this war server is ever going to work: Axis vs Allies. I'm going to try and coin this term as my new campaign slogan. I may not be able to convince everyone that Historical realism is the best metric by which to design a war game, but even if you're leaning on the arcade side of this forum, I think we can all agree some parts of history are better off not being changed and the Factions are one of those major parts that simply cannot be changed.
  4. I think it could help, but such a decision would be Reto officially recognizing in stone, that Germany is not "Working as intended" as Germany was intended to Be Germany, and Italy ws suppose to be a secondary starting location. The game of course, as we all know is so broken, that has never been the case. Not since Russia joined the fray anyway. I just find it very telling that Reto has left this issue to rot for this long. Even before Germany was losing wars, they were losing Germany itself in a matter of hours every single war. And No one seemed to care, even though it undermined the entire idea. Remember, the only reason why nation capitals was dropped as a win condition was for this reason. Otherwise, losing Berlin was originally suppose to mean losing the war. But of course. the game never quite worked out the way it was "intended" to. What is interesting, is that this many years later, not only has Reto not fixed it, they haven't even TRIED to fix it. In this post, the community itself is actually suggesting giving up on the matter entirely. This brings up the old argument, that has never gotten any steam around here: What ever happened to WWII? We accepted for the sake of development, that certain things would have to wait. The helmet covers, the British, etc, etc... But we've waited so long for some of these issues to be solved, we forgot they were ever even issues in the first place. We still have to keep dredging up bipods and mortars every other week just to remind the new players that they did in fact exist! Like so many features, the game has steadily shrank in scope and scale every year, despite Reto updating it regularly. Despite all the content they've added, the game itself has not grown at all. In fact, they've given up most of thier ambitious dreams, and abandoned not only WWII but the concept of a war game entirely. As Reto becomes less and less ambitious, the central idea of the game: Heroes & Generals, the idea of players leading, and following each other to victory, has NEVER been more than just an idea. The RTS and FPS remains, and will remain for the foreseeable future completely unrelated. And as we've all seen on this forum, including in sfscriv's own mega threads, this games short comings are not due to a lack of options. This community has consistently produced hundreds of ideas for various problems. But Reto has shot down almost all of them. But most of all they shoot themselves in the foot every step of the way. Their entire development cycle is fked. Pragmatism is very useful for accomplishing a goal for fixing a problem, but lets not loose sight of what brought us all here in the first place. This game's combat is nothing special. The only thing this game had was it's unique War mechanic, and the fact that it is one of the only polished WWII games on the market ATM. So yes, moving the German capital would help a little. But is that really the root problem here? Are we not simply diverting attention and resources away from the root issue, by trying to work around it, instead of confronting what is really going on in Copenhagen right now?
  5. W O R K I N G A S I N T E N D E D

    I know this is sort of a random time to make a fuss about this, but If "working as intended" means something as pointless as "currently not broken", how about you guys stop saying it all the time, and say something of substance instead. Take a stance as leaders and make a fking decision. What is the point of "transparency" if upon opening the metaphorical window to your office all we see is 3 guys standing in-front of a blank chalk board? If you haven't settled the matter yet, then how about getting on that. Planning is only the first fking step in the development process! Jesus, we're not even talking about real work, this is the fk'n planning stage we're talking about here. Is talking really this difficult for you people? I mean I had my doubts judging by your company's PR work, but I mean, you all work in the same building right? How long can it take to sit down and have a conversation? Hold on a the process of editing this post, I think I may have hit something. You guys have been saying over and over, every time people complain about something that the feature they are all complaining about is "working as intended", which is dutch for 'not broken' (By the way, just use the English version and say it's not bugged, because obviously, people are getting confused by your use of the word "intended") I think I may have an idea where your getting thrown off. You guys have been struggling with the gamer slang used the this community, since you don't actually play the game or interact with the community enough to learn the language, and being that English is you guy's 2nd language at best, I think you might be hearing people say such and such is "broken" and think they are saying it is "bugged". When people on the forum say the STG is "broken", or the RTS map is "broken", or more generally, H&G is "Broken" you have to pay close attention to the context they are saying it in. Broken means not working correctly. However, outside of the bug section, most of the time when someone says something is broken, they are just jokingly saying it is badly designed or unbalanced. When they say a gun is broken, they aren't literally saying it is bugged, they are saying it is OP which means Over Powered. Sometimes they may even mean the opposite: that a gun is under powered. I wish there was a better way I could explain to you how to tell the difference, but really you have to read the context of the comment to know for sure what they are talking about. And obviously, if you don't play the game, and thus don't know the reputation some of these game features have, you won't know if someone is being sarcastic or not. You should probably yell at you forum mods for not clarifying this sort of thing sooner. All this time I thought you people were just dumb, I think it might actually just be a misunderstanding of the slang used by gamers in this community. "Working as intended" is laughed at, because the word "intended" or "intent" implies that you wanted something to be a that way. This can look really bad in certain context. For example, if you are car designer, and someone crashes one of your cars and dies, you wouldn't say the car worked as intended, even if the car functioned properly and the crash was the fault of the driver, because the purpose of the car isn't to kill people. Obviously you don't intend for people to die driving your cars, so don't say you intended for the car to work that way. If a feature in the game is wildly unpopular, even if it is not bugged in any way, you don't want to align yourself against the general population by saying you like what they all hate. You can confirm the feature is not bugged without saying you like the feature. Now of course if you do disagree with the popular opinion, say so, but understand you'll have to convince the players to agree with you before they'll stop throwing tomatoes at you for it.
  6. I think many of you are mistaking H&G for another "Heroes" related title
  7. and he is wrong... about everything. Sorry not sorry, Reto's employees know absolutely nothing about video games beyond their vocational qualifications, and have flip flopped on literally every decision they've ever made INCLUDING HISTORICAL ACCURACY ITSELF. Look it boils down to this: Alternative history where JFK doesn't get shot, and martians fighting orcs in the year 2087 are not the same thing. You know, Suspension of Disbelief, the idea that an audience will ignore minor inaccuracies for the sake of the story. That only will get you so far. There is a point at which the plot holes become so massive, it all falls apart. This game is/has fallen apart. The entire premise has been abandoned, and making excuses for Reto is counter productive. They're already thick headed enough as it is without you padding their egos. They selectively cherry pick from this forum the same way they cherry pick history, weapons, cosmetics, winners and losers. They arbitrarily BS their way through every problem they come across, and all you're doing is giving them ammunition for what? Because fk historical realism. Why? Do you think Reto's game logic is somehow better? That the 3 way cluster fk on the War map is an improvement? The radically unbalanced populations, the tier systems, and BS RTS map is better because of Reto's decision to abandon all historical precedent? What benefit has this game had from any of this BS?
  8. Well yea, it's been like that since the USSR was added to the game. But thanks for finally noticing, I've been banging that drum since I got here. Reto has no fking idea what they are doing, that's why they can't lay out a single plan from start to finish beyond what they are currently doing that week. Even then, they have no confidence that they can even meet their weekly goals.
  9. Axis players plz stop spawning AT's at all

    We can't ride piggy back on the other factions on a regular basis. If Germany can't stand on her own two feet, then that's the end of it. They're 'working on it'... is that the farthest extent their "transparency will allow? Oh boy, what another duzzy. Can't wait for the next ground breaking stream. What ARE they allowed to share with us?
  10. Axis players plz stop spawning AT's at all

    we did that already, out of 5 tries, we only ever won once, and that was because over half the US faction literally joined Germany, and even then it took over 5 days to finally win.
  11. Axis players plz stop spawning AT's at all

    I straight ran out of warfunds over a month ago. I make all my war fund directly through playing war matches like a lvl5 scrub. I lose warfunds deploying, and the minuscule EXP my ATs gain isn't enough to actually upgrade them. They only see combat at most 3 times before I either have to log off for bed, or they get morale'd to death. Maybe I'm just a shite general. I won't take offense, it's not like Any General in Germany has anything to brag about ATM, and besides, I play Real RTS games alot. Sucking at H&G's RTS does not in any way mean you are bad at strategy games. Quite the contrary, if you know anything about strategy, you know just how backwards and silly this game is. For example, most Generals are encouraged to preserve their troops, if not out of compassion for their fellow countrymen, than at the least, because he may need them later. In H&G however, if you haven't taken 50% casualties, that means less than half your men saw combat. If they don't see combat, you don't get payed. Essentially a good day for a General in H&G is when he loses 75% or more of his men before being forced to pull out due to morale. And if you pull out early, out of fear of sustaining unnecessary losses, the game penalizes your morale for doing it. I can just imagine the retarded conversation at the ground level as the orders reach the men that they've been ordered to fall back: "Sorry boys, but we've been told we aren't going to be fighting today. [crowd moans] I know, I know, you were all looking forward to getting killed today, but Generals orders are to fall back and get some sleep. You'll just have to tough it out and live at least another day or so, I'm disappointed too."
  12. A.A. Gun's Damage

    I understand, and I don't expect major changes in short order. Anything done well takes time. But to give up without even trying does not earn my sympathy. Your company is small because the company policies are short term and extremely conservative. The fact you haven't even committed to modular damage (a system that we were told was already on the books for next yearish*) tells me you have no confidence in this company. I don't either, so we're on the same page there. Since we can't fix any of the big underlying issues with the game due to budget restraints, Let's look at improving the company's budget, to improve our options. I don't know about you, but I find the thousands of dollars in lost revenue that was forgotten on the back burner like those helmet covers is the first most obvious problem. Your company can't bring in more money (and thus expand it's services) if you have no sell-able content. There are loads of ways to monetize the game, but in my opinion Cosmetics have proven very marketable, and very lucrative considering they work like a soda machine. They cost a large sum up front, and then steadily bring in revenue for years to come. Veteran membership is a great money maker, but sadly, there isn't anything you can do to increase sales of vet in the long term. Promotional events/ lower prices will create short bursts of vet sales, but really, anyone who would buy vet already is, there isn't any way to expand the market for vet membership. Cosmetics however is always in demand, and the more options, the more sales. Players are constantly upgrading and buying more "heroes" every single one needs to be outfitted with weapons and gear. We're already past the point where there are no more guns to add to the game. Cosmetics however offer an endless supply of marketable goods, everything from boot straps, to alternative shirt collars, to button up shirts, to tunics, and trench coats. Bags, badges, and backpacks... Every one can be marketed. Even if you don't make them gold only, if the demand is there, and the cost is high enough, people will buy gold. But one thing is certain, no one is going to buy anything, if you don't sell anything. While there is a need for big fixes like modular damage, you need the means to do business first. If size is a problem, then that's where we have to start. Every company starts small. That's no excuse to give up. Bohemia Interactive's only accomplishment was their engine. The game is made by a modding community for free. After nearly 20 years of working on the engines, and with an established modding community they made it to where they are. But they are in no way a massive AAA company. They simply found a nitch that fits them well. (side note): On the subject of simulators like Arma not being "Fun", I've already settled that debate with one word: Emulation You don't have to be like Arma, to be realistic. That excuse doesn't work anymore.