Members - Veterans
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

75 Neutral

1 Follower

About Poopdrip

  • Rank
    Technician 5th

Faction & Soldier

  • Faction
  • Soldier
    All types

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Poopdrip

    When there will new anti-cheat ?

    If you actually took the time to use SA rifles, you would realize it isn't about clicking fast, it has a rhythmic timing to it... If you click "faster than humanly possible" , the gun actually wouldn't fire on most of those clicks... you can't exceed the RPM of the game and you don't need a macro do to that
  2. Poopdrip

    Update 1.16.2 - Captured Weapons and More!

    Correct, the FG42 is not available for US/SU infantry - only paras For any of the other questions, don't look at me... I was 100% against captured weapons to begin with ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  3. Poopdrip

    8 new badges (Suggestion)

    I agree that combat badges could absolutely use an overhaul, but oof these 8 being suggested are flat out terrible... GROUND POUNDER (AIRCRAFT) "Experience in spotting and strafing enemy ground units lets you be more effective against them" 30% / 50% / 70% more damage VS infantry, (while in aircraft vehicles.) Bruh, planes have zero issues versus infantry MG SPECIALIST (GROUND) "Having a few more bullets in your gun will make the entire difference in the war" 2/ 4 / 6 more bullets for your current magazine, for each mounted kill with your MG. I'd figure this would be useless on any MG that had a large 50 round magazine, so ultimately you are wanting 26 round MG-13's is that the point of this badge? FLAKKER (GROUND) "Knowing how aircraft can be damaged makes you aim for what matters most" 30% / 60% / 90% damage bonus vs Aircraft compartiments (Infantry/Ground vehicles only) Not sure where to start on this one. The Aircraft's compartments in Armor 2.0 are already weak... they can already be destroyed by simple infantry handheld weapons. Issue #1 is there is no point in increasing damage against them because modules have little to no HP as it is. Issue #2 is that there seems to be a bug feature where only wings and elevator can be penetrated by ground fire, all other 'compartment hits' return base structure damage. Issue #3 Base structure is still considered a "compartment" so this badge would do damage to the entire plane.... 90% bonus? double damage from mounted guns? oof.... The last patch finally cut pilots a break by undoing the horrors of infantry first, and you already want to put something even more damaging against them? How do you think flying a Recon plane through this type of badge system would work out man? ADRENALINE (INFANTRY) "A successful killing blow allows you to focus on the mission"* 30% / 50% / 70% stamina regained for each headshot kill. I think this one at least has good intentions, but why have the odd headshot caveat? We already have a badge that increases stamina, we have a badge that increases sprint length, why not just have a simple flat sprint recovery? This has been suggested years ago, but the only balancing issue I see is the devs want MG's to be played as defensive weapons, not "RNG headshot infinite stamina Quake deathmatch guns" in the cap zones. ARMOR SNAPSHOT (ARMOR) "Your armor crew knows how important it is to destroy enemy armor before it destroys you." 50% / 100% / 170% bonus damage, on first shot VS unique enemy armor. (While in armor) (For example, the first shot against unique enemy armor will register the bonus damage to it, with your tanks main gun). Not sure what you mean by unique? Does this mean per individual? but I can already tell you this would be a useless badge because Iron Fist is already more beneficial. +25% for each hit versus extra bonus damage on your first hit? I'd rather them just straight buff the damage tanks do versus each other than havinh to manipulate badges into doing what a tank already does in any other tank game on the market. ARMOR DUELIST (ARMOR)* "Everytime you seem to face off enemy tanks, your crew seems to know how to deal with them." +10% / +25% / +30% damage VS enemy armor, for each consecutive shot (Works only with tanks with a calibre bigger than 50mm.) (Bonus is lost when you shoot at a diferent armor, or miss) Think this is just a silly badge suggestion to allow you to engage a King Tiger frontally and not have to put any effort in learning how to engage tanks... The point of the Armor system is to avoid striking armor in the first place.... they rather reward knowledge of compartment locations. Iron Fist already does more damage to armor rating, why not just slightly increase that amount to make the perk more useful? Only apply to tanks with 50mm cannons or above? So the Panzer III (medium) can't use the badge but the M24 Chaffee (light) can? ARES SPIRIT (RTS) "Your men are blessed with your experience in warfare, your command goes beyond done." Winning a battle with your AT in battle will make the enemy ATs lose 3% / 4% / 5% morale. (The ones who were present) (Doesn't stack) This is the worst idea out of the bunch imo, clan/group play are straight steam rolls in the RTS game. This is just giving them more incentive to not play competitive matches against adequately matched teams, and only 1 person out of the group has to carry it? oof It would be extremely detrimental to any competent officer trying to block a heavy clan/group push. It's not their fault that some groups willfully choose to wait 30 min queued on a single match so that all of their 4-5 squads can just breeze by with 5 min 1 lane rofl stomp assaults for each town on their rampage. This badge would also benefit GER too much considering they have the highest winn rate due to overpopulation. The RTS system in general just needs to be overhauled to accommodate the amount of assault teams in play and the limited amount of players playing now. RESOURCE WARFARE (RTS) "You know how resources are important to win in war. You seem to make more prisioners than the usual." If you win a war match, while being present in it, there will be some more resources given to your factions resource pool. 5%/10%/15% multiplier of resources won in war battle, towards your faction resource pool. (stackable) I think this has good intentions but completely throws out any point of resource balancing in the current system from a dev's perspective... The amount of Generals (with RTS badges) would benefit US/GE more than it would SU and USA don't have any production problems as it is since no one is playing or taking the RTS game seriously anymore. I think this is just throwing salt & lemon on an open wound at this point.
  4. So are you guaranteeing that there will be reasonable stockpiles for everyone to deploy their units in amounts to make matches fun before getting penalized for having AFK resources? Do you have data showing that can happen throughout the first couple days and not just in the first 5min to an hour of a war start like how it is now? I honestly wouldn't know, but Reto has a history of "winging it" so I am not sure whether or not I can say this will be positive or negative for the RTS game without more information that what's being teased lately. There was no talk of raising the stockpile so why should we assume that the same congestion wouldn't happen at the same rate? You say you will get them in phases but realistically how long is that going to take? Is it going to be a week or more wait like it is for some assault teams in the current system? If so, how can you say you will penalize people for not using their resources when they just trickle out and you can't honestly be expected to be playing every day to move them around. Will you entertain the idea of bringing back the mobile app again? Also I don't see how "making the map smaller" isn't an option when you clearly are reducing assault team size and implementing a new deploy system that prevents whales from congesting queues instantly. Even in the current system, its clear many towns can be soft capped because only a handful of people are playing war on the non-bandwagoned faction (the flavor of the month winning wars). Alternatively, just because many towns have lots of units being stockpiled there in no way means you have enough players in war to play those matches. The size of the RTS games should reflect the amount of people playing war rather than the amount of assault teams that go out. It seems silly to have hundreds of matches waiting to be played but only 1-5 of them being played at any given time. I am not saying to completely overhaul the campaign map and remove half the cities, but you may want to at least consider removing out the non-trafficked areas that are just wastes of space and memory.
  5. This seems a little contradictory to the previous statement: - A way to either prevent or 'punish' players deploying units but not using them Could you further explain this ambiguity of the system you are planning to go forward with? I totally understand the need to limit the whales so that other players have the chance to deploy but if those players are going to be punished simultaneously for hoarding their resources while they gather enough assault teams to make matches 'fun', that seems completely ridiculous and counter-productive. In your account based rotation of assault teams, I encourage you to at least consider soldier based deploys instead a singular assault team. I,e deploy all your assault teams for 1 soldier or general so that players have enough to work with right away in small squads rather than just deploying 1 single guard unit and then having to wait your turn again. This seems like a better balance and allows players to start organizing their units better. You also should consider scaling back the amount of cities on the RTS map to match your diminishing player population. There is just too much ground to cover with such a minimal amount of players and a minimal amount of AT's that your proposing to make the RTS game into. You at one point in the past attempted to add more cities, especially around choke points, but went a little overboard and just created many smaller choke points because the routes/lanes weren't connected properly and units had to travel around to the next node anyways (bugged nodes). You need to scale all of that back again because the game doesn't have 20k players anymore, we are lucky to even have a 2k online and playing. The RTS game honestly needs to change dynamically with the current size of the player population. If you bring in more players, increase the size, bonuses, etc. If the players continually shrink, the RTS game needs to shrink with it. This includes the amount of cities, bonuses, AT sizes, everything. Something else mentioned in Discord is also disconcerting: It seems along with scaling back AT sizes, people are thinking imposing further penalties on specialty assault teams would be a good idea? These assault teams already net losses majority of the time unless you are a clan/group populating the match and control your teams spawns completely. This entire system being proposed is just so discouraging for new players trying to get into the "end game" of H&G. Recon planes alone are 60k warfunds to purchase and they cant even be deployed to majority of the cities on the map! Upgrade to fighters? Another 50k warfunds! Now you want to give player less units to work with and impose further penalties on their already non-existent gains? I won't even get into a rant about players wasting planes in war because they cant play in staged with the current plane balance. This applies to tanks and paras and mech recon as well. It just does not make any sense to me anymore how this system can even be remotely sustainable. It is geared towards old veterans who have the millions of warfunds to burn just to put tanks/planes in the match and steamroll people who cannot compete in such a unfair system and these proposed penalties won't stop that from happening, it just makes the matter worse in my opinion. All I got to say is that the prices you set for buying, deploying, and managing assault teams need to be extremely reasonable if you plan to even want to players to play this side of the game. You have been talking about scaling back assault team sizes, and now imposing further penalties on specialty AT's that I think is just going to create a system no one wants to play in. War will devolve to nothing but infantry only matches with no vehicles with the occasional group putting in tanks/planes to sweep a match because they have millions of WF to waste to win their steam roll of matches for the day. Please honestly think about trying to retain any player base you have left still populating your servers, because so far most changes being proposed by Reto don't seem like they are going to encourage more people to play, but more people to leave.
  6. Poopdrip

    Prototype test: Fighter changes

    @VenstreDjevel I mean I already know that it does...😂 No one ever believes me in this community!
  7. Poopdrip

    Prototype test: Fighter changes

    He is correct though, Having your ammo destroyed in the LA-7 is a 95% critical hit, and this can be done in 1-2 shots. It is a really small hitbox and is only really possible at that wonky side angle the enemy pilot was coming in at but it does happen.
  8. Poopdrip

    Prototype test: Fighter changes

    I am unsure what VenstreDjevel was referencing, but the reality is that it is just reversed for the FW190 as far as components being damaged. The La-7 with a destroyed ammo compartment is an absurd critical hit, like in your video. However, the same happens with the FW190 but just with the fuel component instead of the ammo To be fair, the La-7 does take slightly more damage to its ammo component than the FW190 takes to its fuel I think, but the size of the FW190's fuel component is much *larger* than the La-7's ammo component as far as hitboxes go. Either way, its not really a balancing issue... its more of just how Armor 2.0 works. Almost all the vehicles have different weak points now, its not all completely cookie cutter. It really sucks in planes when those components get destroyed (is it too much damage? IDK probably) but those critical hits don't happen too often for it to be a real problem in my opinion because the hitbox is very small. The M24 chaffee can be killed in 1 hit from some of the AT available because just like in the planes, its a single large component that nets max damage.
  9. Poopdrip

    Prototype test: Fighter changes

    The devs swing back and forth between wanting players to earn credits farming paras. The "real bug" is shooting out the AI pilot and then being able to receive the XP. Otherwise it is all working as intended, but I think para planes should be netting players like 10-15 XP, just not 100 XP like it was before. New players should be encouraged to practice shooting the para plane, but not have the rewards high enough to incentive spawn killing them.
  10. Poopdrip

    Prototype test: Fighter changes

    In the limited matches I got to actually work/load correctly... I honestly felt no difference between the Tier 3 fighters either. - FW190 still easily out turning and out climbing the La7 and P51. - P51 MG's still are super weak with AP and increasing the module hp has just made it worse - 20mm cannons still have no issues shattering elevator/wings - Destroyed module penalties to the La7/P51 still way more harsh than the FW190 - FW190 still easily out turning planes even with broken wing/elevator Can Reto double check to make sure the proper build was loaded to the prototype? It really feels like there is no difference or changes done to these aircraft... let alone any proper "balancing" Please bring that dumb FW190 back down to earth so pilots are willing to fly again Please also bring back heavy vs heavy matches so those planes are actually worth using sometimes Also, one last request please fix these terrible ram physics! (I have 10 more videos of this if you need more reference)
  11. Puma can no longer have its engine/ammo/fuel destroyed by AT that requires penetration like langs/rpg and all the launchers, the hits always yield base structure damage regardless of angle. H3 is still able to damage/destroy modules for some reason. Not sure if was intended to be this way but it makes for some unfair balancing against the other Tier 2 Recon vehicles. All the other external modules like turret and wheels can still be destroyed as normal. None of the other Recon vehicles have this issue either; they can all still be one shot with badge and proper placement using a launcher. Think something unintended happened when patching for the Recce being able to push it over.
  12. Poopdrip

    Current AT rambo badges

    Yeah for the most part Iron Fist is no longer working how it was originally intended. It used to be that if armor was greater than 20mm you'd use Iron Fist (most tanks), and if armor was less than 20mm - use Infantry First (soft vehicles). The armor 2.0 modular system kind of changed all this and they never went back to adjust the badges it seems. Iron Fist does wear down armor faster but it isn't adding the necessary damage after penetration like it used to. Basically it just makes tanks more vulnerable by depleting their armor rating instead. It is an interesting mechanic, and could be useful if it were buffed or reworked but for now it isn't helping to physically destroy the tank like the other badge does. Majority of the AT available have high penetration now and allow you to hit the modules/compartments of most tanks without the need of a badge entirely. This is why Infantry First is extremely useful as it is just a flat damage increase if you are hitting ammo/fuel compartments that are not well protected by armor. It is kind of bypassing that armor mechanic but it requires extensive knowledge of where those modules are located for each tank.
  13. This was discussed in the Official Discord, but I didn't see a physical post of it on the forums with minimal searching If Player A of war Faction A is squad leader, they can take any squad members into a war battle of player A's faction through quick battle because there is no stop/check being done on the squad member's chosen factions. There is also another bug that if squad members aren't READY in squad menu, it often crashes the squad leader when choosing a game mode.
  14. Poopdrip

    HE in P40 Still Bugged

    HE rounds vs other planes aren't receiving their XP reports or rewards against other aircrafts. The damage is being done but the messages aren't received it seemed
  15. Poopdrip

    Bombs unintentionally nerfed

    Just fyi, this is a place for bug reporting. You can submit your "feedback" to a more appropriate thread.