Dezzantibus

Member
  • Content count

    308
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

104 Neutral

About Dezzantibus

  • Rank
    Officer cadet

Recent Profile Visitors

200 profile views
  1. I'm on a mac, and updates run when I tell it to. As for the number of players, it's more or less the same number as the last few times I've played, and so is the connection and the ISP. Nothing has changed, only the date and a minor patch that downloaded this evening. I play from Italy on the EU servers. <shrug> must be a fluke. I'll try another day, if I get round to wanting to play.
  2. Make that 5 games, and include a packet loss of 15 to 20% I give up. Wake me up when the game is playable again
  3. I see more or less the same amount of players on the EU server as usual, but the queue is almost non-existent. I must have waited a total of 10 seconds in 4 games, but all four games I had to quit because the ping had decuplicated compared to usual. In four games (and I quit and re-logged in to see if I could get a better server) I didn't see a game with ping under 500. The last time it was so bad is when I selected all the servers to shorten the queue times. One has to wonder, have they "hacked" the queues to always select all servers to play in? It would explain the immediate games (pretty much no Q).
  4. I wholeheartedly agree. If Gaijin is really shooting for a combined arms game, then make it a proper combined arms game. Do away with the air battles, do away with tank battles and only have combined battles.
  5. Good to know. I haven't seen it as I've pretty much stopped playing because of the game's issues, but it's good to hear that at least on this players have been listened to.
  6. I don't like to, but I have to agree with this. I don't like to agree because I like the game, but don't like playing it anymore because of its issues, and it's hard to believe that the developers who built a game I liked so much are breaking it so. One has to wonder... dev turnover? It wouldn't be the first time that I see this happening, though it would be the first time I personally see it in a game company.
  7. In previous release notes, for a minor patch, they mentioned increasing the range of detection when viewing through gunner view.
  8. Same here. Between this issue and the kamikaze rain I have maybe played five games in the last three days. Lately I've noticed there are around 50k users logged on when I fire up the game. I don't have a clear memory of this, but wasn't that number in six figures a few months ago? Speaking of the EU server...
  9. If you get any updates on this please share them, I'm very curious about it.
  10. Heh... yesterday I gave up after the first match when I was destroyed three times in a row by lawn darts. Maybe if I'd persevered I would have seen it...
  11. I don't mean it as a permanent solution, but as a way of "hotfixing" the issue while the permanent solution is being worked on and as a detachment between the two mechanics. I like playing SPAAs (not at the moment of course) but I don't mind them being useless for a couple of months if it means that the main problem is being fixed.
  12. You do have a point. I like the game, but I am disliking playing it because of this issue. @_82AB_GruberRd Maybe it would be a good idea to suggest this to the devs: remove aircraft entirely while the functionality is retought/redesigned/recoded. Small fixes aren't going to help here, and a large change is better deployed with a break in between, even for a question of user expectations. Not many people read the release notes and there will be a lot of noise if such a change is simply dropped into a patch, whichever solution they may choose to adopt. A break in the functionality will drive home more effectively the fact that it's changing.
  13. gameplay

    I suppose it also depends on what BR you're playing at. More heavily armored vehicles will be less subject to such a death.
  14. gameplay

    Just out of curiosity, 52 times out of a potential 150 deaths, but how many actual deaths? I mean, you won't have been killed three times in all 50 games, right?
  15. Tried for the first time the new Ardennes map. Can't say I'm impressed, but it was just one game, so we will see in the future. I liked the terrain around the village, it allows for different tactics and different approaches, but the village itself feels built for the game, not a real village. Also, on a gameplay level, it's yet another one of those "once cap each fight for the middle one" kind of maps. I'd like to see more maps like El Alamein or Tunisia where each cap is in a different terrain and needs different tactics. Hurtgen Forest was also sort-of like that when it had two caps in the village and the third one in the gorge where the mill is. Three caps put in a row like this has its place in the map rotation, but I don't particularly like it, and appreciate it only for variety's sake. The only advantage I can see is that it gives SPAAs a fairly safe place to restock on ammo, but then again I think that the idea of restocking ammo on a cap point is a stupid one, so... In brief: I quite like the map but it hasn't impressed me. This is only a first impression though, we'll see in future games.
  16. gameplay

    I'll repost here what I posted in your other thread on this topic, seems more appropriate to do so here: I agree with the suggestion of dedicating a fourth spawn for air events, so that one can place an aircraft of choice. If the air events will keep working the way they do now, with one minute of flight, then any damage sustained by the aircraft will have to still be there (maybe slightly repaired, depending on the interval) on following sorties. The aircraft and the payloads will have to be limited. As far as I know B-17 weren't used for ground support. Alternatively, if the current random spawn system is maintained, or for those that don't have aircraft to fly, the aircraft has to be piloted by someone: if the pilot dies, the tank loses one crew member exactly in the same way as if it had been shot. If the tank had only two crew left... too bad, you lose the tank. Basically there has to be some consequence for damaging or destroying an aircraft. This is the only instance in the whole game where destroying equipment has no consequence at all. Also the way air events are awarded is silly. You can get plenty of air time just for being on the winning team. I flew 4 times without getting further than 100m from the spawn and without shooting a single shot. I'd say give an air event alternatively to each team, and allow only those that have actually done something in the match get a chance to fly. If nobody on the team whose turn it is have enough "flying points" then the air event will be a blank. Last thing: change of tanks at the spawn. If I start seeing the enemy team taking to the air a lot I'd like to shoot them down, but I can't change to a SPAA, I have to suicide and lose a spawn to be able to defend my team from the aircraft. It would be more helpful to be able to go back to the spawn point and change tank. Of course, whatever damage it sustained will still be there should I pick that tank up again, or minimally repaired as mentioned for the aircraft above. Really last thing: restocking ammo at a cap point is most times pure suicide for SPAAs, and many of them burn through a lot of ammo. Actually I get the impression SPAAs have become less effective recently, but I have no proof, so I'll leave it at that, but once a SPAA runs out of ammo it's useless. changing to a different tank means HEFTY repair bills (unless the above is implemented) SPAAs have stupid repair costs, stoooopid. If a SPAA could restock other than at a cap (spawn for example) they'd be a lot more effective and helpful.
  17. Same here. Good for restocking a SPAA with ammo i suppose, but that's it.
  18. My apologies, I'm sure I have posted my suggestion, but maybe not in this particular thread. I agree with the suggestion of dedicating a fourth spawn for air events, so that one can place an aircraft of choice. If the air events will keep working the way they do now, with one minute of flight, then any damage sustained by the aircraft will have to still be there (maybe slightly repaired, depending on the interval). The aircraft and the payloads will have to be limited. As far as I know B-17 weren't used for ground support. Alternatively, the aircraft has to be piloted by someone: if the pilot dies, the tank loses one crew member exactly in the same way as if it had been shot. If the tank had only two crew left... too bad, you lose the tank. Basically there has to be some consequence for damaging or destroying an aircraft. This is the only instance in the whole game where destroying equipment has no consequence at all. Also the way air events are awarded is silly. You can get plenty of air time just for being on the winning team. I flew 4 times without getting further than 100m from the spawn and without shooting a single shot. I'd say give an air event alternatively to each team, and allow only those that have actually done something in the match get a chance to fly. Last thing: change of tanks at the spawn. If I start seeing the enemy team taking to the air a lot I'd like to shoot them down, but I can't change to a SPAA, I have to suicide and lose a spawn to be able to defend my team from the aircraft. It would be more helpful to be able to go back to the spawn point and change tank. Of course, whatever damage it sustained will still be there should I pick that tank up again... Really last thing: restocking ammo at a cap point is most times pure suicide for SPAAs, and many of them burn through a lot of ammo. Actually I get the impression SPAAs have become less effective recently, but I have no proof, so I'll leave it at that, but once a SPAA runs out of ammo it's useless. changing to a different tank means HEFTY repair bills (unless the above is implemented) SPAAs have stupid repair costs, stoooopid. If a SPAA could restock other than at a cap (spawn for example) they'd be a lot more effective and helpful. can't think of anything else off the top of my head.
  19. The concept is very much the same though. The different terrain and slightly different building layout sue make it a bit of a diversion, but apart from these details the map is yet another "one cap each, fight over the third one". another observation: even at minimum graphics it was very hard on my laptop. I'll have to wait to unpack my desktop to see how it goes. In brief: the first game didn't impress me. Let's see future ones.
  20. Just seen it for the first time playing domination. Looks ok, but it's another "one cap each fight over the third one" map. Very much like Hurtgen forest and a bit like Eastern Europe with fewer buildings. Terrain is interesting, could be fun to play, but it's essentially more of the same.
  21. There isn't much of a correlation. As long as you're on the winning team you fly, even if you do absolutely nothing. I got stuck with a tank, never even got close to the action, and got to fly 4 times. Would have flown a fifth time but the match ended. I even used one to kill the teammate that tried to ram me into the river and got me stuck in the first place. 5 air events and 3 artillery calls literally just for being on the winning team.
  22. But it would make a difference for two roughly equal teams where one happens to get a better start, no?
  23. My experience is different. Maybe because when playing lower BRs I prefer lighter quicker vehicles and therefore a prime target. Yes, my two examples are great tank killers, but also VERY vulnerable to kamikazes, since flyers can get a kill without shooting a single round, just by crashing close enough. I've been killed several times by aircraft (sometimes already destroyed) crashing up to 30m away. You cannot defend yourself from these tactics, you're a sitting duck. Never said that 3 planes dive at the same time on the SPAA (although it has happened) but that you can only follow one at a time, and the others are ready to dive into you since SPAAs are fragile, subject to hull break and easy to kill by simply crashing near them. Even if you're really good with your SPAA you may be able to shoot 2 down, and quite frankly, I get the impression that SPAAs have been nerfed lately, because it's getting harder to shoot planes down, with the same ones I used to use before. I'm not saying it's the cause, but it certainly doesn't help. When a team has a bit of an advantage, though, the sky becomes full of aeroplanes, and by full I mean it's not unusual to have 6 or 7 aircraft in the sky from 2 different waves. Add to that artillery pounding and the kamikazes destroying tanks, the losing side might as well give up right away and save repair costs (many do, making things worse) You don't see basketball games where the winning team gets to field a sixth player as a bonus, because they were playing so well, for example...
  24. In a tanks game I got destroyed seven times out of three matches by a kamikaze attack. Are you ok also with that? How is something like a Marder or a Flakbus supposed to defend themselves from that? Even if you spawn in a SPAA, you can only aim at one aircraft at the time. When there are three in the air there's not much you can do, especially considering you often also have to play conservatively with your ammunition load. ANother question (slightly off topic here) are you also ok with how the air events are awarded? So that the winning team can even more effectively stomp on the losing team? You know, really make sure they have a hard time making any recovery? I played a match in which right from the start I got stuck and couldn't move my tank. I was near the spawn and contributed nothing to the match. Yet I got to fly 4 times, almost 5, and got 3 rounds of artillery. Doing absolutely nothing but being on the winning team. Let that sink in...
  25. Or on a Churchill...
  26. To the people following this thread, next time there is a q&a with the developers, let's ask en masse if they plan on doing something about kamikazes and what that is. They might not respond, but it'll be the closest we can get to them...
  27. Interesting experiment... In a match I must have angered some xxxx on my team somehow, because he did his best to push me in the river. I got stuck on the edge, and nobody in the team bothered to help me, so I very literally did nothing to earn them, but... I was was able to fly four times, and a fifth time almost happened, but the match ended. Not only that but I also got three rounds of artillery. All just because I was on the winning team. this is ludicrous.
  28. Usually good advice, but with hull break you can be destroyed by aircraft crashing 30m away from you, it's happened several times to me personally. I always try and position myself sideways to avoid being crashed into, but it doesn't work anymore. You can even be destroyed by destroyed aircraft.
  29. I don't many people want aircraft gone altogether, the majority just want ground forces to be the focus of the tanks game, and the deadly effectiveness of kamikaze attacks severely curbed. the way it is now once aircraft start raining you might as well quit and save repair costs.
  30. Even if they're not silent, how do you know you're running away from them instead of towards them before they drop?
  31. Funny how "tank battles" is supposed to be read as "combined forces" but air battles are for aircraft only...
  32. The very next game two direct kills by kamikaze plus one damaged enough to be useless while being blown apart by enemy tank. That was the last straw. I give Gaijin one month to fix the kamikaze issue or I will leave for good. The game now is too close to unplayable. I know that one person leaving for good won't make a difference, but this is one person saying it. I'm sure there are plenty who just leave. I don't think the constant rain of steel is going to keep new players for long either. As far as I'm concerned ground forces is dying. Let's see if Gaijin decide to cure it or just let it die.
  33. Just got off a game. Had all 3 spawns destroyed by kamikazes. The gepard within 15 seconds of spawning. The aircraft crashed 30m away from the gepard and I was hiding behind a building. Just saying...
  34. I wouldn't say to lose a whole spawn, but losing a crew member in your current tank wouldn't be amiss. Someone must be flying that plane, no? If you had only two left... well, tough luck, you lose the tank, as would happen if the crew member had been killed in the tank. As for it being a performance bonus, this makes absolutely no sense to me. WT is a competitive game between two teams. Giving extra bonuses to the winning team, and such effective bonuses at that just frustrates people. I have two arguments against this: From a realism point of view, wouldn't a losing side call in for air support to help? Why would the side that is steamrolling the other call in air strikes? So that the flyboys can have their fun too? From a game balance side, have you ever seen a basketball game where the referee allows the winning team to play with an extra player? Or award three points instead of two for each score to the winning team? Not forgetting another aspect, this time more prevalent in conquest games: the winning team is holding the cap, the only place where SPAAs can reload, and are raining down steel. What are SPAAs supposed to do when they run out of ammo? Just suicide? As in add yet another penalty to the losing team? Not forgetting the cost of repairing the SPAAs in the first place and them being prime targets due to the hull break mechanic. In other threads people are complaining about players leaving a game early, can you really blame them for leaving when things start going bad? Gaijin has made it really hard to recover, and frustrated people leaving makes it even harder. On some maps, especially conquest, if your team doesn't cap first you might as well leave the game right away.
  35. No surprise that it's raining planes...
  36. For one thing I've pretty much stopped playing. The mechanics are, at this point, that there is no defence from aircraft. If you take out a SPAA you're a prime target and get rained upon. You can only aim at one aircraft at a time, and even destroying aircraft doesn't mean they cease to be a danger. i understand gaijin want this to be a combined forces game, fine, but don't make the ground element defenceless in ground forces.
  37. Of course new players will do it. They see it from the beginning of their "career" as normality. They might even complain if measures are taken to limit the issue.
  38. I've just come out of a game where I was destroyed three times. Got back to the hangar screen and found the crew on a destroyed tank being locked?
  39. Could it have been taken out of rotation because of bugs?
  40. I fully agree with this. A crew member lost. Another thing that annoys me is how the airplanes are awarded. The better a team is doing the more steel is in the sky, which helps them to do even better. To make a comparison, I've never seen a football match where the referee allows a couple of extra players in the field for the winning team.
  41. Well... ninjas are supposed to be from Japan... Sorry, couldn't help myself
  42. Hmmm... we'll see how things have really changed regarding the topic of this thread...
  43. Hear hear. Why does he play a competitive game then? Maybe he should pick up flight sim, or a train sim...
  44. Irrelevant. When on a tank if you fall off a cliff, drown or otherwise waste a spawn without being shot by an enemy you still pay the cost. If in Air Forces you clip a tree and crash, slam into a cliff or otherwise kill yourself you still pay the cost. If in Ground Forces you jump in a plan and you crash it you should pay the cost. Not necessarily a spawn, but the full repair costs wouldn't be amiss. If you have a look, on the button it says "Tank Arcade battles" not "Combined Forces Battles". If combined forces is really their objective, how about they change the name? Why aren't there aircraft in the SPAA's test drive?
  45. In my case it's mostly when I'm in a SPAA shooting at the damn thing and moving. The early Russian ones are the worst I've seen so far.
  46. It would be something unusual to add the the U.S. tech tree. ... Or was it introduced too late for the game?